Large-Scale Experimental Investigation of ESP Performance

With High Viscosity Fluids and Gas

Lissett Barrios, Charles Deuel, David Knowles, Sandeep Patni and Stuart Scott, Shell E&P;
Ketan Sheth, SPE, Baker Hughes
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2011 Society of Petroleum Engineers Gulf Coast Section Electric Submersible Pump Workshop held in The Woodlands, Texas
April 25-29 2011.
This paper was selected for presentation by the ESP Workshop Panels (Rotating and
Permanent) following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the
author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the ESP
Workshop Panels and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the ESP Workshop or its panel members. The author(s) retain copyright to this paper and have given permission to the ESP
Workshop to publish it in proceedings (electronic and hardcopy). Any other electronic
reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes
without the written consent of the author(s) is prohibited.

Abstract
The paper reports on developmental research on the
effects of viscosity and two phases, liquid gas flow on
Electrical Submersible Pumping (ESP) which are multistage centrifugal pumps for high rate and high boost applications.
Multiphase viscous performance of a full-scale electrical submersible pumping (ESP) system at Shells Gasmer facility has been studied experimentally. The objective of this study is to predict the operational conditions
that cause degradation and gas lock for light and high
viscosity fluids to support ESP operation in Shell International E&P Inc (Shell) Deepwater major Projects BC-10
and Perdido. The ESP systems studied used a 1025 series
tandem WJE 1000 mixed flow type pump. The test facility work was performed using pumps with 32 stages moving fluids with viscosity from 2 to 450 cP at various
speed, intake pressure and gas void fractions (GVF, aka
gas volume fractions). ). Additional tests with 4 stage
WJE1200 were conducted at the Centrilift facility in Claremore using single phase viscous fluid.
The ESP system is an important artificial lift method
commonly used for medium to high flow rate wells. Multiphase flow and viscous fluids cause problems in pump
applications. Free gas inside an ESP causes many operational problems. Under two-phase flow conditions, loss of
pump performance or gas lock condition can be observed.
Under viscous fluids, the pump performance degrades as
well.
No work has been carried out on ESP performance in
viscous fluid for multiphase flow. The testing at Shells
Gasmer facility revealed that the ESP system is robust
and performance tracked theoretical predictions over a
wide range of flow rates and light viscosity oils
The main technical contributions of this study are the
data collection and analysis of pump head degradation
under two important variables, high viscosity and twophase flow inside the ESP.

Background
Shell is the operator in two major projects where
there has been significant advancements in deepwater
subsea boosting technology, operations, and surveillance:
Perdido in the Gulf of Mexico (on stream since March
2010) and BC-10 offshore Brazil (on stream since July
2009). These novel projects continue the long tradition of
Shells leadership in the challenging deepwater environment by development and application of a novel seafloor
boosting system [1].
Electrical submersible pumps (ESP) were selected as
the subsea boosting system used by both the Perdido and
BC-10 assets for increased ultimate recovery and higher
production rates. The subsea boosting system is located in
a seafloor caisson. the caissons inside are used to collect
production fluids from the manifolded subsea wells. Extensive testing and qualification of the subsea boosting
system was undertaken prior to final configuration selection including construction of the worlds only 1500-hp
ESP test facility capable of controlling multi-phase fluid
viscosities and temperatures in Shell Gasmer Prototype
test facility in Houston [1].
Pump performance degrades due to friction losses resulting from the fluid viscosity. As the viscosity increases,
the maximum flow capacity of the pump is reduced and
the required brake horsepower (BHP) increases. Furthermore, multiphase flow causes several problems in pump
application in gassy oil fields. Most critical behavior under two-phase flow is pump gas locking which is related
to a potential unstable conditions where ESP system can
be damaged and/or even cause a system failure.
To mitigate the risks further, Shell performed fullscale tests of caisson ESP systems to validate the performance of the ESP components over the range of fluids
viscosity, GVF and flow rates expected in the field. These
tests were conducted at a land-based facility rather than
offshore to reduce costs and minimize delays due to logistics. A full-scale ESP system and test loop were constructed in 2006 at Shells Gasmer Facility to test subsea
boosting technologies.
A comprehensive test plan was implemented and performance tests had been carried out for these systems.
This paper considers configuration G and H testing
and analysis only. Test results of the configuration A to
C were discussed by Gilyard [1].
Details of the ESP equipment used for the testing, is
given in table 1. The ESP system included a 1025 series
tandem, 32 stage, WJE 1000 pump. This ESP system
used 875 series tandem seals, a single 2000 hp variable
speed drive (VSD) and a 1500 tandem hp motor. A

Lissett Barrios, Charles Deuel, David Knowles, Sandeep Patni, Stuart Scott and Ketan Sheth

shroud was used to ensure that fluids are directed past the
motor to ensure adequate cooling of the motor.
ESP was tested for various parameters including, inlet
pressure, viscosity, speed, flow rate, % GVF and its effect
on the ESP performance and reliability. Testing provided
guidelines for the field operations. Various test parameter
envelope is given in table 2. Three different oils were
used for viscosities varying from 1 to 450 cP. For safety
considerations the injected gas was restricted to nitrogen.
The primary test objectives were to:
Validate hydraulic performance maps of the caisson
ESP systems
Establish ESP system performance curves (flow rate,
head, speed curves) over a wide range of GVFs and
viscosities
Determine ESP performance at high GVF and predict
gas locking and/or instable behavior

System Schematic
The test facility consisted of the caisson ESP system and
the supporting surface facilities. The caisson ESP system
consisted of:
A 300-foot deep cased hole, 45-inch ID
A 300-foot caisson vessel, 36-inch OD suspended in
the cased hole
One of a number of configurations of ESP suspended
inside the caisson from its top tubing hanger
Power and instrument cables running to and from the
ESP, including medium-voltage, subsea electrical
power connectors
Instruments connected to the ESP and to the production tubing to measure pressure, temperature, flow,
level and vibration at various locations within the
caisson
A control system for operating the ESP through its
variable-frequency drive
Variable-frequency drives to power the ESP(s)
Test loop schematic is shown in Fig 1. It uses pneumatic and motorized flow control, Coriolis flow metering,
and variable speed drive control. The system is charged
with either a low, medium or high viscosity oil depending
on the test requirements. Fluid viscosity delivered to the
caisson from the supply vessel ranged from 2-450 cP and
was controlled by a heat exchanged located downstream
of the supply vessel.
Coriolis flow meters ELITE series, with +/-0.05%
mass and volume flow accuracy; +/-.35% gas flow accuracy; +/-0.0002g/cc density accuracy were used to measure incoming liquid to the caisson and multiphase fluid
from the ESP discharge. Pressure and temperature transmitters used were located at the pump intake and discharge to measure pump total differential pressure. Horse
power was calculated from motor KW and efficiency and
RPM were measured from variable speed drive control
unit.
Once a targeted single phase (liquid) flow rate, intake
pressure, RPM, temperature etc. at the test pump is estab-

lished and stable for a period of time, gas is injected into

the liquid near the intake of the pump at a specified flow
rate. Numerous tests were performed varying pressures
and temperatures, flow, rpm, and torque. Data was recorded using automated data collection system. The data
was then analyzed and corrected for speed.
There is a difference between average data and instantaneous data performance. Average data can be repeated
as these are independent of the test system and is used for
drawing trends and analysis. While instantaneous data
includes flow loop effects and may not be repeatable and
therefore, generally not used for the trending and analysis.
However, some data in this analysis are instantaneous
data for showing the awareness of possible trends.
Fig. 2 shows a photograph of the experimental facility. This facility is a fully instrumented state-of-the-art
flow loop, capable of testing the ESP multistage prototype
performance. The experimental setup consists of two major sections: Well flow and receiving section and the subsea section..
Well Flow and Receiving Section.
The fluid generation and receiving section simulates
well flow to the caisson and receives the processed fluids
from the caisson. The inlet section to the caisson is instrumented to monitor and control the fluids entering the
caisson for both gas and liquid. Downstream of the caisson is instrumented to simulate the backpressure the subsea system might encounter from a riser and measure the
separation performance of the caisson.. Flow to the caisson is controlled with a flow control valve and differential
pressure is used to push the fluids to the caisson. The
liquid is carried through an 8 inch pipe from the Supply
vessel, reducing to a 4 inch Coriolis flow meter which
provides the liquid flow rate measurements. At this point
in the mixing station, gas may be blended to the oil flow
from the N2 compressor. A 6 V-cone flow meter for
high flow rate or a 2 turbine meter for lower flow rates is
used to measure gas flow. A flow control valve is used to
control the gas to be blended with the oil flow. After the
liquid and the gas are mixed in the intake line, the twophase mixture is delivered to the subsea section..
System Capacity.
The facility is designed for testing of a wide variety of
test conditions and equipment configurations. These conditions are:
Oil flowrates 10,000 30,000 B/D
Oil viscosity - 1.0 900 cP
Gas flowrates - 0.5 55 mmscf/D
Operating pressure 500 1,000 psia
Operating temperature - 70 150 F
Subsea Equipment Section The subsea equipment section is used to mimic the
functionality of equipment that was to be installed at Perdido and BC-10. The caisson set-up accommodates the
ESP assembly in the vertical position. A variable speed
drive is located close to the system to control the opera-

2011 ESP Workshop

Large-Scale Experimental Investigation of ESP Performance With High Viscosity Fluids and Gas

tion of the motor which allows the rotation of the motor in

any direction and at any speed.

Testing
The main objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of the pump under two-phase conditions and
viscous fluids. Therefore, the working fluids selected
were mineral oil for the liquid phase and nitrogen for the
gas phase. The viscosity of the oil is shown in table 3.
To investigate the behavior of gas/oil mixture viscous
flow inside the ESP, pump performance is determined as
a function of liquid and gas flow rates, inlet pressure, outlet pressure, and physical properties of the fluid.
Test Results/Data Analysis
Single Phase Viscous Flow.
WJE 1200 4 stage pump was tested in water at 3500
rpm (60 Hz) speed. Viscosity correction factors for the
pump were developed by testing at two speed 2625 and
3500 rpm, up to 2500 cP, in the R&D viscous test loop of
pump plant in Claremore, OK. The pump performance
curves for the head and BHP at 2625 rpm, up to 2500 cP
is shown in the Figs. 3 and 4. The ESP pumps were also
tested in Gasmer test facility to verify the viscous pump
performance. Pump overperformed at the very low viscosities on the head flow performance. This is due to higher
reduction in leakage losses than the increase in viscous
losses. Overall, viscous performance did match with the
previous testing. As viscosity increases, the head flow
performance deteriorates and BHP performance increases,
resulting lower efficiency and reduced performance.
Two Phase Viscous Flow.
Effect of Speed.
In viscous applications, affinity laws for speed
changes to the pump performance are not accurate and
hence cannot be directly applied. [2]. As speed increases,
(a) The Reynolds number increases and the friction factors move from laminar to transition to turbulent region,
resulting in lower friction and smaller flow correction
factors; (b) Mixing losses at the impeller and diffuser inlet
and exit are often considered as little dependent on the
Reynolds Number; (c) Disk friction losses grow with decreasing Reynolds Number or increasing viscosity; and
(d) mechanical losses are essentially independent from the
viscosity of the fluid pumped; (e) head increases with the
square of the speed; (f) friction losses increases by the
power of 2.5, and not cubic ration of the speed. Because
of the above reasons, at constant viscosity, BHP does not
increase by cubic ration of the speed. This fact is also
supported by the increase in the efficiency of the pump
with the increase in the operating speed at constant viscosity [3, 4].
Effect of GVF.
Addition of gas has considerable effect on the pump
performance, depending upon the viscosity of the fluid.
Fig 5 shows the two-phase pump performance at 50 Hz
for light oil (2 to 6 cP) and 500 psia pump intake pressure

for instantaneous GVF up to 46%. The pump behaves as

homogeneous flow up to 30% GVF, following the manufacture curves, there was no effect of gas on the pump
performance. Head flow pump performance was even
better at higher flow rates than the water performance.
The reason for this may be that at higher flow rates, higher flow velocities carried the bubbles easily and further
reduction of friction losses due to increase in the Reynolds number. At GVF higher than 30%, the pump started
experiencing head degradation, and at GVF higher than
40%, severe head degradation was observed. Fig. 6 shows
the effect of reduction of BHP in direct proportion to the
density of the mixture due to addition of gas.
Fig. 7 shows the two-phase pump performance at 50
Hz for heavier oil at 180 cP and 500 psia pump intake
pressure for GVF up to 55% . Similar results were observed, as GVF increases, pump experiences higher degradation. Up to 20-22% GVF, the pump behaves as homogeneous flow following the manufacturer curves. At
GVF higher than 22%, the pump started having head degradation. Severe head degradation was observed at GVF
of 35%. Higher gas effect was observed at higher viscosity. Head flow pump performance is affected by the lower
percentage of GVF approximately 20%. Performance
decreases as GVF increases, showing effect of two phase
losses.
Knowing the oil and gas properties and laboratory
testing of how they react with each other is very important
to better understand the performance of the two phase
flow behavior.
Effect of viscosity.
Head flow performance at various GVFs are shown
in Fig. 8 for 500 psia intake pressure at 2 cP and 180 cP
liquid viscosity and up to 44% GVF at the pump intake.
Performance decreases as GVF increases, showing the
impact of two phase losses as stated before. Comparison
of all % GVF data for 1 cP and 180 cP, shows the effect
of viscosity and reduction of performance as viscosity
increases while in two-phase flow conditions. As viscosity increases, the performance in two-phase deteriorates.
Higher the GVF, higher the degradation as viscosity increases.
Based on the above comparisons, the effect of gas is
more prominent than the effect of the viscosity. There are
two scenarios: (A) Oil and gas are miscible. In this case,
as pressure increases, part of the gas goes into oil and
reduces the effective viscosity of the fluid and mixture.
(B) Oil and gas creates emulsion. This situation will increase the effective viscosity of the mixture and performance will further deteriorate.
Effect of inlet pressure on two phase flow.
Figs. 9 to 13 show the effect of pressure on the two
phase flow performance of the pump for light and heavy
oil.
For light oil at 2 cP, the pump intake pressure has no
effect on performance up to 18% GVF, and small effect
for GVF up to 47% as shown in Figs. 9 and 10. The effect of intake pressure is clearly visible for heavy oil as

Lissett Barrios, Charles Deuel, David Knowles, Sandeep Patni, Stuart Scott and Ketan Sheth

shown in Figs. 11 and 12, since performance improves

with the increase in the intake pressure. Dash lines
representing higher intake pressure showing improved
head flow performance across the operating range. Additionally, deterioration of the performance at the lower
flow rates decreases with the increase in the intake pressure. Higher intake pressure may also improve stable
operation at the lower flow rates.
Effect of the intake pressure is more pronounced for
heavy oil than the light oil fluid as well. Fig. 13 shows the
effect of reduction of BHP in proportion to the intake
pressure and the density of the mixture due to addition of
gas.
Performance Summary
Two phase flow guidelines developed for the
WJE1000 pump performance are concluded in Tables 4
and 5. Table 4 shows the minimum GVF handling capabilities at various intake pressures and viscosities. Minimum stable operation limits for various intake pressure
and viscosities are given in Table 5. There are four major
trends
1. Effect of pressure at three different viscosities,
referring Table 4, (move horizontally using
constant viscosity and minimum % GVF) at
constant viscosity, minimum %GVF handling
capacity of the pump increases as intake pressure
increases. Also due to increase in viscosity, from
2 to 100 to 225 cP viscosities, gas handling capabilities of the pump increases.
2. Effect of viscosities at three different intake
pressure, referring Table 4, (move vertically
using constant pressure and minimum GVF) at
constant intake pressure, minimum GVF handling capacity of the pump increases with increase in viscosity. Also due to increase intake
pressure from 290 to 550 to 900 psi, gas handling capabilities of the pump increases.
3. Maximum GVF at minimum flow rate, referring
Table 5, (limit on the left hand side of the operation) - (move horizontally, constant viscosity and
increasing intake pressure) at constant viscosity, stable operation of minimum flow limits and
%GVF handling capabilities is further expanded
to the lower flow rates (indicating higher stable
operation at lower flow rates) as pressure increases.
4. Maximum GVF at minimum flow rate, referring
Table 5, (limit on the left hand side of the operation) - (move vertically, constant intake pressure
and increasing viscosity) at constant intake
pressure, stable operation of minimum flow limits and GVF handling capabilities is further expanded to the lower flow rates (indicating higher
stable operation at lower flow rates) as viscosity
increases.

Conclusions
Pump manufacturer need to supply guidelines for
predicting performance of multistage pump in
viscous and two phase flow conditions.
Stage by stage performance calculation of multistage pump is recommended for viscous multiphase flow applications. Viscosity and gas volume should be calculated from first stage as a
one stage pump, corrected by pressure and temperature rise, and then should be used for second
stage and so on.
As intake pressure increases, gas behaves more
as liquid than as a gas and chances of gas going
back to solution increases, (a) lowering fluid viscosity if gas miscible in liquid or (b) if gas not
miscible, then mixture viscosity will increase by
creating emulsion.
An increase in GVF will decrease the BHP requirement of the pump due to reduction in the
mixture density. However, it may increase the
BHP requirement if it creates emulsion.
At constant viscosity, minimum % GVF handling capacity of the pump increases as intake
pressure increases. Also due to increase in viscosity, from 2 to 100 to 225 cP viscosities, gas
handling capabilities of the pump increases.
At constant intake pressure, minimum GVF handling capacity of the pump increases with increase in viscosity. Also due to increase in take
pressure from 290 to 550 to 900 psi, gas handling capabilities of the pump increases
At constant viscosity, stable operation of minimum flow limits and % GVF handling capabilities is further expanded to the lower flow rates
(indicating higher stable operation at lower flow
rates) as pressure increases.
At constant intake pressure, stable operation of
minimum flow limits and GVF handling capabilities is further expanded to the lower flow rates
(indicating higher stable operation at lower flow
rates) as viscosity increases.
Pumps should be run at the highest possible operating speed for viscous two phase flow conditions, considering thrust, NPSH, operating flow
range, efficiency and erosion.
Nomenclature
FAT = Factory acceptance test
BEP = Best efficiency point
BHP = Brake horsepower, hp
GVF = Instantaneous gas void fraction (gas volume /
total fluid volume)
cP = Centipoise, dynamic viscosity
cSt = Centistokes, kinematic viscosity
DP = Differential pressure across the pump
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Shell and Baker
Hughes for permission to publish this paper.

2011 ESP Workshop

Large-Scale Experimental Investigation of ESP Performance With High Viscosity Fluids and Gas

Centrilift is a trademark of Baker Hughes Incorporated.

References
1. Gilyard, D., Brookbank, E. B., The Development of Subsea
Boosting Capabilities for Deepwater Perdido and BC-10
Assets, SPE 13493, Oct 2010

2. Sheth, K.K., Crossley, A., Viscosity Correction Factors,

SPE Gulf Coast ESP Workshop, April-May 2009.
3. Stepanoff, A. J., Centrifugal and Axial Flow Pumps, 2nd
Edition, John Wiley & Sons, pp 307-318, 1957
4. Ippen, A. T., The Influence of Viscosity on Centrifugal
Pump Performance, Trans. A.S.M.E. , Vol. 68, No. 8, P
823, 1946

Figures

Table 1ESP Components in the Initial Configurations

Unit

Motor

Seal Chamber
Section

Configuration
G and H

1500 hp, 725

Series, 4160 Volt,
212 Amp, Tandem

Tandem 875 Series

With High Load Bearing.

Pump

Motor Jacket

32 Stage WJE1000 Tandem

Compression Pump with
Integral Intake and Discharge
Head

Yes, 100 foot 10.75inch OD 40.5 lb/ft J55 Casing

Table 2Configuration G and H Test Parameters

Minimum

Maximum

Total Discharge Flow Rate ( oil + Gas) BPD

7000 11000

35000 40000

Intake Pressure (psi)

250

1000

% GVF

10

60

Viscosity (Cp)

350

Speed (Hz)

50

70

Pump hp

300

1225

Motor Loading (%)

45 %

110 %

Amps

98

235

% Thrust Loading of seal bearing

150 %

Table 3Viscosity of Test Fluids

Viscosity - cP
Temperature

Light

Medium

Heavy

Degrees F

Conosol C 201

Hygold L201

AC 2501

70

2.8

110.2

1756.9

104

1.9

35.2

432.0

150

1.2

11.9

102.9

Table 4Effect of Viscosity and Intake Pressure on GVF Handling Capabilities

Lissett Barrios, Charles Deuel, David Knowles, Sandeep Patni, Stuart Scott and Ketan Sheth

Table 5Effect of Viscosity and Intake Pressure on Minimum Two Phase Flow Handling Capabilities

Blowdown to
Atmosphere
Discharge
Gas
Pressure Control
Compressor
Valve
Gas Cooler

M
Density
Meter
M

Vent Drum
Primary
Separator Balance
Line

Oil Cooler
Recirculation
Pump

Supply
Vessel

Flow
Control
Valve

Relief
M
Clamp-on GVF
Meter

Oil Supply Oil Supply

Pump
Tank
Legend
Oil
Gas
Multi-Phase

Electric
Heater

Choke

Flow
Development
Spool
Caisson
Separator
& Pump

Drain Line
Drain Line

Warm-up
Valve

Spec Break
600# 5000 psi

Gas Booster

Electric
Heater
Drain Line

Liquid Carryover
Separator

Flow
Control
Valve
M
M
Mix Point

Service Line
Recycle Valve
Drain Line

Caisson Separator / ESP Test

Non-Separated Flow Loop Diagram
Fig. 1Gasmer Test Facility.

ESP

Suction
Scrubber

Liquid
Carry-over
Meter
M

Motor

N2Supply

Vent to
Atmosphere

Subsea
Equipment

2011 ESP Workshop

Large-Scale Experimental Investigation of ESP Performance With High Viscosity Fluids and Gas

Fig. 2Photograph Of Test Facility.

WJE1200 Head Flow 45 hz

160

DP stage, psi/stg

140
120
100
80
`

60
40
20
0
0
2800 CP
670 cp
210 Cp

10000
2200 CP
535 Cp
155 cp

20000
30000
Total flow, bpd
1790 CP
445 Cp
129 Cp

1225 CP
410 Cp
107 Cp

995 CP
380 Cp
80 Cp

Fig. 3Viscous Head-Flow Pump Performance.

40000
835 Cp
313 Cp
49 Cp

50000
765 Cp
280 Cp
Water

Lissett Barrios, Charles Deuel, David Knowles, Sandeep Patni, Stuart Scott and Ketan Sheth

WJE1200 BHP Flow 45 hz

40
35
30

20
`

15
10
5
0
0

5000

10000 15000

2800 CP
670 cp
210 Cp

2200 CP
535 Cp
155 cp

20000 25000 30000 35000

Total flow, bpd

1790 CP
445 Cp
129 Cp

1225 CP
410 Cp
107 Cp

995 CP
380 Cp
80 Cp

40000

45000 50000

835 Cp
313 Cp
49 Cp

765 Cp
280 Cp
Water

Fig. 4Viscous BHP-Flow Pump Performance.

50 hz, Light Oil 2-6cp- 500 psia

2500
2000
Total DP , psi

BHP, Hp/stg

25

1500
1000
500
0
0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

Total Inlet flow (Oil+Gas), bpd

FAT- 2-6 cp
GVF= 19-22%
GVF=34-37%

GVF= 10-13%
GVF=25-27%
GVF=40-44%

GVF=14-18%
GVF= 30-32%
GVF=45-46%

Fig. 532 Stage WJE1000 Pump Performance 500 Psia Intake Pressure At 2-6 Cp And 50 Hz.

2011 ESP Workshop

Large-Scale Experimental Investigation of ESP Performance With High Viscosity Fluids and Gas

900 PSI, 50 Hz, 1 Cp

900

BHP (HP)

800

700

600

500

400
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

Total Inlet Flow (Oil + gas)

15% GVF

25% GVF

30% GVF

40% GVF

45% GVF

FAT Oil

Fig. 6Comparison Of Viscous Two Phase BHP - Flow Pump Performance For 32 Stage WJE1000 Pump At 500 Psi Intake Pressure,
50 Hz and 1 cP Oil (Light Oil).

50 HZ, Heavy Oil 180cp- 500 psia

Total DP , psi

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0

10000
20000
30000
Total Inlet flow (Oil+Gas), bpd
FAT- 180cp

GVF=22-24%

GVF=25-27%

GVF=36-38%

GVF=39-43%

GVF=50-55%

40000

Fig. 7 32 Stage WJE1000 Pump Two Phase Performance 500 Psia Intake Pressure At 180 Cp And 50 Hz.

10

Lissett Barrios, Charles Deuel, David Knowles, Sandeep Patni, Stuart Scott and Ketan Sheth

50Hz, 500 psia

1600
1400

Total DP , psi

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

10000
20000
30000
Total Inlet flow (Oil+Gas), bpd

40000

2 cp GVF=25-27%

2 cp GVF=34-37%

2 cp GVF=40-44%

180 cp GVF=25-27%

180 cp GVF=36-38%

180 cp GVF=39-43%

Fig. 8Comparison Of 32 Stage WJE1000 Pump Performance For 2 And 180 Cp At 500 Psia And 50 Hz.

50 Hz, Light Oil 2 -6 cP Intake Pressure Comparison

2500

2000

1500

1000
Total D P , psi

500

0
0

10000

20000

30000

40000

Total Inlet flow (Oil + Gas), bpd

FAT- 2-6 cP
GVF= 20 -22% 250 psia
GVF= 19 -22% 500 psia
GVF= 20 -24% 900 psia

GVF=15 -18% 250 psia

GVF=14 -18% 500 psia
GVF=15 -18% 900 psia

Fig. 9Comparison Of 32 Stage WJE1000 Pump Performance At 250, 500 And 900 Psia, 2 To 6 Cp And 50 Hz.

2011 ESP Workshop

Large-Scale Experimental Investigation of ESP Performance With High Viscosity Fluids and Gas

50 hz, Light Oil 2-6cp- Pressure Comparison

2500

Total DP , psi

2000
1500
1000
500
0
0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

Total Inlet flow (Oil+Gas), bpd

Manufacture Perf ormance- Light Oil
GVF=45-46% 500 psia
GVF=45-47% 900 psia

GVF=40-44% 500psia
GVF=40-43% 900 psia

Fig. 10Comparison of 32 Stage WJE1000 Pump Performance At Higher GVF At 500 And 900 Psia, 2-6 Cp And 50 Hz.

250 & 900 psia, 50 Hz, 80 Cp

2000

Total DP , psi

1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Total Inlet flow (Oil+Gas), bpd

15% GVF 900 PSI
15% GVF 250 psi
40% GVF 900 PSI
40 % GVF 250 PSI
FAT-80cp

23% GVF 900 PSI

25% GVF 250 PSI
45% GVF 900 PSI
45 % GVF 250 PSI

Fig. 11Comparison of 32 Stage WJE1000 Pump Performance At 250 And 900 Psia, 80 Cp And 50 Hz.

11

12

Lissett Barrios, Charles Deuel, David Knowles, Sandeep Patni, Stuart Scott and Ketan Sheth

50 Hz, Heavy Oil 180cp- Pressure Comparison

2500

Total DP , psi

2000
1500
1000
500
0
0

10000
20000
30000
Total Inlet flow (Oil+Gas), bpd
GVF=25-27% 250 psia
GVF=25-27% 500 psia
FAT- 180cp

40000

GVF=40-42% 250 psia

GVF=39-43% 500 psia

Fig. 12Comparison of 32 Stage WJE1000 Pump Performance At 250 And 500 Bar, 180 Cp And 50 Hz.

250, 500 & 950 PSI, 50 Hz, 180 Cp

800

BHP, Hp

750
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
0

10000

20000
30000
Total Inlet flow (Oil+Gas), bpd

40000

50000

250 PSI 30% GVF

250 PSI 35% GVF

500 PSI 40% GVF 260 CP

900 PSI 30% GVF

900 PSI 35% GVF

900 PSI 40% GVF 265 CP

Fig. 13Comparison Of 32 Stage WJE1000 Pump In Viscous Two Phase BHP - Flow Pump Performance At Various Intake Pressures, 50 Hz And 180 Cp Oil (Heavy Oil).