T
Distinguished
Author Series
Managing Artificial Lift
S.M. Bucaram, SPE, and
Summary
The goal of this work is to describe an ap-
proach to produce a well for maximum prof-
itability by managing artificial lift
effectively. Achieving maximum profitabil-
ity from an artificially lifted well begins with
selecting the lift method and continues with
selecting materials, protecting materials,
monitoring production data, and monitoring
equipment performance. Changes suggested
by the monitoring process strive to increase
the profitability on an individual well basis.
Introduction
Managing artificial lift is a continuous proc-
ess designed to achieve maximum profita-
bility from a producing or service well. We
must keep in mind our ultimate goals.
1. Maximum profits, not maximum
hydrocarbon production; one does not al-
ways mean the other.
2. Maximum profits, not minimum equip-
ment failures; again, one does not always
mean the other.
3. Maximum profit within the scope of
operating safely and in an environmentally
sound manner.
The purpose of this paper is to detail an
approach to managing artificial lift. This ap-
proach is described as a series of steps.
Step 1. Original selection of the artificial-
lift method.
Step 2. Evaluation of production factors
and expected production problems. This
evaluation results in the selection of the orig-
inal equipment used in the well, the failure-
control methods, and the monitoring deemed
necessary for protecting well equipment.
Step 3. Continuous monitoring of mean-
ingful production data: rates, fluid levels,
water cuts, amp charts, pressures, etc.
Step 4. Continous monitoring of equip-
ment performance data.
Step 5. Evaluation of the production
equipment-failure data regularly and as
needed.
This monitoring/evaluation results in
courses of action that may include operation-
Copyright 1994 Society of Petroleum Engineers
JPT • April 1994
J.e. Patterson, SPE, Arco E&P Technology
S. Mike Bucciram is a senior research adviser
at Arco E&P Technology in Plano, TX. His
experience extends to artificial lift, production
problems, equipment failure control, and cost
control. He previously worked at Arco Oil and
Gas Co., Arco's Plano Laboratory, Sinclair
Research, and Battelle Memorial Insf., and
Bucaram Patterson following his graduation from Texas A&M U.
with an MS degree in physics, served o~ ~he f?culty there. Buc;aram is a
member of SPE's Editorial Review and DistingUished Author Series
committees and is a 1994-95 Distinguished Lecturer. John C. .
Patterson is an engineering consultant at Arco E&P Technology In
Plano. His experience extends to artificial lift produc~ion problems,
equipment failure control, and cost control. He p~evlously ~~rked for
Arco Oil and Gas Co. in engineering and operation supervIsion at
several locations and for Arco Alaska. A graduate of Texas A&M U.,
Patterson holds a BS degree in petroleum engineering.
al changes. Changes in the lift type might maximum profitability, the process must
be from rod pump to progressing cavity look at each well individually. Well-by-well
pump or vice versa, from continuous to in- economics is the basis of the process.
termittent gas lift, or from rod pump to elec-
tric submersible pump (ESP) or vice versa. Artificial·Lift Selection
Equipment changes could include moving
The selection of the lift method considers
from a bottom holddown to a top holddown the following.
rod pump, from an insert to a tubing pump,
Geographic location. An offshore and/or
or from steel to fiberglass rods. Another Arctic location can limit the viable lift
possible equipment change would be to add
methods through size/weight restrictions or
or remove a gas separator on an ESP sys- environmental concerns.
tem. Alterations in the failure-protection Capital cost. These include not only the
method might include changing from batch lift equipment, but also the production facili-
to continuous downhole corrosion treatment ties required to support the lift method (e.g.,
or vice versa, starting a scale-control pro- compression requirements for gas lift).
gram, changing the pump metallurgy or the Operating costs. These costs include the
ESP cable type, or running a cable with a energy needed to operate the lift and the cost
chemical treating string. A change in the to repair lift-system failures.
way the well is produced could be indicated, Production flexibility. This means evalu-
such as increasing or decreasing the stroke ating the minimum and maximum rates
speed or changing the stroke length, rais- available from the lift method based on nor-
ing or lowering the pump, anchoring the tub- mal operating conditions compared with ex-
ing, using a variable-speed drive on an ESP pected production.
to reduce water production, or changing the Reliability. Reliability includes expected
type of power fluid in a hydraulic pumping run time and is a function of the failure fre-
installation. quency and the logistics required to repair
Thus, the loop is closed; the evaluation failures.
can, and sometimes does, take us back to Normal operating conditions that should
where we started-e.g., to artificial method be considered in the equipment selection are
selection or, in some cases, to replacement/ the casing-size limitation, well depth, intake
substitution. If it is to achieve its goal of capabilities (minimum bottomhole produc-
335
 TABLE 1-ROD PUMP SELECTION GUIDE

Depth Intermittent Large Low Fluid Low

Sand Scale >7,000 ft Pumping Corrosion Volumes Level Gas Speed Paraffin
Rod pump, traveling barrel,
bottom hold down ". ". ". ".". X ". X X ". ".
Rod pump, stationary barrel,
bottom hold down x ". ".". ". X ". ". ". ". ".
Rod pump, stationary barrel, top
hold down ".". ". X ". ".". ". ".". ".". ". ".
Rod pump, three tubes ".". ". x ".". X X X X X ".
Stroke through ".". ".". x ".".
Tubing pump ". ". x NA ".". ".". NA x ". ".
Casing pump x x x NA x ".". NA x ". x
..-..- = better; ..- = good; x = not recommended; NA = not applicable.

ing pressure), prime-mover flexibility, sur-
veillance, testing, and time cycle or pump-
off controllers. Special well conditions
include corrosion/scale-handling ability,
crooked or deviated holes, dual-completion
applications, gas- and paraffin-handling abil-
ity, slim-hole completions, solids/sand-
handling ability, temperature limitations,
high-viscosity fluid handling, and high- and
low-volume lift capabilities. 1
Thus, the original selection of the "opti-
mum" artificial-lift method is a process of
balancing the artificial-lift capabilities and
constraints against the production rate with
the ultimate goal of maximizing ultimate
profits. Clegg et at. 2 gave an excellent all-
inclusive review of artificial-lift choices and
provided extensive references on all lift
types. The number of viable available-lift
methods depends on the situation. Many
choices may be available for a new field dis-
covery for which constraints can be mini-
mized by the production facilities and well
design. A new well in an existing field is
constrained by the existing infrastructure;
choices become limited. An existing well
has many fixed constraints that minimize lift
selection possibilities. Fewer choices exist
than for the other two cases.
The original field development plan
should address all known constraints and
consider future changes to the lift method.
During the life of a well, the constraints and
the production rates can change, making the
optimum artificial-lift method a function of
current conditions. Lift-changing flexibili-
ty comes at a cost that must be considered
and evaluated. The optimum artificial-lift
method is not the one with the greatest effi-
ciency or the greatest rate; it is the one that
maximizes ultimate profitability.
Different operators making decisions on
the basis of what appear to be similar facts
often arrive at different conclusions. A real-
life example is dewatering coal seams for
gas production in a field geographically situ-
ated in the middle of a conventional gas
field. Most operators in the field use rod
pumps, others use progressing cavity pump-
ing, and one uses gas lift.
Equipment Selection
After the lift method has been selected, the
specific well equipment and all its compo-
nent parts are identified. Numerous selec-
tions can be made for one type of lift, and
processes similar to those used to screen the
different lift methods are now used to select
the equipment and its components.
Example 1. The decision has been made that
ESP's are the optimum choice. Bottornhole
temperature, whether and how much gas is
produced, whether significant solids produc-
tion is expected, whether a corrosion and/or
scale problem is expected, and whether rate
stability is expected will affect the selection
and sizing of the motor, the type of isolation
section and power cable chosen, whether a
gas separator is chosen, whether abrasion-
resistant designs are installed, whether a
shroud is required to aid with motor cooling,
or a cable incorporating a chemical treating
string is chosen, and whether a variable-
speed drive is part ofthe initial justification.

TABLE 2-CORROSION- AND EROSION-CONTROL CHOICES

Corrosion
Coating and Metallurgy and
Chemical Chemical Chemical Erosion
Equipment Inhibition Coatings Inhibition Metallurgy Inhibition Metallurgy Coatings
Down hole pumps Choice Choice First choice Choice
Sucker rods First choice Choice if CO 2
Rod-pump well
tubulars First choice First jOint
above pump
Wellheads, pumping
tees, and rod
blowout preventers First choice
Submsersible-pumped
well tubulars Choice First choice
Water supply or
injection well
tubulars Choice First choice
Gas, gas-condensate
wells, flowing oil
wells and gas-lift
well tubulars Choice Choice First choice if within First choice if Choice
coating range outside
coating range
Wellheads, packers,
mandrels First choice if Choice First choice if
within coating outside
limitations coating
limitations

These are guidelines based on experience. A corrosive environment is assumed. Decision should be based on economics if more than orie choice is available. If coating is
chosen, refer to RP1 on plastic coatings. If chemical inhibition is chosen, refer to RP2 on chemical inhibitors.

336 April 1994 • JPT

 lease or unit name;

Equipment Performance Report: Subsurface

(3-4) (5-11) (12·15)

IT] !; ; ; ;:I~I
Lease Accountlr.g
~I---,---I---,-I-'---'------'
Coda
Sob 1
E
1

Well
Tractor j
(16-18)

Well j
(19-22) (23--24)

oateIT] IT] IT]

(25-26) (27-28)
Oepthoffailure!n.feet
or m nurrber of JOints
I (29-33)

1 1
Descriptor
Soc\l(:m 1 1 1 from surface.
~ Mo_ Day Yr. E
Note: Enter code numbers In IlqUllres lbove column (no code number, Ieeve1lqUwes blink) (ExpI"n) In squw.llibelled "Remerb"
Type of well Type of service Failing equipment Type of IllIure Locltion of failure
(34-35)

[JJ
(36-37)

[JJ rn(38-39) (40--41)

[JJ
(42--43)

[JJ
NON Noo. OTH Olhel NON None NON None NON None
01 FO Flowmga.t 01 ACD Acidlzelstlmulate 01 PMP Rodpul'T"p 01 HOL Ho. 01 BOY Body
02 FG Flowmggas _If' 02 PMH HydraullCpul'T"p,pislon 02 BRK B_ 02 PIN Pm
03 GL Gaslif1 02 FRC Flac_II' 22 PMJ Hydraulicpurfl),j81 03 STh Stuck 03 ClP Coupling
04 PMP Pu rfl)ing (Rod, 03 WWR Welt 'NOrkover 03 ESP Submersiblepurfl) 04 SPT Split or crack 04 THO Thread
Hyd PlstOO, 04 LTS Test -log 04 ROD Rod 05 PLG Plugged 05 UPS Upset
HydJet 06 ABA Abandon 05 ROP Rod failure, which caused 06 LEK leak, water in motor 21 UUP Upper upset or wrench !tat
Submersible) 08 STM Slaamsoall purrpdamage 15 WSH Washed 06 PLN Plunger
05 WI Water injection 09 PSI Pressure survey 06 TBG Tubing 07 DEF Worn, deformed or 07 SAL Barrel
06 GI Gas inJectIOn 10 INH !nhib~_1) 07 TBP Tubing failure. which caused collapsed 08 vas Valve, balls, seats
07 WS Watmsupply 11 CAL Cal~rwell pUrfl)damage 08 UNS Unscrewed 09 CUP Cups
08 WD Wate/dlsposal 12 RES Reslzingpuflll 08 CSG Casing 13 COT Plasllccoallng 10 PMP Entllepurrpdamaged
09 PLL Plunger lift 10 PKR Pad\er dISbandment 11 SEL Seal
10 ROT Rotary 11 BJT 8!astJOlnt 14 ELC Electrical 31 JNF Jet nozzle (HYD)
51 Steam 12 PRD Polish rod or hnm 10 OTR Othe/(explam) 32 JTH Jet throat (HYO)
" InJ..dlOn • Note: If stimulating. please
COrrple1eSlimulatlonSectlOn 14 GLV
(explamwhlCh)
Gas hft vallie
14 ENG
15 PRE
Engme end (H'fO)
Production end (HYO)
(below). PI..asa record costs 16 MDR Mandnl 16 STY Standing valve (HYO)
21 SSV SaletyvaNe 17 EAP Engine and production end (HYO)
23 PLL Plunger or ca1cher or Slop 19 PPR Pu~ pull rod
24 SNP Seatmgnlpple 20 PHD PUrTl> holdown
25 STV Standing valve 22 ESP PUfl\) end (ESP)
26 BHA Bottom holeassentlly. cavity 23 ESG Gasseparalor (ESP)
30 OTR Other (explain) 24 ESS
25 ESM
Seal section (ESP)
Motor (ESP)
Failure
26 ESX
27 ESH
Motol lead extenSIOO (ESP)
Pol head (ESP)
Descriptor
28 ESC Poy"er cabie (ESP)
--_._------------- - - ,-----------------------~----~St~;m-u~la~tio-n~S:-.~ct~;o~n~L30~O~T~H-~Ol~~"~.'=.=""~)____________
Cause of failure
MFG
(46--47) (48) (49) If chemica! stimulation
Rea.on ~:rny
in CD Fw
D D 150)
Typo
(51)
~52-56)
D Aad
D
NON
WER
None Not apphcable
AxelSon (rods)
LIllI]
"
02 ABR
03 COR
W."
Abrasion, !iUld Cut
CorrOSion
"
02
D3
UPCO(rods)
Continental EMSCO(rods)
Fmes/clays
Mud damage
Scala
BJ
Dowel!
Hallibunon
HCi.HF
HCI
AcetIC
HCI.HF 123%
HCIHF 615%
HCI.HF 6:05%
-----~
II chem,cal Slim volume - Gals
II Frac FracFluKlVol·Bbls
04 FAT Fatigue D4 Noms (rods) HCI 28%
05 SND Sand DS Ol!well(rods)
Bacteria B"",, BOa'"
EmulsIOn Western Solvent HCI 20%
06 MUD Mod 06 Tuboscopa (coatmg) Paraffin! ACid Eng. Scale Squeeze HCI 15%
07 SeL Gyp or scale 07 BTS (coatmg) Other (explamIn HCI 10%
asphaHenes SERFCO
08 PAR Paraflm 08 Spmcote(coatlng) HCI 7.5%
Wale/block Sm~hEnergy remarks)
09 RUB Rubber (In thepul1ll 09 VETCO (coaling) Acetic
Waterroouction OH19r (explain in
10 MET Metal {In the pump) Inillaloompletlon remarks)
12 IPA Improper applICation 1D Reda(ESP) (57·60)
orOlher (explain m
13 IPH ImplOperhandling 11 Cenlfilift-Hughes (ESP)
~
remarks)
UNK Unknown 12 Oor(ESP)
"
15 CRH
18 ELe
Crooked hole
Electfical.llghtntng
13
14
Trico(ESP)
Saker - Lift (ESP) 11 Frac' Frac Sand weight· M pounds
17 OTR Other (explain) 15 Other (ESP)

Cosl-dollarsonly(RoundcosttOfl€larastdollar)

(61 ;;S66) (67 :;. 73) (74 311 SO)

1 1 1 1 1 I
Pu~only

(1 . . ; - - - 5
I 1 I

10
I 1 1 1 I
A1!equlpmentotherthanpurrps.

15
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
All labor costs: Corrpany + Conlract +
Workovar + Stimulation + Olher
20 25 35 40)
} Costs

1 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 1 I 1
Remarl\s (left )uslilIOO. Please print): For permanent record ellter information In remarks squares.
4 1 " ; - - - 45 50 55 60 70 80)

I I 1 I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I 1 I I I I 1 I I I I I I
Remar'Ks(contlnuatlOn)

(1-5 10 15 20 25 35 40)

Remarks
1 I 1 I I I 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1
Remar'Ks (conllnuatlon)
4 1 " ; - - - 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80)

I I I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I 1 I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 I I I 1 I
RemarXs{contlnuallon)
Fl8ldrocords:
Tubing PUp, ROeM

Nurmer
01 ~s. PMPsize

PMPtype

Wei hI Gas anchor

I
Thread Rod Sizes I I
Ctass
Nurrber
01 rods I I For Field
Record
Mud anchor Rod class
Keeping
Anchor
Catcher

Pad\er
AR3B·1162-R
Signed

Fig. 1-Data input form.

JVf • April 1994 337

 1 WELL FAILURE ANALYSIS TO OATE: 11-92 IN ORO ER BY DECREASING # OF FAILURES.
WESTI DISTRICT. DISTRICT CODE: WM. SUBDISTRICT CODE:3 WESTIMIDCIWO
MIDC

LEASE & WELL tI NUMBER OF FAILURES IN EACH YEAR TO DATE

- - - - - - 1 2 MONTHS TO 11-91 - -12 MONTHS TO 11-92 - - - - - - -
LEASE & WELL tI --ROD-- --ROO---
PMP BOY CPL PIN TOT TBG GL PMP _ _ BOY CPL PIN TOT -TBG- GL*
Lease A 1 1 0 o 0 0 0 0 1($ 4806) o o 0 O(S 0) 0($ 0- 2 ROD PMP
Lease A 31 0 o 0 0 0 0 1($ 7659) o o 0 O(S 0) O(S 0- 2 ROD PMP
LeaseB 1 1 0 o 0 0 0 0 1($ 8888) o o 0 O(S 0) O(S 0- 2 ROD PMP
LeaseC 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1(S 2188) o o 0 O(S 0) O(S 0- 3 RODPMP
LeaseD 1 1 0 o 0 0 0 0 1($ 961) o o 0 1 (S 0) 1 (S 0- 3 ROD PMP
LeaseE 100 o 0 0 0 0 O(S 0) o o 0 2(S 0) 2(S 0- 2 ROD PMP
Lease F 01 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 O(S 0) 2 o 0 O(S 3953) O(S 0- 2 ROD PMP
1 1 0 o 0 0 0 0 1(S 2S00) 1 3 0 O(S 12449) O(S 0- 6 ROD PMP
LeaseG 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 O(S 0) 3 o 0 3(S 2470) 1(S 0- 6 ROD PMP
1 0 0
.0 ****.~... u•• Ru •• "".~.,u ••~* .... *.~~~u.**~9200) o o 0 O(S 0) 0($ 0- 2 SUB PMP

FOR 1992: % PIN FAIL- 0 % CPL FAIL- 33 % ROD END FAIL- 33

FOR 1992 % OF TUBING FAILUR,ES( 5) WHICH ARE SPLITS( 4)= 80%

* COST FOR GAS LIFT FAIL APPEARS IN PUMP COST SPACE.

Fig. 2-Problem well report.

Example 2. Rod pumping has been chosen.
This opens a variety of selection opportu-
nities. The pumping unit selection is based
on a compromise between the present and
expected producing requirements. Choices
must be made between conventional and
nonconventional geometries. Capital cost
must be considered. Tubing size is selected.
Should the tubing be anchored? The API rod
grade is selected as a function of load and
corrosive conditions. High-strength rods
could be needed. What about continuous
rods and fiberglass rods? Should rod cou-
plings be standard or spray metal? The pump
should be selected along the lines of the in-
formation in Table 1. 3
We could give other examples for hydrau-
lic pumping (free pump or a closed system;
a field wide power-fluid system or a single-
well system); progressing cavity pumping
(the type of drive to use; elastomer selection
for the stator); gas lift (tubing- or wireline-
retrievable valves); etc.
Equipment Failure·Control
Selection
This step in the process of managing artifi-
cial lift is best described by example.
Assume that rod pumping is the lift
method of choice. The choices available for
corrosion and erosion control for each of
these components (pump, tubing, rods, and
wellhead equipment) may be different (Ta-
ble 2).3 Similar choices can be made for
other lift choices-e. g., coatings for the ID
oftubulars for ESP and gas-lift installations.
Corrosion, scale, and paraffin control may
require treating either down the casingltub-
ing annuli, through a treating string attached
to the outside of the tubing, by continuous
injection to the gas-lift gas in a gas-lifted
well, or by the power fluid in a hydraulic
or jet pump system. The sooner the need is
identified, the sooner the choice for control
can be economically evaluated and im-
plemented.
A candidate well for corrosion control by
materials selection is defined as a well (1)
with unacceptable equipment life owing to
corrosion and/or erosion where coatings
and/or chemical inhibition are not practical,
economical alternatives; (2) where the risks
from a corrosion/erosion failure will affect
personnel safety or the environment; and
(3) where failure repair costs will be high
and/or lost production revenue will be ex-
cessive.
Monitoring Production
Producing conditions can and often do
change (sometimes rapidly), and monitoring
these changes is essential. GOR changes and
increasing water cuts can drastically affect
the lift system performance. Any and all
production changes influence operating ef-
ficiency and can lead to equiment failures.
For example, increasing the water cuts in
a rod-pumped well increases the load on the
rods; an increased water cut also influences
the presence or absence of a scale-deposition
problem and the severity of a corrosion
problem. As the reservoir pressure de-
creases and the production declines, the lift
equipment will be affected. Overproduction
of a rod-pumped well can result in pounding
and increased failures. Each criterion affects
how the well is produced and, in some cases,
can make a change in lift method eco-
nomical.
Production monitoring is essential if
causes of equipment failures are to be cor-
rectly identified and economic control of
these failures implemented. Our goal is not
to control all failures but to increase profit-
ability.
Monitoring Equipment
Performance
In any attempt to optimize operations
through a failure-control program (failure
control in its simplest form is failure analysis
with the goal of applying corrective actions),
basic information is required to define the
nature and magnitude of the problem and to
estimate the economic stakes. Systems for
obtaining this information have the follow-
ing goals in common: to determine the cause
of the equipment failure, to help set speci-
fications for equipment, to predict future
performance of the equipment, and to fol-
low the economic impact of implemented ac-
tion. Premature equiment failures are
usually the result of design deficiencies, im-
proper material selection, manufacturing
deficiencies, errors in assembly, and/or
service conditions that were not considered
in design.
Minimizing equipment failures requires a
tracking system that identifies the failures
by type (rod, tubing, pump), location (pin,
body, barrel, plunger), cause (abrasion,
stuck, corrosion, split, plugged), and ap-
proximate cost. One such system has been
in operation since 1969. 4 .5 With this data-
base, the failures can be trended to indicate
the overall performance with time. Trend-
ing helps provide a comparison among
producing areas. Analysis of the data will
point out problems with the chemical treat-
ment program; problems associated with a
specific equipment component, such as balls
and seats; whether the rod failures are body
or end (pin or coupling); and whether the
tubing leak is the result of a corrosion-
caused hole or a rod-wear-caused split. Peri-
odic meetings to discuss problem wells
(those wells with excessive premature
failures) help provide guidance and en-
courage failure control.
A successful failure-control program can
be summarized as follows. First, failure and/
or performance/activity data are collected
on a form like that in Fig. 1. Then failure
data are reviewed continuously and dis-
cussed periodically by a panel consisting of
involved production and engineering person-
nel, staff support engineering, and chemi-
cal treating personnel, both company and
contract. The wells reviewed are those for
which the type and/or pattern of failure ex-
ceeds certain criteria. These wells are known
as problem wells. The criteria that define
a problem well continually get tougher as
failure control is achieved. For example, a
problem well can be defined as one with a
failure performance.
1. A rod pump failure in less than 12
months.
2. A tubing failure in less than 12 months.

338 April 1994 • JPf

 FAILURE USTING FOR PERIOD 4-YRS PRIOR THROUGH TO-DATE

COST( $ ONLY)
LABOR+MATS
TYPE FAIL FAIL TYPE LOC OF CAUSE OF PUMP AlL TOTAl
WELL # 'WELL" DATE *EQUIPMNT*DEPTH" FAILURE *FAILURE *FAILURE "ONLY" OTHER *SERVICE" COST REMARKS
...
W""M""-3L..-_--'L...
EASE:: A
1 PUMP" 4-17-91"ROD PMP" 'WORN *WEAR "972+ 0+ 1010- 1982 *CHANGE PUMP-RAN ZXl 1/16X16 RHBS
WO 3' PA PLUNGER
" 3- 4-92"ROD PMP" TD*STUCK "SAND " 942+ 0+ 3864- 4806*HAD TO STRIP OUT RODS AND TBG-
CLEANE 6788 TOTAl FAILURE
COST

WM-3 LEASE:: A
3 PUMP" 1- 2-91 "ROD PMP " *lEAK 'BAlLSEAT'WEAR" 502+ 0+ 1605- 2107"
" 7- 8-92"ROD PMP" TD*STUCK 'BAlLSEAT'SAND 259+ 0+ 7400- 7659*HAD TO CLEAN OUT SAND 9766 TOTAl
FAILURE COST

WJ!lM::..i-3'----'L~EASE::
... B
1 PUMP- 11- 1-89"R0 PMP " 669 3'STUCK *PLUNGER 'SAND' 1205 0+ 1891- 3096*lOAD TBG OK
" 1- 7-91 "ROD PMP " *WORN *PLUNGER *CORRODED" 934+ 0+ 1528- 2462"99
"12- 3-91 "OTHER "6690"STUCK 'BODY*OTHERELE" 456+ 1000+ 25739- 27195*HADTOCUTOFFTBG-MiLLOUTTAC-
FISH TBG
"7- 28-92 "RODPMP" TD*STUCK*NONE *SAND 777+ 3341 + 4470- 8888*HAD TO REPLACE 165 3/4 RODS (PUMP
ST 41641 TOTAl FAILURE
*"'A"ot"",a"""", •• , •• ,.,*. * ...... A' .... , ........................... A' •
COST

:ti~-~ I EASE:: t;
1 PUMP*12-14-90*NONE *NONE *NONE *NONE 0+ 0+ 0- O*COMMINGLE CHESTER AND MORROW ZONES
INSTAlL TEST ART LIFT EQUIP
3-14-91
"4- 16-91 "ROD PMP "STUCK *PLUNGER "SAND 505+ 0+ 947- 1452*CHAINGE PUMP-RAN ZX1 1/16X16
RHBCW/ 3' PA PLUNGER
"4- 6- 91 "ROD "1000 'WORN *COUPLlNG'WEAR 0+ 7+ 1373- 1380*CHAINGE OUT 1 718 SLIM HOLE COUPLING
"6- 16-92 "ROD PMP TO 'WORN 'BARREL *CORRODED" 832+ 25+ 1331- 2188*COUPLING PULLED OFF PIN WHILE UNSEAT
5020 TOTAL FAILURE COST

Fig. 3-Four-year problem well history.

3. Two rod failures (pin, coupling, body)
in the last 12 months.
4. A combination of any three failures in
the last 12 months-e.g., a pump failure, a
polished-rod failure, and a rod break.
5. An ESP life of less than 24 months.
6. A hydraulic reciprocating pump life of
less than 4 months.
7. A jet pump life of less than 24 months.
8. Gas-lift equipment (valves, mandrels)
life of less than 24 months.
Use of Monitoring Data
for Making Decisions
Production and equipment performance data
are required for decision making. Specifics
of the production, knowledge of the well op-
eration, and failure data are required to
make sensible (economical) corrective de-
cisions. Investigative engineering takes all
the monitoring data and determines the prob-
able cause of failure (or of unsatisfactory
performance) and the best solution. For ex-
ample, a particular beam-pump well is
reportedly having rod breaks at the upset.
What is the problem? Is it manufacturing
defects or well operation? More information
is required. The same problem of rod breaks
occurred with pumps from two different
manufacturers. The well was recently acid-
ized, which increased the production and
necessitated a larger pump. Dynamometer
analysis on the well indicated that the rods
were operating at 110 % to 115 % above the
range of stress specified by the Goodman
diagram. The unit was a 228 with a 74-in.
stroke operating at 12.6 strokes/niin. Based
on that information, the best failure-control
solution would be to change to a larger unit,
redesign the rod string, increase the stroke
length, and slow down the well. However,
if all factors are considered, the most eco-
nomical solution may be to reduce speed
(with its attendant loss in productivity) or
live with the failures, rather than installing
a larger unit and/or redesigning the rod
string if a full-cycle economic analysis can-
not justify the changes.
A successful failure-control program re-
quires regular meetings at each field office-
perhaps every 6 to 12 months-to review the
performance of the problem wells. Each
problem well is reviewed, and the specifics
of the installation, production, and failures
are discussed. The outcome is specific de-
cisions to solve the problems economically.
Post-mortems of actions recommended in
the previous meeting are conducted, and
needed changes are identified, discussed,
and agreed upon. Examples of data to be re-
viewed at such meetings are displayed in
Figs. 2 and 3.
In 1992, all projects involving engineer-
ing staff were reviewed to assess need and
profitability. The value of the failure-control
project as a tool to optimize profitability was
affirmed. A field production superintendent
described his view of the failure-control
program.
I know of nowhere else in the indus-
try to obtain these services, either
through contractor or vendor. These
people serve as an excellent "clearing
house" for information on reliability
of new products, etc. These people
have an excellent understanding of
the operational and mechanical side
of business. They communicate very
well with field personnel. These guys
are working on the kind of stuff we
all need to pay more attention to. This
is where we make our "bread and
butter" money.
Training and
Technology Transfer
Improvement is difficult without training.
Training on recognizing and solving prob-
lems should be directed to company person-
nel and well servicing crews. Data
monitoring serves as an indicator of when
training is required. For example, if the rod-
end failures for a given property or produc-
ing area exceed 30% of total rod failures,
a training session on equipment pulling and
handling (a care and handling seminar) is
scheduled. 6 API's recommended practices
provide excellent information and training
aids. Internal recommended practices 7 on
a variety of topics that target production op-
erations can be developed. These documents
contain failure-control experience gained
over many years and provide practical
guidance to field engineering and production
personnel.
Like training, technology transfer is a re-
quirement for improvement. New and better
materials and operating procedures are being
developed that can increase run time. New
and improved equipment is targeting such
problem areas as tubing and rod wear. Each
new method should be evaluated on its per-
formance, including cost and run-time im-
provement. Technology transfer is also
information sharing. It is just as important
to share what has not worked as what has
worked.
Examples of new technology under trial
include the application and testing of vacuum

JPf • April 1994 339

 1. The information and experience nec-
TABLE 3-FAILURE CONTROL
PERFORMANCE essary to select the optimum (ultimately the
most economical) lift system and the opti-
mum components for that lift system.
Equipment Life
2. Continuous production performance
(months)
Type of Failure 1970 1988 monitoring.
20
3. A data-collection system that allows ef-
Rods 75
Rod pumps 20 40 forts to be focused on problem wells.
Tubing 60 100 4. Periodic meetings to discuss these
ESP 15 48 problem wells.
All downhole failures 12 33 5. A central contact who assists with the
meetings and provides continuity, informa-
tion, and contacts from inside the company
deposition of noble-metal films on stuffing- and the industry.
box packing and polished rods (for friction 6. Training for company pesonnel and for
reduction) and on ESP stages and gas-lift contractors.
valves for scale control. Development and 7. Continuous and repeated technology
testing of high-temperature materials for transfer.
composition ring plungers and for progress-
Producers have an obligation to achieve
ing cavity stator elastomers are also under
maximum profitability (adequate revenues
way. from "making oil" are no longer accept-
able). Efforts directed to achieve maximum
Keeping Score profitability benefit not only the producer
Results of the failure-control program de- managing the program but also other com-
scribed here can be summarized by a com- panies with investments in the properties that
parison of failure-control rates for the years the producer operates.
1970 and 1988. (Since 1990, some proper- Acknowledgments
ties have been purchased and some let go.
Failure-control efforts have not slackened; We thank Arco management for supporting
keeping company-wide score has.) Table 3 and encouraging this work. We also thank
all Arco personnel who contribute to and
compares the mean time between failures for
participate in the Equipment Performance
1970 and 1988 and documents the improve-
and Failure Control System; improvements
ment in average equiment life.
to date are a result of their efforts.
Conclusions References
Managing artificial lift requires the follow- I. Neely, A.B. et al.: "Selection of Artificial-
ing tools. Lift Methods," paper 10337 presented at the
340
1981 SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Oct. 4-7.
2. Clegg, J.D., Bucaram, S.M., and Hein, N.W.:
"Recommmendations and Comparisons for
Artificial-Lift Methods Selection," JPT (Dec.
1993) 1128.
3. RP4, Metallurgical Selection for Corrosion and
Erosion Control, Arco E&P Technology,
Plano, TX.
4. Bucaram, S.M. and Sullivan, J.H.: "A Data-
Gathering and Processing System To Optimize
Producing Operations," JPT (Feb. 1972) 185.
5. Bucaram, S.M. and Yeary, B.J.: "A Data-
Gathering System To Optimize Producing Op-
erations: A 14-Year Overview," JPT(April
1987) 457.
6. Bucaram, S.M., Byars, H.G., and Kaplan, M.:
"Selection, Handling and Protection of Down-
hole Materials: A Practical Approach," Ma-
terials Protection and Performance (Sept.
1977) 12, No.9, 20.
7. RP I, Selection and Use of Internally Plastic
Coated Tubing, Arco E&P Technology, Plano,
TX.
SI Metric Conversion Factors
ft x 3.048* E-Ol m
in. x 2.54* E+OO = em
"'Conversion factor is exact.
This paper is SPE 26212. Distinguished Author Series ar·
ticles are general, descriptive representations that summar-
ize the state of the art in an area of technology by describing
recent developments for readers who are not specialists in
the topics discussed. Written by individuals recognized as
experts in the area, these articles provide key references
to more definitive work and present specific details only to
illustrate the technology. Purpose: To inform the general
readership of recent advances in various areas of petrole-
um engineering. A softbound anthology, SPE Distinguished
Author Series: Dec. 1981-Dec. 1983, is available from SPE's
Book Order Dept.
April 1994 • JPT