Calculating Pump

Slippage
Kyle Chambliss
Oxy Permian

Objective
z

Model pump slippage and verify with collected

data.

Increases operating efficiency of wells which is a

benefit to operators

Presentation Outline
z
z
z
z
z

What is Pump Slippage?

Review of Historical Pump Slippage Equations
Experimental Slippage Test
Experimental Results
ARCO-HF-COP Formula

What is Pump Slippage ?

What is Pump Slippage ?

Economics of Pump Slippage

z
z
z

Need enough slippage to properly lubricate

barrel, typically 2 to 5% of total production
Improper slippage will damage pump and rod
string causing need for costly repair
Too much slippage is lost production, or in the
case of stripper wells, increased electrical cost

Historical Slippage Data and Equations

z
z
z
z
z

Robinson (1935)
Davis and Stearns (1944)
Robinson and Reekstin (1960)
Davis, Stearns and Reekstin (1960)
ARCO-Harbison Fisher (2000)

Comparison of Historical Formulas

z
z
z

1 inch by 72 inch Plunger

Viscosity of 7 centipoise
Pressure of 2230 psi

Comparison of Historical Formulas

Pump Slippage (Barrels per Day)

14
Robinson Data
12
10
8

Davis and Stearns

Robinson and Reekstin
ARCO-HF

6
4
2
0
0.000

0.001

0.002

0.003

Clearance (inches)

0.004

0.005

Failure of Historical Equations

z
z
z
z

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 determine
which historical leakage equation, if any, is
accurate

Questions About Slippage

z

Which, if any, of the Historical Formulas are

correct?

Does Pumping Rate Effect Slippage?

Experimental Slippage Test

Texas Tech Test Well

Red Raider # 1
Measure Pump Slippage in Controlled
Environment

Red Raider # 1
z

Depth

Casing

Measured - 4006.6 ft
9 5/8
N-80
43.5 lb/ft

Location

East Loop 289 and 4th Street

10 minutes from Campus

Production Equipment
z

z
z

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

Data Control Equipment

z
z
z
z
z
z

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

Experimental Procedure
z

Measure Pump Displacement with Echometer

Equipment and Lufkin SAM Controller

Measure Actual Production at Surface using

Micromotion Mass Flow Meter

Difference of Pump Displacement and Pump

Production is Slippage assuming no Leakage through
Traveling and Standing Valves This is a good
assumption for new pump with clean fluid

Test Data 2 Pump

Stroke
Rod Lengt
String h (in)

Control
Method 3

Pump
Pump Intake
Intake
Echometer
Lufkin
Pump Pressure Pressure
Inferred
Inferred
Surface Echometer Lufkin Average Pump
Frequency Speed Woodgroup Echometer Production Production Production Slippage Slippage Slippage Efficinc
(Hz) 4
(spm)
(psig)
(psig)
(bpd)
(bpd)
(bpd)
(bpd)
(bpd)
(bpd)
y (%)

Test #

Date

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

105.6 12" sheave

60

9.74 gauge dow n

152.6

428.11

425.6

368.0

60.1

57.6

58.8

86.2

1-03

7/8/05

76

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

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

12.8

2-03

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

5.01

156

163

224

223.6

170.2

53.8

53.4

53.6

76.0

3-01

7/5/05

105.6 ABB (12")

31.5

76

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

87.5 16" Sheave

60

12.95

na

na

641.7

565.8

na

75.9

na

88.2

5-01

7/14/05 FG

6-01

7/26/05

88

87.5

ABB (16")

105.6 16" Sheave

145

72.5

15.47

138

na

na

868.3

777.2

na

91.1

na

89.5

60

12.92

146

na

na

625.7

540.1

na

85.6

na

86.3

Test Data 1.5 Pump

Control
Method 3

Pump Intake Pump Intake Echometer

Pressure
Pressure
Inferred
Pump Speed Woodgroup Echometer Production
(spm)
(psig)
(psig)
(bpd)

Lufkin
Inferred
Production
(bpd)

Surface
Production
(bpd)

Echometer
Slippage
(bpd)

Lufkin
Slippage
(bpd)

Average
Slippage
(bpd)

Pump
Efficincy (%)

Test #

Date

Rod String

Stroke
Length (in)

7-01

8/25/06

76

105.6

ABB (12")

9.7

130

139.3

254.19

na

230.1

60.6

na

na

90.5

7-02

8/25/06

76

105.6

ABB (12")

8.3

134

122.4

207.94

na

207.9

22.9

na

na

89.0

7-03

8/25/06

76

105.6

ABB (12")

7.1

135

116.8

180.43

na

180.4

21.4

na

na

88.2

7-04

8/25/06

76

105.6

ABB (12")

5.1

136

132.6

127.03

na

127.0

19.4

na

na

84.7

7-05

8/25/06

76

105.6

ABB (12")

2.5

141

142.2

62.47

na

62.5

16.9

na

na

72.9

7-06

8/25/06

76

105.6

ABB (12")

1.0

145

142.2

24.38

na

24.4

14.1

na

na

42.2

7-07

8/25/06

76

105.6

ABB (12")

0.5

151

142.2

11.49

na

11.5

11.2

na

na

2.4

Pump Slippage vs. Pump Speed

100
90

76 String 2 " Pump

76 String 1.5 " Pump

80

88 String 2 " Pump

FG String 2 " Pump

Slippage (bpd)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

Speed (spm)

10

12

14

16

Pump Speed vs. Pump Efficiency

100
90
80

Efficiency (%)

70
60

76 String 1.5 " Pump

50

76 String 2 " Pump

88 String 2 " Pump

40

FG String 2 " Pump

30
20
10
0
0

Speed (spm)

10

12

14

16

Comparison to ARCO-Harbison
Fisher 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

Pump Slippage vs. Pump Speed

100

76 String 2 " Pump

90

76 String 1.5 " Pump

80

88 String 2 " Pump

FG String 2 " Pump

Slippage (bpd)

70

ARCO-HF 1.5" Pump

60

ARCO-HF 2" Pump

50
40
30
20
10
0
0

Speed (spm)

10

12

14

16

ARCO-HF-COP

1.52

DPC
452 [(0.14 SPM ) + 1]
L

ARCO-HF-COP
120

76 String 2 " Pump

76 String 1.5 " Pump
100

88 String 2 " Pump

Slippage (bpd)

FG String 2 " Pump

ARCO-HF 1.5" Pump

80

ARCO-HF 2" Pump

ARCO-HF-COP 1.5 " Pump
60

ARCO-HF-COP 2 " Pump

40

20

0
0

Speed (spm)

10

12

14

16

Conclusions
z

Pumping Rate affects Slippage. As Pump

Speed Increases, Pump Efficiency Increases
and Slippage Increases

The experimental setup works as intended,

producing reliable data

Recommendations
z

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 new

data

Development and Assistance Sponsors

z
z
z
z
z
z
z

Harbison-Fischer MFG. Co.

Key Energy Service
Key Energy Trucking
Lufkin Oil Field Services
Norris Rods
Wood Group Production Technology
Wood Group Telecom, LLC

Research Sponsors
z
z
z
z
z
z

BP America
ChevronTexaco Exploration and Production Technology
ConocoPhillips Co.
Echometer Co.
Lufkin Automation
Occidental Oil & Gas Corporation (Oxy Permian)

Calculating Pump
Slippage
Kyle Chambliss
Oxy Permian

ARCO
-HF Slippage Equation
ARCO-HF
ARCO-HF Slippage Equation
Does Not Include Effects of:
1) Rod Design
2) Speed (SPM)
3) Plunger Velocity

Slippage: Fluid that

falls back between
the plunger OD and
the barrel ID when
traveling ball is on
seat into the chamber
between the standing
valve and traveling
valve.

Another Advantage of Using ABB

2 Plunger, 1 Rod String, 0.009 Clearance, 12 Sheave
15.63 Wrf + Fo Max

15.63 Wrf + Fo Max

12.50

12.50

0.6 HP

Wrf

Wrf

9.38

9.38

0.6 SPM, Input 4.8 HP,

0% System Efficiency

6.25 Fo Max

0.7 HP
0.7 SPM, Input 5 HP,
2.4% System Efficiency

6.25

Fo Max

Fo From Fluid Level

3.13

3.13

100 Sec/Stroke
0

-3.13

85.53 Sec/Stroke
104.0

0 BPD in Tank,
29.0 BPD @ 104 Pump Stroke
0

105.6

-3.13

105.0

4.7 BPD in Tank,

34.4 BPD @ 105 Pump Stroke
0

105.6

When Producing Water the Surface Flow Rate is Directly

Related to the Plunger Velocity on Upstroke & Down Stroke

Dynamometer Cards 5.01 SPM

2 Plunger, 0.009 Clearance, 12 Sheave, 31.5 HZ
Peak Load 16,588 Lb

17.50

Wrf + Fo Max

15.00

Peak Load 12,324 Lb

76 API Taper Rods

1 Inch Rod String

12.50

10.00 Wrf

7.50
Fo Max
5.00

91.3 Pump Stroke

215 BPD @ Pump
163 BPD in Tank,
51 BPD Slippage

95.2 Pump Stroke

226 BPD @ Pump

2.50

-2.50

Fo From Fluid Level

170 BPD in Tank,

56 BPD Slippage

98.6

105.6

Davis and Stearns (1944)

BDS = 4.17 10

PC

1.9

(d

2
2

d L
0.1
2

2
1

Robinson and Reekstin (1960)

BRR

0.7

PD C
= 1.80 10
L
8

3.3

ARCO-Harbison Fisher (2000)

1.52

B AH

DPC
= 870
L

Velocity Profile

Velocity Profile Equation

r
r

ln
ln

R0
R0
p 2
2
2
2
r R0 Ri R0
+ VP
Vz ( r ) =
Ri
Ri
4
ln
ln

R0
R0

) (

Slippage Calculation
z

B = (Annular Area)x
(Average Velocity)x
(Plunger Travel Time)

Concentric and Eccentric Plungers

Slippage Calculation for Eccentric Plunger

Derivation of Theoretical Slippage Equation

Velocity Profile of Annulus

Moving Plunger

Factors

Eccentricity
Pumping Rate

Concentric and Eccentric Plungers

Comparison to Historical Formulas

z
z
z
z
z

1 inch by 72 inch Plunger

Viscosity of 7 centipoise
Pressure of 2230 psi
Pumping Rate of 10 strokes per minute
Stroke Length of 55 inches

Average Velocity of Flow Through Annulus

4
Ri2
Ri2 ln R0
R02
P R0 Ri4
2
R0
+
+
V =
2
2

4 2 R0 Ri
R
R
R

R02 Ri2 ln i ln i
R02 Ri2 ln i

R0
R0
R0

(
(

)
)

(
)
R02 ln (R0 )
ln
R

+ VP

Ri
Ri
Ri
2
2
R0 Ri ln ln
ln
R

0
R0
R0

1
1

2
= R ln R0 Ri ln Ri
2
2

2
0

Slippage Compared to Historical Data

14
Pump Slippage (Barrels per Day)

Davis and Stearns

12

Robinson and Reekstin

ARCO-HF

10

New Method (Concentric)

New Method (Eccentric)

6
4
2
0
0.000

0.001

0.002

0.003

Clearance (inches)

0.004

0.005

ARCO-HF Formula and New Method

140

Slippage (Barrels per Day)

120
100

ARCO-HF
New Method (Concentric)
New Method (Eccentric)

80
60
40
20
0
0.000

0.005

0.010
Clearance (Inches)

0.015

0.020

Comparison of Pumping Rate

z
z
z
z
z

3 inch by 24 inch
Viscosity of 7 centipoise
Pressure of 2620 psi
Pumping Rate of 8
strokes per minute
Stroke Length of 55
inches

z
z
z
z
z

3 inch by 24 inch
Viscosity of 7 centipoise
Pressure of 2620 psi
Pumping Rate of 16
strokes per minute
Stroke Length of 55
inches

Comparison of Pumping Rate

8

8 SPM Concentric
16 SPM Concentric

0
0.000

0.001

0.002

0.003

P ump T o lerance ( in)

0.004

0.005

Ratio of Eccentric to Concentric Slippage

z

Historically believed to be 2.5

Ratio of Eccentric to Concentric Slippage

Ratio of Eccentric to Concentric Slippage

2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2

Pump 1

1.8
1.6

Pump 2

1.4
1.2
1
0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

Pump Clearance (in)

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

Ratio of Eccentric to Concentric Slippage

z
z
z
z
z

1 inch by 72 inch
Plunger
Viscosity of 7 centipoise
Pressure of 2230 psi
Pumping Rate of 10
strokes per minute
Stroke Length of 55
inches

z
z
z
z
z

5 inch by 24 inch
Plunger
Viscosity of 15
centipoise
Pressure of 1000 psi
Pumping Rate of 5
strokes per minute
Stroke Length of 144
inches

Conclusions from Theoretical Formula

z
z
z
z

Pumping Rate has small effect on slippage

Eccentricity as a large effect on slippage
Ratio of eccentric to concentric slippage is not
2.5 for all pump clearances
ARCO-Harbison Fisher Equation agrees with
new equation up to a Plunger Clearance of
0.005 inches