32
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 1 ESP-Reliability I nformation and Failure Tracking System
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 1
ESP-Reliability Information and Failure Tracking System
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 2
Presentation Outline
Rationale and Benefits ESP-RIFTS Implementation Strategy Development Timeline Other Project Information
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 3
Rationale/Benefits
Operators want to Get a better understanding of the factors affecting ESP run life Be able to forecast workover frequency in existent applications Be able to predict ESP run life in different conditions New applications Changing conditions in current applications
How? Accessing a large set of hard ESP reliability data
(avoiding educated guesses) Making sure this reliability data is consistent
(avoiding misunderstanding) Incorporating reliability engineering analysis tools Benchmarking results against other operators Learning from others experience
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 4
Objectives
development of an industry wide Electric Submersible Pump (ESP) - Reliability Information and Failure Tracking System (ESP-RIFTS), which will permit sharing of ESP run life and failure information among a number of operators.
ultimate goals ... are two fold: (1) to accelerate the learning curve associated with new ESP applications; and (2) to increase average ESP run life and operating range, by transferring knowledge and experience across the industry
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 5
Predicting ESP Run Lifefor New Applications
Questions in field development feasibility studies What is the expected ESP run life for the field? What are the future service rig requirements for the field? What type of equipment is best suited for a given application? E.g., Is the run life for wells equipped with VSDs the same as wells
equipped with switch boxes? E.g., Are coiled tubing deployed systems less reliable than systems
deployed on jointed tubing? If so, how much? What is the effect of well completion type on ESP run life? E.g., Should sand control (gravel pack) be used to prevent sand inflow
(but perhaps at the cost of lower well productivity)? Would the ESP run-life be acceptable if the sand is produced?
What operating practices/conditions are best? E.g., Should the wells be produced at a flowing bottomhole pressure
that is above the bubble point pressure to avoid failures associated with free gas?
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 6
Early Stages of a Feasibility Study
How ESP run-life affects the project economics? Offshore Platform Example 20 WellsAverage oil production per well: 600 bopdAverage intervention cost: 100 k (10 days @10k/day)Average equipment cost: 100 kAverage workover & waiting time 30 days
Onshore Example 50 wellsAverage oil production per well: 60 bopdAverage intervention cost: 10 k Average equipment cost: 30 kAverage workover & waiting time: 7 days
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 7
Total Workover Cost vs. ESP Run Life (Offshore)
$-
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960Average Operating Period (days)
Total Yearly
Workover "Cost" *(millions)
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Workover cost
as percent of revenue
* includes production losses (US$25/bbl)
@ low run livesprojects becomeuneconomical
@ good run livesprojects becomeeconomical
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 8
Total Workover Cost vs. ESP Run Life (Onshore)
$-
$1
$2
$3
$4
$5
$6
$7
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960 1080 1200 1320
Average Operating Period (days)
Total Yearly
Workover "Cost" *(millions)
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Workover cost
as percent of revenue
* includes production losses (US$25/bbl)
@ low run livesprojects becomeuneconomical
@ good run livesprojects becomeeconomical
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 9
Identifying Opportunities:Production Increase and Cost Reduction
Am I doing the best I can? (compared to others) It would be nice if I could: Benchmark my run life against other operators Learn from the experience of others
Should I upgrade equipment specifications (e.g. trim) to improverun-life?
Should I start using refurbished equipment to reduce costs? If something changes, how would this affect the failure rate? The field water cut has increased; should I try higher HP
systems? The field GOR has increased; should I try rotary gas separators? E.g., which option is better:
a) 600 bopd and > 360 day ESP Run life, without RGSs, orb) 900 bopd and < 360 day ESP Run Life, with RGSs
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 10
Identifying Opportunities for Improvement (example)
$0.0
$0.5
$1.0
$1.5
$2.0
$2.5
$3.0
$3.5
$4.0
0 120 240 360 480 600 720 840 960
Average Operating Period (days)
Well Yearly
Workover "Cost" *(millions)
* Includes production losses (US$15/bbl)
"Opportunity Cost" associated with loss of
300 bopd
With Rotary GasSeparator@ 900 bopd
With Static GasSeparator @ 600 bopd with considering the potentialadditional 300 bopd as loss production
Without Rotary Gas Separator
@ 600 bopd
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 11
Difficulties in predicting ESP Run Life
Run life depends on a number of application attributes (field characteristics, well design, completion, fluid properties, equip. specs., etc.)
Confidence in models to predict run life is a function of the range of the historical data that the models are based on Uncertainty increases when the volume of similar data is
small
Most failure databases lack the breath of application characteristics needed to predict ESP run life in new situations
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 12
We want to share data
Sharing of reliability data is a recent Industry trend Turner,W.: Methods to Assess the Reliability of
Downhole Completions: The Need for Industry Standards, 2000 OTC (OTC 12168): Although the need to reduce failures and minimize risk
has brought about increased desire for operating companies to share information, no industry standardshave been established for reliability assessment of completion equipment. Establishment of a database to assess the reliability ofdownhole equipment will involve a comprehensive industry-wide effort to collect data and to ensure that quality is to a high standard.
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 13
We want to share data ... Why?
Sawaryn, S. and Ziegel, E.: Statistical Assessment and Management of Uncertainty in the Number of ESP Failures in a Field, 2001 SPE ATCE (SPE 71551): This study shows that large amounts of failure data
covering a wide range of operational conditions will be needed to gain a quantitative understanding of the factors affecting run life. Individually, neither the operators, nor the ESP vendors have access to all the data required and an industry-wide sharing of failure data may be the only route to success.
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 14
Ultimate Project Objective
To provide a framework to facilitate the sharing of ESP Run Life Information among Operators Failure Information; and Other Pertinent Data
Participants have a key role: They are the main source of information, knowledge, and
experience C-FER is mainly a facilitator: Working with the Participants to ensure that sharing takes
place effectively Being responsible for the development and maintenance of
tools to support and foster the effort Acting as caretaker of Project Information Investigating differences in performance between
operations
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 15
System Maintenance Processing and Qualification
ESP-RIFTS
End Users
World-Wide Network
System Concept: Interface
Multiple users world-wide Internet interface
http://www.esprifts.com
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 16
Improving ESP Run Life
All stages in the process affect ESP run life
Influential Factors Operational practices
(Qualitative) Operational Conditions
(Quantitative)
It is important to track not only failure information, but all other pertinent information
Knight and Bebak, OTC 12171, 2000
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 17
System Concept: Structure and Operation
Field Data
Well andEquip.Data
Failure Data
Failure Distributions
MTTF Comparisons
MTTF Trends
MTTF Predictions/Survivability
SystemConditions
Min. Data Set
Complete
Consistent
Accurate
Production/Operational
Data
Existing DBs
Anticipated FailureMechanisms
QualifiedData
Process Data Qualify Data Analyze Data
UnqualifiedData
ReliabilityFunctions
What-If?
Tables andCharts
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 18
Web Site Access
Anyone with Internet access can browse the public web pages to learn about the project, the System, and who to contact to become a Participant
Only Users with a valid User Name and Password combination (i.e., a login account) are granted access to the protected area of the site
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 19
Project WebsiteUSERS
Public pages
Protected pages
Home page- About- Login- Contacts- Notice
About- What is ESP-RIFTS- Participants- Public presentations- Additional Information
Contact- C-FER e-mail- Project manager
Login- Enter valid user name and password combination
User Login Accepted
General- Whats New- New Data- New Features of web site- Downloads
Query Data- Construct and execute query
Examine Data- View Results
Help- On-line help- FAQ
Sign-Out
Notice- General description of site-Copyright, etc.-Minimum System Requirements
Results- View tables and charts- Construct Pivot Tables- Run-Life Estimates- Reliability Analyses- Statistics- Print Summary reports
World-Wide Network
Analysis- Run-life Estimates- Reliability Functions- Comparative Analysis
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 20
Conducting Analysis
In general, all analysis conducted in the ESP-RIFTS website consist of a two-step process:1. The User uses one of the five query wizards to construct
and execute a query on the database to retrieve those records of interest
2. The User can then Examine the contents of the records returned Prepare summary reports Group data by variables Construct charts Calculate run-life estimates Calculate reliability variables Evaluate the statistical uncertainty/confidence in the
calculated run-life estimates
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 21
What-If Module
The What-If module is a method to predict expected run-life and predominant failure mechanisms (e.g., item and descriptor) for a specific set of influential factors
The method is calibrated with existing data But its predictive capabilities extend beyond the range of
the data Applications New ESP Applications (e.g., Economic and Feasibility
Studies on a new discovery): For a new application, given a few key parameters, what would
the expected run-life be for a given type of ESP System? Existing ESP Applications If something was changed (e.g., fluid properties, ESP system
design, etc.), what effect might the change have on ESP run-life and on the types of failures that occur
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 22
System Features
1. Standard terminology for classifying, recording and storing ESP failure information (as per the ESP Failure Nomenclature Standard)
2. Common set of parameters to be tracked by all Participants in the project (as per the General Data Set)
3. Procedure to ensure certain standards of data quality4. Database structure to store the data collected5. Data Input Spreadsheet, based on Microsoft Excel to assist in
data collection (with analysis capabilities as well)6. Internet based system to enable Participants to select
records of interest, examine the contents of such records, and conduct a variety of analyses with them
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 23
Growth of Database
16731739 1854
3593 3940
7590
90919366
10848
1260613643
6856
y = 2E-24e0.0017x
R2 = 0.9606
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
Jan-00 Apr-00 Jul-00 Sep-00
Dec-00
Apr-01 Jul-01 Oct-01 Dec-01
Apr-02 Jul-02 Oct-02 Dec-02
Apr-03 Jul-03 Oct-03 Jan-04 Apr-04 Jul-04
Date
Numberof
ProductionPeriods
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 24
Locations of Fields in ESP-RIFTS
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 25
ESP-RIFTSFailure Nomenclature Standard
A standard terminology for classifying, recording and storing ESP failure information,
Leading to consistency in failure analysis performed with data gathered by different operating and service companies
Conforms to (as much as possible): 1) International Standard ISO/DIS 142242) API RP 11S1
In general: Broad definitions and failure attribute classifications were
borrowed from the ISO/DIS 14224 Nomenclature for components, parts and teardown
observations were borrowed from the API RP 11S1
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 26
General Data Set
The recommended list of 118 Parameters that an ESP-RIFTS Failure record should contain
Field/Well/Fluid/Reservoir data
Run time information Install, Start, Stop, Pull dates, etc .
Production and Operating Information
Producing rates, operating conditions (Speed, Current, etc.), GOR, BSW, Wellhead Pressure and Temperature
Equipment data Model, rated capacity (head, rate,
power, etc.), dimensions, materials and trim, etc.
Manufacturer Catalogue information
Failure information Mode, Item(s), Descriptor(s), Cause,
and associated comments (as per Standard)
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 27
Data Input Sheet
Multi-sheet Microsoft Excel workbook
Developed to assist in data collection and qualification
Field level data capture and tracking
A number of analysis features (e.g., average run life, MTTF, reliability and statistical analyses)
CONFIDENTIAL and proprietary to C-FER and ESP-RIFTS JIP Participants
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 28
Project Status
Phase I: November 1999 July 2000 Phase II: August 2000 April 2001 Project Web Site: online since July 2000
Phase III: May 2001 April 2002 Phase IV: May 2002 April 2003 Phase V: May 2003 April 2004 Phase VI: May 2004 April 2005
Current Participants: BP ChevronTexaco EnCana ExxonMobil Kuwait Oil company PDVSA
Petrobras Saudi Aramco Shell Repsol-YPF Total
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 29
Benefits to New ParticipantsImmediate Benefits
1. Immediate access to the system - user accounts will be assigned to a number of New Participant personnel
2. Ability to query the data and conduct analyses - display the results in a number of numerical and graphical formats
3. Improved ability to make good decisions on issues affecting ESP run life
4. Access to about US$ 800,000 worth of work conducted in the previous phases of the JIP (phases I - V)
5. Two-day workshop (at a location of choice) to quickly bring the New Participant personnel up to speed
6. Improved understanding of run-life and failure tracking issuesand analysis techniques
7. Opportunity to upgrade current ESP failure tracking systems to the ESP-RIFTS standard: Achieving consistency within own Company Achieving consistency within the group of industry Participants
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 30
Benefits to New ParticipantsLong-Term Benefits
1. Business results, which can span over a variety of aspects, including: Improved chances of overall economic success in new projects Because there will be less uncertainty in the expected run-life
Reduced production losses in the upcoming years Because improved rig scheduling will be possible
Improved overall run-life and reduced operational costs Because best practices can be implemented
2. Business results can start to be obtained as soon as possible In terms of run-life, the effects of good decisions made at one point in
time are only felt in the long term3. Ability to make direct benchmark comparisons
Within own Companys operations Within the Participants' operations
4. Guidelines for negotiations between the Participant and ESP vendors (e.g., as in alliance situations)
Using benchmarks established with the system
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 31
Fee StructureYear 2004/2005 (Phase VI)
New Participant Fees Entrance Fee: US$30,000 (one-time) Surcharge Fees: US$ 5,000 (over first three years of participation) Covers Initial Development Cost Sharing New Participant Orientations Mapping and Input of Historical Data
JIP Participation Fee - Year 2004/2005 (Phase VI) US$35,000 Covers Core Tasks Data Processing and Qualification Data Analysis (within the limits of the System) Web Site Maintenance Project Meetings (Oct/Nov 2004 and Apr/May 2005) Project Management and Reporting
February 2004 ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview Slide 32
Further Documentation Available
Project web site: http://www.esprifts.com
General Information on the ESP-RIFTS JIP Benefits to New Participants:
http://www.esprifts.com/General_Information_Benefits.04Feb13.pdf Detailed work scope, deliverables, and milestone schedule for
Phase V: http://www.esprifts.com/Phase_V_Deliverables.03Mar27.pdf
2001 SPE - ESP Workshop Paper ESP Failures: Can We Talk the Same Language?
2003 SPE-ESP Workshop Paper Benchmarking ESP Run Life Accounting for Application
Differences
For addition information, please contact:Francisco Alhanatitel: (780) 450-8989 ext 253e-mail: [email protected]
