See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/358646671

Evaluating Lift Systems For Oil Wells Using Integrated Production Modeling: A
Case Study Of A Niger Delta Field

Article · December 2021

DOI: 10.37591/jopet.v11i3.6057

CITATIONS READS

3 3,260

5 authors, including:

Ugochukwu Ilozurike Duru Onyebuchi Nwanwe

Federal University of Technology Owerri Federal University of Technology Owerri
58 PUBLICATIONS 153 CITATIONS 27 PUBLICATIONS 61 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Chibuzo Cosmas Nwanwe Akeem Olatunde Arinkoola

Federal Polytechnic Nekede Ladoke Akintola University of Technology
15 PUBLICATIONS 35 CITATIONS 58 PUBLICATIONS 613 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Onyebuchi Nwanwe on 28 June 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 ISSN: 2231-1785 (Online)
Journal of ISSN: 2321-5178 (Print)

Petroleum Engineering & Technology Volume 11, Issue 3, 2021

DOI (Journal): 10.37591/JoPET
STM JOURNALS
http://engineeringjournals.stmjournals.in/index.php/JoPET/index

Research JoPET

Evaluating Lift Systems for Oil Wells Using Integrated

Production Modeling: A Case Study of A Niger Delta
Field
Ugochukwu Ilozurike Duru1,*, Onyebuchi Ivan Nwanwe2, Chibuzo Cosmas Nwanwe3, Akeem
Olatunde Arinkoola4, and Anthony Ogbegbe Chikwe5

Abstract
An integrated production model for evaluating artificial lift systems is presented in this study to
ascertain the need to install an artificial lift system or continue with natural flowing mode. An
integrated model comprising of reservoir, wellbore and surface facility models representing basic
stages of production. The integrated model took into consideration, factors that affect the liquid
production at these stages and provide total liquid production at the surface, which would be used for
computation of Net Present Valus. Decisions were made based on the comparison of the Net Present
Values obtained from each production mode (Natural, Gas Lift or Electrical Submersible Pump).
Three wells from different reservoirs in the Niger Delta were used to illustrate the proposed model.
From the results obtained, natural flowing production mode was more profitable for well A2 because
it resulted in a Net Present Value higher than that obtained for Electrical Submersible Pump and Gas
Lift by $ 7.92 million and $ 24.1 million, respectively. In the case of wells A6 and A7, the Net Present
Value for the Electrical Submersible Pump were $ 9.04 million and $ 6.74 million higher than that for
the Gas Lift respectively. The Net Present Value for the Electrical Submersible Pump was $ 9.04
million and $ 6.74 million greater than the Gas Lift for wells A6 and A7, respectively, indicating that
the installation of an Electrical Submersible Pump would be more lucrative. Based on the results, it
can be concluded that Electrical Submersible Pumps are more economically viable for these wells
than Gas Lift system which agreed with previous research.

Keywords: Integrated Production Model, Natural Flow, Gas Lift, Electrical Submersible Pumps, Net
Present Value
*Author for Correspondence
Ugochukwu Ilozurike Duru
E-mail: ugochukwu.duru@futo.edu.ng
INTRODUCTION
1,5
Senior Lecturer, Department of Petroleum Engineering, An oil reservoir may initially be produced using
Federal University of Technology Owerri, Imo State Nigeria its natural energy until it can no longer be able to
2
Assistant Lecturer, Department of Petroleum Engineering,
Federal University of Technology Owerri, Imo State Nigeria produce at economic rates. This could be as a
3
Lecturer III, Department of Minerals & Petroleum Resources result of exhaustion of natural drive mechanisms
Engineering Technology, Federal Polytechnic Nekede,
Owerri, Imo State, Nigeria
(such as water, solution gas or gas cap). Usually,
4
Senior Lecturer, Department of Chemical Engineering, during well completion, considerations are made
Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomosho, for the use of an Artificial Lift System (ALS)
Nigeria
method in case if not needed immediately but can
Received Date: November 23, 2021 be installed later in the life of the well. This is for
Accepted Date: December 26, 2021 flow assurance and optimum production from the
Published Date: December 31, 2021
well and at the same time extend the life of the
Citation: Ugochukwu Ilozurike Duru, Onyebuchi Ivan well from the primary reasons for ALS at
Nwanwe, Chibuzo Cosmas Nwanwe, Akeem Olatunde
Arinkoola, Anthony Ogbegbe Chikwe. Evaluating Lift
exhaustion of the reservoir natural energy.
Systems for Oil Wells Using Integrated Production Modeling:
A Case Study of A Niger Delta Field. Journal of Petroleum According to [1] no matter the condition over
Engineering & Technology. 2021; 11(3): 32–48p.
the entire life of a field, a well should produce

© STM Journals 2021. All Rights Reserved 32

Evaluating Lift Systems for Oil Wells Using Integrated Production Modeling Duru et al.

economically. Implementation of ALS takes effect the moment reservoir fluids can no longer be
economically lifted to the surface. [2] identified benefits of early installation of ALS to include; (a)
more production at the surface (b) economical (less expenditure) and (c) improving production rates,
which are in line with the purposes of ALS stated earlier. However, it would be important to make
accurate decisions whether or not to install ALS for the well been considered such that optimum well
productivity can be achieved.

If an artificial lift (AL) is to be installed, it is equally important to select an optimal ALS method.
Selection of best ALS constitute a serious challenge because of the size of factors to be evaluated.
ALS being used in the industry is broadly grouped into Gas Lift (GL) and pump assisted lift methods.
Pump assisted lift methods include; Progressive Cavity Pump (PCP), Electrical Submersible Pump
(ESP), Hydraulic Jet pumps (HJP), Plunger Pumps (PP) and Reciprocating and Sucker Rod Pump
(SRP). The most commonly used ALS are GL, ESP, PCP, SRP and HJP as shown in Figure 1.
Selection of ALS for use in the field must be based on some important criteria and considerations [3].

Figure 1. Most Commonly used Artificial Lift Systems.

Numerous authors have proposed different methodologies for selecting ALS methods for optimum
well production. Reservoir depth and flow rate being the permanent challenger for the different ALS
and specialist [4] was considered by [5] in the charts used for a particular ALS method to function
properly [5]. comparison lacked some important factors considered by the studies of [3, 6]. These
factors include, fluid viscosity and sand production potential to ensure the actual mechanical energy
required to lift fluids as well as solids from the bottom-hole to the surface [3, 6]. screened ALS by
considering the advantages and disadvantages of each method to specific criteria such as
environmental and geographical aspects of the well location, reservoir pressure and well productivity,
reservoir fluid characteristics, solids production with well fluids and producing gas-liquid ratio.
Though [6] did not consider economics, which is very necessary in petroleum project evaluation to
guide investment decisions, their study and that of [3] informed the parameters to be considered when
designing and comparing ALS for optimum production [7]. as well, ignored economics like [3, 6]
while selecting ALS but suggested only three factors; produced fluid flow rate, pressure at bottom of
the well and ratio of gas to liquid.

Expert program was later developed to aid in ALS selection by [8–11]. [12] used simulation model
to select the best ALS for field performance. The works of [13, 14] employed Petroleum Expert
Software–PROSPER to select between between GL and ESP ALS using both technical and economic

© STM Journals 2021. All Rights Reserved 33

Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology
Volume 11, Issue 3
ISSN: 2231-1785 (Online), ISSN: 2321-5178 (Print)

criteria but the former assumed a constant optimum flow rate for a period of one year, which can not
hold in real-time operation, where well production rate decreases with time. [15] in their work used
IPR, PVT data, down hole equipment and temperature profile along the well for selection of optimum
ALS. The role of IPR has become very important in ALS selection being that Productivity Index
(magnitude of IPR) is beneficial for development investment and economic benefit [16].

[17] considered ALS selection to include but not limited to; capabilities, limitations, expert
programs and comparing size of the ALSs. Experience, expertise and economics according to [18] can
as well be used in ALS selection process and it gave a satisfactory results as reported by the authors.
Adequate ALS selection plays an important role in development of an oil field [4] and for achieving
stated goals for petroleum production optimization. This was considered by [19] in later life of a field
to increase recovery and wellbore profitability, but optimizing recovery and profitability remains a
concern. The work of [19] was supported by [20] on the use of standard project economic analysis of
the size and efficiency of the ALSs.

According to [21], tubing performance relationship models can be described as homogenous and
separated flow models, and are used in analyzing the type of flow (multiphase flow) experienced in
oil well vertical tubing. Homogenous flow models have been found to be less accurate due to different
densities of multi-component wellbore fluids and it neglects the effect of liquid holdup. The work of
[22] on optimum tubing size (OTS) prediction model for vertical wells using MATLAB supports the
use of separated models for OTS prediction model at all reservoir pressures. Separated flow model in
PROSPER software would give a practical, accurate and reliable VLP analysis for the wellbore.

[20] stated that no selection method is ideal and considered the process complex and subjective.
Authors like Hirschfeldt prefers a process that would emcompass different aspects of production
system for efficient ALS selection. [23] showcased effectiveness of IPM over a standalone model in
predicting fluid production volumes of a reservoir. Considering the weakness of a standalone model
for natural flowing or artificial lift well model, this study used an integrated production modeling
approach (coupling a reservoir model, wellbore model and a surface network model) which enables
interaction between all components of the production system. This approach would give the most
appropriate production mode maintaining boundary conditions at all times. The uniqueness of this
approach is its applicability in a wide range of fields. Figure 2 shows a diagrammatic representation of
an integrated production model consisting of a reservoir, a wellbore and a surface facility models as
well as commercial tools that can be used in modeling each component of the system.

Figure 2. Integrated Production Model [24].

METHODOLOGY
In the Niger Delta, the mostly used ALS are GL and ESP, therefore, this study focuses its ALS
selection criteria on three production modes; natural flow, GL and ESP only. Separate simulations

© STM Journals 2021. All Rights Reserved 34

Evaluating Lift Systems for Oil Wells Using Integrated Production Modeling Duru et al.

was run for each of the three modes of production (natural flow, GL and ESP) over a period of 11
years considering initail investment and operational costs since an accurate decision was based on the
economics analysis. An integrated production model was developed using Petroleum Expert Software
(PROSPER, MBAL and GAP). As shown in Figure 2, while the reservoir model was developed using
MBAL, the PROSPER was used for wellbore modelling and the surface production network was
modeled using the GAP. These components that made up the production system were coupled in GAP
[25]. The model predicted well production for a production system to which each of natural flowing,
GL or ESP mode was coupled, considering real-time production rate variations and project
economics. A comparison of their respective performances and NPV were evaluated to ascertain the
economic viability of each which aids decisions on the production mode (natural or ALS) for a
particular producing well.

Wellbore Model
Three wellbore models including a naturally flowing well, a GL well, and an ESP well was
developed using PROSPER and each model was coupled to a reservoir model (MBAL) and a surface
facility (GAP).

Design of Naturally Flowing well

Productivity Index (PI) of the well was the basis for analyzing the performance of naturally flowing
oil well before the onset of implementing artificial lift and the IPR model of [21] was programmed in
PROSPER. The PI Entry model was selected with data set in Appendix A and entered into PROSPER
software to develop the IPR of the well. The Productivity Index (PI), J can be expressed mathematical
as;
𝑞
𝐽= (1)
𝑃𝑒 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓

where; q = flow rate, 𝑃𝑒 = reservoir pressure, and 𝑃𝑤𝑓 = bottom-hole flowing pressure.

When productivity index, J and reservoir pressure, 𝑃𝑒 are entered into equation 1, different values
of flow rate, q can be calculated for values of bottom-hole flowing pressure, 𝑃𝑤𝑓 ranges between zero
and the reservoir pressure, 𝑃𝑒 (0 ≤ 𝑃𝑤𝑓 ≤𝑃𝑒 ). The maximum flow rate of a well is usually called
Absolute Open Flow (AOF) of the well ie the rate at which 𝑃𝑤𝑓 = 0.

The Hagedorn-Brown correlation for multiphase vertical flow analysis already available in
PROSPER was adopted for developing the tubing performance relationship (TPR) for the three (3)
wells. Hagedorn-Brown correlation presented in Equ. 2 [21] is among the separated flow models
already established as more realistic for VLP analysis.
𝑑𝑝 𝑓 𝑀2 ∆(𝑢𝑚2 )
144 𝑑𝑧 = 𝜌̅ + 7.413 𝑥𝐹 10𝑡10 𝐷5 𝜌̅ + 𝜌̅ 2𝑔 (2)
𝑐 ∆𝑍

where; 𝜌̅ = 𝑦𝐿 𝜌𝐿 + (1 − 𝑦𝐿 )𝜌𝐺 and 𝑢𝑚 = 𝑢𝑆𝐿 + 𝑢𝑆𝐺

A graphical representation of inflow performance relationship (IPR) and tubing performance

relationship (TPR) or Vertical Lift Performance (VLP) indicates the well’s the operating rate and
bottom-hole flowing pressure at their point of intersection as have been established by [26] and shown
in Figure 3.

Gas Lift Well Design

For a gas lifted well, optimum gas injection rate and not necessarily maximum gas injection rate
can only achieve the maximum liquid production rate. This was achieved by sensitivity analysis in
which different values of GL gas injection rate were considered in the PROSPER software and
corresponding values of liquid production rate were calculated. A sensitivity analysis performed by
PROSPER gave a maximum oil (liquid) flow rate for a plot of GL gas injection rate versus liquid rate
which agrees with the work of (27) and can be seen in Figure 4.

© STM Journals 2021. All Rights Reserved 35

Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology
Volume 11, Issue 3
ISSN: 2231-1785 (Online), ISSN: 2321-5178 (Print)

Figure 3. IPR-VLP Curve [26].

Figure 4. Gas Lift Performance Curve [27].

From Figure 4, the optimum GL gas injection rate depicts the maximum oil (liquid) flow rate that
would be used in Equ. 3 [21] for determination of injected optimum Gas-Liquid Ratio (GLR)
𝑞𝑔,𝑜𝑝𝑡
𝐺𝐿𝑅𝑜𝑝𝑡,𝑖𝑛𝑗 = 𝐺𝐿𝑅𝑓𝑚 + 𝑞𝐿
(3)

Using the obtained optimum gas injection rates and optimum injected GLRs calculated from Equ.
3, the IPR-VLP curve for the well could be generated using PROSPER and the point of intersection
becomes the operating liquid rate and bottom-hole flowing pressure of the gas lifted well as shown in
Figure 3.

Electrica1 Submersible Pump Design

In the design and selection of an optimum ESP using PROSPER, pump, motor and cable are all
selected. The following criteria were considered in the selection of an optimum ESP for a given well;
a. The lift rate of the pump should be\ the pump intake and discharge rate
b. The EPS pump for ease of operation must have an outer diameter (OD) less than the Internal
Diameter (ID) of the production tubing
c. The horsepower requirements of the selected pump should be the lowest or minimum for the
available pumps and must have the highest efficiency
d. The selected motor and pump must have equal output energy or that of the motor can be
greater.
e. For all accessible motors, the efficiency of the selected motor must be the highest.
f. The cable that should be selected should result in the lowest power (KVA) required at the
surface

© STM Journals 2021. All Rights Reserved 36

Evaluating Lift Systems for Oil Wells Using Integrated Production Modeling Duru et al.

Using the data set in Appendix A; (pump intake and discharge rate, pump intake and discharge
pressure, and pump head required) was used in selecting an appropriate and optimum ESP for the well
based on the pump design requirements of the well in PROSPER.

PROSPER uses the specifications of the optimum ESP selected based on stated criteria (a-f) in
calculating the pump discharge pressure and VLP curve at different oil (liquid) rates. The operating
rate of the ESP lifted well is point of intersection as in Figure 3.

Reservoir Model
The Reservoir model was developed with MBAL (Material Balance) using classical material
balance principles and respective PVT data of the reservoir. This made it possible for simulation and
prediction of future well production with time, expected cumulative fluid productions and fluid
injections for each of natural flow and ALS modes under consideration.

Surface Facility Model

The surface facility model was developed using General Allocation Program (GAP) and consists of
the wellhead, flowlines, compressors and a separator. The different production modes (natural flow,
GL and ESP) were coupled to both reservoir and surface facility models developed with MBAL and
GAP respectively. Developed VLP curves in PROSPER, were further imported into MBAL and GAP
to complete the entire production system.

Integrated Production Model

All three models (Wellbore, reservoir and surface facility) formed an integrated production model
(IPM) as can be seen in Figure 5 which mimics a natural flow, GL and an ESP lifted well production
modes. Prediction of production for a given well production mode, the other modes were disabled so
that, only the effect of one mode was felt within the production system.

Figure 5. Integrated Production Model indicating a Natural Flowing, GL and ESP Modes [25].

Three Wells (A2, A6 and A7) cases with productivity indices of less than 0.25 STB/day/psi, and
located in three different oil reservoirs in the Niger Delta were used in evaluating two ALS
alternatives against a naturally flowing well production modes employing an integrated production
modelling approach. The workflow developed based on the approach used in this study for evaluating
production modes for oil wells using Integrated Production Modelling (IPM) approach is shown in
Figure 6.

© STM Journals 2021. All Rights Reserved 37

Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology
Volume 11, Issue 3
ISSN: 2231-1785 (Online), ISSN: 2321-5178 (Print)

Figure 6. Workflow for evaluating Natural Flow, GL and ESP Production Modes using IPM.

Economic Analysis
With the production system models in place, separate simulations were conducted to predict future
well production for the natural flowing, GL and ESP production modes over a period of time.
Predicted well production from each production mode was then used to carry out an economic
analysis using NPV as economic indicator.

The economic analysis aimed at ascertaining the profitability of implementing either GL, ESP or to
continue flowing the well using its natural energy. Equs. 5 to 10 were used in calculating NPV for
each of the production modes used in the study. For the natural flowing mode, CAPEX and OPEX
were fixed at 0 (zero).
𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒 = [𝐺𝑝 ∗ 𝐺𝑐 ] + [ 𝑁𝑝 ∗ 𝑂𝑐 )] (5)

© STM Journals 2021. All Rights Reserved 38

Evaluating Lift Systems for Oil Wells Using Integrated Production Modeling Duru et al.

𝐶𝐴𝑃𝐸𝑋 = 𝐴𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑓𝑖𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝐿𝑖𝑓𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡 (6)

𝑂𝑃𝐸𝑋𝑔𝑎𝑠𝑙𝑖𝑓𝑡 = [𝐺𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑗 ∗ 𝐺𝑐 ∗ 365 𝑑𝑎𝑦𝑠] (7a)
𝑂𝑃𝐸𝑋𝐸𝑆𝑃 = 𝑃𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 ∗ 365 ∗ 24 ∗ 𝐸𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑓 (7b)
𝑁𝑂𝑃𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑛 = 𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒 − 𝐶𝐴𝑃𝐸𝑋 − 𝑂𝑃𝐸𝑋 (8)
1
𝑃𝑉𝑂𝑃𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑛 = 𝑁𝑂𝑃 ∗ ((1+𝑖)𝑛 ) (9)

𝑁𝑃𝑉 = ∑𝑛𝑛=1(𝑃𝑉𝑂𝑃𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑛 ) (10)

The values and units of different components of cost used in calculating NPV are given in Table 1
as shown.

Table 1. Cost of each Component.

Property Value Unit
Oil Price 60 $/ TB
Gas Price 3.5 $/MSCF
Gas Lift Installation 4.4748 $ Million
ESP Installation 7.8446 $ Million
Electricity Tariff 0.1731 $/KWh

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results
IPR–VLP Curves for Gas Lifted Wells
The IPR-VLP curve for all the three wells at different GL gas injection rates depicts the liquid rate
for each of the wells calculated using the point of intersection of the IPR and VLP curves, as shown in
Figure 7 and Figure 8 shows a plot of GL gas injection rate versus Oil Rate for wells A2, A6 and A7
depicting its performance for the three wells.

IPR-VLP Curves at different gas lift gas injection rates for Wells A2, A6 and A7
4500
4000
3500
Bottom-hole Pressure, psia

3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Liquid Rate, STB/day
IPR Natural 3 MMSCF/day 7 MMSCF/day
10 MMSCF/day 13 MMSCF/day 17 MMSCF/day 20 MMSCF
23 MMSCF/day 26 MMSCF/day 30 MMSCF/day

Figure 7. IPR-VLP Curves for wells A2, A6, and A7 at various gas lift injection rates.

© STM Journals 2021. All Rights Reserved 39

Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology
Volume 11, Issue 3
ISSN: 2231-1785 (Online), ISSN: 2321-5178 (Print)

Gas Lift Performance Curve for Wells A2, A6 and A7

Well A6 Well A2 Well A7

800

700

600
Oil Rate, STB/day

500

400

300

200

100

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Gas Lift gas injection rate, MMSCF/day
Figure 8. Gas Lift Performance Curve for Wells A2, A6 and A7.

Table 2 shows the required optimum gas lift gas injection rate for wells A2, A6, and A7 and
corresponds to the maximum liquid rate obtained as shown in Figure 8 and the Optimum Gas-Liquid
Ratio shown in this Table was calculated for each of the well from Eq. 3.

Table 2. Optimum Gas Lift gas injection rate.

Well Optimum Gaslift gas injection rate Optimum injected Gas Liquid Ratio
MMSCF/day SCF/STB
Well A2 4.5 11351.27
Well A6 4.2 8762
Well A7 4.5 6382

Electrical Submersible Pump Results

Figures 9, 10 and 11 shows the ESP performance curves for wells A2, A6, and A7 respectively.
The specifications of the ESP selected for these wells were obtained from the ESP design interface in
Prosper software and presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Specifications of Selected ESP’s.

Well Name Pump Name Horsepower Power Required at the
of Pump, hp Surface, KW
Well A2 WOODGROUP TD 600 256 34.665 51.575
stage Pump
Well A6 WOODGROUP TD 460, 111 15.485 18.618
Stage pump
Well A7 WOODGROUP TD 460, 185 28.595 38.651
stage pump

© STM Journals 2021. All Rights Reserved 40

Evaluating Lift Systems for Oil Wells Using Integrated Production Modeling Duru et al.

Figure 9. ESP Performance Curve for Well A2.

Figure 10. ESP Performance Curve for Well A6.

© STM Journals 2021. All Rights Reserved 41

Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology
Volume 11, Issue 3
ISSN: 2231-1785 (Online), ISSN: 2321-5178 (Print)

Figure 11. ESP Performance Curve for Well A7.

Figure 12 shows the VLP curves from Pump Discharge Pressure for each of Wells and the IPR
curves. The point of intersection of corresponding curves for each well in Figure12 gives the
operating rate of the ESP lifted well.

Pump Discharge Pressure and VLP for Wells A2, A6 and A7

8000

7000
Pump Discharge Pressure, psia

6000

5000

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Oil Rate, STB/day
Well A7 Pump Discharge Well A7 VLP Well A2 Pump Discharge
Well A2 VLP Well A6 Pump Discharge Well A6 VLP
Figure 12. Pump Discharge Pressure versus VLP for Wells A2, A6 and A7.

Comparison of Predicted Oil Production from Natural Flow, Gas Lift and ESP for all well cases
Figures 13, 14 and 15 showed a comparison of predicted annual oil production (stb) from Wells A2,
A6 and A7 as a result of Natural Flow, GL and ESP production modes obtained from IPM.

© STM Journals 2021. All Rights Reserved 42

Evaluating Lift Systems for Oil Wells Using Integrated Production Modeling Duru et al.

Gas Lift ESP Natural

280000
270000
Annual Oil Production, STB

260000
250000
240000
230000
220000
210000
200000
190000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time, Year
Figure 13. Production from all the Production Modes for A2.

Natural Gas Lift ESP

250000
Annual Oil Production, STB

200000

150000

100000

50000

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time, Years
Figure 14. Production from all the Production Modes for A6.

Natural Gas Lift ESP

200000
180000
160000
Annual Oil Production, STB

140000
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time, Years
Figure 15. Production from all the Production Modes for A7.

© STM Journals 2021. All Rights Reserved 43

Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology
Volume 11, Issue 3
ISSN: 2231-1785 (Online), ISSN: 2321-5178 (Print)

Net Present Value Calculation for Natural, Gas Lift and ESP well Scenarios
A summary of cumulative production of oil, gas and water from each of the wells being evaluated
and for each production mode are presented in Table 4 for Economic analysis.

Table 4. Summary of Cumulative Production of Oil, Gas and Water for each lift method.
Well Name Lift Mechanism Cumulative Oil Cumulative gas Cumulative Water
Production Production Production
MMSTB MMSCF MMSTB
Natural Flow 2.448 2751.273 0.004
Well A2 Gas Lift 2.431 2732.766 0.00362
Electrical Submersible Pump 2.221 2495.963 0.00308
Natural Flow 0.447 161.68 0.00058
Well A6 Gas Lift 1.890 684.32 0.0076
Electrical Submersible Pump 1.34 484.75 0.0042
Natural Flow 0.174 22.95 0.00848
Well A7 Gas Lift 1.581 208.63 0.0376
Electrical Submersible Pump 0.922 121.73 0.0156

NPV calculations for the natural flowing, GL, and ESP production modes mode for each well case
were performed using Eqs. 5 to 10 and are presented in Table 5.

Table 5. Net Present Value Calculation for all Lift Scenarios.

Operating Expenditure

Net Operating Profit

Capital Expenditure

Net Present Value

Cumulative gas
Cumulative Oil
Production

production

$ Million

$ Million

$ Million

$ Million

$ Million
MMSTB

MMSCF

Revenue
Lift Method

Natural 2.448 2751.273 149.6313 0 0 149.6313 52.44485

Well
Gas Lift 2.431 2732.766 148.5928 4.4748 63.23625 80.88172 28.34855
A2
ESP 2.221 2495.963 135.756 7.8446 0.860267 127.0511 44.53063
Natural 0.447 161.68 26.98168 0 0 26.98168 9.456914
Well
Gas Lift 1.89 684.32 114.0843 4.4748 63.23625 46.37327 16.25355
A6
ESP 1.34 484.75 80.88475 7.8446 0.860267 72.17988 25.29861
Natural 0.174 2751.273 13.19127 0 0 13.19127 4.623461
Well
Gas Lift 1.581 2732.766 97.59277 4.4748 63.23625 29.88172 10.47336
A7
ESP 0.922 2495.963 57.81596 7.8446 0.860267 49.1111 17.21314

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The sensitivities of GL gas injection rate ranging from 0 to 30 MMSCF/day is shown in Figure 7.
GL gas injection rate of 0 MMSCF/day represents a naturally flowing well scenario. Results show
that as GL gas injection rate increases, oil rate also increases to a maximum beyond which oil rate
starts decreasing as GL gas injection rate increases further. This is depicted in Figure 8. The point at
which oil rate is a maximum is the optimum GL gas injection rate. For each well, the optimum gas
injection rate and injected Gas Liquid Ratio for GL are shown in Table 1, and will be used during
production prediction of the integrated production system model for each well case.

Figures. 9, 10 and 11 shows the performance curves for the selected ESP for wells A2, A6, and A7
respectively which the shows the operating rate of the pumps at a frequency of 60 Hz. Based on the

© STM Journals 2021. All Rights Reserved 44

Evaluating Lift Systems for Oil Wells Using Integrated Production Modeling Duru et al.

selected pump, the pump discharge pressure and VLP curves for each ESP lifted well were generated
with PROSPER and are presented in Figure 12 for each of wells A2, A6, and A7. The point of
intersection of corresponding pump discharge pressure and VLP curve gives the flow rate for each
well considering ESP.

The developed well models (natural, GL and ESP) were coupled to their respective reservoir and
surface facility models as shown in Figure 5 and simulation conducted to predict production for a
period of 11 years.

Results from Well A2 (Table 4) shows that installation of an AL method (GL or ESP) might not be
necessary since predicted production for the natural flowing well scenario was found to be very close
to the values obtained for the two AL methods. Results from Figures 13, 14, 15 and 16 also showed
that GL performed better than ESP and naturally flowing well scenarios for all cases under
consideration. For wells A6 and A7, production was still achieved for natural flowing well but was
found to be far lower than that achieved for GL and ESP. However, GL was found to perform better
than ESP and the naturally flowing well scenarios for wells A6 and A7.

Considering the economic analysis conducted, viability of the production modes in each well case
using NPV, it was observed that, well A2 yielded $ 7.92 million and $ 22.15 million more than ESP
and GL, respectively, while well A6 yielded $ 9.04 million and $ 15.83 million more than the gas
lifted and natural flowing well scenarios, respectively. The NPV for ESP lifted well was likewise $
6.74 million and $ 12.59 million greater than the GL and natural flowing wells, respectively. Based on
NPV evaluations, ESP installation in later life of wells A6 and A7 appears more lucrative and cost-
effective ALS compared to GL.

Comparison of Net Present Value for each Lift Method

Natural Gas Lift Electrical Submersible Pump
60
52.45
Net Present Value, $ Million

50 44.53

40
28.35
30 25.29

20 16.25 17.21
9.46 10.47
10 4.62

0
WellA2 WellA6 WellA7
Well Name
Figure 16. Comparison of NPVs for Natural Flow, GL and ESP wells.

CONCLUSION
An integrated production modeling approach was presented in this paper for evaluating AL
methods for oil wells in the Niger Delta. The following conclusions were drawn from this study:-
a. This developed a workflow to serve as a guide for selecting ALS using integrated production
modeling.
b. This modelling approach was useful in predicting whether to install an ALS or to continue
flowing a well by natural means and aided in making accurate decisions as to ALS for flowing

© STM Journals 2021. All Rights Reserved 45

Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology
Volume 11, Issue 3
ISSN: 2231-1785 (Online), ISSN: 2321-5178 (Print)

a well.
c. It could be deduced that an ALS with lower production rate might be more cost-effective than
another ALS with a higher NPV obtained IPM but more profit indicators might be required to
make appropriate choice in this case.
d. An integrated production model coupled to an economic model achieved accurate selection of
an ALS.

REFERENCES
1. Nguyen V., Rogachev M., Aleksandrov AN. A new approach to improving efficiency of gas‑lift wells
in the conditions of the formation of organic wax deposits in the Dragon field. J Pet Explor Prod
Technol. 2020; 10: 3663–3672.
2. Syed FI, Alshamsi M, Dahaghi AK, et al. Artificial lift system optimization using machine learning
applications. Petroleum. 2020.
3. Clegg JD, Bucaram SM, Hein NWJ. Recommendations and Comparisons for Selecting Artificial-Lift
Methods. Jounal Pet Technol. 1993; 45 (12):1128–1167.
4. Hirschfeldt CM, Distel F, Martínez P. Artificial-Lift Systems Overview and Evolution in a Mature
Basin: Case Study of Golfo San Jorge: SPE Latin American and Caribbean Petroleum Engineering
Conference;2007 April 15-18; Buenos Aires, Argentina: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 2007.
5. Blais R. Artificial Lift Methods. Oklahoma, Tulsa; PennWell Publishing Co.;1986.
6. Neely B, Gipson F, Clegg J et al. Selection of Artificial Lift Method: SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition; 1981 October 4-7; San Antonio, Texas: SPE; 1981.
7. Lea JF, Nickens HV. Selection of Artificial Lift: SPE Mid-Continent Operations Symposium; 1999
March 28-31; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: Society of Petroleum Engineers; 1999.
8. Alemi M, Jalalifar H, Kamali G, et al. A prediction to the best artificial lift method selection on the
basis of TOPSIS model. J Pet Gas Eng. 2010; 1 (1): 009–15.
9. Espin DA, Gasbarri S, Chacin JE. Expert System for Selection of Optimum Artificial Lift Method:
SPE Latin America/Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference; 1994, April 27-29; Buenos Aires,
Argentina: SPE; 1994.
10. Heinze LT. AL: An Expert System for Selecting the Optimal Pumping Method: SPE Prod Oper Symp;
1989 March 13-14; Oklahoma City, Oklahoma: SPE; 1989.
11. Valentin EA. OPUS: An Expert Advisor for Artificial Lift: SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition; 1988 October 2-5; Houston, Texas: SPE;1988.
12. Taheri A, Hooshmandkoochi A. Optimum Selection of Artificial-Lift System for Iranian Heavy-Oil
Fields: SPE Western Regional/AAPG Pacific Section/GSA Cordilleran Section Joint Meeting; 2006,
May 8-10; Anchorage, Alaska, USA: SPE; 2006.
13. Al-Sallami OA. Comparison Between ESP and Gas Lift in Buzurgan Oil field/Iraq. Eng J.
2018;24(1):83–96.
14. Hullio IA, Jokhio SA, Memon KR, et al. Design and Economic Evaluation of the ESP and Gas Lift on
the Dead Oil Well. Int J Curr Eng Technol. 2018; 8 (6): 1548–1553.
15. Odjugo T, Baba Y, Aliyu A, et al. Optimisation of artificial lifts using prosper nodal analysis for
barbra-1 well in niger delta. Niger J Technol Dev. 2020; 17 (3): 150–155.
16. Wu C, Wang S, Yuan J, et al. A prediction model of specific productivity index using least square
support vector machine method. Adv Geo-Energy Res. 2020; 4 (4): 460–467.
17. Hirschfeldt CM. Artificial Lift Management: Recommendations and Suggestions of Best Practices.
CT&F-Ciencia, Tecnol y Futur. 2011; 4 (3): 7–20.
18. Panbarasan M. Strategies for Selection of Artificial Lift System for Deviated gas wells. Int J Res Appl
Sci Eng Technol. 2017; 5 (VIII): 1792–1794.
19. Adeniyi A., Onolemhemhen R., Isehunwa S. Economic evaluation of selected artificial lift methods in
a marginal oil field in the niger delta. 2018; 2 (1): 8–22.
20. Crnogorac M, Tanasijevi CM, Danilovi CD, et al. Selection of Artificial Lift Methods: A Brief Review
and New Model Based on Fuzzy Logic. Energies. 2020; 13 (7): 1758.
21. Guo B, Liu X, Tan X. Petroleum Production Engineering. 2nd ed. Texas: Gulf Professional Publishing;
2017.
22. Nwanwe CC, Duru UI, Nwanwe OI, et al. Optimum tubing size prediction model for vertical
multiphase flow during flow production period of oil wells. J Pet Explor Prod Technol. 2020; 10 (7):
2989–3005. Available from: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s13202-020-00964-8

© STM Journals 2021. All Rights Reserved 46

Evaluating Lift Systems for Oil Wells Using Integrated Production Modeling Duru et al.

23. Nwanwe OI, Nwanwe CC, Izuwa NC, et al. Evaluation of Development Strategies for a Greenfield
using Integrated Production Modeling. Pet Coal. 2020; 62 (4): 1449–1464.
24. Shrestha T, Hunt S, Lyford PA, et al. Workflow for Integrated Production Modelling of Gas Wells in
the Northern Cooper Basin: SPE Asia Pacific Oil Gas Conf Exhib; 2008 October 20–22; Perth, Aust.:
SPE; 2008.
25. Petroleum Experts Limited. IPM Suite Version 10.0 User Manual. 2007.
26. Islam F[2017]. Production Technology [online]. Available from: https://production-
technology.org/introduction-ipr-vlp/#more-392
27. Rashid K. Optimal Allocation Procedure for Gas-Lift Optimization. Ind Eng Chem Res. 2010;49 (5):
2286–2294.

APPENDIX A
Property Reservoir A2 Reservoir A6 Reservoir A7
Productivity Index (stb/day/psi) 0.2 0.3 0.2
Reservoir Pressure (psi) 5137 3836.3 3733.3
Bubble Point Pressure (psi) 2620 2552 1126.3
Reservoir Temperature (°F) 210 153 146
Porosity 0.3 0.3 0.3
𝐵𝑜𝑖 (bbl/stb) 1.681 1.183 1.067
GOR (scf/stb) 1124 362 132
API Gravity 43.8 29.7 20.1
Gas Gravity 0.807 0.721 0.681

NOMENCLATURE
IPM Integrated Production Modeling
MBAL Material Balance
PROSPER Production System Optimization and Performance
ALS Artificial Lift System
GAP General Allocation Program
CAPEX Capital Expenditure
OPEX Operating Expenditure
Q Liquid Rate, STB/day
Qmax Absolute Open Flow (AOF), STB/day
J Productivity Index, STB/day/psi
P̅r Average Reservoir Pressure, psi
Pwf Bottomhole flowing pressure, psi
dz/dp Pressure gradient, psi/ft
𝜌̅ Average Mixture Density, Ib/ft3
𝑓𝐹 Friction Factor
𝑦𝐿 Liquid Fraction, fraction
𝜌𝐿 Liquid Density, Ib/ft3
𝜌𝐺 Liquid Density, Ib/ft3
𝑢𝑆𝐿 Liquid Superficial velocity, ft/s
𝑢𝑆𝐺 Gas Superficial Velocity, ft/s
𝑢𝑚 Mixture Velocity, ft/s
𝐺𝐿𝑖𝑛𝑗 Gas Lift gas injection rate, MSCF/day
𝐺𝑐 Gas injection cost, $ Million
𝑃𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 Power required at the surface, KW
𝐸𝑡𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑓𝑓 Electricity Tariff, $/kwh

© STM Journals 2021. All Rights Reserved 47

 Journal of Petroleum Engineering & Technology
Volume 11, Issue 3
ISSN: 2231-1785 (Online), ISSN: 2321-5178 (Print)

ESP Electrical Submersible Pump

GL Gas Lift
𝑁𝑂𝑃𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑛 Net Operating Profit at year n, $ Million
𝑃𝑉𝑂𝑃𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟 𝑛 Present Value of Operating Profit at year n, $ Million
NPV Net Present Value, $ Million
COP Cummulative Oil Produced, MMSTB
CGP Cummulative Gas Produced, MMSCF
CWP Cummulative Water Produced, MMSTB

© STM Journals 2021. All Rights Reserved 48

View publication stats