SPE 99912
Optimum Selection of Artificial Lift System for Iranian Heavy Oil Fields
A. Taheri and A. Hooshmand, SPE, HPOGC
Copyright 2006, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 SPE Western Regional/AAPG Pacific
Section/GSA Cordilleran Section Joint Meeting held in Anchorage, Alaska, U.S.A., 810 May 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than
300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Kuh-E-Mond as the first priority of heavy oil prospect in Iran
is located in southwest of Iran and 80 km southeastern of
Boushehr, one of the important Iranian ports in Persian Gulf
coasts.
Well MD-6 was spudded on September 19, 1984 for
confirmation of the heavy oil occurrence in Asmari-Jahrum
formation and Bangestan group in Kuh-E-Mond structure.
Black tarry oil with gravity of 13 API degree occurred in the
samples through most of the Sarvak limestone. Because there
were no development programs in this field, the well was
secured and the rig was released on May 5, 1985. The field
was put on the development program on early 1999. The well
MD-6 was opened and the static oil level in the well was 400
m below surface.
Clearly, some sort of artificial lift was needed in order to flow
the well and restore the production rate to the normal levels
and to maximize the ultimate recovery.
The decision of which artificial lift method to use is very
important to the long-term profitability of the field. An
improper selection of artificial lift can reduce production and
increase the operating cost substantially. Once a decision has
been made on the type to install on a well, it can be rarely
altered whether or not the method selected was and still is the
optimal for the existing conditions.
This paper presents the screening criteria on the different
artificial lift techniques and discusses why the choice were
confined to PCP as the most suitable techniques to be applied
in this well. The paper studies the technical consideration
behind each method of artificial lift for this well (Beam Pump,
ESP, PCP, Gas Lift and Hydraulic Lift) and the technical
discussions for selecting PCP.
Introduction
Development phase of Kuh-E-Mond field was started from
early 1999. Well MD-6 was nominated to be completed by an
artificial lift method to flow the well and evaluate the reservoir
fluid behavior.
Due to the relatively low reservoir pressure and high oil
specific gravity, one kind of artificial lift was needed in order
to flow the well and restore the production rate to the normal
levels and to maximize the ultimate recovery.
In light of above considerations, a study has been conducted to
select suitable technique to be applied for the field in order to
optimize production and to maximize field recovery.
Reservoir Description
Kuh-E-Mond structure is a large northwest-southeast trending
anticline of 900 km long and 16 km wide, lying along Persian
Gulf.(Figure 1) The structure is relatively asymmetrical
anticline in which the axial plan was cut by numerous faults
and causes some displacements in the central part and around
the plunges of the structure. The flanks of anticline have
gentle dips; in a way that the average dips of southwest and
northeast flanks are 17o and 15o, respectively. General
speaking, this anticline follows the same structural trend of
other south-western Iranian structures and its configuration
has been affected by Hormoz Series movements (Infra
Cambrian to recent).
This field has 7 wells that only one of them (MD-6) that is
completed in Sarvak formation is the purpose of this study.
(The other 6 well were drilled to the target of gas production
from lower reservoirs and due to the very high sulfur content
of the reservoir, all of them were abandoned).
This well (MD-6) was spudded on September 19, 1984 in
order to configure the occurrence of heavy oil in Asmari-
Jahrum formation and Bangestan group in Kuh-E-Mond
structure. While circulating mud after acidizing around fish at
the depth of 578 mdd in Jahrum formation, a noticeable
amount of oil with 32 API gravity flowed to surface. The mud
circulation was contaminated by heavy oil at the depth of 1111
m in Laffan Shale member of Bangestan group. Black tarry oil
occurred in the samples through most of the sarvak limestone.
An interval of 20 meters in the middle part of Sarvak was
highly oil stained. The oil of Sarvak formation flowed to the
borehole from 1113 m built up to 788 m ( about 325 m of oil
column) when the drilling operations were quit for 35 hours.
The remaining interval of Sarvak formation drilled without
coring. The well was secured and the rig was released on May
5, 1985.
Table 1 shows the top formation depth was seen in this drilling
operation.
Selection of the Suitable Artificial Lift Method
Because there were no development programs in this field, the
2 SPE 99912
existing data are very weak. For example there are no
reservoir rock properties, and the reservoir fluids properties
are not accurate. So there are some uncertainties in using these
data. Also some required data like oil formation volume factor
was estimated. But it was tried that the using data were close
to real values. The used data in this study is presented in Table
2. These data are prepared from previous studies and some of
them were calculated or estimated.
Natural Flow Well Condition
The main reason of using artificial lift methods is better
production of oil. In heavy oil fields like Kuh-E-Mond, there
is no production in the well (MD-6). This is because of low
reservoir pressure and high oil specific gravity. Figure 2 is the
representative of IPR and OPR curves for well MD-6 in
natural flow conditions. It is clear that with these conditions,
there is no stable intersection between two curves, so there is
no oil production. As a result, some sort of artificial lift is
needed.
Beam (Rod) Pump Design
The suggested Pump Plunger Size will be 1 3/4 in. or 1 1/2 in.
based on fluid production of 200 bbl/d and 700 m net lift of
fluid. The various effective plunger stroke and pumping speed
is calculated. The relative design that can be applied for this
well is tabulated in Table 3.
With the above designs, the 200 bbl/d production rate and
minimum of 900 m oil lifting can be gained. Also various
sucker rods exists for this purpose that based on the torsion
and tension parameters and also economic criteria, the best
design can be presented. However it must be noted that this
method of artificial lift has high risk for these well conditions.
Because the previous studies show that this method of
artificial lift has some failures against present conditions
(especially in their valves) and some modification is necessary
for using it.
Electrical Submersible Pump (ESP) Design
Figure 3 shows the performance curve of the best pump that
can be selected for artificial lift of well MD-6. It is appeared
that the selected pump can be useful for these well conditions,
but based on previous experiences, using them has a high risk.
Figure 4 is the representative of IPR and OPR curves in a
diagram. It is clear that with these conditions; about 250 bbl/d
can be gained. But because of no safe intersection point of IPR
and OPR curve, these conditions are not stable and some
failures can be created.
Because there are some uncertainty in given data, we do some
sensitivity analysis with two important parameters like
reservoir pressure and GOR. Figure 5 shows the result of
sensitivity analysis with reservoir pressures of 1435 psig, 1485
psig and 1535 psig. Also, Figure 6 shows the result of
sensitivity analysis with GOR of 50, 75 and 100. Both of them
show that the intersection point of IPR and OPR curves is in
unstable zone.
Finally, this method of artificial lift can not be used for the
proposed conditions, because of no safe intersection point of
IPR and OPR curves and also high risk and failure in using
ESP in heavy crude recovery in other fields. Also it must be
noted that ESP usually is used for high flow rate, and 200-250
bbl/d is not economical for this system of artificial lift.
Gas Lift Design
Gas lift is one of the main methods of artificial lift in the entire
world. This method is a usual one in Iran because of the
existence of gas but this method can not be useful for heavy
oil recovery with comparing by other artificial lift methods
like PCP. This is because of the low mixing of gas in heavy
oil. Also it must be noticed that shortage of gas sources around
this well caused not using of this method in this wells. But a
fundamental Gas Lift design will be presented here. This
design was done for 250 bbl/d oil production and 100 psia
well head pressure. Figure 7 is the representative of IPR and
OPR curves in a diagram. It is clear that with these conditions;
about 250 bbl/d can be gained. But because of high slope of
OPR curve and also various changes in its direction, the
intersection point of IPR and OPR curve is not stable and can
create some failure. Figure 8 shows the result of sensitivity
analysis with reservoir pressures of 1435 psig, 1485 psig and
1535 psig. Figure 9 shows the result of sensitivity analysis
with GOR of 50, 75 and 100. Also Figure 10 shows the result
of sensitivity analysis with gas injection rates of 68 Mscf/d, 80
Mscf/d and 100 Mscf/d.
Finally it can be resulted that this method of artificial lift can
not be used for this well, and the main reason except than the
technical reasons is the shortage of gas sources around this
well.
Progressive Cavity Pump (PCP) Design
Based on previous studies and some case studies that were
reviewed previously, the possibility of using this method of
artificial lift for this field and this well is very high.
Based on the existing data the suitable pump model is
Weatherford BMW 350-4100. Because this method of
artificial lift is the most practical one, the design consists of
pump design following by well completion design.
The Progressive Cavity Pump Will latches to the end of 3.5 in
tubing were seat in 7, 29 lb/ft liner at the depth of 1050 m.
The zone from 1130 m to 1450 m below the 7" Liner is open
hole and in going to be cleaned and re-drilled before
completion job. Currently there is a 2 in Tubing, 6.5 lb/ft,
XN seats at 747.36 m in the well.
For the new completion design the Tubing has to be replaced
by an API 3 in 9.30 lbs/ft tubing from surface to the 1041
mKB. The tubing size is calculated for the best well
performance. Current well head is safe. The drive head and
BOP (for PCP Running) will seat instead of well cap in the
current Well Head diagram and no Penetrator is required. The
tubing hanger and tubing head spool have to be changed for
3 in tubing. The wellbore completion diagram is illustrated
in Figure 11. Figures 12 to 14 will show different pump
analysis for the selected pump. Also various information about
PCP design is tabulated in Tables 4 and 5.
Jet Pump Design
In the literature it is noted that jet pumps are one of the
artificial lift methods that can be used for foil recovery of high
specific gravity fluids. So the pump recommended for this
purpose is Weatherford Nitrile Element and Down Hole Jet
Pump Nozzle/Throat combination 12E and 3 1/2in. 9.3 PPF
SPE 99912
EU "EXD" (BXP) circulating sleeve (SSD), Profile: WX2.75
in compatible w/ OTIS.
But because of the low reservoir pressure, the using of this
method of artificial lift has no benefit for more oil recovery.
Conclusions
The simulation model was used to predict the performance of
the field on various artificial lift systems.
1. Beam (Rod) Pump has high risk for these well
conditions and some failures can be seem in these
conditions.
2. ESP can not be used for the proposed conditions,
because of no safe intersection point of IPR and OPR
curves and also high risk and failure in using ESP in
heavy crude recovery in other fields.
3. Gas lift can not be used for this well, and the main
reason except than the technical reasons is the
shortage of gas sources around this well.
4. Because of high oil specific gravity and low reservoir
pressure, PCP is the most suitable technique to be
applied in this field. This selection is based on
production science laws, economic laws and
environmental laws.
5. Jet pump method is none of the artificial lift methods
that can be used for heavy oil recovery. But because
of low reservoir pressure, it is not a suitable candid
for well MD-6.
Achnowledgement
The authors wish to acknowledge HPOGC (Iran) and its
manager K. Samimi for granting permission to present and
publish this paper. Also the technical support of D. Koohkahni
is appreciating.
References
1. Brown, K.E.: "The technology of artificial lift methods",
Petroleum publishing co., Tulsa, Ok (1980), Volumes 2a,
2b, 3a, 3b and 4.
2. Guirados, C., Sandovrd, J., Rivas, O. and Troconis, H.:
"Production Optimization of Sucker Rod Pumping Wells
Producing Viscous Oil in Boscan Field, Venezuela," paper
SPE 29536 presented at the 1995 SPE Production
Operation symposium, Oklahama, 2-4 April.
3. Guirados, C. D., Jose, M. and Jose., L.: "NodalBo: A
Unique Program for Optimum Production of Sucker Rod
Pumping Oil Wells," paper SPE 30183 presented at the
1995 Petroleum Computer Conference, Houston, Texas,
11-14 June.
4. Masahiro Miwa, Yutaka Yamada and Osamu Kobayashi:
"ESP Performance in Mubarraz Field," paper SPE 87257
presented at the 2000 Abu Dhabi Interntional Petroelum
Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates, 13-15 October.
5. Naguib, M., Iraki, H., Wilson, M. and Hussein, A.:
"Successful Application of ESP's in a Very Corrosive
Environment, Gulf of Suez Area, Egypt (Case Study),"
paper SPE 77934 presented at the 2002 SPE Asia Pacific
Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Melbourne,
Australia, 8-10 October.
6. Mazin Zain Al Abdin: "Analysis of Gas Lift Installation
Problems," paper SPE 87278 presented at the 2000 Abu
3
Dhabi Interntional Petroelum Exhibition and Conference,
Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 13-15 October.
7. Chia, Y.C. and Hussain, S.: "Gas Lift Optimization Efforts
and Challenges," paper SPE 57313 presented at the 1999
SPE Asia Pacific Improved Oil Recovery Conference,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 25-26 October.
8. Buitrago, S., Rodriguez, E. and Espin, D.: "Global
Optimization Techniques in Gas Allocation for Continuous
Flow Gas Lift Systems," paper SPE 35616 presented at the
1996 SPE Gas Technology Symposium, Calgary, Alberta,
Canada, 28 April-1 May.
9. Zhiqi. Zhou, Chen. Hu, Kaili. Song, Xinhua. Li, Guangqi.
Gao, Juanhua. Yang, chunyu. Fan and Hui. Feng,
"Hydraulic Pumping Units for Offshore Platform," paper
SPE 64507 presented at the 2000 SPE Asia Pacific Oil and
Gas Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane, Australia, 16-18
October.
10. De Ghetto, Giambattista and Giunta, Paolo: "Jet Pump
Testing in Italian Heavy Oils," paper SPE 27595 presented
at the 1994 European Production Operations Conference
and Exhibition, Aberdeen, United Kingdom, 15-17 March.
11. Saveth, K.J., Klein, S.T. and Fisher, K.B.: "A Comparative
Analysis of Efficiency and Horsepower between
Progressing Cavity Pumps and Plunger Pumps," paper SPE
16194 presented at the 1987 SPE Production Operations
Symposium, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 8-10 March.
12. Klein, S. T.: "Development of Composite Progressing
Cavity Pumps," paper SPE 78705 presented at the 2002
SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Lexington, Kentucky, 23-
26 October.
13. Klein, S.T., Thrasher, W.B., Mena, L., Quijada, E. and
Brunings, C.: "Well Optimization Package for Progressive
Cavity Pumping Systems," paper SPE 52162 presented at
the 1999 SPE Mid-Continent Operations Symposium,
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, 28-31 March.
14. Samuel, G. R. and Saveth, K.: "Progressing Cavity Pump
(PCP): New Performance Equations for Optimal Design,"
paper SPE 39786 presented at the 1998 SPE Permian Basin
Oil and Gas Recovery Conference, Midland, Texas, 23-26
March.
Table 1: Formation Depth in Well MD-6
Formation Top Depth (m)
Gachsaran Surface
Asmari 303
Jahrum 334
Pabdeh 776
Gurpi 812
Ilam 990
Lafan 1095
Sarvak 1113
Kazhdumi 1437
4 SPE 99912

Table 2: Used Data in Artificial lift Design of Kuh-E-Mond, MD-6 Well

Field Name Kuh-E-Mond

Reservoir Name Sarvak
Well Name MD-6
Location Boushehr
Reservoir Depth (ft) 3651 (Top), 7514 (Bottom)
Maximum Reservoir Temperature (F) 160-170
Minimum Reservoir Temperature (F) 120
Maximum Reservoir Pressure (psig @datum) 1535
Depth of Well (ft) 4578
Bottom Hole Temperature (F) 110
Bottom Hole Static Pressure (psig) 1408 @ 3671 ft
Static Oil Level (ft below surface) 1312
Dynamic Oil Level (ft below surface) 2297
Oil Specific Gravity (60F/60F) 0.9792
Water Specific Gravity (60F/60F) 1
Gas Specific Gravity (60F/60F) 0.7
Sand Specific Gravity (60F/60F) 2.65
API 13
Oil Viscosity (cp @F)) 2680 @130 , 15763 @100F , 114540 @70F
*
OFVF (@psig) 1.05 @ 915 psig , 1.03@1535
**
Bubble Point Pressure (psig) 915
Bottom Hole Producing Pressure (psig) 1500 for 200 BFPD (calculated)
Present Production (BPD) 0
Required Production (BPD) 200-250
Required Well Head Pressure (psig) 100
Water Cut (%) 20
Sand Cut (%) 0
GOR (scf/STB) 100
Casing Properties 9 5/8 in., L80, 43.5lb/ft, High Drill Super EU
Liner Properties 7 in., C75, 29 lb/ft, Buttress

Tubing Properties (Present) 2 7/8 in., C75, 6.5 lb/ft, EUE

*: This value is calculated based on some assumptions and using correlations
**: This value is calculated by using correlations.
SPE 99912 5

Table 3: Beam pump Design for Well MD-6

Stroke Plunger Pump

Design
Length Size Speed
No.
(in) (in) (rpm)
1 56 1 3/4 13
2 56 1 1/2 18
3 64 1 3/4 11
4 64 1 1/2 15
5 240 1 3/4 3
6 240 1 1/2 4

Table 4: PCP Design Operating Conditions

Operating Conditions
Fluid Rate 350.0 bbls/D
Pump Volumetric Efficiency 80%
Pump Speed 150 RPM
Fluid Level 2500 ftKB
Bottomhole Pressure 635 psi
Tubing Head Pressure 100 psi
Casing Head Pressure 0 psi
Bottomhole Temperature 140F
Temperature Gradient 0.00F/100ft

Table 5: PCP Design Output Parameters

Summary Output Parameters

Pump Intake Pressure 346.12 psi
Pump Discharge Pressure 2339.07 psi
Hydrostatic Head 1041.4 psi
Flow Losses 851.60 psi
Pump Pressure Loading 110.68%
Max. Rod Torque 788 ft-lbs
Max. Axial Rod Load 19.9 kips
Max. Effective Rod Stress 102.5%@ 0 ftKB
Max. Elastic Design Factor 1.03
Max. Deformation Design Factor 0.80
Connection 0.0 lbf@ 3416 ftKB
System Input Power 29.2 hp
Prime Mover Output Power 26.3 hp
System Mechanical/Electrical 61.3%
System Overall 49.0%
Pump Intake Pressure 346.12 psi
6 SPE 99912

Figure 1: Kuh-E-Mond Field Location Map

Figure 2: The IPR and OPR Curves in Natural Flow Conditions

SPE 99912 7

Figure 3: The Curve of the Best Selected Pump

Figure 4: The IPR and OPR Curves

8 SPE 99912

Figure 5: The Sensitivity Analysis with Reservoir Pressure

Figure 6: The Sensitivity Analysis with GOR

SPE 99912 9

Figure 7: The IPR and OPR Curves

Figure 8: The Sensitivity Analysis with Reservoir Pressure

10 SPE 99912

Figure 9: The Sensitivity Analysis with GOR

Figure 10: The Sensitivity Analysis with Gas Injection Rate

SPE 99912 11

Figure 11: Wellbore Completion Diagram

12 SPE 99912

Figure 12: Shaft Power vs. Differential Pressure

Figure 13: Nominal Fluid Rate vs. Pump Speed

Figure 14: Torque vs. Differential Pressure