MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944734984 · doi:10.2118/194419-ms

20 Years of Rigless ESPs in Alaska; What went Right, What went Wrong, What's Next?

2019· article· en· W2944734984 on OpenAlexaff
John C. Patterson, Grant Dornan, M. D. Jensen, Gary Targac, David Malone, Samer Cheblak, J. Y. Julian, Matthew Walker

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicOil and Gas Production Techniques
Canadian institutionsConocoPhillips (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProduction (economics)Completion (oil and gas wells)EngineeringSubmersible pumpPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper is not a technical paper about electric submersible pumps (ESP's), instead it traces the 20-year journey that has led to the development and successful application of multiple generations of rigless ESP conveyance systems in a commercial oilfield. The end result, after many lessons learned, is a success story in which over 300 rig interventions have been eliminated over a 20-year period, with savings of 100's of millions of dollars in intervention costs, reduced HSE exposure and many millions of barrels of additional production. Utilization of ESP technology in the West Sak viscous oil field in Alaska is challenging. The unconsolidated nature of the West Sak sands impacts the performance and reliability of conventional ESP systems due to sand production. This challenging environment causes ESP pump erosion and accumulation of sand in the tubing above the pump and in the lower completion below the ESP. The initial development of the West Sak formation was the basis for the original development of the through-tubing conveyed progressing cavity pump (TTCESPCP) in the mid 1990's. With time, the West Sak completions evolved from vertical wells to long horizontals, resulting in production capacity increasing beyond the capabilities of the 3.5 in. and 4 in. TTCESPCP systems. This led to the development of a 4.5 in. through-tubing ESP in the early 2000's. In this design, the PCP of the TTCESPCP system was replaced with a high capacity, centrifugal pump or through-tubing convenyed ESP (TTCESP). With time and successful experience utilizing the TTC systems, it became evident that although the through-tubing technology resulted in significant savings and increased production, the design was lacking in one major aspect – the ability to remove sand accumulation in the 7-5/8 in. production casing below the end of tubing. The inability to perform interventions without pulling the tubing, was leading to expensive and avoidable rig workovers not related to the ESP equipment. The resulting economics drove the development of a through-tubing, slickline (SL) deployed ESP that, when all components are removed, leaves a minimum diameter of 3.80 in. for well interventions below the end of the tubing. The wireline retrievable ESP (WRESP) system was launched in 2005 and was fully commercialized in 2014. Numerous papers have been written on this specific technology and references are provided at the end of this paper. This list does not represent a complete listing of all through-tubing technologies, as there are other systems with substantially different characteristics. This paper will focus only on the through-tubing technology development and evolution in Alaska. It will present the 20-year development history of the Alaskan through-tubing technology, how the system is deployed, answers to frequently ask questions, and as the title suggests – What went Right, What went Wrong, and What's Next? The development and successful commercial deployment of through-tubing ESP systems in Alaska has been a long journey, with many lessons learned in the evolution from conventional ESPs, to through-tubing PCP's and ESP's (TTC or Generation 1 (Gen 1)), to the wireline retrievable ESP (WRESP or Generation 2 (Gen 2)). It should be recognized that both technologies had a development phase, followed by a commercial deployment phase. There were unexpected problems and benefits that were encountered as the technology matured. The technical difficulties significantly increased while advancing from the TTC (primarily mechanical changes) to the WR technologies (which adds the electrical component of a downhole wet connect).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.974
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.006
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.199 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOil and Gas Production TechniquesFrench-language works237,207