Pi C tiRdPremium Connection Rods for High Flows in Deep Wells...Demanding operations have pushed the rod pumping system to its limit and as a result exposed the sucker rod connection

5th Annual Sucker Rod Pumping WorkshopWorkshop

Dallas, TexasSeptember 15 – 18 2009September 15 – 18, 2009

P i C ti R dPremium Connection Rodsfor High Flows in Deep WellsHerial Angeletti, Miguel Colla & Ricardo Mazzola (Pan American Energy)Daniel Muse, Félix Carrizo & Francisco Diaz Telli (Tenaris Sucker Rods)

Agenda

• Introduction

g

– Field introduction– Scenario

Improvements in API connection design– Improvements in API connection design

– Premium Connection general characteristics

• Field Experience• Field Experience– Frequent Failure wells– High loads wellsHigh loads wells

• Make-Up experience• Conclusions

Sept. 15 - 18, 2009 2009 Sucker Rod Pumping Workshop 2

Conclusions

IntroductionThe Field

Pan American Energy is a Joint Venture between:

60%

40%



26

40CERRO

DRAGON

Comodoro G O L F O Ri d i

C.Vasco

Las Heras

3

CaletaOlivia

S A N J O R G E

G O L F O Rivadavia

PIEDRA

Buenos AiresLago

PicoTruncado

43

PIEDRA CLAVADA

KOLUEL KAIKE


0 100 km

OIL FIELDS


• 2644 Production Wells.• 56% of the Production Wells implement Secondary

Recovery methods.450 I j ti W ll (800 000 b d f t i j t d)• 450 Injection Wells (800,000 bpd of water injected).

ESP

Other, 1%

• Production: 100,000 bpd of oil & 950 000 bpd of total

PCP

ESP, 23%

oil & 950,000 bpd of total liquid.

• Rod Pumping is used in 75%

RP,

PCP, 2%

p gof the wells.


RP, 75%

IntroductionScenario

The Cerro Dragón field has increased production flow per well significantly during the past few yearsper well significantly during the past few years.

1E+06 AF-001/AF-002/AF-003/AF-005/AF-006/...

Total flow

1E+04

1E+05

Total flow

1E+03

qoP[m³/DC] qlP[m³/DC] qw iP[m³/DC] PWP WORP[m³/m³] IWP

1E+01

1E+02

1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010



Demanding operations have pushed the rod pumping system to its limit and as a result exposed the sucker rod connection as the overalland as a result, exposed the sucker rod connection as the overall system’s weakest member .

API F ti i t C ti b dAPI Fatigue resistance: Connection < body(Efficiency<100%)



One of the actions taken in order to solve the problem was to use Premi m Connection S cker Rods in those ells ith high fail re rates orPremium Connection Sucker Rods in those wells with high failure rates or with high loads.

This work presents the results of the field experience using this new rod in the Cerro Dragón Field.


IntroductionImprovements in API Connection Design

API Thread Premium Connection

• Connection loosening (gap on the thread).

p g

Gap

The Gap allows “movement” between the threads when compression loads appear on the string.



• Connection loosening (gap on the thread).• Thread deformation during make-up and operation.

p g

API

Plastic Strains (100% Goodman load)

Premium

g p p

API Thread

Premium Connection

Plastic Strain (%)


The premium connection shows a dramatic reduction in the plastic deformation !



p g

Principal Stresses Distribution (100% Goodman Load)

g p p• Non-uniform stress distribution along the thread profile.

API Thread

Premium Connection

Relative Principal Stresses

Tpi/Ty

(Ty = 59,77 kg/mm2)

The Premium Connection shows dramatic benefits in the


The Premium Connection shows dramatic benefits in the stress distribution !



p g

g p p• Non-uniform stress distribution along the thread profile. • High reliance in the thread (better repetition on Circumferential

Displacement alignment less tendency in threads damages etc )Displacement, alignment, less tendency in threads damages, etc.).

A significant reduction of the critical stress areas was achieved, solving API design limitations.


IntroductionPremium Connection General Characteristics• PC fatigue resistance > body fatigue resistance• Theoretical + FEA analysis, full scale lab fatigue tests in addition

Goodman Diagram HS & D Grade Rods

with field tests gave a new Modified Goodman Diagram.

70

80

90

100

)

Working areaGrade D RodsHigh Strength RodsPC R d

30

40

50

60

Sm

ax

(K

si PC Rods

Around 8% higher working capacity

0

10

20

30

0 20 40 60 80 100

o g capac ty


Smin (Ksi)D AR Smin Premium YS AR YS PremiumNote: Schematic diagram

Field ExperienceApplication: High Failure Rate

Well PE-02P PE-06P PE-19P PE-21P

Installation date 5-Oct-08 8-Jan-09 15-Jun-09 3-Jul-09

pp g

Estimated cycles [million] 2.3 2.6 0.9 0.7

Working days 343 248 90 72

SPM 4.87 7.3 6.8 6.7

Pumping UnitRotaflex

900-X320-360-288

Mark II

912-365-192

Mark II

1280-427-192

Mark II

1280-427-192

Pump depth [ft] (m) 6547 (1996) 6724 (2050) 5750 (1753) 6820 (2080)

Production flow [bpd] (m3/d] 925 (158) 440 (77) 554 (88) 616 (98)Production flow [bpd] (m3/d] 925 (158) 440 (77) 554 (88) 616 (98)

StringDesign

1" PC rods 117 78 103 81

7/8" PC rods 119 89 90 94

3/4" PC rods - 93 24 72

Average depth: 6460 ftAverage flow: 634 bpd

Sinker Bars 26 (1”) 9 (1 5/8”) 13 (1 5/8”) 26 (1”)

Pump 2.75" 2" 2.25” 2.25”

Failure History 2 p/year 4 p/year 5 p/year 4 p/year

The objective was to reduce connection failures


The objective was to reduce connection failuresand as a result, reduce pulling operations as well (TCO).

Field ExperienceApplication: High Loads – Prod. Increase

Well PE-03P PE-04P PE-05P PE-16P PE-20P PE-22P

Installation date 14-Oct-08 2-Nov-08 24-Dec-08 20-Apr-09 18-Jun-09 25-Aug-09

pp g

Estimated cycles [million] 3.6 3.4 2.8 1.6 0.9 0.2

Working days 334 315 263 147 87 19

SPM 9 7.9 8.1 7.3 6.9 8

Mark II Mark II Mark II Mark II Mark II Mark IIPumping Unit

Mark II

1280-427-192

Mark II

1280-427-192

Mark II

1280-427-192

Mark II

912-365-192

Mark II

1824-427-216

Mark II

912-365-168

Pump depth [ft] (m) 6724 (2050) 7475 (2279) 7347 (2240) 9672 (2949) 7216 (2200) 8747 (2667)

Production flow [bpd] (m3/d) 421 (67) 377 (60) 528 (84) 390 (62) 654 (104) 346 (55)

StringDesign

1" PC rods 106 99 116 52 95 101

7/8" PC rods 155 111 100 160 116 115

3/4“ PC rods - 70 65 160 58 119

Sinker Bars 8 (1 5/8”) 20 (1”) 13 (1 5/8”) 15 (1 5/8”) 20 (1”) 15 (1 5/8”)

Average depth: 7863 ftAverage flow: 453 bpd

( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )

Pump 2" 2.25" 2.25" 1.75” 2.5” 2”

Observations 4 p/year 2 p/year 2 p/year

The objective was to increase production flows with Rod Pumping


The objective was to increase production flows with Rod Pumping Units, replacing ESP in some cases.

Field ExperienceApplication: High Loads – Prod. Increase

A stronger rod allows using Rod Pumping system for flows & depths that previously required other artificial lift methods

pp g

Rod Pumping flow capacity vs pump depth comparing Sucker Rod String Grade

(ESP).

Points to have in mind• Investment• Energy requirements

4000

2000

00 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

t] • Revenues• Reliability

8000

6000

4000

Pu

mp

Dep

th [

ft

ESPPAEPan American Energy’s

12000

10000

Production [bpd]

Pan American Energy s limitation was 2 7/8” tubing and therefore they couldn’t

use 1 1/8” rods.


Grade D High Strength Tenaris PC

use 1 1/8 rods.

Field ExperienceStress details

Well PE-02P PE-03P PE-04P PE-05P PE-06P PE-16P PE-19P PE-20P PE-21P PE-22P

Smin 14.6 7.9 11.3 9.3 9.5 21.3 9 8.6 7.1 -

Sma 42 8 37 4 44 3 42 4 35 9 50 8 34 9 35 38 6Stress

Smax 42.8 37.4 44.3 42.4 35.9 50.8 34.9 35 38.6 -

Grade D 151% 134% 162% 156% 124% 192% 121% 122% 141% -

PremiumConnection 72% 68% 80% 78% 62% 85% 60% 61% 71% -

This shows that the working conditions could have never been greached using conventional Grade D rods.


Make-up experienceThe make-up is a five steps process:

p p

1- Threads Cleaning2- Dope Applying 3- Hand tight4- Pin/Box contact control (with power tong)5- Circumferential displacement control5- Circumferential displacement control


Make-up experience

Step #1: Threads Cleaning

p p

Complete removal of solid particles must be assured.


Make-up experience

Step #2: Dope applying

p p

Application of standard tubing dope is recommended in order to avoid galling on the thread.


Make-up experience

Step #3: Hand-tight

p p

The thread has diametric interference. After hand tightening the connection, a stand-off between pin and box shoulders still exists.


Make-up experience

Step #4: Pin/Box shoulder

p p

Step #4: Pin/Box shoulder contact control

A power tong is required in orderA power tong is required in order to make contact between pin and box shoulders (a 0,05 mm filler gauge is used for its control).


Make-up experience

Step #5: Circumferential

p p

Step #5: Circumferential Displacement Control

After shoulder contact isAfter shoulder contact is assured, a vertical line is drawn. By applying power torque the requiredtorque the required circumferential displacement is achieved.


Make-up experience

PC make-up is made with circumferential displacement. Nospecial tools are req ired

p p

special tools are required.

7/8” PC rods have a reinforced wrench square with EL (Electra)or PL (Plus) rods size These rods are regularly used in the oil industryor PL (Plus) rods size. These rods are regularly used in the oil industry.

Galling was NOT detected on reassembly operations and none ofthe rods had to be changed API Modified dope is usedthe rods had to be changed. API Modified dope is used.

During workover operations, there were no scraped rods due todeformations in the threads or shouldersdeformations in the threads or shoulders.


Make-up experience

Diametric interference also creates a stand off (space between facesin the hand tight position) in the connection so po er tong calibrations is

p p

in the hand-tight position) in the connection so power tong calibrations isdone in two steps.

Running time is similar to the required time for running conventional Running time is similar to the required time for running conventionalrods.

Power tong pressures are slightly higher than the pressures Power tong pressures are slightly higher than the pressuresrequired for high strength rods.


Conclusions

Using PC rods addressed the following:1 Reduced connection failures in problematic wells1. Reduced connection failures in problematic wells.2. Enabled Pan American Energy to use the Rod pumping

system at very high loads.

The rods showed excellent behavior during make-up operations.

Running time is similar to that required for conventional rods.

No failures have taken place.


Conclusions

In comparison with Grade D rods, the PC rods reached stress valuesclose to 196% (for 0 9 SF)close to 196% (for 0.9 SF).

Pan American Energy will continue with the test program working on:1. Increasing the stress level in installed wells.1. Increasing the stress level in installed wells.2. Test reduction in the string weight (change 1” rods for 7/8”

ones) in order to: Reduce string weight (less requirements in the AIB and

les energy utilization) Increase flowing area inside the tubing Reduce installation costs


Thanks!

Herial Angeletti

[email protected]

Miguel Colla

[email protected]

Ricardo Mazzola

[email protected]

Francisco Diaz Telli

[email protected]

Felix Carrizo

[email protected]


Daniel Muse

[email protected]

Thanks!


Copyrightpy g

Rights to this presentation are owned by the company(ies) and/or author(s) listed on the title page By submitting this presentation toauthor(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: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

di t d b th W k h St i C ittas directed by the Workshop Steering Committee.– Place it on a CD for distribution and/or sale as directed by the

Workshop Steering Committee.

Other uses of this presentation are prohibited without the expressed written permission of the company(ies) and/or author(s) who own it and the Workshop Steering Committee.


DisclaimerThe 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.gThe 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 g g ywarranty 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. g y pThe 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.


Make-up experience

Typical string design consists on the following:

p p

Typical String Design

7/8” PC

Conventional API Polished Rod

1” API polished rod x 1” PC Coupling

1” PC Sucker Rods

yp g g

3/4” PC

1” PC x 7/8” PC 2’ Cross Over

7/8” PC Sucker Rods

7/8” PC x 3/4” PC 2’ Cross Over

3/4” PC Sucker Rods

3/4” PC

3/4 PC Sucker Rods

3/4” PC x 3/4” API 2’ Cross Over

Sinker Bars

Conventional Pump


3/4” API

Fatigue damage criterionFatigue Damage Criterion for Multiaxial Stress.

Simple multiaxial stress refers to the case in which the principal

g g

alternating stresses do not change their direction relative to the stressed part. In this case we can apply Sines´s method.

T Where:

a

mD

3

321 SSS

Where:

• D: fatigue indicator. ( D >1)

• T: Minimum Tensile Strength.

• Sm i: Mean component of the principal stress

3321 mmm

mSSS

2])()()[( 2/12

132

322

21 aaaaaaa

SSSSSS

stress

• Si max: Max component of the principal stress.

• Si min: Min component of the principal stress.

2mín,máx. ii

ai

SSS

SS

stress.

(alternative components of the principal stress)


2mín,máx. ii

mi

SSS

(mean components of the principal stress)

7/8” Sucker Rod Fatigue Zonesg

ZONE A ZONE A

ZONE B ZONE B

ZONE CZONE C

ZONE D

ZONE F

ZONE EZONE D

ZONE E


7/8” Sucker Rod Fatigue Zones

15 0

g

5.0

10.0

15.0

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

fact

or D

-10.0

-5.0

0.00 0.084 0.168 0.252 0.336

zona A -15.0

-10.0

-5.0

atig

ue s

afet

y

ZONE AZONE BZONE C

-25.0

-20.0

-15.0

distancia al borde (mm)

zona Bzona Czona Ezona F

-25.0

-20.0

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40

Di t f th d ( )Fa

ZONE DZONE E

Distance from the edge (mm)

API Design New Design


API Design New Design

Documents

Pi C tiRdPremium Connection Rods for High Flows in Deep Wells...Demanding operations have pushed the rod pumping system to its limit and as a result exposed the sucker rod connection