See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/347963994

Production Optimization for Natural Flow and ESP Well A Case Study on Well
NS-5 Mishrif Formation-Nasriya Oil Field

Article in Journal of Petroleum Research and Studies · December 2020

DOI: 10.52716/jprs.v10i2.342

CITATION READS

1 140

1 author:

Sameera Hamd-allah
University of Baghdad
46 PUBLICATIONS 53 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Sameera Hamd-allah on 10 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

No.27- (6) 2020 Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS)

Production Optimization for Natural Flow and ESP Well

A Case Study on Well NS-5 Mishrif Formation-Nasriya Oil Field
Hamzah Amer Abdulameer, Dr. Sameera Hamd-Allah.
University of Baghdad / College of Engineering / Petroleum Engineering Department
Corresponding Author Email: hamzawyofoil93@[Link]

1- Abstract:

As the reservoir conditions are in continuous changing during its life, well production rate
and its performance will change and it needs to re-model according to the current situations
and to keep the production rate as high as possible.

Well productivity is affected by changing in reservoir pressure, water cut, tubing size and
wellhead pressure. For electrical submersible pump (ESP), it will also affected by number
of stages and operating frequency.

In general, the production rate increases when reservoir pressure increases and/or water cut
decreases. Also the flow rate increase when tubing size increases and/or wellhead pressure
decreases. For ESP well, production rate increases when number of stages is increased
and/or pump frequency is increased.

In this study, a nodal analysis software was used to design one well with natural flow and
other with ESP. Reservoir, fluid and well information are taken from actual data of Mishrif
formation-Nasriya oil field/ NS-5 well. Well design steps and data required in the model
will be displayed and the optimization sensitivity keys will be applied on the model to
determine the effect of each individual parameter or when it combined with another one.

E17
‫‪No.27- (6) 2020‬‬ ‫)‪Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS‬‬

‫ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻷﻣﺜﻞ ﻟﺒﺌﺮ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﺑﺎﻟﺠﺮﻳﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﻭ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﺨﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻁﺴﺔ‬

‫ﺩﺭﺍﺳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﺌﺮ ‪ NS-5‬ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻜﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻑ ﺣﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺻﺮﻳﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻄﻲ‬

‫ﺍﻟﺧﻼﺻﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻥ ﻅﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻤﻦ ﺗﺘﻐﻴﺮ ﺑﺎﺳﺘﻤﺮﺍﺭ ﺧﻼﻝ ﻓﺘﺮﺓ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻟﺬﻟﻚ ﻓﺎﻥ ﺍﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺑﺎﺭ ﺗﺘﻐﻴﺮﺗﺒﻌﺎ ﻟﻬﺬﻩ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ‪ .‬ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻣﺎ‬
‫ﺳﺒﻖ ﻓﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﺑﺎﺭ ﺗﺤﺘ ﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻋﺎﺩﺓ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻣﻦ ﻧﺎﺣﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﻛﻤﺎﻝ ﺍﻭ ﺗﻐﻴﺮ ﻅﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻐﻴﻞ ﻟﻠﺤﺼﻮﻝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻧﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﻣﻤﻜﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺍﻥ ﺍﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﺑﺎﺭ ﺗﺘﺄﺛﺮ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺍﺳﺎﺳﻲ ﺑﻀﻐﻂ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻤﻦ ﻭ ﻧﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎء ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻂ ﻭ ﺣﺠﻢ ﺍﻧﺎﺑﻴﺐ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻭ ﺿﻐﻂ ﺭﺍﺱ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﺌﺮ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺍﻻﺑﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺗﻌﻤﻞ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﺨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻁﺴﺔ ﻓﺎﻧﻬﺎ ﺗﺘﺎﺛﺮ ﺍﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﻌﺪﺩ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﺨﺔ ﻭ ﺳﺮﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺪﻭﺭﺍﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﺑﺼﻮﺭﺓ ﻋﺎﻣﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻳﺰﺩﺍﺩ ﺑﺎﺯﺩﻳﺎﺩ ﺿﻐﻂ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻤﻦ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺼﺎﻥ ﻛﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎء ﺍﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻂ‪ .‬ﻛﻤﺎ ﺍﻥ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ ﺗﺰﺩﺍﺩ‬
‫ﺍﻳﻀﺎ ﺑﺰﻳﺎﺩﺓ ﻗﻄﺮ ﺍﻧﺒﻮﺏ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺎﺝ ﻭ ﻧﻘﺼﺎﻥ ﺿﻐﻂ ﺭﺍﺱ ﺍﻟﺒﺌﺮ‪ .‬ﺍﻣﺎ ﺑﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻀﺨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻁﺴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺎﻥ ﻣﻌﺪﻝ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺎﺝ‬
‫ﻳﺰﺩﺍﺩ ﺑﺰﻳﺎﺩﺓ ﻣﺮﺍﺣﻞ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﺨﺔ ﻭ ﺳﺮﻋﺔ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﻧﻬﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬﺓ ﺍﻟﺪﺭﺍﺳﺔ‪ ،‬ﺳﻴﺘﻢ ﺗﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﺑﺌﺮﻳﻦ ﺍﺣﺪﻫﻢ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﺑﺎﻟﺪﻓﻊ ﺍﻟﻄﺒﻴﻌﻲ ﻭ ﺍﻻﺧﺮ ﺑﻮﺍﺳﻄﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﺨﺔ ﺍﻟﻐﺎﻁﺴﺔ‪ .‬ﺗﻢ ﺍﺳﺘﺨﺪﺍﻡ‬
‫ﺑﻴﺎﻧﺎﺕ ﺣﻘﻠﻴﺔ ﺣﻘﻴﻘﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﺒﻢ ﺑﺎﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﺌﺮ ‪ NS-5‬ﺍﻟﺬﻱ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ ﻣﻦ ﻣﻜﻤﻦ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺮﻑ ﻓﻲ ﺣﻘﻞ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺻﺮﻳﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻄﻲ ﺟﻨﻮﺏ ﺍﻟﻌﺮﺍﻕ‪ .‬ﺍﻥ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺼﻤﻴﻢ ﻭ ﺍﻳﺠﺎﺩ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻻﻧﺘﺎﺟﻴﺔ ﻟﻼﺑﺎﺭ ﺧﻼﻝ ﺗﻐﻴﺮ ﺍﻟﻈﺮﻭﻑ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻐﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻤﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺳﻴﺘﻢ ﺗﻮﺿﻴﺤﻬﺎ ﺑﺎﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺑﺮﻧﺎﻣﺞ ﺗﺤﻠﻴﻞ ﻋﻘﺪﻱ‪.‬‬
‫‪2- Introduction:‬‬

‫‪There are two parameters controlling the well performance which are inflow performance‬‬
‫‪relationship (IPR) and Vertical Lift Performance (VLP). IPR is known as the relationship‬‬
‫‪between well flowing bottom-hole pressure (Pwf) and production rate so it represent the‬‬
‫‪flow from reservoir to inside wellbore.‬‬

‫‪There are many correlations and methods can be used to describe the reservoir‬‬
‫‪performance. Each correlation has its own conditions to be applied according to reservoir‬‬
‫‪and flow type. The most important methods which could be used for black oil reservoir are‬‬
‫‪Vogle, Darcy and Fetkovich. In this work, the productivity index (PI) is already calculated‬‬
‫‪from PLT data of well NS-5, therefore it can be used directly in nodal analysis.‬‬

‫‪The VLP depends on many parameters such as fluid PVT properties, tubing inside‬‬
‫‪diameter, surface pressure, well depth, water cut and gas oil ratio. The total pressure loss‬‬
‫‪from well bottom to surface is the magnitude of the three terms, gravity, friction and‬‬

‫‪E18‬‬
No.27- (6) 2020 Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS)

acceleration. In oil well completion design, the gravity component should be comprised
around 75% of the total pressure gradient [1].
Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP) components are key parameters in ESP design and any
change in one or more of it will affect overall ESP performance. ESP components are;
motor which is the system prime mover and electric motor with different type and size of
ESP motors that give a different amount horsepower required. Gas separator, the presence
of free gas in produced fluid decreases the ESP efficiency, so that a gas separator is used to
remove the gas from produced fluid to the annulus. Pump, used to lift the fluid from down
hole. To improve ESP capacity several pump stages could be used. Power Cable: used to
supply the electric power to the motor down hole [2].
The objectives of well modeling & analysis are as follows [3]:
1. To calculate the optimum flow rate at which the well will flow with a known wellbore
conditions and completion.
2. To evaluate the well and when it might be ceased to produce. This could be due to time
when the reservoir pressure depletes.
3. To determine the best economical time to install artificial lift and helping in chosen the
suitable artificial lift plan according to well conditions.
4. To evaluate well conditions and completion system in order to planning for the best and
economically method which improving flow rate.
5. To evaluate each part in the well completion to determine if there is any restriction to
flow unnecessarily.

3- Well Modeling and Optimization Sensitivities (Natural Flow) for well

(NS-5):

3.1- IPR Generation:

The inflow performance relationship is modeled based on production log data for this
well. The PLT data for well NS-5 are listed in Table (1) [4].

E19
No.27- (6) 2020 Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS)

Table (1) PLT data of well NS-5

Well name NS-5
Reservoir pressure psi 3365.9
Reservoir temperature °F 163.11
Productivity index STB/[Link] 7.4
Well head pressure psi 975
Well head temperature °F 124
Flow rate STB/Day 2697.43
Gauge depth m 2011.5
Gauge pressure psi 3001.4
Gauge temperature °F 163.82

the IPR results are generated using PLT as shown in Figure (1).

Fig. (1) Inflow Performance Relationship for well NS-5

3.2- Matching Pressure Gradient:

The actual measured data of PLT test is used to obtain the best fit vertical flow
correlation which described the test rate, well head pressure, well head temperature and
flowing bottom hole pressure. As shown in Figure (2), Hegedorn and Brown correlation

E20
No.27- (6) 2020 Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS)

line was the closest one to the measured point from all used correlations, so that may
use after making this correlation fully matches with measured point.
In spite of being Hegedron & Brown correlation didn’t distinguish between flow regime,
but it gives the nearest calculated results to the measured results also the liquid hold up
starts to decrease at a value very close to bubble point which indicate gas liberation and
changing in flow regime from one phase liquid to two phase bubble, so it will be used
to describe the well lifting performance.
Hagedron & Brown correlation is considered as most widely applied of oil wells as
VLP correlation. It works well for bubble flow regime and slug flow regime in many
applications. It could be used in wells for slug flow at moderate to high production rates
also it use pipe roughness to describe two phase friction factor [5].
Ansari et al (1994a & 1994b) prepared eight different two-phase flow correlations and
its relative errors, the smaller the relative performance factor, the more accurate
correlation. According to Ansari’s result, Hegdorn and Brown was found best
correlation for current case [6].

Fig. (2) Matching VLP Correlations with PLT

To fully match Hagedorn & Brown correlation with the test point, it should be multiply be
parameter 1 & 2 which will be define later. Table (2) shows that Hagedorn & Brown

E21
No.27- (6) 2020 Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS)

correlation had the minimum standard deviation value after multiplying by parameter 1 & 2
which is zero while other correlation still have some deviation values.

Parameter 1: is the multiplier for the gravity term in the pressure drop correlation.
Parameter 2: is the multiplier for the friction term.

Table (2) Correlations fitting Parameters & Standard Deviation

Correlation Parameter 1 value Parameter 2 value Standard Deviation
Duns & Ros 0.94657 0.35876 0.00024414
Modified
Hagedorn Brown 0.96438 0.57842 0
Petroleum Experts 0.95892 0.54137 0.00048828
Petroleum Experts 2 0.95768 0.53745 0.00024414

3.3- Matching VLP/IPR with Measured Data:

Match VLP correlation and IPR with test point to obtain the difference in liquid rate
and bottom hole pressure for measured and calculated data as shown in the Figure (3)
below:

Fig. (3) VLP/IPR Matching

E22
No.27- (6) 2020 Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS)

3.4- Well design sensitivity:

The most important part of building a well physical model is to evaluate well performance
under different reservoir and operation conditions such as: decline in reservoir pressure,
increase in water cut, changing in well head pressure according to De-Gas Station
circumstances and changing in production tubing size due to design requirements.
The production sensitivities will be applied to the designed well to determine well state
under different situations. Liquid flow rate and bottom hole pressure will be calculated as
they are the main production parameters.
Table (3) and Figure (4) show the effect of reservoir pressure decline and water cut
increase on production rate (Assumed WHP= 975 psi which is the same wellhead pressure
as PLT data).

Table (3) Well production results as reservoir pressure decreasing and WC

increasing.
Pr= 3365.9 psi Pr= 3250 psi Pr= 3150 psi
WC Liquid Rate STB/D BHP Liquid Rate BHP psi Liquid Rate STB/D BHP psi
psi STB/D
0 2633 3010 2009 2978.5 1394 2961.6
10 2151 3075 1454 3053 NO Flow
20 1589 3151 NO Flow NO Flow
30 852 3250 NO Flow NO Flow
40 NO Flow NO Flow NO Flow
50 NO Flow NO Flow NO Flow
60 NO Flow NO Flow NO Flow
Pr= 3050 psi Pr= 2950 psi
WC Liquid Rate STB/D FBHP Liquid Rate FBHP
psi STB/D psi
0 NO Flow NO Flow
10 NO Flow NO Flow
20 NO Flow NO Flow
30 NO Flow NO Flow
40 NO Flow NO Flow
50 NO Flow NO Flow
60 NO Flow NO Flow
Pr= 2850 psi Pr= 2750 psi
WC Liquid Rate STB/D FBHP Liquid Rate FBHP
psi STB/D psi
0 NO Flow NO Flow
10 NO Flow NO Flow
20 NO Flow NO Flow
30 NO Flow NO Flow
40 NO Flow NO Flow
50 NO Flow NO Flow
60 NO Flow NO Flow

E23
No.27- (6) 2020 Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS)

Fig. (4) VLP/IPR relationship for different Pr & WC

From Table (3) and Figure (4), it is clear that the liquid rate is decreasing when the
reservoir pressure decline as the pressure drop between reservoir pressure and Pwf
decreased. For example, the well was producing about 3633 STB/Day when reservoir
pressure is 3366 psi (Δp=365 psi), then when the reservoir pressure decreased to 3150 psi
(Δp=189 psi) the well was produce 1394 STB/Day. At the end, the well ceased if reservoir
pressure decreasing less than 3050 psi. All above results for WHP=975 psi and zero water
cut.
As shown in Table (3) and Figure (4) that the increasing in water cut can cause the
reduction in the production rate. When reservoir pressure and WHP are 3366 psi and 975
psi respectively, the well produced 2633 STB/Day and 1589 STB/Day for WC equal to 0%
and 20% respectively. The well was ceased when water cut equal and more than 40%.
Table (4) and Figure (5) show the effect of changing the WHP and TBG size on the
production rate at Reservoir pressure= 3365.9 psi and WC= 0%.

E24
No.27- (6) 2020 Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS)

Table (4) Well production results as WHP and TBG size changed.

WHP= 300 WHP= 600 WHP= 975

TBG Liquid Rate FBHP Liquid Rate FBHP Liquid Rate FBHP
ID in STB/D psi STB/D psi STB/D psi
2.44 6226 2524 4851 2710 2633 3010
2.99 8383 2233 6279 2517 3015 2958
3.83 10713 1899 7499 2352 3204 2932

Fig. (5) VLP/IPR relationship for different WHP and Tubing size.

As shown in Table (4) and Figure (5), the production rate decreased when wellhead
pressure increases and this is due to more WHP, leading to more Pwf and less pressure
drop cross the reservoir causes low production rate. The well produced 2633 STB/Day
when WHP equal to 975 psi then the production rate increased to 6226 STB/Day when
WHP decreased to 300 psi for same tubing size (ID=2.44 inch).

From Table (4) and Figure (5), the production rate increased when tubing inside diameter
increase, and this is due to reduction in fraction term lead to less pressure loss. For 2.44

E25
No.27- (6) 2020 Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS)

inch ID, the well produce d 2633 STB/Day, while the production rate increase to 3204
STB/Day when tubing ID increase to 3.83 inch for same wellhead pressure.

4- ESP Well Design and performance sensitivity:

The electrical submersible pump is consider as one of the most important artificial lift
method used in the oil industry because it required very little surface space, can be installed
in vertical or highly deviated well either onshore or offshore. Also, it can be used in casing
size (4.5 inch) and larger. ESP can be used in wells up to +13,000 ft in depth and it can
handle fluid rate reach to 60,000 BPD depending on its size, design and operation
conditions. If the ESP not operated at recommended operation parameters, the ESP
efficiency will decrease and it may get failure [7]. Figure (6) shows the common ESP
components.

Fig. (6) Schematic plot of ESP component [8].

E26
No.27- (6) 2020 Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS)

4.3- ESP Design Parameters:

The main parameters were used in ESP design are:
1- Pump depth: this depth is the depth at which the pump of ESP set and it is represent
the depth of intake pressure. Pump depth should be above the perforation interval and
far enough from ESP erosion factors such as sand production and also should be below
the depth at which the bubble point pressure is reached.
2- Design rate: is the rate need to be attained when installing ESP. In this study, the
minimum rate of natural flowing well was 2600 BPD @ 2.875’’ TBG size, 0% WC,
975 psi WHP and 3365 psi reservoir pressure while The maximum rate was 10700 BPD
@ 4.5’’ TBG size, 0% WC, 300 psi WHP and 3365 psi reservoir pressure as presented
in Table (4). So that the design rate will be consider as the midpoint between minimum
and maximum rate which is about 6000 BPD.
3- Gas separator: if free gas enters the pump, ESP efficiency can be decreased because
gas separator is needed to take the free gas out from ESP pump and direct it to the
annulus. The decision of putting gas separator depending on Dunbar plot which is a
relationship between the intake pressure, gas liquid ratio and the intercept with gas
separator efficiency curves. If the test point above the red line, then no need for gas
separator as shown in Figure (7).

Fig. (7) Gas Separator Sensitivity Plot

E27
No.27- (6) 2020 Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS)

The final ESP design parameters chosen to design the ESP are listed in Table (5).

Table (5) ESP design parameters

Parameter Value
WHP psi 975
Reservoir pressure psi 3365
Reservoir Temp. °C 72.838
GOR scf/stb 537
WC % 0
Design rate BPD 6000
Pump depth m 1902
Design frequency Hz 60

ESP design Data/Result which is suitable and fit to operation requirements are shown in the
following Table (6):

Table (6) ESP Design Result

Pump Intake Pressure 2443 psig
Pump Intake Rate 7926 bbl/day
Pump Discharge Pressure 3254.5 psig
Pump Discharge Rate 7843 bbl/day
Selected Pump Centrilift GC8200 5.13 inches
Selected Motor Centrilift 450 175HP, 2285V, 50A
Selected Cable Copper 0.26Volts/1000ft 115amp Max
Number of Stages 82
Power Required 153.4 HP
Pump Efficiency 71.5 %
Motor Efficiency 82.5 %
Current Used 46.8 amps

The efficiency of designed ESP for different operation conditions according to design
parameters very close to the best efficiency line and this improve the suitability of designed
ESP for studied well as shown in Figure (8).

E28
No.27- (6) 2020 Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS)

Figure (8) ESP Efficiency at different operation conditions

4.4- ESP Well Performance Evaluation Under different Operation

Conditions:
Same as natural flow well; the reservoir and operation conditions have great impact on well
productivity. Consequently, the designed ESP tested under different conditions such as
decline in reservoir pressure, increase in water cut, changing in well head pressure, change
in tubing size, change ESP operating frequency and stages number of ESP pump.
Table (7) and Figure (9) show the effect of changing in well head pressure and tubing size
on well production rate (Reservoir pressure= 3365 psi and 0 % water cut).

Table (7) ESP production results at different WHP and TBG size

WHP= 300 psi WHP= 600 psi WHP= 975 psi

TBG ID Liquid Rate FBHP Liquid Rate FBHP Liquid Rate FBHP
in STB/D psi STB/D psi STB/D psi
2.44 7770 2315 7099 2406 5978 2557
2.99 8988 2150 8186 2259 6978 2422
3.83 10714 1898 8806 2175 7461 2357

E29
No.27- (6) 2020 Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS)

Fig. (9) Shows VLP/Discharge pressure relationship for different WHP and TBG size.

As shown in Table (7) and Figure (9), that the production rate increase when wellhead
pressure decrease for the same reason effecting on natural well previously. The only
different between natural flow and ESP well, is that the using of ESP increased the flow
rate. For natural flow well, flow rate is 2633 STB/Day while ESP well produced 5978
STB/Day under same conditions (WHP=975 psi, TBG ID=2.44 inch). For the ESP only,
the well produced 7770 STB/Day with 300psi WHP, then produced 5978 STB/Day with
975 psi WHP.

As presented in Table (7) and Figure (9), the increasing on tubing size will increase flow
rate. The ESP well produced 5978 STB/Day with 2.44 inch ID, then produced 7461
STB/Day with 3.83 inch ID while natural flow well produced 2633 STB/Day with 2.44
inch ID under same operation conditions (WHP=975).

Table (8) show and Figure (10) show the effect of frequency and number of stages on
production rate (Reservoir pressure= 3365 psi, 975 psi WHP and 0 % water cut).

E30
No.27- (6) 2020 Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS)

Table (8) Production result for different Hz and No. of stage

Frequency Hz = 40 Frequency Hz = 50
No. of Stages Liquid Rate STB/D FBHP psi Liquid Rate STB/D FBHP psi
80 4183 2800 5022 2687
100 4456 2763 5431 2631
120 4690 2731 5736 2590

Frequency Hz = 60 Frequency Hz = 70
No. of Stages Liquid Rate STB/D FBHP psi Liquid Rate STB/D FBHP psi
80 5949 2561 6956 2425
100 6508 2486 7617 2336
120 6868 2437 8087 2272

Fig. (10) Shows the VLP/Discharge pressure relationship for different number of
stages and operating frequency.

As shown in Table (8) and Figure (10), for the same number of stages, the ESP well
production rate increase when frequency increase as the pump will rotate more with high
frequency. For example, the well produced 4183 STB/Day with 40 Hz then flow rate
increased to 6956 STB/Day with 70 Hz (number of stages equal to 80 stages).

E31
No.27- (6) 2020 Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS)

As presented in Table (8) and Figure (10), for the same frequency, the ESP well
produces more fluid when number of stages increased. For the same frequency equal to
40 Hz, the well produced 4183 STB/Day with 80 stages then production rate increased
to 4690 STB/Day with 120 stages.
Table (9) and Figure (11) show the effect of reducing the reservoir pressure (Pr) and
increasing the water cut (WC) to well production rate (975 psi WHP and 60 Hz).

Table (9) production results for different reservoir pressure and water cut
Pr=3365.9 psi Pr=3250 psi Pr=3150 psi
WC Liquid Rate STB/D BHP Liquid Rate STB/D BHP Liquid Rate STB/D BHP psi
% psi psi
0 5978 2557 5636 2488 5283 2436
10 5879 2571 5508 2505 5135 2456
20 5748 2589 5338 2528 4959 2479
30 5584 2611 5140 2555 4756 2507
40 5370 2640 4924 2584 4547 2535
50 5140 2671 4692 2615 4337 2563
60 4896 2704 4472 2645 4128 2592
Pr=3050 psi Pr=2950 psi
WC % Liquid Rate STB/D FBHP psi Liquid Rate STB/D FBHP psi
0 4919 2385 4553 2334
10 4762 2406 4389 2356
20 4582 2430 4210 2381
30 4386 2457 4020 2406
40 4187 2484 3827 2432
50 3984 2511 3645 2457
60 3782 2538 3477 2480
Pr=2850 psi Pr=2750 psi
WC % Liquid Rate STB/D FBHP psi Liquid Rate STB/D FBHP psi
0 4179 2285 3805 2235
10 4015 2307 3653 2256
20 3837 2331 3501 2276
30 3664 2354 3348 2297
40 3504 2376 3194 2318
50 3341 2398 3037 2339
60 3178 2420 2879 2360

E32
No.27- (6) 2020 Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS)

Fig. (11) Shows VLP/Discharge pressure relationship for different Pr and WC.

From Table (9) and Figure (11), the production rate increases when reservoir pressure
increase and water cut decreases. For example, the ESP well produced 3805 STB/Day (Pr=
2750 psi &WC=0%) then production rate increased to 5978 STB/Day (Pr=3366 psi &
WC=0%) while the natural flow well was ceased when reservoir pressure equal to 2750 psi
under same operation condition (WHP=975 psi). For different water cut, the ESP well
produced 5978 STB/Day with zero water cut then production rate decreased to 4896
STB/Day with 60% water cut, while the natural flow well was ceased when water cut equal
to 60% under same operation conditions.

E33
No.27- (6) 2020 Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS)

Conclusions:
1- The production rate increases when tubing size increases and/or wellhead pressure
decreases for both of natural flow well and ESP well.
2- For ESP well, the production rate increases when ESP frequency increases and/or
number of stages increases.
3- As the production conditions are changing during reservoir life, thus it is very
important to re-design the well from time to time according to new situations.
4- ESPs are very useful to increase well productivity when the well is not able to
produce under natural flow condition or the production rate is low.
5- Some well ceased while production under natural flow, but it could be putted again
in production by using ESP.
6- As ESP design is restricted to initial well completion (casing size and down hole
restrictions), the reservoir management team should take this into account for future
reservoir development plans.

Nomenclature:

Symbol Definition Symbol Definition

IPR Inflow performance AOF Absolute Open Flow
relationship
VLP Vertical Lift Performance DGS De-Gas Station
Pwf Flowing Bottomhole Pressure WHP Well Head Pressure
P.I Productivity Index WC Water Cut
PLT Production Log Tool Pr Reservoir Pressure
PVT Pressure-Volume-Temperature TBG Tubing
GOR Gas Oil Ratio ESP Electrical Submersible
Pump

E34
 No.27- (6) 2020 Journal of Petroleum Research & Studies (JPRS)

References:

1. IPM Petroleum Experts “PROSPER user manual”, Version 11.5, January 2010.
2. E. d. S. Batista, "Development of a Tool Computational Method for Application in
the Submersible Centrifugal Pump Lifting", Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do
Norte, 2009.
3. Lea, J.F. “Production Optimization Using a Computerized Well Model”, Amoco
Production Co. and Brown, K.E., U. of Tulsa, 1986.
4. Mohammed Saeed “Production Optimization of Mishrif Formation in Nasiriyah Oil
Field by Using Gas Lift and ESP Techniques”, UO Technology Master Degree thesis,
2018.
5. Bryan T. Cacho, “A Study on Different Two Phase Flow Correlations Used in
Geothermal Wellbore Modelling”, United Nation University, Nov. 8, Reports 2015.
6. Economides, M.J.; Hill, A.D.; Economides, C.E.; Zhu, D., “Petroleum Production
Systems (2 ed.)”, Westford Massachusetts Prentice Hal, 2013.
7. O.J. Romero, “Subsea Electrical Submersible Pump Significance in Petroleum
Offshore Production”, Universidade Federal do Espírito Santo, March 2013.
8. Cholet, H., “Well Production Practical Handbook”, Editions Technip, Paris, 2008.

E35

View publication stats