calculate the comparative power use of different lift technologies

[rfgoil]

I want to do a proper method of calculating the relative power usage of the following lift technologies:

1) Electric Submersible Pumps (ESPs)
2) Pump Jack with rod Lift Pumps
3) Progressive Cavity pumps
4) Rotoflex pump jacks and rod lift pumps (if possible)

I want to do a predictive calculation that will assume the same hydraulic loadings of all 3 pumps.

I want to do the TOTAL Power Consumed cost..where by:
1) The Pump efficiency is calcualated
2) the Electric Motor Efficiency is calculate,
3) any Gearbox, etc must be considered
4) Must also allow for VFD efficiencies, line losses from VFD to the Motor, etc.

There may be already papers or comparisons written on this but I have not been able to locate any. If there is such a study report availble, that would suffice.

Note: I am NOT looking for rules of thumb...there are wild claims by many suppliers and I want to be able to properly review these from my own desktop study!

THanks!

 

[zdas04]

OK, consider them.

I'm not sure why you posted this here (or anywhere). You don't need our permission to write a paper and you didn't ask any questions.

All of the data you are looking for is available from pump manufacturers, motor manufacturers, and/or controller manufacturers. One thing to keep in mind is that all of the manufacturers build their pump curves based on the tubing being full of liquid which is never true in a gas well and almost never true in an oil well. You can see many of the issues in my November 5, 2012 Oil & Gas Journal article Device capitalizes on flow stream strengths in pumping gas. You may need a subscription to Oil & Gas Journal to read it, but you would be foolish to be embarking on a paper like this without a subscription to Oil & Gas Journal, One Petro, and maybe World Oil.

There is a Narrated Presentation on my web page that might also be helpful. This presentation describes the reason that downhole pumps rarely if ever pump on their pump curves.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[georgeverghese]

Will sand in the production fluids, if this is applicable or may be likely, influence or help you narrow down these options ?

 

[rfgoil]

So, I thought it was pretty clear from my posting that I was looking for a Non-biased study. Yes, all mfgs post the facts they want you to see but not necessarily point out (for example...line losses to a esp motor 6000' down hole).

I am NOT writing a paper...I simply have clients that requested I review if there are any standard, well accepted industry reports out there or not. They want an unbiased view...I don't think that is out of line at all.

Some of these clients are tired of the types of information you referred me to. My intent was to help the client find an unbiased, clear concise report if it was readily available; barring that, I will do the calculations/reviews myself.

 

[zdas04]

I take your snotty post as saying "I'm looking for someone to provide me [for free] the analysis that my client is asking me to do". Your post said

I want to do a proper method of calculating the relative power usage of the following lift technologies

Sorry if I misread "proper" for "paper". My mistake. Had I read that properly, I would have replied "OK, then do the analysis". See, if you are asking for free advice you have to show that you've done some work yourself. After your snotty post, I would be surprised if anyone helps much from this point on.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[LittleInch]

There are no comparisons because each system is different. Pump duties and efficiencies vary and each pump will Gabbie it's own advantages and disadvantages or things it can't do.

There are too many variables for any report to be valid for all scenarios.

Your OP was seemingly a scope of works. You will need vendor info for your particular set of requirements. I hope you're a bit more civil with then....

Vendors don't know your system. They just supply bits and expect designers to fill in the rest.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[MortenA]

I would go with zdas04, formulas for calculating the head and the required duty is well know, usually all efficiencies (1-4) are measured and then reported by the manufactor. I dont think they cheat much since this is fairly easy to measure. Set up a table in EXCEL and compare your various options.

Best regards, Morten

 

[sraesttam]

rfgoil, I created an account just to reply your post. I have heard that certain types of artificial lift are more energy efficient than others. I think that four important objectives of artificial lift operation are:
1) pump the fluid at the optimum rate
2) reduce failure rate & downtime
3) have field personnel buy-in
4) overall system efficiency

I don't think it's necessary to be primarily concerned with overall system efficiency until the first three variables have been met.

I have heard people say "I'm going to take this well off ESP and install rods to increase efficiency." I have also heard people say "I'm going to install a VFD to save electricity." Neither statement is always true nor is either necessarily a good investment.

I have heard about a study done at a large operator on one particular field and the following conclusion was reached: properly optimized artificial lift installations moving similar amounts of fluid from similar depths have similar efficiencies. I only heard about this study by word of mouth. It is possible the sample size wasn't large enough to have statistically relevant data.

 

[LittleInch]

sraesttam,

Some good points. I think the study though should have read " Study of the bleeding obvious"....

I think the huge variations in downhole conditions are simply not understood by many operators so what works well in one well / field / depth will be inefficient in another well / field / depth. Thankfully that's why engineers and system designers continue to be paid to DESIGN and ENGINEER things to meet varying conditions and to meet the required duty in the most cost effective manner (OPEX and CAPEX) - at least that's what I do.

Three phase fluid transfer can be complex and difficult to get to grips with, but requires analysis and design work to get the most efficient system.

Remember - More details = better answers
Also: If you get a response it's polite to respond to it.

 

[zdas04]

sraesttam,
In your list of 4 things (a good list by the way), I would put Efficiency at about number 67 out of 4. So insignificant as to become something that adds no value. I often put VFD's on electric pumps to help "pump fluid at the optimum rate". If that results in increased electric costs (it doesn't but bear with me) then you can be certain that the increased costs would be way more than offset by avoiding a single pump change or other workover over the life of the well.

As to number 3, I had a boss once that said "No one can make a bad idea work, but anyone can kill a good idea". That "field buy in" point is vital, and far too often ignored by engineers.

David Simpson, PE
MuleShoe Engineering

In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual. Galileo Galilei, Italian Physicist

 

[waross]

I would be heading out to my clients wells with a truckload of Watt-hour meters. I hope your customers know how much they are pumping.
Given the number of unknowns and fudge factors, it may be easier and more accurate to measure than to calculate.
or
For wells with a dedicated electric service, ask accounting for copies of the last years electricity bills and well production figures.
Consumption over energy use and cost is the ultimate overall bottom line efficiency.


Bill
--------------------
"Why not the best?"
Jimmy Carter