Bombeo para Mecanico

8/9/2019 Bombeo para Mecanico

1/57

Calculating Pump

Slippage

Kyle Chambliss

Oxy Permian


2/57

Objective

Model pump slippage and verify with collected

data.

– Increases operating efficiency of wells which is abenefit to operators


3/57

Presentation Outline

What is Pump Slippage?

Review of Historical Pump Slippage Equations

Experimental Slippage Test

Experimental Results

ARCO-HF-COP Formula


4/57

What is Pump Slippage ?


5/57

What is Pump Slippage ?


6/57

Economics of Pump Slippage

Need enough slippage to properly lubricate

barrel, typically 2 to 5% of total production

Improper slippage will damage pump and rodstring causing need for costly repair

Too much slippage is lost production, or in the

case of stripper wells, increased electrical cost


7/57

Historical Slippage Data and Equations

Robinson (1935)

Davis and Stearns (1944)

Robinson and Reekstin (1960) Davis, Stearns and Reekstin (1960)

ARCO-Harbison Fisher (2000)


8/57

Comparison of Historical Formulas

1 ½ inch by 72 inch Plunger

Viscosity of 7 centipoise

Pressure of 2230 psi


9/57

Comparison of Historical Formulas

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005

Clearance (inches)

P u m p S l i p p a g e ( B a r r e l s p e

r D a y

Robinson Data

Davis and Stearns

Robinson and Reekstin

ARCO-HF


10/57

Failure of Historical Equations

Equations do not agree

Plunger leakage calculations can vary by a

factor of 15 or more Equations were derived from field and

experimental data which may be inaccurate

A new theoretical equation could determinewhich historical leakage equation, if any, isaccurate


11/57

Questions About Slippage

Which, if any, of the Historical Formulas are

correct?

Does Pumping Rate Effect Slippage?


12/57

Experimental Slippage Test

Texas Tech Test Well

– Red Raider # 1 – Measure Pump Slippage in Controlled

Environment


13/57

Red Raider # 1

Depth

– Measured - 4006.6 ft

Casing

– 9 5/8”

– N-80

– 43.5 lb/ft

Location

– East Loop 289 and 4th Street

– 10 minutes from Campus


14/57

Production Equipment

C 456-305-144

– 5 Sheave Sizes – 16”, 12”, 10”, 8.5” and 6”

– ABB Variable Speed Drive

Rod String

– 7/8 and 3/4 Rod String

– 1” Rod String

– 1” Fiberglass String with 1 5/8” Sinker Bars

Tubing

– 2 7/8” J-55 6.5 lb/ft

Sucker Rod Pump

– 2” Barrel 0.009” Clearance 48” Plunger

– 1.5” Barrel 0.005” Clearance 48” Plunger


15/57


16/57

Data Control Equipment

Lufkin Automation SAM Controller

Echometer Well Management System

Wood Group Smart Guard RTU package ION Power Measurement System

ABB Variable Speed Drive Micromotion Mass Flow Meter


17/57

Experimental Procedure

Measure Pump Displacement with EchometerEquipment and Lufkin SAM Controller

Measure Actual Production at Surface usingMicromotion Mass Flow Meter

Difference of Pump Displacement and PumpProduction is Slippage assuming no Leakage throughTraveling and Standing Valves – This is a goodassumption for new pump with clean fluid


18/57


19/57


20/57


21/57

Test Data – 2” Pump

Test # Date

Rod

String

Stroke

Lengt

h (in)

Control

Method 3Frequency

(Hz) 4

Pump

Speed

(spm)

Pump Intake

Pressure

Woodgroup

(psig)

Pump

Intake

Pressure

Echometer

(psig)

Echometer

Inferred

Production

(bpd)

Lufkin

Inferred

Production

(bpd)

Surface

Production

(bpd)

Echometer

Slippage

(bpd)

Lufkin

Slippage

(bpd)

Average

Slippage

(bpd)

Pump

Efficinc

y (%)

1-01 7/8/05 76 1 105.6 ABB (12") 60 9.73 gauge dow n 161.5 427.72 424.8 367.1 60.6 57.7 59.1 86.1

1-02 7/8/05 76 1 105.6 12" sheave 60 9.74 gauge dow n 152.6 428.11 425.6 368.0 60.1 57.6 58.8 86.21-03 7/8/05 76 1 105.6 ABB (12") 51 8.25 gauge dow n 165.5 357.49 350.2 301.3 56.2 48.9 52.6 85.1

1-04 7/8/05 76 1 105.6 ABB (12") 43 6.93 167 167.7 297.36 292.6 242.4 55.0 50.2 52.6 82.2

1-05 7/8/05 76 1 105.6 ABB (12") 31.5 5.03 165.7 172 214.7 214.0 163.5 51.2 50.5 50.9 76.3

1-06 7/8/05 76 1 105.6 ABB (12") na 1.82 183.2 182.7 81.5 81.0 41.6 39.9 39.4 39.6 51.2

2-01 7/28/05 88 105.6 ABB (12") .8 spm 0.80 175 178.1 39.2 NA 5.6 33.6 na na 14.2

2-02 7/28/05 88 105.6 ABB (12") .7 spm 0.70 178 178.1 34.4 NA 4.4 30.0 na na 12.82-03 7/28/05 88 105.6 ABB (12") .6 spm 0.60 179 178.1 29.55 NA 0.0 29.6 na na 0.0

2-05 7/28/05 88 105.6 12" sheave 60 9.72 150 165.4 444.6 437.8 377.9 66.7 59.9 63.3 85.6

2-06 7/28/05 88 105.6 ABB (12") 60 9.71 150 151.7 444.6 440.0 378.2 66.4 61.8 64.1 85.5

2-07 7/28/05 88 105.6 ABB (12") 51 8.22 153 149.9 371.6 370.0 308.6 63.0 61.4 62.2 83.2

2-08 7/28/05 88 105.6 ABB (12") 43 6.90 156 154.6 313.4 312.6 250.9 62.5 61.7 62.1 80.2

2-09 7/28/05 88 105.6 ABB (12") 31.5 5.01 156 163 224 223.6 170.2 53.8 53.4 53.6 76.0

3-01 7/5/05 76 1 105.6 16" Sheave 60 12.97 gauge dow n na na 591.1 496.4 na 94.7 na 84.0

4-01 7/14/05 FG 2 87.5 16" Sheave 60 12.95 145 na na 641.7 565.8 na 75.9 na 88.2

5-01 7/14/05 FG 2 87.5 ABB (16") 72.5 15.47 138 na na 868.3 777.2 na 91.1 na 89.5

6-01 7/26/05 88 105.6 16" Sheave 60 12.92 146 na na 625.7 540.1 na 85.6 na 86.3


22/57


23/57

Pump Slippage vs. Pump Speed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Speed (spm)

S l i p p a g e ( b p d )

76 String 2 " Pump

76 String 1.5 " Pump

88 String 2 " Pump

FG String 2 " Pump


24/57

Pump Speed vs. Pump Efficiency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Speed (spm)

E f f i c i e n c y ( % )


76 String 2 " Pump

88 String 2 " Pump

FG String 2 " Pump


25/57

Comparison to ARCO-HarbisonFisher Formula

Measured Slippage Not Constant, Changes

with Pumping Speed

ARCO-Harbison Fisher

– 59.0 bpd for 2” pump

– 23.0 bpd for 1.5” pump


26/57

Pump Slippage vs. Pump Speed

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Speed (spm)

S

l i p p a g e ( b p d )

76 String 2 " Pump


88 String 2 " Pump

FG String 2 " Pump ARCO-HF 1.5" Pump

ARCO-HF 2" Pump


27/57

ARCO-HF-COP

( )[ ]µ L

DPC SPM

52.1

114.0452 +⋅⋅


28/57

ARCO-HF-COP

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Speed (spm)

S l i p p a g e ( b p d

)

76 String 2 " Pump


88 String 2 " Pump

FG String 2 " Pump

ARCO-HF 1.5" Pump

ARCO-HF 2" Pump

ARCO-HF-COP 1.5 " Pump

ARCO-HF-COP 2 " Pump


29/57

Conclusions

Pumping Rate affects Slippage. As Pump

Speed Increases, Pump Efficiency Increases

and Slippage Increases

The experimental setup works as intended,

producing reliable data


30/57

Recommendations

Test should be continued

– Using more pumps to determine if coefficients of

ARCO-Harbison Fisher equation are correct

– More test of pumps at different pumping rates

– Using different stroke lengths

Adjust Slippage formula as needed with newdata


31/57

Development and Assistance Sponsors

Harbison-Fischer MFG. Co.

Key Energy Service

Key Energy Trucking

Lufkin Oil Field Services

Norris Rods

Wood Group Production Technology

Wood Group Telecom, LLC


32/57

Research Sponsors

BP America

ChevronTexaco Exploration and Production Technology

ConocoPhillips Co.

Echometer Co.

Lufkin Automation

Occidental Oil & Gas Corporation (Oxy Permian)


33/57

Calculating Pump

Slippage

Kyle Chambliss

Oxy Permian

ARCO HF Sli E i

ARCOARCO HF Sli E iHF Sli E ti


34/57

ARCO ARCO--HF Slippage EquationHF Slippage EquationDoes Not Include Effects of:Does Not Include Effects of:

1) Rod Design1) Rod Design2) Speed (SPM)2) Speed (SPM)

3) Plunger Velocity3) Plunger Velocity

ARCO-HF Slippage EquationARCOARCO--HF Slippage EquationHF Slippage Equation

Slippage: Fluid thatSlippage: Fluid that

falls back betweenfalls back between

the plunger OD andthe plunger OD and

the barrel ID whenthe barrel ID when

traveling ball is ontraveling ball is on

seat into the chamberseat into the chamber

between the standingbetween the standing

valve and travelingvalve and travelingvalve.valve.

A th Ad t f U i ABBA th Ad t f U i ABB


35/57

0 105.6-3.13

0

3.13

6.25

9.38

12.50

15.63

105.0

Fo Max

Wrf

Wrf + Fo Max

0 105.6-3.13

0

3.13

6.25

9.38

12.50

15.63

104.0

Fo Max Fo From Fluid Level

Wrf

Wrf + Fo Max

22”” Plunger, 1Plunger, 1”” Rod String, 0.009Rod String, 0.009”” Clearance, 12Clearance, 12”” SheaveSheave

0.7 SPM, Input 5 HP,0.7 SPM, Input 5 HP,

2.4% System Efficiency2.4% System Efficiency

4.7 BPD in Tank,4.7 BPD in Tank,

34.4 BPD34.4 BPD @@ 105105”” Pump StrokePump Stroke

0.6 SPM, Input 4.8 HP,0.6 SPM, Input 4.8 HP,

0% System Efficiency0% System Efficiency

0 BPD in Tank,0 BPD in Tank,

29.0 BPD29.0 BPD @@ 104104”” Pump StrokePump Stroke

Another Advantage of Using ABBAnother Advantage of Using ABB

0.6 HP0.6 HP 0.7 HP0.7 HP

85.53 Sec/Stroke85.53 Sec/Stroke100 Sec/Stroke100 Sec/Stroke

Wh P d i W t th S f Fl R t i Di tl


36/57

When Producing Water the Surface Flow Rate is Directly

Related to the Plunger Velocity on Upstroke & Down Stroke

D t C dD t C d 5 01 SPM5 01 SPM


37/57

0 105.6-2.50

0

2.50

5.00

7.50

10.00

12.50

15.00

17.50

98.6

Fo Max Fo From Fluid Level

Wrf

Wrf + Fo Max

22”” Plunger, 0.009Plunger, 0.009”” Clearance, 12Clearance, 12”” Sheave, 31.5 HZSheave, 31.5 HZ

170 BPD in Tank,170 BPD in Tank,56 BPD Slippage56 BPD Slippage

Dynamometer CardsDynamometer Cards – – 5.01 SPM5.01 SPM

1 Inch Rod String1 Inch Rod String

91.391.3”” Pump StrokePump Stroke

215 BPD215 BPD @@ PumpPump

Peak Load 12,324 LbPeak Load 12,324 Lb

Peak Load 16,588 LbPeak Load 16,588 Lb

76 API Taper Rods76 API Taper Rods

95.295.2”” Pump StrokePump Stroke

226 BPD226 BPD @@ PumpPump

163 BPD in Tank,163 BPD in Tank,51 BPD Slippage51 BPD Slippage


38/57

Davis and Stearns (1944)

µ Ld

d d PC B DS 1.0

2

21

22

9.161017.4 −×=


39/57

Robinson and Reekstin (1960)

µ L

C PD B RR

3.37.081080.1 ×=


40/57

ARCO-Harbison Fisher (2000)

µ L

DPC B AH 52.1

870=


41/57

Velocity Profile


42/57

Velocity Profile Equation

( ) ( )

0

0

0

02

0

22

0

2

ln

ln

ln

ln

4)(

R

R

R

r

V

R

R

R

r

R R Rr p

r V i

P i

i z +

−−−−

=µ


43/57

Slippage Calculation

B = (Annular Area)x

(Average Velocity)x

(Plunger Travel Time)


44/57

Concentric and Eccentric Plungers


45/57

Slippage Calculation for Eccentric Plunger


46/57

Derivation of Theoretical Slippage Equation

Velocity Profile of Annulus

– Moving Plunger Factors

– Eccentricity

– Pumping Rate


47/57

Concentric and Eccentric Plungers


48/57

Comparison to Historical Formulas

1 ½ inch by 72 inch Plunger


Pressure of 2230 psi Pumping Rate of 10 strokes per minute

Stroke Length of 55 inches


49/57

Average Velocity of Flow Through Annulus

( )( )

( ) ( )

−

+

+

−

−−−

−=

0

22

0

2

0

0

0

2

0

22

0

2

2

022

0

44

0

lnln

ln

ln

24

R

R

R R

R

R

R

R R

R

R

R R

R R

R R

R R P V

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i

i ψ ψ

µ

( )

( )

( )

−

−

+

−

0

0

0

22

0

0

0

2

0

ln

ln

lnln

ln

R

R

R

R

R R R

V

R

R

R R

ii

i

P i

ψ

−−

−= 2

1ln

2

1ln 2020 ii R R R Rψ


50/57

Slippage Compared to Historical Data

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005

Clearance (inches)

P u m p S l i p p a g e ( B a r r e l s p e r D a y )

Davis and Stearns

Robinson and Reekstin

ARCO-HF

New Method (Concentric)

New Method (Eccentric)


51/57

ARCO-HF Formula and New Method

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020

Clearance (Inches )

S l i p p a

g e ( B a r r e l s p e r D a y )

ARCO-HF

New Method (Concentric)

New Method (Eccentric)


52/57

Comparison of Pumping Rate

3 inch by 24 inch



Pumping Rate of 8

strokes per minute

Stroke Length of 55

inches

3 inch by 24 inch



Pumping Rate of 16

strokes per minute

Stroke Length of 55

inches


53/57

Comparison of Pumping Rate

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

0.000 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.004 0.005

Pump Tolerance (in)

8 SPM Concentric

16 SPM Concentric


54/57

Ratio of Eccentric to Concentric Slippage

Historically believed to be 2.5


55/57


1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2

2.2

2.4

2.6

2.8

0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.10

Pump Clearance (in)

R a t i o o f E c c e

n t r i c t o C o n c e n

t r i c S l i p p a g e

Pump 1

Pump 2


56/57


1 ½ inch by 72 inchPlunger



Pumping Rate of 10

strokes per minute

Stroke Length of 55

inches

5 inch by 24 inchPlunger

Viscosity of 15

centipoise


Pumping Rate of 5

strokes per minute

Stroke Length of 144

inches


57/57

Conclusions from Theoretical Formula

Pumping Rate has small effect on slippage

Eccentricity as a large effect on slippage

Ratio of eccentric to concentric slippage is not2.5 for all pump clearances

ARCO-Harbison Fisher Equation agrees with

new equation up to a Plunger Clearance of0.005 inches

Bombeo para Mecanico

Documents

Transcript of Bombeo para Mecanico