10th Annual Sucker Rod Renaissance Hotel Oklahoma City ... · PDF fileRenaissance Hotel Oklahoma City, Oklahoma September 16 - 19, ... Pump Dia Pump Length Unit Size Motor Tubing Casing

10th Annual Sucker Rod

Pumping Workshop Renaissance Hotel

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

September 16 - 19, 2014

Rod String Design Software Simulation of Sandia Downhole

Load Cell Wells by

Norman W. Hein, Jr., P.E. – Norris/AOT & DAL

Lynn Rowlan – Echometer

Scott Malone – Norris | DAL

Content

• Background & prior software simulation

comparison

• Sandia well & operating information

• Rod string software & results

• Comparison with actual loads

• Summary & Conclusions

Sept. 16-19, 2014 2 Sucker Rod Pumping Workshop; ©DAL/NWH

Background

“A Current Comparison of Sucker Rod String

Design Programs”

By

Norman W. Hein, Jr., P.E.

Oil & Gas Optimization Specialists, Ltd.

&

Russell Stevens,

Norris

Paper #7 - Presented at Southwestern Petroleum

Short Course (SWPSC) , April 21/22, 2004

Sept. 16-19, 2014 Sucker Rod Pumping Workshop; ©DAL/NWH 3

Purpose

• Compared “predictive” steel, “vertical”

rod string design results to actual

dynamometer cards using:

– Q Rod

– Rod Star

– S Rod

– Lufkin LoadCalB (API)

– Conoco Modified API (no sinker bars)


Fig. 5. Well #1 Accuracy Comparison

80.00%

90.00%

100.00%

110.00%

120.00%

Wrf

=SVL

(lb)

TVL

(lb)

PPR

L (lb)

MPRL

(lb)

Max

Rod

Stre

ss...

Accu

racy

Diff. A

Diff. B

Diff. C

Diff D

Diff. E


Fig. 8. Well #3b Accuracy Comparison

0.00%

50.00%

100.00%

150.00%

200.00%

250.00%

Wrf

=SVL (lb

)

TVL (lb

)

PPRL

(lb)

MPR

L (lb

)

Max

Rod

Stre

ss (p

si)

Ac

cu

rac

y

Diff. A

Diff. B

Diff. C

Diff. D

Diff. E


Results

• Comparison showed not all the required loads and non-

dimensional operating parameters that are required for

optimization and troubleshooting were provided by all

the programs

• Inaccuracies may be within 10 to 15% for simple string

• When sinker bars installed and comparison made,

inaccuracies may be from -40% to +25% of actual

measurements

• Maintained belief that programs cannot accurately

predict dynamic effects of sinker bars

• Some programs were changed over time plus new

capabilities of designing effect of well bore deviations

included

Sept. 16-19, 2014

Sucker Rod Pumping Workshop; ©DAL/NWH 7

Sandia well & operating data



Well No. Depth Casing Tubing Seat Nipple TAC Depth Rod No. Coupling Guides

PBD (ft) (in) (in) Depth (ft) (ft) & grade Size Installed 1 2780 5.5 2.875 2710 2647 66/C FS 2/rod

2 7799 7 2.875 7655 6168 1.25" FRP

to 4362';

1.0" D to

7564'

SHSM -

FRP; FSSM -

D

0

3 9270 5.5 2.875 9220 8968 87/D

w 408'

1.0" D SB

SHSM - 1";

FSSM 7/8"

0

4 3090 5.5 2.875 3061 3058 76/D

w 300'

1.25" SB

FS 0

5a 5278 5.5 2.875 5060 4970 86/D

w 250'

1.5" SB

SH - 1";

FS - rest

2/rod on

3/4"

5b 5278 5.5 2.875 5060 4970 86/D

w 250'

1.5" SB

SH - 1";

FS - rest

2/rod on

3/4"

6 2975 5.5 2.875 2909 2603 77/N-97

w 500'

1.5" SB

FSSM 0


Well No.

1

2

3

4

5a

5b

6

Pump

Dia Pump

Length Unit Size Motor Tubing Casing Produced

Fluid

(in) (Ft) (HP) Pressure

(psi) Press

(psi) G 1.5 12 228-213-86 20 60 0 0.995

1.5 30 M640-305-144 75 45 76 1.027

2.25 35 Rotoflex

1100-500-306

100 40 40 1.019

1.5 26 M640-305-168 40 20 0 1

2 24 M640-305-168 60 205 180 0.982

2 24 M640-305-168 60 205 180 0.982

2.25 24 456-305-144 72 43 vacuum 1.015


Well No.

1

2

3

4

5a

5b

6

N S Fluid Level Tool

(spm) (in) FAP (ft) Depths (ft) 11 86 2710 #1- below pump - Not Work (NW);

#2 - above pump @2689';

#3 - 2462' (in 3/4");

#4 - 1010' (in 3/4");

#5 - Below PR @2'

8.2 144 428' #1 - below pump;

#2 - above pump @7566';

#3 - 7489' (75' above pump) - NW;

#4 - 4362' (FG to Stl x);

#5 - 4285' (75' above x)

3.9 306 86 #1 - above pump 9229';

#2 - 9087' (in 1" SB);

#3 - 8785' (in 1" SB);

#4 - 7658' (SB to 7 x);

#5 - 7506' (in 7/8")

4.58 168 243 #1 - below pump;

#2 - above pump @3010';

#3 - 2708' (SB to 6 x);

#4 - 1006' (6 to 7 x);

#5 - below PR @2'

9.1 168 4767 #1 - below pump;

#2 - above pump @4993';

#3 - 4741' (SB to 7 x);

#4 - 4714' (25' above x);

#5 - below PR @2'

6.5 168 4767 #1 - below pump;

#2 - above pump @4993';

#3 - 4741' (SB to 6 x);

#4 - 3114' (6 to 7 x);

#5 - 1512 (7 to 8 x)

7.1 143.5 1054 #1 - below pump;

#2 - above pump @2860';

#3 - 2783' (in SB);

#4 - 2356' (SB to 7 x);

#5 - below PR @2'

Rod Design Software Evaluated


• Programs considered:

– QRod

– RodStar

– Srod

• Program defaults used

• Assumption for pump/plunger friction = -200 pounds

While some wells reported with guides, deviation surveys

not available so assumption all wells vertical

• Assumed friction coefficient = 0.2 no guides; 0.3 w/guides

• One program did not have the Rotoflex geometry in

analysis capabilities; so CW Conventional unit used

Sandia load translation using DHLC


Sept. 17 - 20, 2014 14

SANDIA Test AHC SSAU 4115 08/04/96 10:00 AM

From L. Rowlan:

“Update on Sandia Downhole Dynamometer Testing,”

SRL WS, OKC, 09/18/2014


Sept. 17 - 20, 2014 2014 Sucker Rod Pumping Workshop 16

Well 1


Well 2


Well 3


Well 4


Well 5A


Well 6

Summary – Programs’ versus actual load


Tabular Comparison – Well 1

Load Sandia Prog 1 % Prog 2 % Prog 3 %

PPRL 8815 8661 -1.7 8746 -0.7 8736 -0.9

MPRL 1979 1600 -19.1 1797 -9.2 2167 -0.9

MPL -58 -744 +138 0 1 -200 +245




PPRL 18.613 21,221 +14 20,484 +10.0 20,669 -+11.0

MPRL 5932 6074 +2.4 6224 +4.9 5547 -6.5

MPL +217 -2838 -1208 0 1 -200 -7.8




PPRL 39,972 52,459 +31.2 42,639 +10.6 40,799 +2.1

MPRL 16.148 21,457 +32.9 14,134 -11.5 14298 -11.5

MPL +230 -3367 -2710 0 1 -200 -13.2




PPRL 8,656 8.946 +3.3 10,280 +18.7 8,462 -2.2

MPRL 1,977 3,673 +85.8 2,201 +11.3 2,470 +24.9

MPL -93 -2,613 -2710 0 1 -200 +115


Tabular Comparison – Well 5A


PPRL 15,507 16,389 +5.68 15,701 +1.25 16.926 +9.1

MPRL 6651 7161 +7.7 7054 +6.1 6980 +4.9

MPL -34 -4403 -4502 0 1 -254 -647




PPRL 13,344 15,276 14.5 12,743 -4.5 10,582 -20.7

MPRL 7040 4485 -36.3 4295 -39.9 2793 -60.3

MPL +804 -2788 -2467 0 1 -200 -75.1


Conclusions & Recommendations

• Currently program 2 &3 are very close to the

same accuracy

• Program 3 had a consistent -200 pound

minimum pump load (MPL) which was related

to the 200 pound of assumed pump friction

• If this friction was removed, then MPL would

be very close


Conclusions & Recommendations - cont

• Prog 1 had consistently the worse accuracy

and dramatically over-estimated MPL

• Prog 1 & 3 have provided all the load and non-

dimensional pumping parameters while prog 2

still is missing N/No’

• While there were instances where there was a

negative MPL, these loads did not increase

nor stay applied over the plunger stroke

length

Sept. 16-19, 2014

30 Sucker Rod Pumping Workshop; ©DAL/NWH

Copyright

Rights to this presentation are owned by the company(ies) and/or author(s) listed on the title page. By submitting this presentation to the Sucker Rod Pumping Workshop, they grant to the Workshop, the Artificial Lift Research and Development Council (ALRDC), and the Southwestern Petroleum Short Course (SWPSC), rights to:

– Display the presentation at the Workshop.

– Place it on the www.alrdc.com web site, with access to the site to be as directed by the Workshop Steering Committee.

– Place it on a CD for distribution and/or sale as directed by the Workshop Steering Committee.

Other use of this presentation is prohibited without the expressed written permission of the author(s). The owner company(ies) and/or author(s) may publish this material in other journals or magazines if they refer to the Sucker Rod Pumping Workshop where it was first presented.


Disclaimer

The following disclaimer shall be included as the last page of a Technical Presentation or Continuing Education Course. A similar disclaimer is included on the front page of the Sucker Rod Pumping Web Site.

The Artificial Lift Research and Development Council and its officers and trustees, and the Sucker Rod Pumping Workshop Steering Committee members, and their supporting organizations and companies (here-in-after referred to as the Sponsoring Organizations), and the author(s) of this Technical Presentation or Continuing Education Training Course and their company(ies), provide this presentation and/or training material at the Sucker Rod Pumping Workshop "as is" without any warranty of any kind, express or implied, as to the accuracy of the information or the products or services referred to by any presenter (in so far as such warranties may be excluded under any relevant law) and these members and their companies will not be liable for unlawful actions and any losses or damage that may result from use of any presentation as a consequence of any inaccuracies in, or any omission from, the information which therein may be contained.

The views, opinions, and conclusions expressed in these presentations and/or training materials are those of the author and not necessarily those of the Sponsoring Organizations. The author is solely responsible for the content of the materials.

The Sponsoring Organizations cannot and do not warrant the accuracy of these documents beyond the source documents, although we do make every attempt to work from authoritative sources. The Sponsoring Organizations provide these presentations and/or training materials as a service. The Sponsoring Organizations make no representations or warranties, express or implied, with respect to the presentations and/or training materials, or any part thereof, including any warrantees of title, non-infringement of copyright or patent rights of others, merchantability, or fitness or suitability for any purpose.

Sept. 16-19, 2014

Sucker Rod Pumping Workshop; ©DAL/NWH 32


Documents

10th Annual Sucker Rod Renaissance Hotel Oklahoma City ... · PDF fileRenaissance Hotel Oklahoma City, Oklahoma September 16 - 19, ... Pump Dia Pump Length Unit Size Motor Tubing Casing