Save Article Instructions

Close

Artificial lift and pressure boosting options for production enhancement

When the pressure of a reservoir is such that it is insufficient to lift produced fluids to the surface, an artificial means is necessary to
lift the fluids. "Artificial lift" is the general term for any means used to help lift production to the surface and can include methods such
as injection of lift gas and downhole pumping.
Alternatively, artificial lift can be viewed as a means of lowering the back pressure on the reservoir such that overall production
volume can be increased. From this viewpoint, other technologies that may not necessarily help lift the fluids to the surface can also
be considered to achieve the same goal of increased production volume due to the lowering of the pressure at the wellhead.
This technology is termed "pressure boosting" in the companion poster. Pressure boosting includes multi-phase pumping at the
surface (mudline or topsides), for example. In this instance, although the reservoir must be able to supply enough pressure for the
fluid to reach the surface, the resulting wellhead pressure is lower than if the fluid were routed to processing facilities without any
intermediate pumping. Since the wellhead pressure has been lowered, the reservoir is able to produce more fluids given the same
drawdown.
On the other hand, subsea multiphase pumping might be considered an artificial lift method if production cannot flow to the topsides
facilities unaided or a pressure boosting method if it can be produced, but only at a low pressure. Therefore, the terms can be
considered to be synonymous in certain circumstances. We state the two terms specifically as artificial lift (AL) and pressure boosting
(PB) for clarity.

Key to productivity
Selection of the appropriate AL (or PB) system is very important to the profitability of a well (see companion poster for a survey of
eight major AL/PB technologies). Each technology has advantages and disadvantages that lead to different capital expenditures and
operating expenditures. Consideration must be given not only to the applicability of a particular technology to the case in question, but
also to the design, installation, and cost of the entire system before an artificial lift method is selected.
One artificial lift technology, plunger lift, in which a free-traveling plunger is allowed to intermittently carry production to the surface, is
not included in the survey since it is used only in low producing rate wells, typically < 200 b/d of liquids. Also, combinations of
technologies, such as progressing cavity pumps used with downhole electric motors (PCP + ESP), can sometimes offer unique
advantages but are not considered in the article or poster.

Gas lift
Gas lift is an artificial lift method in which pressurized gas is injected into the production fluid to lower the density of the combined
fluids. The lower density decreases the hydrostatic head of the fluids, enabling them to be raised to the surface. Gas may be injected
downhole or in the riser through gas lift valves attached to mandrels, which are connected to the tubing string.
The mandrels may be attached to the outside of the tubing string (conventional) or located inside the
tubing string (wireline retrievable). Wireline retrievable gas lift valves are commonly used offshore,
where the cost of a workover to pull the tubing is very expensive.

Gas injection may be continuous, which is more common, or intermittent, and is used when production rates are low and continuous
gas injection cannot allow sufficient pressure for the fluids to reach the surface. In this case, high pressure gas is injected
intermittently to displace liquid slugs to the surface.
The major factor governing the use of gas lift is the availability and compression cost of the gas. This cost can be offset somewhat if
the gas can be supplied to multiple wells by a central compression facility. If sufficient gas is readily available at a suitable pressure,
gas lift is typically the artificial lift method of choice. This is confirmed by vendor response to the survey where the offshore numbers
of gas lift systems exceed any other artificial lift method.
This is mainly due to the high degree of flexibility offered to the operator, since the gas injection rate may be controlled depending on
the desired production rate. Some common advantages and disadvantages of gas lift are:
z
z
z

Excellent flexibility in injection/production rate

Excellent gas handling (obvious applicability for gassy wells)
Excellent sand and solids handling.

The disadvantages are:

z
z

Compression cost may be high and compressor must be reliable

Fair operating efficiency, but poor for intermittent gas lift.

Electric submersible pump

The electric submersible pump (ESP) is a multi-stage, centrifugal downhole pump driven by a downhole electric motor. ESPs are
typically suspended on the tubing string hung from the wellhead and are submerged in the production fluid. ESP motors are often
placed above the perforations so that the production fluids can cool the motors, which may otherwise overheat and fail.
ESPs are often used offshore since they require limited equipment topsides as most of the necessary
equipment is downhole. ESPs are also a favorite offshore because of their combined ability to handle
both high volume wells and operate at great depths (the so called "high volume and depth
champion").

ESPs have a great range of operating flexibility since they can handle production rates from as low as 200 b/d to as high as 95,000
b/d (data taken from poster, Table 4), but are limited in a specific application to a narrow range unless variable speed drives are used.
ESPs also require a highly reliable electric power system and are sensitive to changes downhole or fluid properties.
Because ESPs can be very long (up to 200 ft), they are not often used in wells with high degrees of deviation since getting the series
of pumps around the dogleg may be difficult. Also, this can result in poor performance due to hot spots occurring where the motor
rests against the casing. Some common advantages of ESPs are:
z
z

High volume/rate capability

Wide production rate range between applications.

ESP disadvantages include:

z
z
z
z

Narrow production rate range for a specific application

Requires highly reliable electric power system
Poor solids handling
Poor gas handling (without inlet gas separators).

Also included in the ESP section of the companion poster is a new application of a twin-screw multi-phase pump placed downhole.
This pump is designed to handle higher GVFs (gas volume fractions) and temperatures as well as more sand than traditional ESPs,
but is not able to handle as high volume or as deep applications, being limited to 26,000 b/d and 7,200 ft, respectively (data taken
from poster, Tables 3 and 4).

Hydraulic jet pump

Hydraulic jet pumps (HJP) operate by pumping high pressure power fluid (oil or water) through a nozzle where it is converted to high
velocity and low pressure. The low pressure allows wellbore fluids to enter the pump and the two streams are mixed, resulting in a
single high velocity, low pressure stream.
The combined stream then passes through a diffuser that converts the fluids
back to low velocity and high pressure. The combined fluids are separated
topsides with the power fluid being re-circulated back downhole.

Because HJPs have no moving parts, they require little pump maintenance and have long service lives. Jet pumps also have good
applicability for deep and high producing wells, up to 20,000 ft and 35,000 b/d (data taken from poster, Tables 3 and 4). Since the
production rate is determined by the hydraulic fluid injection rate and pressure, jet pumps have good operating flexibility. Some
common advantages of HJP's are listed below:
z
z

Little pump maintenance required

Good operating (production rate, depth, temperature) flexibility

z
z

Can be circulated hydraulically topsides ("free" pump)

Good corrosion, solids, gas handling ability.

The disadvantage to the HJP is:

z

Poor efficiency.

Hydraulic piston pump

The hydraulic piston pump (HPP) operates in much the same way as the jet pump except that the power fluid actuates a reciprocating
piston pump downhole, as opp-osed to a jet pump (see previous image for HJP). Unlike the jet pump, the HPP has moving parts and
therefore may be prone to more mechanical problems.
As with jet pumps, piston pumps also have good applicability for deep producing wells, but lower applicability than jet pumps for high
producing wells - up to 25,000 ft and 16,000 b/d (data taken from poster, Tables 3 and 4). Since the production rate is determined by
the hydraulic fluid injection rate and pressure, piston pumps also have good operating flexibility. Some common advantages of piston
pumps are:
z
z
z

Good operating (production rate, depth, temperature) flexibility

Can be circulated hydraulically topsides ("free" pump)
Good corrosion handling ability.

The main disadvantage to the piston pump is:

z

Poor solids handling ability.

Hydraulic submersible pump

The hydraulic submersible pumps (HSP) consist of a downhole hydraulic
turbine driving a downhole centrifugal pump. Because of this, HSPs have a
similar overall design as ESPs except without potential electrical problems as
well as the ability to handle higher gas volume fractions (GVF). HSPs also
have a much shorter length than ESP's, which facilitates installation in wells
with a high degree of deviation. However, since hydraulic power fluid is
necessary, HSPs require more topside components than ESPs.

Hydraulic submersible pumps are limited to 12,000 ft depths but can accommodate high volume wells, from 2,000 b/d up to 90,000
b/d (data taken from poster, Tables 3 and 4). Some common advantages of HSPs are:
z
z
z
z
z

Good operating flexibility

High volume capability
Good solids/sand and gas handling capability
Slug handling capability
Retrofitted when required.

Disadvantages of the HSP include:

z

Limited track record.

Weir Pumps Ltd. and Halliburton Company have jointly developed a system for deploying Weir's HSP into risers using Halliburton's
coiled tubing technology. The product, called Varris (Vertically Accessed Riser with Retrievable Internal Services), also includes hot
water circulation and is intended for use in deepwater risers. The Varris can be deployed and retrieved using established well
intervention methods without the requirement for external deepwater vessels. Also, there is no required infrastructure for installing
Varris. It can be installed directly in the riser, including being retrofitted to existing developments.

Progressing cavity pump

A progressing cavity pump (PCP) is a positive displacement pump that
consists of a single helix rotor turning inside a double helix stator. As the rotor
turns, driven by a topsides motor, an advancing series of cavities are formed
between the rotor and stator, in which the fluid is displaced through the pump
and up the tubing. The stator is attached to the tubing string while the rotor is
attached to a rod string, attached to and rotated by the topsides pump.

As they are positive displacement pumps, PCPs have a high efficiency and are well-suited to heavy oils with high solids content.
PCPs are also quite inexpensive, but are limited to depths of 10,000 ft and rates of 7,000 b/d (data taken from poster, Tables 3 and
4). PCPs are rarely used offshore (see poster, Table 2) due to low production rates and the necessity of a workover unit to pull the
pump for repairs. Some common advantages of PCPs are:
z
z
z

High efficiency
Low costs
Excellent solids and viscous applications.

Disadvantages of PCP units are:

z
z

Limited to relatively shallow wells and low production rates

Poor gas handling ability.

Seabed pump
The seabed pump is the general term used in the survey to describe pumps external to the riser or downhole tubing/casing. These

pumps are multiphase units and can either be subsea or topsides. Topsides units do not technically help lift the fluids to the surface,
but do reduce the back pressure on the reservoir.
These units are therefore termed "pressure boosting" as opposed to being
strictly identified as artificial lift systems. To date, only helico-axial and twinscrew multiphase pumps have been used offshore, with only helico-axial
pumps having been deployed subsea.

Twin-screw pumps displace fluid through counter-rotating screws, moving a constant volume of fluid through the pump. Some small
amount of liquid is necessary to form a seal between clearances, typically 5%. Helico-axial pumps move fluid by first rotating the fluid
at high revolutions per minute (RPM) with helico-axial impellers. The fluid is then passed through a diffuser which converts the high
speed, high kinetic energy fluid to a high pressure fluid.
Since these pumps are designed to be multiphase, they can handle high GVFs, typically up to 95%, but under certain conditions, up
to 100% gas (data taken from poster, Table 1). SP's are currently limited to 10,000 ft water depth, but are able to handle extraordinary
volumes of fluid, up to 100,000's b/d (see poster, Tables 3 and 4). Some common advantages of seabed pumps are:
z
z

Very high volume capability

High gas handling capability.

Disadvantages of the SP system are:

z
z

Costs
Limited track record.

Rod pump
Rod pumps consist of a surface pumping unit connected to a sucker rod pump
downhole by a series of sucker rods. The reciprocating action of the topsides

unit moves a traveling valve on the downhole pump to move fluid to the surface.

Rod pumping is almost exclusively limited to onshore applications (comprising the vast majority of all land applications), but has
occasionally been used on fixed structures in shallow water (see poster, Table 2). Rod pumps have a high system efficiency and an
excellent operating flexibility, though limited to medium volume applications, up to 8,000 b/d (data taken from poster, Table 4). Some
common advantages of rod pumps are:
z
z
z
z

High efficiency
Excellent operating flexibility
Good solids, gas, and viscous handling capability
High salvage value.

Disadvantages of the rod pump are:

z
z
z

Little offshore application

Problems for use in deviated wells
Noise.

Conclusions
Given the many choices of AL/PB technologies, each with its own advantages and disadvantages, this article and the poster (in
September issue) should raise awareness of the different AL/PB technologies available today.
The system specifications and limitations should provide useful tools to aid design engineers and/or managers. Specifically, the
poster might be used in the identification of potential AL/PB technologies for prospects under evaluation and in the debottlenecking
and/or revamping of existing developments.

Authors
Joshua Cooper is a Process Engineer for Granherne with six years experience in the oil and gas industry (five years in experimental
and theoretical research investigation of fundamentals of rock/pore structure and non-Darcy flow behavior and one in process and
flow assurance design work on feasibility/conceptual projects). He holds a BS in Chemical Engineering from Mississippi State
University and a PhD in Chemical Engineering from the University of Houston.

Julie E. P. Morgan is the Flow Assurance Manager and Head Process Consultant for Granherne. She has 21 years experience, the
last 13 years having been spent working in a lead position in the oil and gas, refining and gas production industries. Areas of
expertise include flow assurance, process design and optimization, especially gas liquids extraction, and debottlenecking. She holds
an MA (Cantab), a MEng (Cantab), and a PhD (Cantab), all from the University of Cambridge.
Offshore October 01, 2001
volume 61, issue 10
Author(s) : Joshua Cooper Julie Morgan

To access this article, go to:

http://www.offshore-mag.com/articles/article_display.cfm?ARTICLE_ID=126449&p=9
Copyright 2007: PennWell Corporation, Tulsa, OK; All Rights Reserved.