PMP 600 CVX Pump Manual - Multiphase Pumps

March 2009 2009 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.
600-1
600 Multiphase Pumps
Abstract
This section covers the four most common types of multiphase pumps that are
commercially available, an overview of manufacturers, upstream applications of
each type, typical application opportunities, the qualification process, economics to
be considered, review of selected installations (with lessons learned), and new
developments as of 2008.
Contents Page
610 Introduction 600-5
611 Definition of a Multiphase Fluid
612 Most Common Types and Applications of MPPs
613 Purpose of the Manual
614 Upstream Oil Field Applications
615 Refinery Applications
616 What Kinds of Pumps are MPPs?
617 Conclusion
620 Commercially Available MPP Types 600-13
621 General
622 Twin Screw MPP
623 Helico-Axial Pump
624 Progressing Cavity Pump (PCP) or Single Screw Pump
625 Electric Submersible Pump (ESP)
626 General MPP Selection Guidelines
630 Design Recommendations 600-39
631 General
632 Mechanical Seals
633 Screw Sealant for Twin Screw Pumps
634 Rotor Design for Twin Screw Pumps
600 Multiphase Pumps Pump Manual
600-2 2009 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. March 2009
635 Effect of SlugsGas and Liquid
636 Motor Selection and Use of Adjustable Speed Drives (ASD)
637 Methods to Reduce Sand Erosion
638 Recycle Stream Flashing (Surface Pumps)
639 Suction and Discharge Piping (Surface Pumps)
640 MPP Materials 600-56
641 General
642 Twin Screw Pumps
643 Helico-Axial, PCP, and ESP Materials
644 Mechanical Seal Materials (all types of MPPs)
650 ManufacturersTwin Screw MPPs 600-59
651 General
652 Bornemann MPPs
653 Leistritz MPPs
654 Flowserve MPPs
655 Recommendations and Comments
660 ManufacturersHelico-Axial MPPs 600-67
661 General
662 Framo
663 Sulzer
670 ManufacturersProgressing Cavity MPPs 600-71
671 General
672 Moyno
673 seepex
680 ManufacturersElectric Submersible (ESP) MPPs 600-75
681 General
682 Centrilift
683 Schlumberger (Reda)
Pump Manual 600 Multiphase Pumps
March 2009 2009 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved. 600-3
690 Sizing of the MPP, Its Driver, and Associated Facilities
(Upstream Applications) 600-80
691 Twin Screw MPP Design Guide for Upstream Applications
692 Sizing
693 Pump Sizing Calculation
694 Gas Volume Fraction (GVF)
695 The Recycle, Slip, Flashing Factor for Twin Screw MPPs
696 Pump Efficiency for Twin Screw MPPs
697 Overall Mechanical Efficiency Calculation
698 Volumetric Efficiency Calculation
699 Pump Sizing Spreadsheet for Twin Screw MPPs
6910 Piping and Instrumentation Diagram (P&ID) for a Twin Screw MPP
6911 Separator Sizing for Twin Screw MPPs
6100 Typical MPP Application Opportunities 600-93
6101 General
6102 Upstream Application OpportunitiesListing
6103 Upstream Application OpportunitiesDetails
6104 Downstream Applications
6110 Technology Qualification Process (TQP) 600-101
6111 Introduction
6112 Chevron TQP
6113 Definition of Qualification
6114 Machinery TQP
6115 Technology Development Stages (TDSs) for MPPs
6116 TQP Summary
6120 Economics 600-108
6121 General
6122 Existing Facilities
6123 New Facilities
6124 Factors to Consider
6125 Examples
6126 Cost Comparison Study for an exceedingly high GVF of 98 PercentMPPs
versus a Conventional Separation System
6130 Selected MPP Installations (including Lessons Learned) 600-117
6131 General
6132 Humbles Fluid Flow Test Facility MPP
6133 Trinidad
6134 Mitsue Field, Slave Lake, Canada (later moved to Princess Field in Canada)
6135 Mitsue Pump Moved to the Princess Field
6136 Main Pass 313, Offshore Platform in the Gulf of Mexico
6137 Humble, Texas, Production Field
6138 Duri Trial, Indonesia
6139 COB Facility, El Tigre Field, Venezuela; Boscan Field, Venezuela; Kome,
Miandoum; and Belobo Fields, Chad
61310 Main Pass 59 A
6140 New Developments (as of 2008) 600-141
6141 General
6142 Twin Screw Pump Developments
6143 Helico-Axial Pump Developments
6144 PCP Developments
6145 ESP Developments
6146 Mechanical Seal Developments
6150 Definitions and Acronyms 600-146
6151 Definitions
6152 Acronyms
6160 References 600-150
6161 Company Specifications
6162 American Petroleum Institute (API)
6163 National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE)
610 Introduction
611 Definition of a Multiphase Fluid
A multiphase fluid is defined as a fluid that consists of two or more phases in which,
in the most basic case, one phase is a gas and one phase is a liquid. The multiphase
fluid often involves three or more substances, such as crude oil, gas, and water.
Additionally, multiphase fluids can also contain wax, natural gas hydrates, and sand
or other particulate.
A multiphase pump (MPP) handles multiphase fluids, but it can also pump single
phase fluids, such as liquids or gas (for a designated period of time).
Additional definitions used in multiphase pumping are provided in Section615.
612 Most Common Types and Applications of MPPs
This manual describes the four most common types of MPPs. Other types exist, but
are less common and are not discussed.
The most common types and applications of MPPs are:
Twin Screw Pumps
Helico-Axial Pumps
Progressing Cavity Pumps (PCPs)
Electric Submersible Pumps (ESPs)
The most common MPP in the petroleum industry is the twin screw type, and it is
usually the type recommended for Chevron applications.
Twin screw and helico-axial pumps have been installed onshore at grade, on
offshore platforms, and on the seabed floor. PCPs and ESPs have been used mostly
in downhole onshore applications and in offshore dry-tree applications supported
from platforms.
Each type has its own particular application considerations. For example, a helico-
axial MPP usually includes a buffer tank ahead of the pump to minimize the effect
of slugs. The other three types do not deploy such a tank.
Most of the MPP applications are upstream, pumping from an oil well or oil field.
Multiphase pumping applications exist in refineries, as well, such as pumping
gaseous liquid from a flare gas knockout drum.
As of the writing of this manual, the installation list for the 94 MPPs that Chevron
(including legacy-Texaco) has installed is shown in Figure600-1.
6
0
0

M
u
l
t
i
p
h
a
s
e

P
u
m
p
s
P
u
m
p

M
a
n
u
a
l
6
0
0
-
6

2
0
0
9

C
h
e
v
r
o
n

U
.
S
.
A
.

I
n
c
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.
M
a
r
c
h

2
0
0
9
Fig. 600-1 Chevron Multiphase Pump (MPP) Applications (1 of 2)
Loc
No. Location Country
No.
Pur
No.
Oper Opertg Years Service Manufacturer Pump Size Flow(bpde)
GVF
(%)
Dif. P
(psi)
Max
RPM
Max
BHP Drive H
2
S (ppm)
1 Trinidad Trinidad 1 1 1990 to
Present?
Gassy Crude Leistritz L4MK 126 to
70
11,000 82 160 1750 55 Motor ??
Trinidad Trinidad 1 1 1992 to
Present?
72
19,500 65 100 1750 76 Motor ??
2 GOMBU Main
Pass 313
USA 1 0 1995 to?
(refurbishing)
96
21,000 95 130 1750 65 Motor ??
GOMBU Main
Pass 59A
USA 1 1 2007 to Present Gassy Crude Leistritz L4HK 365 to
175
151,975 95 440 to
640
910 to
1200
1134 to
1707
Natural Gas
Engine
??
3 Mitsue (moved
to Princess)
Canada 1 0 1995 to 2002 Sandy, Gassy
Crude
Leistritz L4HK 200 to
54
40,000 95 900 3000 680 Motor ??
4 Humble
Test Pump
USA 1 0 1998 to 2002
(shut down by
operations)
Sandy, Gassy
Crude
Leistritz L4MK 82 to
40
120 225 Motor ??
Humble
Production
USA 1 0 1997 to 2004
(shut down by
operations)
Gassy Crude Leistritz L4NG
126/98
13,000 92 75 1750 44 Motor ??
5 Captain A Great Britain 1 1 1998 to Present Gassy, API 18
Crude
Centrilift ESP 10,000 63 660 6600 317 Motor ??
6 Captain B Great Britain 5 5 2000 to Present Gassy, API 19
Crude
Weir HSP 10,000 75 660 6600 317 Hydraulic
Turbine
??
Duri Test Pump Indonesia 1 0 3 months Sandy, Gassy
Crude
Sulzer MPP7 125,000 75 to
100
150 3600 700 Motor
7 Duri
(moved to
Minas)
Indonesia 1 6/98 to 12/98
(moved)
Sandy, Gassy
Crude
Bornemann MW 9.5zk to
67
124,981 75 to
100
231 1900 349 Motor ??
8 Minas
(moved from
Duri)
Indonesia 1 0 2000 to 2003
(shut down by
operations)
Sandy, Gassy
Crude
67
75 to
100
Motor 500
Minas Indonesia 2 0 6/98 to 12/98
(shut down by
operations)
Sandy, Gassy
Crude
46
60,075 30 to
99
110 1800 219 Motor 200
9 Midway Sunset,
CA
USA 1 0 2000
(replaced due to
operating
conditions)
Diatomacious
Crude
Bornemann MPC 208 59 to
90
290 100 Motor 10,000 to
20,000
Midway Sunset,
CA (moved to
Station 222)
USA 1 2000 to Present
(relocated)
Diatomacious
Crude
33
7,381 59 290 1385 63 Motor 10,000 to
20,000
Midway Sunset,
CA
USA 1 1 2001 to Present Diatomacious
Crude
33
7,381 59 to
90
290 1385 63 Motor 10,000 to
20,000
Midway Sunset,
CA
Crude
67
70,943 81 270 1760 402 Motor 10,000 to
20,000
Midway Sunset,
CA
Crude
85
59,925 80 191 1244 249 Motor 10,000 to
20,000
Midway Sunset,
CA
Crude
67DS
56,755 80 265 1559 329 Motor 10,000 to
20,000
10 Station 222, CA USA 1 1 2001 to Present Gassy Oil/Water
Emulsion
Leistritz LMK 186 to
110
31,000 20 to
100
100 1150 100 Motor None
Station 222, CA
(moved from
Midway
Sunset)
USA 1 1 2004 to Present
(relocated)
Gassy Oil/Water
Emulsion
33
21,000 20 to
100
100 120 Motor None
P
u
m
p

M
a
n
u
a
l
6
0
0

M
u
l
t
i
p
h
a
s
e

P
u
m
p
s
M
a
r
c
h

2
0
0
9

2
0
0
9

C
h
e
v
r
o
n

U
.
S
.
A
.

I
n
c
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

6
0
0
-
7
11 Indian Colonial,
CA
USA 1 1 2001 to Present Gassy Oil/Water
Emulsion
Bornemann MW 7.3 100 Motor None
12 El Tigre
(Hamaca)
Production
Venezuela 2 2 2001 to Present Gassy Crude Bornemann MW 9.3zk to
53
60,377 92 220 1522 618 Motor None
El Tigre
(Hamaca)
Production
90
135,698 70 to
90
268 1760 937 Motor None
El Tigre
(Hamaca)
Production
90
135,698 92 268 1760 937 Motor None
El Tigre
(Hamaca)
Production
90
135,698 92 268 1760 937 Motor None
El Tigre
(Hamaca)
Gathering
Station
Venezuela 4 4 1998 to Present Gassy Watery
Crude
Flowserve NLXSHP
5J SR
30 to
40
180 1800 600 Motor None
El Tigre
(Hamaca)
Gathering
Station
Venezuela 4 4 2004 to Present Gassy Watery
Crude
Flowserve NLXSHP
5J SR
30 to
40
180 1200 600 Motor None
El Tigre
(Hamaca)
Transfer
Venezuela 4 0 2002 to 2005 Gassy Crude Flowserve
(Failed)
NPS14HP 75,017 10 to 800 1787 1600 Motor None
El Tigre
(Hamaca)
Transfer
Venezuela 5 5 2005 to Present Gassy Crude Bornemann MW 10.6zk 75,017 10 to
20
800 1787 1600 Motor None
13 Boscan Venezuela 11 11 1998 to Present Gassy, Sandy
(0.75%) Crude
Warren Colfax GTS 208 20,000 20 to
30
200 to
350
Motor None
Boscan Venezuela 4 4 2003 to Present Gassy, Sandy
(0.75%) Crude
Warren Colfax GTS 268 40,000 40 500 Motor None
14 Lake Maricaibo Venezuela 1 1 2005 to Present Gassy, Sandy
(<1.0%) Crude
Weatherford 3,000 30 to
70
55 Motor None
15 Kome Chad 3 3 2003 to Present Gassy Crude Leistritz L4HK 330 to
126
68,454 2 1150 215 Motor None
Kome Chad 4 4 2003 to Present Gassy Crude Leistritz L4HK 330 to
214
156,812 56 175 1150 684 Motor None
Miandoum Chad 3 3 2003 to Present Gassy Crude Leistritz L4HK 330 to
100
59,558 2 815 1150 960 Motor None
Belobo Chad 4 4 2003 to Present Gassy Crude Leistritz L4HK 330 to
189
133,240 38 365 1150 615 Motor None
16 Gulf of Thailand Thailand 1 0 2004 to 2008 Gassy Crude Bornemann MPC 268 ?? 99 410 ?? ?? Motor ??
Totals 94 79
Fig. 600-1 Chevron Multiphase Pump (MPP) Applications (2 of 2)
Loc
No. Location Country
No.
Pur
No.
Oper Opertg Years Service Manufacturer Pump Size Flow(bpde)
GVF
(%)
Dif. P
(psi)
Max
RPM
Max
BHP Drive H
2
S (ppm)
613 Purpose of the Manual
Previously, some Chevron personnel have been reluctant to install MPPs because
they are more comfortable with conventional systems. Among the goals of this
manual are to convey the facts about MPPs, along with their applications and
benefits, and to improve the comfort level of Chevron personnel.
To amplify a bit further, the purpose of this manual is to provide:
Assistance to the following in understanding MPP technology and how to apply
this technology to drive down the cost of production and the handling of mixed
oil, water, sand, and gas streams:
Upstream, midstream, and downstream facility engineers
Reservoir engineers
Production engineers
Project engineers
OPCO discipline engineers
Project managers
Business unit managers
Asset managers
A text to assist in specifying MPPs;
An understanding of the economics of MPPs;
Examples of existing MPP applications;
Scenarios that point to opportunities for MPPs where they provide an economic
advantage, e.g., onshore, offshore platforms, and subsea;
A reference tool for people to better learn the technology and economics of
multiphase pumping;
A teaching tool to be used in conjunction with a power point presentation to
various organizations to help realize the economic importance of MPPs.
614 UpstreamOil Field Applications
In an oil field, MPPs are usually located near an individual well or at a manifold,
where production flow lines combine several wells. These pumps may be located
onshore, on offshore platforms, on the seabed floor (subsea), or downhole in an oil
well.
In a traditional surface oil field application, an MPP can replace a conventional
system consisting of:
Separation vessel
Gas compressor
Pump
Gas production line
Liquid production line
Sand or particulate handling system
By comparison, a multiphase pumping system only consists of:
The MPP itself, with or without a buffer tank, which replaces the separator, the
pump, and the compressor;
A single combined gas and liquid production line that replaces the individual
gas and oil lines, the gas line being from the compressor discharge and the oil
line being from the pump discharge (refer to Figure600-2).
In particular, a twin screw multiphase pumping system has the following
advantages:
One piece of equipment, the MPP, instead of several;
A single pipeline to the processing facility, instead of two;
Significantly reduced capital cost;
Less weight and smaller footprint than a conventional system (important for an
offshore platform, where weight and space are extremely costly);
For subsea, a simplified seabed support structure.
If gas concentrations and power costs are high, an MPP may not be the most
economical choice compared to the conventional system. Each application must be
evaluated based on its own economical situation.
Fig. 600-2 Comparison of Conventional versus MPP Design Showing MPP Installation
Advantages
Conventional Separation
Multiphase
615 Refinery Applications
MPPs are used in refining to pump multiphase fluids having gas content above
5percent. The bottoms fluid from a flare knockout drum is one example. MPPs can
also replace centrifugal pumps that are not delivering the desired flowrate due to
entrained or free gas.
616 What Kinds of Pumps are MPPs?
In the Pump Manual, pumps are generally divided into five categories as shown in
Figure600-3.
In Figure600-3, the MPPs described in this manual fit into the centrifugal (helico-
axial pumps and ESPs) and rotary positive displacement (twin screw and PCPs)
boxes of the above chart.
Kinetic centrifugal pumps can also be classified as in Figure600-4.
In Figure600-4, ESPs and helico-axial pumps fall under KINETIC, Centrifugal,
Turbine Type, VERTICAL TYPE Single and Multi Stage, Deep Well Turbine
(Including Submersibles).
Positive displacement pumps are classified in Figure600-5.
In Figure600-5, twin screw MPPs are designated as positive displacement, rotary
pumps, screw, and multiple. MPP PCPs are designated as positive displacement,
rotary pumps, screw, and single.
Fig. 600-3 Pump Categories (Courtesy of the Hydraulic Institute)
PUMPS
Rotary Positive
Displacement
Metering Miscellaneous
Reciprocating
Positive
Displacement
Centrifugal
Fig. 600-4 Kinetic Pump Classifications (Courtesy of the Hydraulic Institute)
617 Conclusion
MPP technology is mature. These machines, especially the twin screw type, are
reliable. Many have been operating for years with little operator attention. There are
currently hundreds of installations throughout the world, with many more in
progress and anticipated. Chevron alone has had 94 applications in operation since
1990. Section6120 lists and describes several of these installations.
Questions or help with a potential MPP application should be addressed to
BobHeyl at: Bob.Heyl@chevron.com.
Facilities Engineering Department (FED)
1400 Smith St.
Houston, TX
Office phone: 713-372-7272
Alternately, access contacts at ETC MEPS team at:
http://etc.chevron.com/fe-mee/machinery/default.asp
Fig. 600-5 Positive Displacement Pump Classifications (Courtesy of the Hydraulic Institute)
POSITIVE
DISPLACEMENT
BLOW CASE
RECIPROCATING
PUMPS
ROTARY PUMPS
VANE
PISTON
FLEXIBLE
MEMBER
LOBE
GEAR
CIRCUMFERENTIAL
PISTON
SCREW
CONTROLLED
VOLUME
POWER
STEAM
HORIZONTAL

VERTICAL
HORIZONTAL

VERTICAL
HORIZONTAL

VERTICAL
DOUBLE
ACTING
PISTON
PLUNGER
SIMPLEX
DUPLEX
SINGLE
ACTING
DOUBLE
ACTING
PISTON

PLUNGER
SIMPLEX

DUPLEX

MULTIPLEX
SIMPLEX

DUPLEX

MULTIPLEX
PLUNGER

PISTON

DIAPHRAGM
MECHANICALLY
COUPLED
HYDRAULICALLY
COUPLED
BLADE BUCKET

RoIIer or SIipper

AXIAL

RADIAL

FLEXIBLE TUBE
FLEXIBLE VANE
FLEXIBLE LINER

SINGLE

MULTIPLE

EXTERNAL

INTERNAL

SINGLE

MULTIPLE

SINGLE

MULTIPLE
620 Commercially Available MPP Types
621 General
This section describes the four most commonly used types of commercially
available MPPs. An MPP is usually installed in an upstream oil field, but they can
also be applied in a refinery wherever liquid and gas are combined in a mixed
stream and transported.
The four types that are described in this manual are summarized in Figure600-6.
Figure600-7 includes several additional characteristics.
Comparing the Four Types of MPPs
Figure600-7 is a general overall comparison of the four types of MPPs. These four
types of pumps will be discussed in much more detail in Section622, Section623,
Section624, and Section625.
Fig. 600-6 MPP Summary
MPP Type Manufacturers
Max
Installed
Capacity
(bpd)
Max
Installed
Pressure
Differential
(psi)
Max GVF
(%)
Twin Screw Bornemann 900,000 1015 100
(1)
Leistritz 330,000 1450 100
(1)
Flowserve 280,000 1000 100
(1)
Helico-Axial Framo 100,000 900 100
(1)
Sulzer 650,000 1200 100
(1)
Progressive Cavity (PCP) Moyno 60,000 900 40
seepex 50,000 600 40
Electric Submersible (ESP) Centrilift 14,000 5000 60
Schlumberger (Reda) 9,000 4000 60
1 Note: 100% is possible when the pump is supplied with a relatively small amount of externally supplied liquid either as
screw sealant for the twin screw pumps or directly into the flow stream for helico-axial pumps.
Fig. 600-7 Comparison of Four Types of Multiphase Pumps (MPPs)
Type of MPP
Twin Screw Helico-Axial
Progressing Cavity
(PCP)
Electric
Submersible
General Design
Location Surface/subsea
seabed
Surface/subsea
seabed
Surface/downhole
(land or sea)
Surface/downhole
(land or sea)
Mounting orientation Horizontal Vertical/horizontal Vertical/horizontal Vertical
Rotors and Max Temperature
Rotors (C=contacting,
N=noncontacting)
N N C N
Max temperature (F) 600 500 300 with elastomeric
stator
300 to 400
Speed (rpm) 600 to 3,600 2,000 to 7,000 300 to 550 1,800 to 5,400
Case
Removable liners Yes No No No
Bearings Antifriction Antifriction/tilting
pad
Antifriction Sleeve
Drivers ASD elect motors,
nat. gas engines
ASD elect motors,
nat. gas engines,
hydraulic turbines
ASD elect motors ASD elect motors
Max GVF (%) 100% with external
screw sealant
100% with special
design features and
external liquid
supply
40% (downhole) 60% with gas
separators and
handlers
Fluid Flow
Slug handling
(1=unaffected, 5=greatly
affected)
1 2
(with buffer tank)
5 5
Erosion Resistance
(1=very resistant, 5=not
resistant)
1 2 4 4
Efficiency
Max viscosity (SSU) No limit for
production or
refinery services
300 SSU No limit for production
or refinery services
300 SSU
Mechanical Seals
Number 4 sets (single,
or dual
unpressurized, or
dual pressurized)
2 sets (one single,
one dual
pressurized)
1 (single or dual
pressurized)
2 sets (single or
dual pressurized)
Maximum capacity (bpd)/
differential pressure (psi)
900,000/1,450 650,000/1,200 60,000/900 14,000/5,000
Lubrication Self-contained or
externally supplied
lube oil
Externally supplied
lube oil
Self-contained lube oil Pumped fluid
lubricated
Reliability
Maintenance Easy (1) or
Difficult (5)
3 4 2 5
Field (F) or Shop (S) repair S S F or S S
Mean time between failure
(Years)
5+ 3+ 2 to 3 2 to 3
Figure600-8 is a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages of the four types
of MPPs.
Fig. 600-8 Advantages/Disadvantages of Four Types of Multiphase Pumps (MPPs)
Type of MPP
Twin Screw Helico-Axial Progressing Cavity (PCP)
Electric Submers-
ible (ESP)
Advantages Good flow and
pressure ranges
Good flow and
pressure ranges
One set of mechanical
seals
2 sets of
mechanical seals
100% GVF with
external liquid screw
sealant, 95%
without
100% GVF with
external liquid, 95%
without
Fewer bearings than twin
screw or helico-axial

Reliable Fairly reliable Can be repaired in the
field

Erosion resistant Erosion resistant Slow speed
Self-contained lube
oil system
Self-contained lube oil
system

Several wells can
feed one pump
Several wells can
feed one pump

Pumps heavy
viscosity oil easily
Pumps heavy viscosity
oil easily

Does not tend to
form emulsions
Does not tend to form
emulsions
Disadvantages 4 sets of mechanical
seals
2 sets of mechanical
seals
Not as reliable as the
twin screw or helico-axial
Not as reliable as
the twin screw or
helico-axial
Usually needs a
shop repair
Usually needs a
shop repair
Usually deployed
downhole, one pump per
well
Usually deployed
downhole, one
pump per well
Pressurized lube oil
system
Lubricated by the
pumped stream
Lubricated by the
pumped stream
Not as reliable as
the twin screw
Highly susceptible to
sand erosion
Highly susceptible
to sand erosion
Limited flow range Limited GVF Limited GVF
Viscosity limited to
300 SSU
Viscosity limited to
light oil
Flow and pressure range
limited by the wells
casing size
Flow and pressure
range limited by
the wells casing
size
Tends to form
emulsions
Tends to form
emulsions
Motor and electric
cable are
downhole causing
many problems
Twin screw pumps and progressing cavity pumps are both classified as rotary
positive displacement pumps, each designed to API 676. However, each supplier
will have his own set of exceptions to this specification. Helico-axial pumps are a
type of centrifugal pump that combines aspects of axial and centrifugal flow. They
are loosely designed in accordance with API 610, but again, suppliers have many
exceptions. ESPs are centrifugal or mixed flow types. Various API Recommended
Practices provide guidelines about sizing, operating, testing, and maintaining. They
are listed in Section6160.
Twin screws and PCPs will pump a virtually constant capacity, regardless of the
magnitude of the backpressure, as long as the driver has adequate power. If the
pump lacks adequate horsepower to overcome the backpressure, the pump will stall.
A pump with adequate power has the potential to overpressure its case or the
discharge piping. To prevent this, a relief or pressure limiting valve is required
between the pumps discharge flange and the discharge block valve. Pressure relief
or pressure limiting valves are always installed if these pumps are used.
Unlike rotary positive displacement pumps, helico-axial and ESP pumps use
centrifugal force and high velocities to increase pressure at the pump discharge
flange. At zero flow or shutoff, these pumps provide their greatest discharge
pressure. If this pressure is greater than the design pressure of the discharge pipe, a
pressure relief valve must also be installed with these pumps.
For additional information, refer to each type of pump in its specific subsection of
this Section 600 and also in other sections of the Pump Manual. An electronic
version of the entire Pump Manual can be found at the Chevron Engineering
Standards website.
Both the twin screw pump and the helico-axial pumps are surface machines located
onshore, on offshore platforms, or subsea. They are not deployed downhole.
Though the helico-axial pump can handle a higher pressure boost than the twin
screw pump, the twin screw pump is superior in almost every other category. Based
on the complicated nature of the helico-axial pump and Chevrons experience at
Duri, the twin screw pump has proven itself as the better choice for most
applications. See Section6138, Lessons Learned for additional reasons. By a wide
margin, twin screw pumps are installed in more surface multiphase applications
than any other type.
The main advantages of a PCP over the twin screw pump and the helico-axial pump
is that it involves fewer mechanical seals, has fewer bearings, and can be repaired
more easily in the field. A PCPs maximum flowrate and pressure boost is lower
than the twin screw pump or the helico-axial pump. Because the PCPs rotor
continuously contacts the stator, the PCP will wear, and reliability suffers.
ESPs and PCPs are usually installed downhole in one well. No matter what
installation orientation (vertical or horizontal), they are not considered reliable.
Their capacity is designed to match the production of the well, which is definitely
lower than the capacity of a twin screw pump or a helico-axial pump. An ESPs
maximum pressure boost may be higher than any of the other three pumps.
Most all of our industrys surface MPP experience has been with twin screw pumps.
Indeed, as of 2008, there exist throughout the world 600 twin screw pumps and only
50 helico-axial pumps. Chevron (and legacy-Texaco) experience has also been
almost entirely with twin screw MPPs, having installed 88. The initial twin screw
pump installations were carefully monitored by Chevron to learn as much as
possible from each. They are listed in Figure600-9, and these installations and
others are referred to throughout this manual as examples.
Fig. 600-9 Monitored Twin ScrewPump Installations
Location or
Oil Field
Year
Installed Manufacturer Type Comments
1. Humbles Flow
Test Facility, Texas
1992 Leistritz Twin Screw Tested heavy and light oil with
varying amounts of water, sand,
and GVFs.
2. Trinidad 1992 Leistritz Twin Screw Pumped a multiphase fluid with an
appreciable amount of sand.
3. Mitsue Field,
Canada
1993 Leistritz Twin Screw Experienced severe slugging from
crude oil wells a mile away. Moved
to the Princess Field.
4. Princess Field,
Canada
1995 Leistritz Twin Screw Moved from Mitsue. Pumped
multiphase fluids 20 miles to
processing facility.
5. Main Pass 313
Platform, Gulf of
Mexico
1993 Leistritz Twin Screw Decreased wellhead pressure
increasing production.
6. Humble Oil Field,
Texas
1997 Leistritz Twin Screw Decreased wellhead pressure
increasing production. Damaged
beyond repair in 2006 when over
pressured from well rework.
7. Duri Field,
Indonesia
1998 Bornemann Twin Screw Tested with a Sulzer helico-axial
pump to determine which type to
buy for the Minas Light Oil Steam
Flood project.
8. Duri Field,
Indonesia
1998 Sulzer Helico-axial Tested with a Bornemann twin
screw pump to determine which
type to buy for the Minas Light Oil
Steam Flood (LOSF) project.
9. El Tigre Field,
Venezuela
2005 Bornemann Twin Screw Five Bornemann pumps replaced 4
unreliable Flowserve twin screw
pumps.
10. Main Pass 59A
Platform, Gulf of
Mexico
2007 Leistritz Twin Screw Boosts wellhead pressure to match
system pressure. The 1,700 HP
natural gas engine is the largest
currently driving an MPP.
622 Twin ScrewMPP
General
Twin screw pumps are by far the most common type of surface-installed MPP and
the design usually recommended for most petroleum industry applications,
including Chevrons. These pumps are covered in the third edition of API 676,
expected to be published in 2009.
Twin screw pumps can be deployed in a refinery or in an upstream oil field whether
onshore, on a platform, or subsea on the seabed floor. They are mounted
horizontally, though attempts at vertical installation downhole in an oil well have
been attempted. Unfortunately, none of these downhole installations have proven to
operate reliably. In oil fields, they pump multiphase fluid from a single well or from
a discharge manifold supplied by several wells.
An external view of an MPP twin screw pump is shown in Figure600-10, and an
internal view showing the major components is shown in Figure600-11.
Fig. 600-10 External Viewof Twin ScrewMPP in Minas, Indonesia

Rotors and Stators
As Figure600-11 shows, twin screw pumps consist of two rotors side by side, held
apart by bearings. The screws are either an integral part of the shaft or manufactured
separately and heat shrunk or pressed onto the shaft.
The MPP rotor is stiffer than the rotors in a pure liquid twin screw pump. Unlike a
liquid pump, there is no contact between the MPP screws and the stator or case. The
possibility of contact is further reduced by increasing the clearances to compensate
for either gas slugs or particulate. (Refer to Section634 for design recommendations.)
Speed
The speed of the pump is usually 600 rpm to 1,800 rpm, but they have run reliably
at 3,600 rpm to achieve higher capacities. Design speed is a function of the service
and pumped fluid characteristics. For example, the Chevron Princess Pump ran
reliably at 3,600 rpm for years. (Refer to Section6135.)
Case
The twin screw case is robust. If particulate is present, the case is usually bored to
accept a replaceable liner.
Bearings
The twin screw uses radial antifriction bearings. Thrust bearings are theoretically
not required. However, one of the radial antifriction bearings is designed to handle a
minor thrust load that can be present during heavy slugging.
Drivers
The most common twin screw driver is an electric motor with an adjustable speed
drive (ASD) or often, more specifically, a variable frequency drive (VFD). Other
drivers used are natural gas or diesel engines. Twin screw MPPs are not usually
driven by steam or gas turbines. Steam is not usually available at the right
conditions in the upstream environment, and the speed, expense, or horsepower of
Fig. 600-11 Internal Viewof Twin ScrewMPP (Courtesy of Leistritz Pumps)
gas turbines is usually too high for twin screw operation. The driver is coupled to
one rotor, and the second rotor is driven by the first through a set of gears at one end
of the rotor set.
Gas Volume Fraction (GVF)
Gas volume fraction is the volume of gas as a percent of the total volume of all the
fluids (gas and liquid) at pump suction conditions. A properly designed and applied
twin screw pump can pump from 0 to 100 percent GVF indefinitely, with an
adequate and reliable supply of a screw sealant. (Refer to the Screw Sealant item at
end of this section.)
Fluid Flow
As shown in Figure600-11, multiphase fluid enters the twin screw pump at its
center. The fluid is split into two equal streams, each stream channeled to opposite
ends of the case where the fluid enters the screws at suction pressure. The fluid is
then pushed to the discharge at the pumps center. Because the flow is split, with
virtually equal portions entering the opposite ends of the screws at the same time,
thrust on the pump is theoretically zero. Slugs of liquid following slugs of pure gas
are also hydraulically balanced and will not damage the pump.
Erosion
Sand and other particulates can cause wear in twin screw pumps by wedging into
the clearances between rotors and between the screw edges of each rotor and the
case or stator liner. As discussed, these clearances can be adjusted to reduce erosion.
Sand in the crude oil may not necessarily cause erosion if the crude oils viscosity is
high enough and/or the gravity is heavy enough (roughly an API gravity of
30degrees or lower). For example, a test at Duri, Indonesia, in 1998 showed that
sand flowed through the pump without appreciable wear. (Refer to Section637 and
Section638, especially Lessons Learned, item A.)
Efficiency
There are two definitions of efficiency: mechanical efficiency and volumetric
efficiency. Mechanical efficiency, expressed as a percent, is simply the theoretical
power needed to pump a specified flow and pressure, divided by the actual power
delivered by the driver to the pumps shaft. Volumetric efficiency is the amount of
volume delivered by the pump, divided by the theoretical total amount of volume
transferable, again expressed as a percent.
Both efficiencies suffer if the internal clearances of a twin screw pump are
increased. Larger clearances increase slip, defined as the amount of fluid that
leaks backward from the high pressure side of each screw flight to the low pressure
side. Larger clearances increase slip and reduce efficiency.
Pump efficiency can decrease from:
Increased clearances to compensate for particulate;
Increased clearances to compensate for the expected high operating tempera-
ture, because the MPP handles gas (high GVFs increase the pumping tempera-
ture more than low GVFs, requiring greater clearances);
Low viscosity of gas that slips more easily than liquid;
A required high pump differential pressure that increases the slip within the
pump;
Pumped liquid when its viscosity is low.
Pump efficiency can increase from:
High viscosity liquid (above API 30 gravity) that seals the clearances better
than a low viscosity liquid;
Increasing the pump speed, which decreases slip and improves efficiency.
Mechanical Seals
The process fluid in the pump is separated from the outside atmosphere by
mechanical seals that, in most designs, seal against pump suction pressure. Except
for startup conditions, this pressure is usually low, a feature that directionally
improves the seals reliability.
Each twin screw pump has four sets of mechanical seals, one set at the end of each
screw. For a dual seal arrangement, this amounts to eight single seals in one pump.
Mechanical seals are further discussed in Section632.
Seals using the following API 682 seal flush plans have been found to be very
reliable:
API Seal Flush Plan 11, or 31, or 32 for single seals;
API seal plan 52 for unpressurized dual seals with a buffer fluid;
API Seal Flush Plan 53A, or 53B, or 53C, or 54 for pressurized dual seals with
a barrier fluid.
The type of seal and its required seal flush plan are selected in accordance with the
specific field conditions.
MaximumCapacity and Differential Pressure
The maximum designed twin screw MPP capacity currently available is
approximately 900,000 bpd. The maximum differential pressure is 1,450 psi. These
maximums are not likely to be achieved simultaneously or in the same pump, since
they are affected by:
GVF percentage (the higher the GVF, the lower the rates and the differential
pressure achievable);
Viscosity of the liquid (the higher the viscosity, the higher the capacity and
differential pressure achievable);
Amount and size of the particulate (the larger the particulate size, the larger the
clearances and the amount of slip, reducing the pumps capacity and differen-
tial pressure achievable).
Lubrication
Twin screw pumps use antifriction radial bearings, one of which is capable of
resisting some thrust. They are enclosed in their own bearing housing. Usually each
bearing housing contains its own separate lubricating oil reservoir, although a
centralized forced feed lubrication system is also used on occasion.
Chevron requires the lubricating oil to stay below 180F (82C) under the worst
pumping and atmospheric conditions. Mineral oil tends to oxidize, and for every 10
above 180F (82C), the life of mineral is cut in half. There are three ways to
alleviate the problem if the atmospheric temperature is hot:
For a self-contained bearing housing, this can be accomplished with an air
cooled bearing housing by attaching a fan to the pump shaft. For example, the
Duri pump operated under hot conditions, and its oil temperature stayed below
180F (82C) by using an air cooled bearing housing fan.
A centralized forced lubrication system can also be designed to keep the oil
below 180F (82C). For example, the MPP in the Mitsue field used a force
feed circulating system.
Finally, synthetic oil that allows for a higher operating temperature will work
satisfactorily. However, this could lead to mistakes if operators were to add
mineral oil as makeup oil instead of the synthetic oil.
Installation of an RTD or thermocouple in the lube oil of each bearing housing or
touching the outer race of each bearing is recommended. If installed at the outer
race, the bearing temperature will operate approximately 20 hotter than the lube
oil, and the limit should be increased to 200F (93C).
Reliability
If properly designed and applied, twin screw pumps have proven to be reliable,
normally operating longer than 5 years.
ScrewSealant
A twin screw MPP always needs liquid to seal the clearances between the screws
and the case. Without this liquid, and if not shut down by its high temperature
shutdown instrumentation, the MPP will stop pumping, heat up, and seize. This
liquid is called screw sealant, and the amount needed is approximately 4 to
5percent of the pumps capacity. This liquid must be contained in the suction flow
stream or injected either into the suction line or at the ends of each screw at the
mechanical seals, such as when supplied by the seal flush liquid.
623 Helico-Axial Pump
General
Similar to twin screw pumps, helico-axial pumps are found onshore at grade, on
offshore platforms, and subsea. They pump multiphase fluid from a single well or
from a discharge manifold fed by several wells. These pumps can be mounted in the
horizontal or vertical positions.
In this pump design, the pump increases pressure using several stages of open
impellers that resemble augers or screws. Multiphase fluid moves from one stage to
another, helically and axially (parallel to the pump shaft).
The external view of a helico-axial pump is shown in Figure600-12, and an internal
view showing the major components is shown in Figure600-13.
There are approximately 42 helico-axial pumps throughout the world. At the time of
this writing, Framo has 18 installed subsea pumps on the seabed floor, mostly in the
Norwegian sector of the North Sea, plus 2 onshore and 2 on offshore platforms.
Sulzer has built 20 pumps, of which 17 are installed onshore, 2 on offshore
platforms, and 1 subsea.
Fig. 600-12 External Viewof Helico-axial Pump Installed in Legacy-Texacos Humble FlowFacility, Before Installation in
Duri, Indonesia (1998)
MPP
7-stage helico-axial
125,000 bpd
700 hp motor w/ VFD (3600 rpm)
Rotors and Stators
As can be seen in Figure600-13, the rotating element of a helico-axial pump
consists of several compression cells, each of which is composed of a rotor attached
to the pumps shaft and a stator attached to the case. The stator redirects the flow
into the inlet of the next rotor or compression cell. The number of cells depends
upon the differential pressure required.
Speed
The speed of these pumps varies from 2,000 rpm to 7,000 rpm. Design speed is a
function of the service and the pumped fluid characteristics.
Case
The case is a pressure vessel like any multistage centrifugal pump. Unlike the twin
screw pump, the case does not have a replaceable liner.
Bearings
Radial loads are supported by hydrodynamic or sleeve bearings if the design speeds
are greater than 3,600 rpm. At or less than this speed, the bearings are of the
antifriction type. Thrust bearings are usually tilting pad or Kingsbury type for any
speed.
Drivers
For most common applications, the pumps are driven by an electric motor.
However, a natural gas engine or a diesel engine can also be used for surface
applications. For subsea, a hydraulic drive or an electric motor is commonly used.
Fig. 600-13 Internal Viewof Helico-axial Pump (Courtesy of Sulzer Pumps)

To reach the higher operating speeds, a gearbox, variable speed coupling, or, for the
electric motor, an ASD is required.
As with the twin screw pump, changing the speed allows the pump to operate at
different capacities. The difference with this pump versus the twin screw pump is
that changing the speed also changes the differential head that the pump can
produce.
Gas Volume Fraction (GVF)
A properly designed and applied helico-axial pump can pump from 0 to 100percent
GVF indefinitely with an adequate and reliable supply of a liquid to the inlet. Note
that a pump designed for a low GVF may not pump at all at a high GVF. (Refer to
Section6138, especially Helico-axial MPP Test Results.)
Fluid Flow
Multiphase fluid moves from one stage to another, helically and axially (parallel to
the pump shaft). Between each impeller is a stator (diffuser) or set of vanes attached
to the pump case that directs the fluid from the discharge of one impeller to the
suction of the next. The impeller openings become progressively smaller with each
successive stage toward the discharge to compensate for the compression of the gas.
Erosion
Sand and other particulates cause wear in a helico-axial pump due to the angle of
impact with the rotor and stator. This angle of impact changes depending upon the
speed and the flowrate. To reduce wear, the pump is run as slowly as possible and at
its best efficiency point. Also, helico-axial pump manufacturers coat their rotors and
stators with a hard material, such as tungsten carbide, or they gas harden them with
nitride or boride gas to minimize erosion.
Efficiency
The mechanical efficiency of a helico-axial pump is usually lower than that of the
twin screw pump. This is especially true at higher viscosities (greater than
300SSU), where centrifugal pump efficiencies fall off dramatically. For example, at
Duri, the mechanical efficiency of the helico-axial pump was 22 percent, while that
of the twin screw pump was 45 percent. (Refer to Section6138.)
Mechanical Seals
In Figure600-13, the mechanical seal system consists of a mechanical seal at both
the motor and outboard ends.
The maximum pump capacity is approximately 650,000 bpd with multiphase fluid
measured at inlet conditions. Maximum pump differential pressure is approximately
1,200 psi. As with the twin screw pumps, these maximums are independent of each
other and are not likely to be achievable simultaneously or even with the same pump.
These maximums are affected by:
Viscosity of the liquid (the lower the viscosity, the higher the rates and differen-
tial pressures achievable);
Percent gas in the fluid (GVF). (The higher the GVF, the lower the rates and
differential pressures achievable. For example, a helico-axial pump produces
half the differential pressure if the GVF increases from 80 to 90 percent and
half of that if it increases to 95 percent.)
Lubrication
A circulating lubrication system is required to cool and lubricate all the bearings. It
usually consists of a reservoir, lube oil pump, cooler, filters, and associated alarms
and other instrument devices.
Reliability
The helico-axial pump is complicated by its circulating lubrication system and high
speed. These complications have been known to affect pump reliability. For
example, the side by side twin screw and helico-axial pump tests at Duri
demonstrated how this complexity can cause problems. (Refer to Section6138.)
Buffer Tank
Slugs of liquid or slugs of gas are common for any MPP stream, but unlike the twin
screw pump, in which the flow is split to balance slugging, the helico-axial pump
often uses a buffer tank (actually a vessel) installed ahead of the pump. The
buffer tank dampens the effect of any slug and allows the pump to operate with a
lower thrust bearing capacity. The buffer tank also causes the gas and liquid to
become more homogeneous before entering the pump and provides some residence
time enabling particulate to settle out. Figure600-14 shows such a buffer tank. Note
the stand pipe in the center of the tank, which has holes for gas to enter into the
liquid stream going through the stand pipe.
Fig. 600-14 Buffer Tank (Courtesy of Sulzer Pumps)
624 Progressing Cavity Pump (PCP) or Single ScrewPump
General
Multiphase PCPs are usually installed horizontally on the surface. They can also be
installed vertically, downhole in a single well, driven by a long shaft with an electric
motor from the surface. Like the twin screw pump, the PCP is a positive
displacement (PD) pump. The detailed comments made about PD pumps in the twin
screw section apply to these pumps, as well, including overpressuring potential and
the need for a pressure limiting valve in the discharge piping before the first
discharge block valve.
External views of the progressing cavity pump are shown in Figure600-15
(horizontal orientation) and Figure600-16 (vertical orientation). Internal views of
the major components are shown in Figure600-17 and Figure600-18.
Fig. 600-15 External Viewof PCP (Courtesy of Tarby Pumps) Fig. 600-16 External Viewof PCP in Downhole
Orientation (Courtesy of seepex)

Fig. 600-17 Internal Viewof PCP (Courtesy of Tarby Pumps)
Fig. 600-18 Internal Viewof PCP in Downhole Orientation (Courtesy of Robbins and Myers, Inc. makers of
Moyno pumps)

Rotor and Stators (Including Elastomeric Stators)
The progressing cavity pump is essentially a single, serpentine screw rotor that
revolves inside a stationary liner called the stator. With rare exceptions, the stator is
an elastomer, while the rotor is a hardened steel alloy. Unlike the screws in a twin
screw pump, the rotor is in intimate contact with the stator. Continuous lubrication
between the two is absolutely necessary to prevent excessive heat buildup between
the rotor and the stator and corresponding wear.
Tests for elastomeric decompression and swelling must be run to determine the
compatibility of the elastomeric stator with the pumped fluid and to avoid excessive
heat buildup.
Elastomeric Decompression. In some cases, the elastomeric stator becomes
infused with the pumped gas during normal operation. If this occurs, the stators can
be destroyed from the explosive decompression of the infused gas as the pump is
de-pressured. To prevent this and to decide if a proposed stator is acceptable, a
compatibility test is required before finalizing the selection of the elastomer. The
test involves placing an actual sample (usually crude oil and gas) in an enclosed
pressurized chamber with the proposed elastomer. After an elapsed period of time,
the chamber pressure is lowered to determine if any of the infused gas destroys the
elastomer.
Elastomeric Swelling. The elastomeric stator can also swell from the multiphase
fluids chemistry. When purchasing a PCP, the amount of elastomeric swelling must
be tested for fluid compatibility. This swelling, if any, increases the contact pressure
between the rotor and the stator and must be considered in sizing the bore of the
stator. If the allowance for swelling is not enough, the contacting force will be
excessive, overheating the stator and causing the pump to fail. If the design
allowance for swelling is too large, the pump will not reach its design capacity.
Elastomer selection is therefore a major concern. Choosing an elastomer that is
compatible with the pumped fluid, preferably with no gas infusion and no swelling,
is vital to the life and performance of the pump.
Speed
PCPs run at slow speeds, usually from 300 rpm to a maximum 550 rpm. This slow
speed is required due the intimate contact between the rotor and the stator.
Case
The case material for these pumps is usually carbon steel, but other materials can be
provided, if required, and 316 SS is often recommended. With one rare design
exception, the case is lined with the elastomer. (Refer to General in Section624 and
Metal to Metal PCP in Section6144.)
Bearings
One set of antifriction bearings is provided on the motor end for radial and thrust
located between the mechanical seal and the coupling.
Drivers
These pumps are usually electric motor driven with either an ASD or a gear set to
reduce the speed and to adjust the capacity. Like the twin screw pump, the ASD
allows the PCP to operate at different speeds and different capacities, enabling it to
match the wells production from its initial flowrate throughout its lifetime.
GVF
A PCP cannot operate without liquid. If this occurs, the rotor will grab the
elastomeric stator, causing intense friction and heat, which will immediately destroy
the stator. For this reason, and based on Chevron experience, a PCP should be
limited to a 30 percent GVF (unless an adequate and reliable external or recyled
liquid stream is introduced into the suction, in which case, the inlet streams GVF
may be raised to 40 percent). (Note that some suppliers marketing documents
promote using the pumps at GVFs as high as 99 percent in research tests with
specialized elastomers for the stator and coatings for the rotor to reduce friction and
heat. Due to Chevrons experience with stator failures from transient conditions in
the field which caused the pump to run dry, it is strongly recommended that the
GVF be limited to a maximum of 40 percent.)
Fluid Flow
Fluid is displaced from inlet to outlet as the gas/liquid mixture is trapped in cavities
that are formed between the rotor and the stator. Unlike the helico-axial pump, one
of the advantages of the PCP is that the flow is uniform, with low shear, meaning
that tight emulsions will not be formed by the PCP.
Erosion
Particulate in the pumped stream will become partially embedded in the elastomeric
stator. The particulate will contact the rotor with each revolution, causing wear, and
increasing the slip, with the resulting loss of the pumps capacity and differential
pressure.
Efficiency
As with all PD pumps, the volumetric efficiency is high until wear and slip occur.
Mechanical Seal
A surface PCP can use a single seal or a pressurized dual seal. In some of the earlier
applications, packing was used by companies other than Chevron. Packing is not
recommended due to the required leakage of the pumped fluid as lubricant for the
packing. This leakage causes safety and environmental concerns. Also, if the
packing fails, gas and liquid will be released, causing an even more severe concern.
The maximum capacity of a surface PCP MPP can be as high as 60,000 bpd, and the
maximum differential pressure can be 900 psi, again not with the same pump. The
reasons are the same as previously described for the twin screw and helico-axial
pumps.
Lubrication
PCPs usually have one set of bearings contained in a bearing housing and lubricated
by oil or grease. In a vertical downhole application, the shaft is centered in the
tubing by bushings which are product lubricated.
Reliability
The mean time between failures averages 2 years to 3 years. The most common
failure mode is the elastomeric stator, followed by mechanical seals. Unlike a twin
screw pump or a helico-axial pump, a PCP pump is often repaired in the field.
625 Electric Submersible Pump (ESP)
General
An ESP is a multistage, centrifugal or axial flow pump that is almost always
installed downhole in an oil well. The ESP pump itself typically consists of many
small diameter impellers on a shaft, with product lubricated sleeve bearings between
each impeller. The entire unit can be 100 or more feet long.
ESPs have been installed on the surface, in a horizontal position, but this is NOT
recommended as their reliability in this has been unsatisfactory. An ESP fits in an
oil well caisson, and therefore, its diameter and capacity are restricted. The suction
is from the well through a screened inlet, and the discharge flows directly into the
production tubing.
An external view of a vertical downhole electric submersible pump is shown in
Figure600-19, and an internal view is shown in Figure600-20. Not all multiphase
ESP pumps will necessarily have all these components.
Fig. 600-19 External Viewof Vertical Electrical Submersible Pump (Courtesy of Schlumberger)
Fig. 600-20 Cross-Sectional Viewof Vertical Electrical Submersible Pump (Courtesy of Schlumberger)
Rotors and Stators (including Gas Separators and Gas Handlers)
An ESP assembly for a multiphase application, from bottom to top, consists of an
electric motor, a protector (seal), a gas separator, often a gas handler, and the ESP
pump itself. Like helico-axial pumps, the number of ESP impeller stages is chosen
to meet the design differential pressure. To do this, the pumps generally require
numerous stages. All this makes the overall length of the pump and motor long,
over 100 feet in some cases.
ESPs can be outfitted with a variety of devices to separate the gas from the
multiphase fluid stream. A gas separator is usually a centrifugal or rotary device
installed between the motor and the pump. It vents the separated gas into the
annulus between the caisson and pump above the liquid level.
A gas handler can be connected between the gas separator and the ESP. It increases
the suction pressure to the ESP, re-liquefying some of the gas and lowering the GVF
to the ESP. It also decreases the size of the remaining gas bubbles and homogenizes
the mixture.
The protector is described in this section in Bearings and in Protector or Seal
System.
Speed
Speeds range from 1,800 rpm to 5,400 rpm using an ASD.
Case
Case diameter and therefore the impeller diameter is determined by the size of the
caisson. Case material is normally carbon steel which can be coated or replaced
with proprietary materials. (Refer to Section680 for details.)
Bearings
ESPs have sleeve bearings that are lubricated by the fluid being pumped. In the
preferred design, a bearing exists between each impeller, and therefore, the number
of bearings is equal to the number of impellers, as many as 300 in some cases. This
bearing arrangement is only in the preferred design and must be specified. Unlike
the ESP itself, the electric motor is oil lubricated, made possible by a seal bag in
the protector or seal system section. Included below the seal bag is the pumps
thrust bearing, also lubricated by oil.
Driver
An ESP is driven by an electric motor, also installed downhole. The ESP motor is
installed below the pump, with the pumped fluid flowing around the motor before it
enters the pumps suction. This design is intended to provide needed cooling for the
motor. However, this can cause problems, as the motor will not be adequately
cooled by streams containing a high GVF or streams containing a high percentage
of particulate. With high GVF streams, the gas provides insufficient heat transfer,
while for high particulate streams, the particulate coats or packs around the motor,
severely restricting heat transfer. For this reason, most ESP MPP manufacturers
recommend that the pump be controlled or shut down based on high motor
temperatures instead of traditional high motor amperes.
As with the other pumps described earlier, ESPs are often controlled by ASDs. The
ASD allows the pump to operate at different speeds and different capacities. As with
any centrifugal pump, controlling the pump speed means the pump will operate on a
different head/capacity curve, which can present problems for operations.
GVF
Based on Chevron experience, the GVF for an ESP (without special gas separation
devices) should be limited to 40 percent, even though manufacturers marketing
brochures indicate that they can handle GVFs as high as 90 percent with specialized
gas separators and gas handlers. Based on Chevron experience, if these devices are
included for actual field operations use, the GVF should be limited to 60 percent.
Fluid Flow
Fluid flows vertically upward, past the motor into the gas separator, then into the
gas handler (when supplied), and finally into the ESP itself. The fluid gains pressure
through each impeller and diffuser stage. After leaving the last stage, the fluid
discharges into the production tubing.
Erosion
Particulate causes erosion to the impellers and, to a larger extent, to the bearings,
causing them to wear rapidly. Mean time between failures can be as low as a few
months, depending on the amount of sand being pumped.
Efficiency
The mechanical efficiency of an ESP is usually lower than the twin screw pump.
This is especially true at higher viscosities (above 300 SSU), at which centrifugal
pump efficiencies fall off dramatically.
Protector or Seal System
As mentioned, a protector exists between the motor and gas separator. Located in
the protector is a seal bag that protects and segregates the motors lubricating oil
from the produced fluid, and it also equalizes the motors pressure to that of the
pump. Also, the protector houses an oil lubricated thrust bearing to handle the thrust
from the ESP.
ESP stages are added or subtracted such that the pumps pressure matches
production pressure requirements. Increasing the impeller diameter increases the
pumps capacity. However, the impeller diameter is limited by the caisson size.
Pumps can be designed for increased speed to raise their capacity. Maximum rates
are 14,000 bpd, and one of the manufacturers claims that its ESP can develop a
differential pressure up to 5,000 psi.
Reliability
Typically, ESPs are pulled from the well every 2 years to 3 years for required
maintenance. Despite attempts to improve reliability, ESPs are not reliable for a
variety of reasons, some of which are as follows:
ESPs experience electrical cable shorting problems, motor problems, bearing
problems, seal bag problems, and other mechanical problems all made worse by
higher downhole temperatures, corrosion, erosion, and gas.
They are often installed in a deviated or slanted well. Installing them in nonver-
tical orientations causes the bearings to wear unevenly and more quickly.
As previously discussed, radial sleeve bearings (as many as 300 in some cases)
are lubricated by the fluid being pumped. If the fluid contains particulate, the
particulate enters the bearing with resultant wear.
If the fluid has a high GVF, the bearings will not be adequately lubricated,
causing premature failure.
Horizontal installation of these pumps negatively affects the reliability, as well. The
horizontal position, the long pump shaft length, and the increased probability of
misalignment cause the bearings to wear unevenly and more rapidly than if located
in the vertical position.
626 General MPP Selection Guidelines
As stated earlier, an MPP is a single piece of equipment used to pump oil, water,
gas, and sand. It is most often the economical choice for liquid with a GVF greater
than 5 percent.
The flowcharts shown in Figure600-21, Figure600-22, Figure600-23, and
Figure600-24 provide a general guideline for selecting an MPP for a particular
generic application. They are meant to provide some guidance but are not to be
taken as the final determining factor in the selection of a particular type of MPP. If
an MPP installation is considered, an ETC specialist or a local expert should be
consulted.

Fig. 600-21 Pump Selection Flowchart
I need an MPP
Go to Sheet C Go to Sheet A
ESP
Go to Sheet C
See SME
Onshore
or
Platform
Downhole
Above
Ground
Wet Tree
Downhole
Depth
< 5500 ft
Y=Yes
N=No
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
Seabed
Subsea
N
Fig. 600-22 Pump Selection Flowchart Sheet A
Sheet A
Helico-axial Specially Designed
Helico-axial System
See SME
Go to
Sheet B
Viscosity at
All Design
Conditions
< 300 SSU
GVF < 95%
Flowing T
< 300 F
DP < 5,000
psi
Y
Y
N
N
N Viscosity at
Any Design
Condition
> 300 SSU
Particulate
> 0.01 wt%
Total Flow
< 500,000
bpd
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Fig. 600-23 Pump Selection Flowchart Sheet B
Sheet B
Twin Screw
Specially Designed
Twin Screw System
See SME
DP < 1,400 psi
Total Flow
< 300,000
bpd
Y
GVF < 95%
FT < 600F
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
630 Design Recommendations
631 General
Most of Chevron MPP experience has been with twin screw pumps because they are
the most versatile, reliable, and appropriate pumps for most Company applications.
While most of the recommendations in this section pertain to all types of MPP
designs, some apply only to twin screw pumps and are so noted.
632 Mechanical Seals
The subject of mechanical seals is complex. The following is a brief discussion of
mechanical seals as they apply to MPPs.
Mechanical seals used in MPPs should be purchased in accordance with Chevron
specification PMP-SC-4662, which modifies API 682. API 682, Annex A, provides
a good tutorial on seals, their usage, and selection procedures. Both the Chevron
standard and API 682 discuss aspects of mechanical seals, including materials, seal
part codes, flush plans, auxiliary hardware, and more.
Fig. 600-24 Pump Selection Flowchart Sheet C
Sheet C
PCP or ESP
See SME
Total Flow
< 17,000 bpd
DP < 900 psi
Y
GVF < 40%
T < 300F
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
ESP
GVF < 60%
Y N
Chevron has a PSA with both J ohn Crane and Flowserve. These agreements include
a seal selection guide. A copy of the guide exists in the Chevron Pump Manual
Engineering Guidelines (Gray Book), Section 850. Bergmann also makes a quality
mechanical seal and has extensive experience applying them to MPPs.
The following types of mechanical seals and API seal plans are commonly used in
MPPs (refer to API 682 for details):
Single Seals (using an API Seal Flush Plan 11 as shown in Figure600-25, Seal
Flush Plan 31 as shown in Figure600-26, or Seal Flush Plan 32 as shown in
Figure600-27).
Unpressurized Dual Seals (with a buffer fluid using API Seal Flush Plan 52 as
shown in Figure600-28).
Pressurized Dual Seals (with a barrier fluid using API Seal Flush Plan 53A as
shown in Figure600-29 or Seal Flush Plan 53B as shown in Figure600-30 or
Seal Flush Plan 53C as shown in Figure600-31 or Seal Flush Plan 54 as shown
in Figure600-32).
The following paragraphs illustrate examples of the various seal types. They are
termed examples, since many different seal arrangements of each type are possible.
The specific arrangement depends on such conditions as the amount of particulate,
the temperature, and the hazardous composition (if it is hazardous) of the pumped
stream.
For example, in a single seal, the normal seal with several small springs (pusher
type) may be replaced by a bellows seal designed for high temperatures. In another
case, due to the amount of particulate in the stream, the standard Type C stationary
bellows assembly may need to be switched to one that rotates so the bellows does
not get clogged with particulate.
Single Mechanical Seals
All mechanical seals rely on liquid to lubricate and cool the seal faces. Without a
thin film of liquid, the seal faces make contact, heat up, and fail. In an MPP, the
pumped fluid usually contains a significant amount of gas, including periods of
100percent gas slugging. Gas does not adequately cool and lubricate the seal faces.
Thus, for a single seal without special design considerations, seal failure is likely.
Seal failure will usually result in leakage of the pumped fluid (including its gas
phase) to the atmosphere.
In MPPs, a single seal can be used if it includes an internal close clearance throat
bushing inside the seal chamber and other special design techniques. The extent of
these other design techniques employed depends upon the percentage of GVF and
the amount of particulate in the pumped stream. This single seal design is simpler
and less expensive than a dual seal, and therefore, it is usually the type
recommended for most MPP applications.
With the use of the internal close clearance throat bushing inside the seal chamber,
seal flush flows through the close clearance into the MPP. The bushings clearance
is designed to keep the pressure in the seal chamber 20 psi or so above the pumps
internal pressure. The purpose of the bushing is to prevent any gas from being
released to the atmosphere if the single seal fails. If it fails, only the liquid flush
would be released. This same flush can also act as screw sealant for a twin screw
pump.
The following are four API seal flush plans that can be used in conjunction with the
close clearance throat bushing:
API Flush Plan 11: If the multiphase stream contains no particulate and is
below 200F (93.3C), API Seal Flush Plan 11 is acceptable. This plan takes a
liquid flush from the pump discharge and returns it across the seal faces. The
discharge line is enlarged as required to trap liquid that is recycled from the
bottom of the line, where the liquid has settled, back to the seals. Enough liquid
needs to be trapped to enable the appropriate seal flush liquid to be available
during normal GVF conditions and during design periods of 100 percent gas
slugs. (In the Bornemann twin screw pumps, the fluid is trapped inside the
pump case itself.) (Refer to Figure600-25 in this section.)
API Flush Plan 21: If flashing is expected in API Seal Flush Plan 11, a cooler
will be required. API Seal Flush Plan 21 is the same as Seal Flush Plan 11 only
with the cooler added.
API Flush Plan 31: If a small amount of particulate (less than 0.01 wt. %) is
present and the discharge fluid is below 200F (93.3C), API Seal Flush Plan
31 is often used. This plan also takes a liquid flush from the enlarged discharge
line through a centrifuge or cyclone separator back to the seals. The centrifuge
Fig. 600-25 API Seal Flush Plan 11 (Courtesy of J ohn Crane)
separates the particulate from the pumped liquid and rejects the particulate back
to the pumps suction. Note that for the centrifuge to work properly there must
be a large difference between the gravities of the particulate and the fluid being
pumped. Carbon, for example, will not centrifuge out, but sand will. (Refer to
Figure600-26 in this section.)
API Flush Plan 32: If particulate is present in amounts above 0.01 wt. %, an
external liquid flush (API Seal Flush Plan 32) is recommended. This approach
involves a continuous, clean, 100 percent liquid stream from an external source
that enters the seal cavity to cool and lubricate. Water is often used for the
flush. (Refer to Figure600-27 in this section.)
Dual Mechanical Seals
Dual seals are more complicated and more expensive than single seals, and
therefore, single seals are more common and preferred. However, except in
extremely specialized circumstances, dual seals are still considered necessary for
safety reasons when H
2
S or other hazardous components are present or if the
pumped stream will auto-ignite upon seal leakage.
Unpressurized Dual Mechanical Seals. An unpressurized dual seal consists of two
separate mechanical seals, with a buffer fluid circulated between the seals. It is
shown in API Standard 682, Seal Flush Plan 52. (Also refer to Figure600-28 in this
section.)
The buffer fluid supplied is intended to be more environmentally benign and safer
for personnel than the pumped fluid. The buffer fluid, by definition, has a pressure
below that of the seal chamber and provides a flush fluid which lubricates and cools
the outer seal faces. The inner seal flush is provided by any of the seal plans covered
under the single seal section above. If the inner seal leaks, the pumped fluid (if it
does not flash as its pressure is reduced) will flow from the seal chamber into the
buffer fluid reservoir, raising its level, and setting off a high level alarm. If the
pumped fluid flashes as it enters the reservoir, the pressure in the buffer fluid
reservoir increases, and a high pressure alarm is initiated. If the outer seal leaks, the
more benign buffer fluid will leak to the environment, the reservoir level will drop,
a low level switch will alarm, and the pump will shut down. The pumped fluid will
not leak to the atmosphere unless both the inner and outer seals leak at the same
time.
The circulating buffer fluid system consists of a reservoir with a cooler inside, level
switches, a pressure gage, an orifice, and assorted valves. The buffer fluid circulates
from the reservoir into the chamber between the two seals and then back to the
reservoir.
Pressurized Dual Mechanical Seals. An example of a pressurized dual seal
consists of two separate mechanical seals, with a relatively benign barrier fluid
circulated between the seals to lubricate and cool both the inner and outer seal faces.
The barrier fluid pressure is kept above the seal chamber pressure, which is usually
about suction pressure. Thus, if the inner seal leaks, the barrier fluid flows into the
pumped fluid. If an outboard seal leaks, barrier fluid flows to the atmosphere. In
both cases, the barrier fluid reservoir level will drop, and instrumentation in it will
shut down the pump. The pumped fluid will not leak to the atmosphere unless both
seals leak simultaneously.
For an illustration in the form of a figure, refer in this section to API Seal Flush
Plan53A (see Figure600-29), Plan 53B (see Figure600-30), Plan 53C (see
Figure600-31), and Plan 54 (see Figure600-32).
Fig. 600-29 API Seal Flush Plan 53A (Courtesy of J ohn Crane)
Fig. 600-30 API Seal Flush Plan 53B (Courtesy of J ohn Crane)
Fig. 600-31 API Seal Flush Plan 53C (Courtesy of J ohn Crane)
The circulating barrier fluid system consists of a pumping ring, a reservoir with an
internal cooler, several level switches, a pressure gage, a pressure switch, and
assorted valves. The barrier fluid circulates from the reservoir into the seal chamber
between the two seals and then back to the reservoir.
The pressure switch keeps the barrier fluid pressure above the pumps seal chamber
pressure, which is slightly above pump suction pressure. If the pressure switch
malfunctions, the barrier fluid pressure can become lower than the suction pressure.
This is called pressure reversal. Pressure reversal will likely overcome the closing
pressure of the springs and open the faces, creating a leak. If purchasing dual seals,
this situation should be considered, especially for startup conditions. The amount of
pressure reversal that the seal can handle before leaking should be recorded by the
supplier on the seal data sheets.
Suction pressure is highest immediately before and during the startup of an MPP.
After startup, the MPP lowers the suction pressure. The barrier fluid must be
designed to operate above the highest possible suction and seal chamber pressure
expected.
There are a number of other components in this barrier fluid system, not shown in
the API figure, including automatic shutdowns to prevent leakage to the
atmosphere.
Comparison of the Seal Types. As mentioned earlier, the single seal with the close
clearance bushing is the most common, because it is simpler and less expensive than
the dual seals. The next most common is the pressurized dual seal, used where H
2
S
or other toxic components are included in the MPP stream. The least common is the
unpressurized dual seal. The only known application that comes close to the API
unpressurized dual seal is the Bornemann poor mans mechanical seal. The inner
seal is the same as one would expect in an unpressurized dual seal. The outboard
seal is a contacting lip seal, which, not being a mechanical seal, differentiates it
from an API unpressurized dual seal. The area between the seals is flushed with an
unpressurized buffer fluid at atmospheric pressure. (For more details, refer to
Mechanical Seals in Section652.)
Materials for Mechanical Seals
The standard mechanical seal faces are silicon carbide for the seal ring (flexible
spring mounted seal face) and carbon for the mating ring. Silicon carbide is
generally selected, since it has high hardness, excellent corrosion resistance, high
thermal conductivity, and a low coefficient of friction against carbon. It comes in
two types, reaction bonded silicon carbide and self-sintered silicon carbide.
Reaction bonded silicon carbide is preferred, since it has a lower coefficient of
friction against carbon, is less brittle, and is not as hard. It is more suitable for fluids
that have a pH from 4 to 11. Silicon carbide has a maximum temperature of 800F
(426.7C).
Tungsten carbide is also used as a seal ring material instead of the silicon carbide to
run against the carbon mating ring. It has a maximum temperature of 750F
(398.9C).
Seals with silicon carbide or tungsten carbide running against carbon are standard
seal offerings and are usually satisfactory if the pumped fluid temperatures are
below 750F (398.9C) and little or no particulate is present.
Two hard faces, such as tungsten carbide versus silicon carbide, are required if sand
or other abrasives are contained in the pumped stream. Unless it is certain that no
particulate is present, tungsten carbide versus silicon carbide should be used with
API Seal Flush Plans 11, 31, 32, 52, 53A, 53B, 53C, and 54. This face to face
combination runs well, even in abrasive water streams.
Of course, the toughest application is a problem when the pump and its seal must
exist in a remote location pumping a hot, high GVF stream (90 percent and above)
containing particulate (quartz) and without access to a clean, cool, external seal
flush. In this case, the pumped fluid must be used as the seal flush. The most
experienced seal design to date would run hard face against hard face, usually
tungsten carbide vs. silicon carbide. Diamond seals (running diamond face against
diamond face) have been developed recently, and experience is being accumulated
which preliminarily indicates that these seals will likely be the seal face material of
choice for this application in the future. Today, however, there is little experience
with these seals, and they are not yet recommended. With or without the diamond
seal, the seal flush would come from a downstream separator vessel or from the
bottom of the enlarged discharge line acting as a separator. Again, this enlarged
discharge line segment needs to be designed so that it has enough residence time to
knock out the required amount of seal flush liquid to sustain the seals during normal
multiphase operating conditions and during design periods of 100 percent gas
slugging.
Another new seal developed by Chevron for this application is a single mechanical
seal, cooled and lubricated by grease fed from a canister. This type of seal was
tested for several years at the Chevron Humble facility and found to be reliable.
However, the seal is not patented and has not yet been deployed commercially.
Testing was only performed on suction pressures of approximately 6 psi.
Both the grease canister seal and the diamond seal are discussed in Section6146,
specifically in Grease Canister Seal Flush System.
Refer to the Chevron Pump ManualEngineering Guidelines (Gray Book),
Section800, and API 682, and Chevron API 682 exception specification,
PMP-SC-4662, for an in depth discussion on all types of mechanical seals and the
various seal flush plans.
633 ScrewSealant for Twin ScrewPumps
In a twin screw pump, the screws are held apart by bearings with only 0.008 inch to
0.010 inch clearance between the screws and with the same clearance between the
screws and the pump case or liner. Liquid must fill these clearances. This liquid is
often called screw sealant. The design flowrate of the screw sealant must reliably
deliver 4 to 5 percent of the pumps design capacity or the pump will vapor lock,
stop pumping, heat up, have internal rubbing between the rotors and stators, and
cause severe damage.
Screw sealant can be supplied by the liquid portion of the multiphase fluid entering
the pump if the GVF is always less than 95 percent (absolutely no slugs of gas).
Otherwise, a source of screw sealant must be supplied from a downstream separator
(using the pumped liquid) or from an external supply that is unrelated to the fluid
being pumped, e.g., water.
A flush to the mechanical seal can serve two purposes, acting as both the seal flush
and the screw sealant. It can come from an enlarged section of the discharge pipe or
a downstream in-line separator (e.g., a gas liquid cylindrical cyclone) or a large
downstream separator vessel (API Flush Plans 11 or 31) or an external supply
(API Flush Plan 32) to the single or dual seal. The flush then enters the seal
chamber and the pump where it becomes the screw sealant. API Seal Flush Plan 32
is used for services with a GVF greater than 95 percent.
If the fluid being pumped is below a 95 percent GVF, an external supply of screw
sealant is not theoretically required. However, caution is advised in these situations
because multiphase flow is almost never homogeneous. For instance, with a
90percent GVF one might think that no screw sealant is required. However,
90percent GVF is an average. Even at 90 percent GVF, slugs of pure liquid
(0percent GVF) and pure gas (100 percent GVF) can occur. These slugs must be
designed for and communicated to the MPP supplier on the API 676 data sheets. As
with the mechanical seal flush, a clean, cool, particulate free, external liquid steam
should be supplied. For example, a screw sealant was needed in the Mitsue pump
with an average GVF of 75 percent, yet it experienced severe liquid and gas
slugging. (Refer to Section6134 Lessons Learned, item C.)
Slugging is described in detail in Section635.
For a dual mechanical seal, the screw sealant must be fed directly into the seal flush
port immediately inside the inner seal, at the end of each screw.
As explained in Section633, if the screw sealant comes from a discharge separator,
the level in the separator will drop as the gas slug is moved by the pump. If the gas
slug lasts for a longer duration than designed for, the separator will run dry, starv-
ing the pump of screw sealant. With the external supply of screw sealant, a high
temperature sensor will pick up the increased heat inside the pump and shut down
the pump before damage occurs. If a downstream separator vessel is used, a level
alarm and shutdown will protect the pump. Refer to Figure600-33 for a skidded
MPP with a separator built into the discharge line.
In conclusion, the downstream separator must be sufficiently sized, taking into
account the duration of a 100 percent gas slug. One method to determine the size
and duration of slugging is to model the suction piping system by using OLGA, a
computer simulation program.
634 Rotor Design for Twin ScrewPumps
A liquid-only twin screw pump is designed to pump liquid (no gas), and the rotors
are held apart by using the pumped liquid as a lubricating cushion and preventing
wear between the parts. For an MPP, the rotors must never touch, and the rotor shaft
must be stiffer and, therefore, larger in diameter. For this reason, a liquid-only twin
screw pump should never be used for multiphase service. The twin screw rotors
should be designed such that the rotors will deflect no more than half the designed
internal clearance under the most severe operating conditions.
A twin screw MPP will also operate hotter than one that pumps pure liquid.
Compressing the gas in the pumped fluid causes the pump to run hotter, expanding
the internal parts. Internal clearances must be increased. Otherwise, the parts will
rub and seize. To avoid this, the rotor clearances should be designed to allow the
pump to operate without the rotors contacting each other. To prevent wear, the pump
should be designed for a temperature of 300F (148.89C) above the maximum
expected suction temperature.
Fig. 600-33 Skidded MPP with a Built-In Separator in the Pumps Enlarged Discharge Line (Courtesy of Leistritz
Corporation)
For example, the 300F (148.89C) recommendation is based in part on the Mitsue
pump that experienced a temperature rise of 280F (137.8C). (Refer to
Section6134 Lessons Learned, items A and B.)
Unless specifically designed to pump 100 percent gas, MPPs are not designed to
pump pure gas efficiently. The screw flight spacing (screw locks) are designed for
100 percent liquid, and the increased clearances, required for gas, make the pump
relatively inefficient, typically 30 to 50 percent. Note, however, that in comparing
the twin screw pump to the helico-axial pump, PCP, or ESP, at any GVF, the twin
screw pumps efficiency is considerably superior.
Bornemann offers a regressive screw twin screw pump design in which the screw
locks become smaller towards the discharge. This design is marketed as improving
the pumps volumetric efficiency by as much as 15 percent. (Refer to Section634.)
If particulate is present, the clearance may also need to be increased further to
compensate for the size of expected particulate. When developing quotes, a
particulate size distribution and an analysis of the particulate showing the percent
quartz, silica, clay, etc., should be provided on the API 676 data sheets given to the
MPP suppliers to determine the correct clearances. With properly designed
clearances, the screws can expand when handling pure gas, and particulate can pass
without rubbing or causing erosion. If only one (gas slugs or particulate) is present,
the clearances are sized for only that criteria.
635 Effect of SlugsGas and Liquid
Slugging can be defined as the alternating of large pockets of liquids and gas to the
pump. A twin screw type pump will not be damaged by severe slugging. This is
because twin screw MPPs, besides being of a very robust design, are designed to
split the incoming flow into two equal parts, each part entering the screws from the
opposite ends of the pump at exactly the same time. The resulting forces are
opposed and cancel each other. This design is one of the primary reasons that the
twin screw pump is used for most applications. Other types of MPPs do not have
this feature and are, therefore, more susceptible to damage from slugging.
Slugging can be very severe if the MPP is located a good distance from the well(s).
Before starting the pump, the low points of the suction piping are filled with liquid.
During startup, the liquid pockets are flushed into the pump. After this is done,
liquid again starts to fill the low points, allowing gas to flow in the upper radius of
the pipe, feeding the MPP mostly pure gas. Startup slugging is referred to as terrain
slugging, and the effects can be severe. If a liquid slug enters the pump after a gas
slug, the suction pressure drops suddenly, and the liquid level in the downstream
separator rises significantly. The cooler liquid causes the temperature in the pump to
drop significantly, as well.
The reverse happens if gas slugs occur after liquid slugs. The pumps suction
pressure rises suddenly, and the discharge separator level drops, while the pump
temperature rises significantly.
After the pump has been operating, terrain slugs are often followed by
hydrodynamic slugs. Hydrodynamic slugs are caused by the wells production
stream, its GVF, and the terrain-caused ups and downs of the pumps suction line.
As described above, the bottom of the suction line begins to fill with liquid,
especially at the low points, while the gas flows over the liquid in the upper portion
of the line. Liquid slowly fills the line sufficiently such that, eventually, the gas
pushes it through and into the MPP. Hydrodynamic slugs are usually more frequent
but less severe than terrain slugs.
Liquid slugging also affects the design size of the downstream facilities. During a
liquid slug, the MPP pumps at its theoretical liquid flowrate (not at the liquid
percentage of the multiphase flowrate). The downstream separator, in combination
with the liquid flow line capacity, should be sized for this 100 percent liquid rate for
the expected duration of the liquid slug. A Pipephase or OLGA computer simulation
is required to determine the slug duration and to assist in the proper sizing of the
separator and the discharge flow lines.
If practical, one way to avoid slugging or at least minimize its severity is to locate
the MPP close to the well(s) such that the number of terrain ups and downs in the
suction line is kept to a minimum. For example, the Chevron Mitsue pump
experienced both types of the slugging discussed above, but other companies have
had similar experiences. (Refer to Section6134 Lessons Learned, item D.)
636 Motor Selection and Use of Adjustable Speed Drives (ASD)
One of the characteristics of a twin screw pump and the progressive cavity pump is
that they are positive displacement pumps (capacity is proportional to speed) and
constant torque machines (under the same fluid conditions, the required torque is
dependent only on differential pressure). They operate independently of speed and
gas volume fraction. If the pump is started against the full system backpressure, the
motor must develop a large torque. Most motors do not develop full torque until
they reach full speed. Therefore, if the pump starts under a load, a larger HP motor
will be necessary than will be required for normal operation. A larger HP motor
increases the cost of the pump/motor skid substantially.
There are two commonly used methods to avoid this:
1. Installation of a startup recirculation line (piping from pump discharge or a
downstream separator back to a suction header or suction tank) that includes a
pressure control valve;
2. Installation of an ASD on the motor, a motor specifically designed for an ASD.
Solution 1 allows the MPP to start at a low discharge pressure, where the MPP
requires a low torque from the motor. The pressure control valve in the recycle line
is opened on pump startup allowing the motor to reach full speed and full torque
before it closes on a planned basis, thereby building the discharge pressure on pump
slowly to keep the required torque below that developed by the motor. To do this
properly, the operator needs to be certain that the suction, discharge, and
recirculation lines are full of liquid before the pump is started. This approach could
be used after startup during normal operation to reduce the net production by
recycling flow through the bypass line. However, this approach wastes energy. Also,
if the bypass line is left open too long, the fluid will heat up, possibly flash, and
increase the GVF.
Solution 2 provides the advantage that the motor provides the required flow control
under operating conditions. An ASD allows the operator to vary the speed and,
therefore, the flowrate of the pump, to better match the fields production. Finally,
by increasing the pump speed, an ASD system can be used to maintain production
as the pump wears.
Solutions 1 and 2 can be applied independently. However, both should be
implemented.
Other drives, such as natural gas or diesel engine drives, can also be used. These
drives are not constant torque drives and must be sized such that the pumps
required torque never exceeds the torque available from the drive. Again, the drive
may be oversized to accomplish this, or a recycle line may be used.
For the helico-axial pumps, which are not constant torque, standard electric motors
and typical discharge flow control valves are used, often with a recycle line to keep
the pump above the pumps minimum flowrate (thermal or stable), or an ASD drive
and its properly designed motor is used. The flow control valve and recycle line will
likely waste energy, so the ASD option is the preferred solution.
637 Methods to Reduce Sand Erosion
Twin ScrewPumps
Based on the Duri test, sand rates equivalent to 90 bbl/day will not cause erosion in
a twin screw pump as long as the sand is flowing in crude oil at or below 22 degrees
API with a viscosity above 330 cp. In this test, it is believed that no erosion
occurred because the sand stayed in suspension in the heavy, viscous crude oil. A
computer simulation also indicated that a pump handling crude oil between
22degrees API and 30degrees API is not likely to erode with sand present. The
amount of erosion from sand is expected to increase if the API gravity is above
30degrees. If the sand is pumped with only gas, steam, or water, the pump will
definitely erode quickly. This was shown at Duri during the steam injection test.
(Refer to Twin Screw MPP Results in Section6138.)
Erosion with water and particulate was also demonstrated at the University of
Erlangen in Nuremberg, Germany. During the 1990s, a sand erosion test was run on
a conventional twin screw pump. During the test, a stream of pure water containing
a 0.9 vol. % of sand was pumped while the pumps differential pressure was
maintained at approximately 220 psi. The sand was pure quartz with a particle
distribution that extended above and below the pumps internal clearances. In
1-1/2hours, the pump wore out completely.
If a twin screw pump is installed with sand in its feed, several design improvements
should be implemented to directionally reduce the effect:
1. Installing a removable liner with Satellite or tungsten carbide coating.
Suggestions for coatings are described in Section641;
2. Gas hardening the rotors (Again, refer to Section641);
3. Coating the screw edge;
4. Operating the pump at a slower speed (balancing the cost of the larger sized,
slower pump against the smaller sized, higher speed pump that will wear more
quickly);
5. Using an ASD with a properly designed motor or a variable speed engine,
which allows the pump to run at speeds above its normal operating speed;
6. Using the maximum number of screw turns or locks, more than that necessary
to develop the required discharge pressure;
7. Prohibiting balance holes on the periphery of the screws. (They create a place
for rapid erosion.)
By using hard coated liners and hardened items 1, 2, and 3, the amount of erosion is
reduced as long as the particulate in the stream is softer than the coatings. Allowing
the pump to operate at slower speeds (item 4) reduces the erosion, since the erosion
rate, e, equals the velocity, v, raised to the 3
rd
or 4
th
power (e =v
3
). If the pump
is designed to provide the required flowrate at a speed less than the motors
maximum rpm and an ASD is used to drive the motor, the speed of the pump and
motor can be increased to compensate for any erosion suffered during normal
operation (item 5). Confirm with the manufacturer that the speed increase is
acceptable. Using item 6 decreases the pressure boost across each stage, decreasing
slip, therefore decreasing erosion. Implementing item 7 eliminates a location where
erosion can get a foothold, destroying the coating around it. (It is common for
manufacturers to balance their rotors by drilling holes in the tip of various screws.)
The most commonly used design modifications to prevent erosion are items 1, 2, 3,
4, and 5. If sand is present, an MPP specialist should be consulted before purchasing
the pump.
In a twin screw pump, rotor clearances are small, on the order of 0.008 inch, almost
always smaller than a grain of sand. Sand tends to wedge between the screw edges
and the bore of the pump, causing erosion. Once erosion begins, the slip or the flow
of fluid backwards across the screw edges will increase causing additional erosion
which continues an ever more rapid rate of erosion.
Helico-Axial, PCP, and ESP Pumps
Since a certain speed is required to develop the required pressure differential and
flowrate, these types of pumps typically rely on proprietary coatings and materials
to minimize erosion. (Refer to Section660 for Helico-axial pumps, Section670 for
PCPs, and Section680 for ESPs.)
638 Recycle StreamFlashing (Surface Pumps)
Twin ScrewPumps
Liquid near its boiling point will flash into gas if a pressure drop occurs or if its
temperature is raised, such as, if a liquid near its boiling point is mixed with a hotter
fluid. The result is that a small volume of liquid will flash into a very large volume
of gas.
As mentioned before, if the GVF of a pumped stream is very high, a recycle screw
sealant stream will be required. If the screw sealant stream is the pumped fluid
recycled from a discharge separator, it is likely to be near its flash point, and
flashing needs to be evaluated.
Usually a flow control valve is installed on the screw sealant line from the
downstream separator to the suction side of the pump. As the fluid passes through
the control valve, the fluid pressure drops to that of the suction. As this pressure
reduction occurs, the hot screw sealant fluid may flash. Also, if hot enough, the
sealant fluid may cause some of the incoming pumped stream to vaporize. Of
course, for a given sealant fluid temperature, more of the incoming streams volume
will flash if it is a lighter gravity fluid rather than a heavier gravity fluid. The net
effect of this flashing is that the evolved gas occupies pump capacity. This gas
volume replaces liquid volume in the pump, decreasing the pumps volumetric
efficiency and causing the pump to be built larger to accommodate the increased gas
volume.
Once a flow diagram is identified, a process simulation should be done to identify
areas where flashing can occur and to quantify the amount of flashing. HYSIM or
PRO II are two simulation programs that can be used for this purpose.
Potential solutions to minimize the effects of flashing (other than oversizing the
pump) are shown in the following list (the recommended solutions are items 3 or 4):
1. Mixing the recycled stream into the suction stream as far upstream of the
pumps suction flange as is possible. This allows for some atmospheric cooling
of the recycled stream and for re-condensing some of the gas before it reaches
the pump.
2. Mixing the recycled stream into a suction vessel.
3. Installing a cooler or condenser in the recycle stream after the pressure
reduction valve, injecting the recycle stream into the suction or into the
mechanical seal flush port. The HYSIM process simulator should be run again
to size the cooler. Usually the cooler is a small air cooled exchanger.
4. Supplying the screw sealant from a cool, external source.
For example, Mitsue used these solutions. (Refer to Section6134 Lessons Learned,
item J .)
Recycle, Slip, Flashing Factor. The pumps size needs to be larger than the size
that is first calculated. This is necessary to compensate for flashing and the
increased clearances (with increased slip) needed to compensate for heat and
particulate. To do this, one simply multiplies the initial design capacity by a recycle,
slip, flashing factor in accordance with the following:
Use a factor of 1.10 percent for screw sealant that is the same temperature as
pump suction (solution 3 or solution 4);
For uncooled recycled streams:
Use a factor of 1.15 percent for all GVFs and a heavy crude (API less than
25 degrees);
Use a factor of 1.25 percent for GVFs less than 50 percent and a light
crude (API greater than 25 degrees);
Use a factor of 1.35 percent for GVFs greater than 50 percent and a light
crude (API greater than 25 degrees).
Refer to Section693 for an example of how this is applied. The need for the recycle,
slip, flashing factor was determined from the Mitsue pump. (Refer to Section6134
Lessons Learned, item J .)
Helico-Axial, PCPs, and ESP
The helico-axial pump and surface PCPs or ESPs may also require a recycle stream
for low flowrates. If so, flashing must be considered. Solutions 1, 2, and 3 in
Section638 (twin screw pumps) can be applied.
639 Suction and Discharge Piping (Surface Pumps)
Model the Piping
During the early design stages, the multiphase simulator, Pipephase, should be run
on the MPPs inlet pipe from the production wells through the discharge piping to
the downstream separation. If Pipephase indicates slugging, a transient simulator,
such as OLGA, should be used to predict the size, frequency, and duration of the
slugs. This information is necessary to properly size the pump and associated
equipment. For example, the OLGA simulation of the Mitsue installation indicated
significant slugging. (Refer to Section6134 Lessons Learned, item G.)
Suction Strainer
A strainer should always be installed in the MPPs suction line to catch debris. It
should be a permanent, basket strainer, not just a startup witchs hat, conical
screen. If sized properly, this basket strainer will prevent small pieces of debris from
entering and damaging the pump. The openings or mesh size of the strainer is often
1/8 inch, unless wax is present. If wax is present, a filter is used instead of a strainer.
The sizing of the strainer mesh or filter should be determined for each application,
and the mesh size should be jointly developed by the purchaser and the pump
supplier.
Note The combination of wax and sand in a stream is particularly challenging
since sand will plug the filter quickly. Consult an SME on multiphase pumping.
The strainer or filter should be a duplex stainless steel unit that allows switching
from one unit to the other while the MPP runs. The open area of the screen should
be 150 percent of the pipe flow area, unless wax is present. For wax, 200 percent is
recommended. The strainer should be designed to withstand as large a differential
pressure as possible. This depends upon the size and pressure rating of the strainer
housing and the mesh itself. When purchasing the strainer, determine the strainers
collapse pressure. Finally, a high differential pressure across the strainer should
trigger an alarm, followed by a shutdown that is lower than the collapse pressure.
Refer to the Princess MPP and the Main Pass 313 installations. (Refer to
Section6135 Lessons Learned, item B and Section6136 Lessons Learned, item F.)
Inlet Pipe Orientation
The pump should be located as close as possible to the source of the pumped fluid.
The suction piping shall be kept as short as possible, with as few elbows as possible.
High spots where gas can get trapped or low spots where liquid can collect should
be minimized, since they will create slugging. Any of these vertical legs that are
absolutely necessary should be located as far from the pump as possible.
Inlet piping should enter a twin screw pump from a plane perpendicular (either
horizontal or vertical depending on the pumps suction flange) to the axis of the
screws. Upstream of the pump inlet flange the pipe should be a straight run for at
least 10 pipe diameters or 10 feet, whichever is longer. An elbow should not be
installed immediately at the pumps inlet flange.
Pipe that runs parallel to the axis of the twin screw pumps rotors and that have an
elbow bolted directly to the pump flange must be avoided. This will channel more
flow to one side of the pump than the other. In a slugging situation, this will
increase the pumps axial thrust forces beyond design and cause a failure.
Pressure Restriction Location
A pressure restriction (a control valve or orifice, etc.) shall not be installed near the
pumps discharge flange. If such a device is installed near the pump, the pressure
will surge to unacceptable levels, instantaneously, when a slug of liquid follows gas.
A pressure restriction, if necessary, should be installed on the downstream side of
the liquid separator in the discharge line. If a liquid separator is not being used, the
restriction should be installed as far down the discharge line as possible. Locating
restrictions at the proper points will tend to dampen any pressure surge due to
slugging. For example, in the Mitsue installation, slugs caused a significant pressure
spike due to a pressure restriction near the discharge flange. (Refer to Section6134
Lessons Learned, item E.)
640 MPP Materials
641 General
This section describes materials for MPPs that are designed to operate with streams
containing sand or other hard particulate.
Materials, coatings, and material hardening processes are improving rapidly, and
selecting the most erosion resistant material, coatings, or hardening process can be
difficult. An ETC or local expert should be consulted if sand or hard particulate is
involved.
642 Twin ScrewPumps
If twin screw MPPs handle sand, the rotors and case liner or case (if supplied
without a liner) must be fabricated using hard materials, material hardened by
various methods, or materials coated with overlays suited to withstand abrasion and
erosion. For twin screw pumps, the following methods have been used:
Pump Case
The pump case or the pump casing under the liner should be carbon steel or better.
Cast or malleable iron is not acceptable. A pump case liner is strongly
recommended.
Pump Case Liner
Alternative 1Stellite 12 Weld Overlay. Stellite can be applied to the case or case
liner using the following general weld procedure:
Preheat the base material to 482F (250C) with a maximum interpass tempera-
ture of 350F to 400F (176.7C to 204.4C);
Apply a weld overlay, called a buffer or butter layer, consisting of 316 L SS
weld rod. The finished thickness of this layer, after machining, should be
0.080in. (2.0 mm);
Apply two layers of Stellite 12, with a final total finished thickness after
machining of 0.12 in. (3.0 mm);
Post heat treat at 1,094F (590C), plus or minus 50F (10C). This tempera-
ture should be held for 1 hour. Heating and cooling rates shall be 104F (40C)
per hour.
Stellite 12 weld overlay has a hardness of 45 HRC.
Alternative 2Titanium. Manufacture the entire liner out of titanium.
Alternative 3Chrome Overlay the Liner. Applying chrome overlay to the pump
case or the pump case liner is not recommended. The process of adding chrome over
base metal is often performed poorly, and as a result, the chrome peels off the base
material. Chrome overlay has a hardness of 68 HRC.
Recommendations. Alternative 3 is not acceptable. Alternative 1 and Alternative 2
are recommended.
For all of the hardening or coating processes, the supplier should submit with his bid
detailed procedures, including weld procedures, and pre- and post-weld heat
treatments.
Rotors (Screws)
Gas Hardening. Gas hardening is usually used to harden twin screw rotors, since
their profile is difficult to apply a welded material to and then remachine to the
proper profile.
There are two commonly used gas hardening techniques:
Alternative 1Nitride Soak. The entire twin screw rotors can be hardened with
nitride gas for 48 hours. The depth of the hardness is approximately 0.003 in.
(0.076mm). Nitriding has a hardness of 58 HRC.
Alternative 2Boride Gas Diffusion Deposition Coating. The twin screws can be
hardened with boride gas diffusion over the entire surface of the screws (edge, both
flanks, and the root).
The parent material should be 400 series SS, capable of resisting hot carbonic
acid corrosion.
Before applying the boride diffusion coating, the parent material should be heat
treated to 1,650F (898.9C), minimum, and slow cooled.
A boride diffusion coating should be applied with a finished hardness of
1,600DPH or 1,600 HV, minimum.
Finished thickness of the coating should be 0.004 in. (0.102 mm), minimum.
After coating, no check cracks should be visible by the naked eye.
Suggested suppliers are the pump manufacturers, since the coating is purchased
when the pump is bought. Boriding has a hardness of 2,000 HV (V =Vickers).
If particulate is present in the pumped stream, using Alternative 2 for the screws
lasts longer. However, it is more expensive and difficult to apply. The suppliers
procedure needs to be reviewed and the results inspected.
Alternative 3Stelliting the Screw Edges. In addition to Alternative 1 or
Alternative2, Alternative 3 may be used. In Alternative 3, only the tips or edges of
the screws are stellited. Alternative should not be used by itself, but only in
combination with Alternative 1 or Alternative 2.
Alternative 4Other Options. The pump supplier should be encouraged to offer
hardening alternatives, including price differences that are harder than those
mentioned above and/or that could coat more of the screws than just the edges or
tips. The pump supplier should submit such details with his bid.
643 Helico-Axial, PCP, and ESP Materials
These types of pumps use proprietary materials. Refer to Section660 for Helico-
axial pump materials, Section670 for PCP materials, and Section680 for ESP
materials.
644 Mechanical Seal Materials (all types of MPPs)
For most helico-axial and twin screw pump applications running below 300F
(148.9C) or with no particulate or hydrogen sulfide or highly acidic or basic fluids,
the typical materials for the seal parts are:
Seal ring: silicon carbide
Mating ring: carbon
Hardware (screws, springs, retaining rings, etc.): stainless steel
Secondary seal elastomeric O-Ring: Viton
Close clearance bushing: Bronze
For other upstream applications, refer to Materials for Mechanical Seals in
Section632 of this manual, and, if necessary for other applications, consult Chevron
Pump Manual Seal Selection Guides PMP-DG-4662 CRN and PMP-DG-4662 FS.
650 ManufacturersTwin Screw MPPs
651 General
The three most common manufacturers of twin screw MPPs are:
Bornemann
Leistritz
Flowserve
The most common twin screw MPPs are Bornemann and Leistritz. They supply
approximately 90 percent of these pumps that are sold. They are well constructed
and highly reliable. Both manufacturers supply packaged units on skids.
As of this writing, Flowserve has few installations, and they have had problems with
their construction and reliability. We strongly recommend against purchasing their
pumps at this time. For example, Chevron has had problems with Flowserve pumps
in Venezuelas Boscan and El Tigre fields, as well as in Chad. (Refer to
Section6139.)
All three pumps use identical flow patterns. The pumps inlet or suction flange is at
axial center of the pump case. The inlet fluid is split in two streams, with equal
portions directed to each end of the pump where the fluid enters the screws. The
screws move the fluid to the center of the screws where the discharge is located. All
three manufacturers incorporate four sets of mechanical seals, and all have bearings
outboard of the seals.
Note Bornemann also has a design in which the discharge is at the end of the
screws by the mechanical seals. This design should be avoided, if possible, since in
this design, the mechanical seals are required to seal against discharge pressure.
These seals are more difficult to design and their reliability is inferior.
In summary, at the moment, it is strongly recommended that only Bornemann or
Leistritz be considered for Chevron applications. Their pumps are well constructed,
highly reliable, and can be supplied as packaged units on skids.
Note Colfax owns Warren, Houttuin, Allweiler, and IMO brands. Warren has
manufactured a liquid screw pump for many years. We have had success with the
Warren pumps, which are pumping 40 percent GVF multiphase flow for
approximately 15 years in Venezuela. While not yet recommended for purchase by
Chevron, Colfax is currently attempting to enter the MPP market in a substantial
way.
Refer to Section6130 for a discussion of several Chevron and legacy Texaco MPP
installations, including several lessons learned from each. Several
recommendations included in this manual are derived from these lessons learned.
A complete list of Chevron and legacy Texaco MPP installations is included in
Figure600-1.
652 Bornemann MPPs
Applications
Bornemann has made more twin screw MPPs than any other supplier, with over 400
installations worldwide. Bornemann claims its largest pump, MPC series, can pump
900,000 bpd at a differential pressure of 1,015 psi. It also makes a smaller version,
the MW series. Figure600-34 lists 15 significant installations.
As shown in Figure600-34, Bornemann pumps are installed onshore, on offshore
platforms, and, recently, subsea. The pumps are installed in a wide range of
applications, such as increasing production by reducing wellhead pressure,
transporting multiphase fluids several miles through one pipeline, and taking suction
from the annulus of several oil wells where the multiphase fluid averages over
98percent gas. Note that, in Figure600-34, one of the Bornemann MPPs was
purchased by the Chevron Midway Sunset field in Bakersfield, California. It
performed so well that eight of the pumps are now in operation at that site.
Fig. 600-34 Significant Bornemann MPP Installations (Information Courtesy of Bornemann Corporation) (1 of 2)
Location or
Oil Field Customer
Onshore
Offshore
Subsea Date No. Model
Capacity
(bpd)
Delta P
(psi)
GVF
(%) Driver HP
Tunisia Poseidon Offshore 1989 1 MPC355-45F 60,000 928 96 Electric -
Duri,
Indonesia
Caltex Onshore 1997 1 MW9.5zk-67 125,000 231 75 Electric 350
Bakersfield,
CA
Chevron Onshore 2000 1 MW7.3zk-33 7,400 290 60 Electric 63
Venezuela Sincor Onshore 2000 1 MW8.5zk-67 74,000 510 82 Electric 774
Minas,
Indonesia
Caltex Onshore 2000 1 MW8.7zk-46 60,000 110 65 Electric 161
Bakersfield,
CA
Bakersfield,
CA
Russia Tatoilgaz Onshore 2002 2 MW7.3xk-43 17,000 218 75 Electric 80
Bakersfield,
CA
Bakersfield,
CA
Canada CNRI Onshore 2003 1 MW9.5xk-90 159,000 171 95 Electric 646
US Gulf of
Mexico, King
Field
BP Subsea 2006 3 SMPC 335-
50
- 725 70 Electric 1,475
Recently, three Bornemann MPPs were installed subsea for the British Petroleum
King Field in the Gulf of Mexico. BP claims the pumps will increase production by
20 percent and overall recovery by 7 percent, extending the life of the field. The
pumps are on the ocean floor under 5,500 feet of water. Each of the pumps is driven
by a subsea electric motor controlled by an ASD on a host platform. The motor
supplies 6,600 volts to the subsea pump, 15 miles away. These are the first twin
screw MPPs to be located subsea on the seabed floor.
Orientation and Drivers
Bornemann pumps are designed to be installed horizontally. Usually, they are driven
by electric motor drives with ASDs, although they may be driven by natural gas
engines or other drivers. This enables the pumps capacity to be controlled to match
well production. Flow is usually controlled based on a set suction pressure or
wellhead manifold pressure.
Packaging
For new installations, Bornemann pumps can be purchased directly from
Bornemann, or they can be packaged by Aker Kvaerner as skid mounted units or
units ready for grouting. The packages include strainers, valves, piping, pressure
and temperature gages, and discharge separators.
Testing Facilities
Bornemann does an inhouse test of its equipment with water and air. After the MPP
pumps water for a while, Bornemann injects air into the water until the temperature
rises to a pre-established level. Bornemann does not test with particulate. This
testing is not considered to be a good indicator of how a pump will react while
pumping an actual multiphase fluid.
Particulate Handling and Speed
These pumps are usually run at 1,800 rpm but may be run at 3,600 rpm or 1,200 rpm,
based on the amount of particulate entrained in the stream, expected well production
rates, and the economics of the project.
The Bornemann pump demonstrated during the Duri test that it could pump and not
retain a substantial quantity of sand without internal damage. (Refer to Section6138
for details.)
India Cairn
Energy
Onshore 2006 2 MW106-132 364,000 180 95 Electric 1,530
Algeria AGIP Onshore 2007 2 MPC-400-79 136,000 798 90 Electric -
Canada Imperial Oil Onshore 2008 2 MW8.5zk-85 86,000 189 95 Electric 370
Fig. 600-34 Significant Bornemann MPP Installations (Information Courtesy of Bornemann Corporation) (2 of 2)
Location or
Oil Field Customer
Onshore
Offshore
Capacity
(bpd)
Delta P
(psi)
GVF
(%) Driver HP
Materials and Coatings
Bornemann pumps are usually fabricated from carbon steel. A fully replaceable
liner is offered. The liner can be Stellite weld overlaid, and the screws can be
borided to provide better wear resistance to sand. The other coating materials
mentioned in Section640 can also be provided. For example, these features were
included in the Caltex Duri twin screw MPP, manufactured in 1997. (Refer to listing
in Figure600-34 and Section6138.)
Mechanical Seals
Bornemann will supply its MPPs with a single seal using the close clearance throat
bushing or a pressurized dual seal or an unpressurized dual seal. The Bornemann
unpressurized dual seal is unique, not supplied by any other twin screw MPP
manufacturer. It is called the poor mans seal. It consists of an inner seal, identical
to an unpressurized dual seal with a lip seal on the outboard end, which
differentiates it from the unpressurized dual seal described in API 682. The inner
seal is cooled and lubricated from a flush that is routed to the seal from two
connections in the case. Like all unpressurized dual seals, the poor mans seal
injects the area between the inner or primary mechanical seal and the outer
secondary lip seal with a buffer fluid at atmospheric pressure supplied from two
tanks built into the MPP case. Bornemann claims it has supplied this seal to
95percent of its customers, amounting to over 450 units. Bornemann also claims
that the seal lasts approximately 2 years, with the inner seal, as well as the lip seal,
failing at just about the same time. Chevron has a few of these seals in the
Bakersfield area.
Distinctive Features
Bornemann MPPs include several features not normally found in any other MPPs,
such as:
A large pump case with an internal chamber, designed to separate and retain a
required portion of the liquid from the feed stream;
The poor mans seal described above;
An adjustable internal circulation valve that circulates the trapped liquid back
to the pump suction. If fully open, the pumps entire capacity can be circulated.
Bornemann claims that this provision unloads the pump and motor during
startup. The valves plug contains a groove, such that, if the valve is fully
closed, it still circulates 3 to 4 percent of the pumps capacity back to suction.
This is usually enough to supply the screw sealant needed if the pump is fed a
fluid with a GVF above 95 percent.
Note that these features are not always considered positive. There is no
instrumentation to show if and when the internal chamber runs dry. The potential for
this occurring is high if pumping streams exceed a GVF of 98 percent.
Bornemann also includes a high temperature shutdown in the case that shuts the
pump down if the screw sealant liquid in the case is depleted. If liquid is depleted,
the pump heats up and shuts down due to high temperature. If a stream with a GVF
greater than 98 percent is anticipated, an external source of liquid screw
sealant/flush should be used. (Refer to Section638.)
653 Leistritz MPPs
Applications
Leistritz model L4HK, its largest twin screw pump, can pump 330,000 bpd at
1,200psi differential pressure. Leistritz is working to increase its differential
pressure capability to 2,100 psi. Leistritz makes another, smaller model, L4MK. Its
maximum flowrate is 220,000 bpd at a maximum pressure boost of 300 psi. Both
models can handle streams with GVFs of up to 100 percent. At GVFs above
90percent, Leistritz requires a separate system for screw sealant and/or the
mechanical seal flush, from a wide section of the discharge line or from a discharge
vessel with a level gage, piping, and valves. The level gage allows monitoring of the
screw sealant/flush flowrate and assurance that it is flowing all the time. Above
98percent, a clean, cool, reliable external sourced screw sealant/flush is
recommended. (Refer to Section638.)
The first MPPs purchased by Chevron and legacy-Texaco (Trinidad, Humble,
Mitsue, and Main Pass 313) were all manufactured by Leistritz. They have proven
to be reliable, and Leistritz has supplied over 70 MPPs. Figure600-35 lists 15 of
Leistritzs more significant installations.
Leistritzs current installations are onshore and on offshore platforms. One of them,
shown in Figure600-35, was installed by Chevron in 2007 on an unmanned
offshore platform, Main Pass 59A in the Gulf of Mexico, driven by a large
(1,700HP) natural gas engine. Leistritz calls this installation the largest of its
kind. The pump is designed to increase production by increasing the wellhead
pressure of 18 wells to match that of the additional adjacent wells such that a
common production line can be used. The GVF was 95 percent. This is a highly
profitable installation, making $80,000/day based on oil at $80/bbl, resulting in a
payout period of only 0.17 years. (Refer to Section6131.)
Fig. 600-35 Significant Leistritz MPP Installations (Information Courtesy of Leistritz Corporation) (1 of 2)
Location or Oil
Field Customer
Onshore
Offshore
Capacity
(bpd)
Delta P
(psi)
GVF
(%) Driver HP
Humble, TX Texaco Onshore 1997 1 L4NG 21,000 130 90 Electric 65
Mitsue/Princess Chevron Onshore 1995 1 L4HK 40,000 400 75 Electric 700
Main Pass 313 Chevron Offshore 1995 1 L4NK 26,000 125 98 Electric 75
Moreia Field Petrobras Offshore 1998 1 L4HK 61,000 580 88 Electric 800
Peace River Shell
Canada
Onshore 2007 4 L4MK 87,100 300 95 Electric 600
Omen Shell
Canada
Onshore 1998 1 L4HK 61,000 940 86 Electric 710
Chad Esso Onshore 2003 5 L4HK 150,800 840 56 Electric 960
Neiva, Colombia Colombia Onshore 2002 1 L4MK 45,000 265 58 Electric 300
Neiva, Colombia Colombia Onshore 2003 1 L4MK 56,000 430 58 Electric 700
Matarie, LA Cent. Expl. Offshore 2007 1 L4HK 132,100 250 95 Electric 820
It is expected that shortly a Leistritz pump will be installed on the ocean floor off
the coast of Brazil. That pump, SBMS-500, will pump from a water depth of
2,100feet and produce a pressure boost of 870 psi. This pump will experience an
average GVF of 87 percent but is designed for 100 percent with an external supply
of screw sealant. Slugs are expected because the pump is located 1-1/2 km from the
well. Lubricating oil is supplied to the pump and motor from a tank located on the
host platform. This system is unique and patented.
Leistritz pumps are installed horizontally. Usually they are driven by an electric
motor controlled by an ASD, although they may be driven by natural gas engines or
other drivers. This enables the flow to be controlled to match production
requirements. Flow is usually controlled from suction pressure or wellhead manifold
pressure.
Packaging
For new installations, Leistritz pumps are usually packaged as skid mounted units or
units ready for grouting. Units include strainers, valves, piping, pressure and
temperature gages, and discharge separators. Leistritz surface pumps are commonly
packaged by Fluid Power Systems in Houston, Texas, while its subsea pumps are
packaged by Cameron. Of course, replacement pumps or new units can be
purchased as individual items.
Testing Facilities
Fluid Power Systems will test the Leistritz pumps using water and natural gas.
These pumps are usually run at 1,800 rpm but may be run at 3,600 rpm or
1,200rpm, based on the amount of particulate entrained in the stream and the
economics of the project. For example, the Princess pump ran reliably for several
years at 3,600 rpm. (Refer to Section6134.)
Main Pass 59A Chevron Offshore 2007 1 L4HK 152,100 640 95 Gas
Engine
1,700
Alberta, Canada Devon Onshore 2003 1 L4MK 22,000 231 95 Electric 125
Bakersfield, CA Area
Energy
Onshore 2005 1 L4MK 130,000 190 35 Electric 800
China Bohai Oil
Corp
Offshore 1996 1 L4HK 37,000 525 92 Electric 650
Brazil Petrobras Subsea Soon 1 ? 75,000 870 90 Electric -
Fig. 600-35 Significant Leistritz MPP Installations (Information Courtesy of Leistritz Corporation) (2 of 2)
Location or Oil
Field Customer
Onshore
Offshore
Capacity
(bpd)
Delta P
(psi)
GVF
(%) Driver HP
Leistritz pumps are usually fabricated from carbon steel. A fully replaceable liner is
offered. The liner can be Stellite weld overlaid, and the screws can be nitrided to
provide better wear resistance to sand. The other coating materials mentioned in
Section640 can be provided.
Mechanical Seals
Leistritz has sold MPPs with the single seal using a close clearance throat bushing,
as well as pressurized dual seals. To date, Leistritz has not sold any MPPs with the
unpressurized dual seal. If requested, Leistritz will use cartridge seals designed in
accordance with API 682.
Leistritz pumps are more basic than Bornemann pumps, in that the liquid separation
chamber and internal recycle valve are not supplied. On the other hand, Leistritz is
easy to work with and will modify its equipment, backed by sound technical
reasoning. For example, the Mitsue pump was the first MPP in the industry to use
the API flush plan #32 with a throat bushing, where the flush also acted as a screw
sealant. This was accomplished after discussions between Leistritz and Chevron.
Like Bornemann, the Leistritz pump includes a high temperature shutdown if the
screw sealant/flush is lost. If fluid is depleted, the pump heats up and shuts down
due to high temperature. If a stream with a GVF greater than 98 percent is
anticipated, an external source of liquid screw sealant/flush should be used. (Refer
to Section638.)
Leistritz also makes a skid mounted MPP that takes suction from a wells casing if
rod pumps are used. It can also take suction from several well casings. The MPP
lowers the casing gas pressure that, in turn, increases the downhole liquid level in
the annulus. All of this allows the operator to speed up the rod pump to increase
crude oil production. The Leistritz design involves adding a small stream of liquid
from the discharge of the rod pump to the MPPs suction to act as the seal flush and
screw sealant.
654 Flowserve MPPs
Note Currently not recommended due to numerous failures in Chevron and non-
Chevron applications.
Applications
Flowserve (formerly Ingersoll Rand) claims to have supplied 48 MPPs. Its largest,
MP1, pumps up to 280,000 bpd at a differential pressure of 1,000 psi. A list of
Flowserve installations is currently not available.
Flowserves largest pump is installed in Venezuela at Sincor. Flowserve claims that
the installation is successful, but this claim has not been verified. Most of the other
Flowserve MPPs are onshore, but one is installed on an offshore platform in the
Middle East. Flowserve is also looking for a user with whom it can develop a
downhole twin screw pump.
Flowserve pumps are designed to be installed horizontally. Usually, they are driven
by electric motor drives controlled by ASDs, although they may be driven by
natural gas engines or other drivers. This enables the flow to be controlled to match
production requirements. Flow is usually controlled from suction pressure or
wellhead manifold pressure.
Packaging
For new installations, Flowserve pumps are usually packaged as skid mounted units
or units ready for grouting. Units include strainers, valves, piping, pressure and
temperature gages, and discharge separators. Flowserve surface pumps are
commonly packaged by outside contractors, working from Flowserve engineering
standards. Of course, replacement pumps or new units can be purchased as
individual items.
Testing Facilities
The Flowserve testing facilities are in Brantford, Ontario, Canada. The facilities can
now test with water, oil, and injected air. Particulate cannot be added to the test
flowstream.
These pumps are usually run at 1,800 rpm but are also run slower, based on the
amount of particulate entrained in the stream and the economics of the project.
Flowserves standard material for the pump case is carbon steel, but the pumps can
also be made of stainless steel or duplex stainless steel. Flowserve is testing various
coatings for the screw tips, such as deloran, Stellite, and tungsten carbide. For the
case bore, chrome plating and Stellite are offered.
Mechanical Seals
Flowserve has sold MPPs with the single seal using a close clearance throat
bushing, as well as pressurized dual seals.
Like Bornemann, the Flowserve MP1 includes a liquid separation chamber with
injection back to suction to act as a screw sealant.
As of this writing, it is strongly recommended that only Bornemann or Leistritz twin
screw pumps be considered for Chevron applications. Currently, because of
Flowserves proven poor reliability in Chevron and non-Chevron installations, the
purchase of Flowserve MPPs is not recommended. Flowserves ability to provide a
reliable MPP is lacking. They are considerably behind Bornemann and Leistritz.
Currently, Flowserve is in the process of a complete pump redesign that also
includes its production and quality control processes. Hopefully, Flowserve will
improve.
660 ManufacturersHelico-Axial MPPs
661 General
Framo, a Norwegian company, and Sulzer, a French company, are licensed to
manufacture helico-axial pumps based on the Poseidon technology that was
developed jointly by Total, Statoil, and the French Petroleum Institute.
The helico-axial type of MPP is discussed briefly in Section623. It is an axial
flow/centrifugal pump in which pressure is boosted by multiple impellers in series.
Between each impeller, a diffuser directs the flow from the discharge of one
impeller to the suction of the next. An external view of this pump is shown in
Figure600-12 and an internal view in Figure600-13.
662 Framo
Applications
Framo built more than 60 helico-axial pumps, 23 of which are still operating. The
maximum capacity available is 100,000 bpd. The Framo MPP design can deliver a
pressure boost as high as 900 psi. Table 8 shows some of their installations.
Figure600-36 shows that the Framo installations are predominately subsea, with 18
subsea MPPs. In addition, Framo has 2 installations onshore and 3 on offshore
platform decks.
Framo MPPs are used in a wide variety of applications, including decreasing
wellhead backpressure to increase production and to extend the life of a field. Its
subsea applications provide the pressure needed to get the production fluid to the
oceans surface, thereby increasing production. Framo also has units that pump fluid
through a single pipeline to a processing facility several miles away.
Framo can supply pumps that are horizontally or vertically mounted. Most Framo
pump drivers are electric. One is driven by a hydraulic turbine. Framo has also used
diesel and gas engine drivers.
Packaging
Framo offers a complete subsea package, including all relevant subsea tooling,
topside power, a subsea electrical distribution system, umbilical chords, and control
systems. One Framo subsea unit in the Lufeng (Statoil) field has been operating
since 1997. During that time, the pump lasted 7 years with no pump intervention.
This pump is not included in Figure600-36, because it is not an MPP. It is a
conventional centrifugal pump, deployed subsea. This pump simply illustrates that
Framo has the ability to deploy reliable subsea pumps.
Testing Facilities
Framo has a complete full-scale test facility in Norway. It can test subsea pumps,
fully submerged and dry mounted, under actual field conditions. The Framo test
facility includes a multiphase test loop equipped with a separator, pumps, and
compressor.
Note that these pumps run fast, up to 5,100 rpm in Framos case. With this high
speed, the pump would be expected to suffer erosion if sand is present. Framo tested
one of its pumps with a high concentration of sand, using different coatings on the
impellers and diffusers. Framo claims that the impeller/diffuser erosion was
minimal. It is not clear what is meant by minimal, but apparently, some wear did
occur, and the duration of the test is unknown. Coatings that were tested include
Stellite and tungsten carbide. Chevron has no experience with sand erosion in a
helico-axial pump.
Framo can make its pumps cases out of carbon steel for onshore applications or
duplex or super duplex for subsea and offshore platform applications. For
particulate handling and reduced wear, Framo will coat their impellers and diffusers
with different coatings, including Stellite and tungsten carbide.
Fig. 600-36 Significant Framo MPP Installations (Information Courtesy of Framo)
Location or
Field Customer
Onshore
Offshore
Subsea Date No.
Capacity
Each (bpd)
Press.
Boost
(psi)
GVF
(%) Driver HP
Poseidon
Gulfax A
Statoil Offshore 1994 1 20,000 600 40 electric 1,000
SMUBS Norske Shell Subsea 1994 1 29,000 800 42 hydraulic 1,000
Zafiro Mobil Subsea 1998 3 35,000 500 75 electric 1,150
ETAP BP Subsea 1999 3 42,000 320 64 electric 1,200
Gulfax A&B Statoil Offshore 1999 3 40,000 360 50 electric 1,500
Lennox BHP UK Onshore 2003 1 75,000 430 65 electric 1,150
Celba Amerada
Hess
Subsea 2003 5 11,000 600 75 electric 1,100
Mutineer/
Exeter
Santos Subsea 2004 3 45,000 430 40 electric 1,500
Huwaila ADCO Onshore 2006 2 23,000 1,100 65 electric 1,300
Schiehalion BP Subsea 2006 4 51,000 400 74 electric 2,400
Tordis Statoil Subsea 2006 4 53,000 500 68 electric 3,000
Shaybah Saudi Arabia Onshore 2006 1 100,000 450 87 electric 1,300
Vincent Woodside E. Subsea 2007 4 100,000 600 70 electric 2,400
Brenda #2 Oilexco N.S. Subsea 2008 1 100,000 500 65 electric 1,500
663 Sulzer
Applications
Sulzer has built 21 helico-axial pumps. The maximum capacity available is Model
MPP12 at approximately 650,000 bpd. Sulzer also has MPPs deployed that can
deliver a maximum pressure boost of 1200 psi. Figure600-37 shows Sulzer
installations.
From Figure600-37, it can be seen that most of Sulzers installations are either
onshore or on an offshore platform. It includes only one MPP for subsea, the
Nautilus, but it was never deployed. It was a vertical pump, while the remaining
pumps listed in Figure600-37 are horizontal.
One of the pumps listed in Figure600-37 is the Chevron Duri helico-axial pump,
installed for testing in 1998. It was run for only a few months. (Refer to
Section6138.)
Like all the other MPPs, the Sulzer installations were predominately used to
transport multiphase fluid long distances. Sulzer also has some that increased
production by reducing wellhead backpressure, where it claims the economic
payouts are usually less than 2 years. Finally, Sulzer claims it has re-activated dead
wells using their MPPs.
Fig. 600-37 Significant Sulzer MPP Installations (Information Courtesy of Sulzer Pumps)
Location or
Field Customer
Onshore
Offshore
Capacity
Each (bpd)
Press.
Boost
(psi)
GVF
(%) Driver HP
France Elf Onshore 1994 1 MPP3 50,000 600 100 Electric 600
Siberia J SC
Chernogornefi
Onshore 1997 2 MPP7 42,000 200 86 Electric 540
Nautilus
(1)
Total Subsea 1998 1 MPP4 50,000 600 71 Electric 1,750
Duri,
Indonesia
Caltex Pacific Onshore 1998 1 MPP7 125,000 150 100 Electric 700
North Sea Dunbar Dev. Offshore 1999 2 MPP5 90,000 1,100 90 Electric 6,000
Saudi
Arabia
Aramco Onshore 2000 1 MPP7 47,000 300 59 Electric 750
Siberia Yukos Onshore 2001 2 MPP11 280,000 540 91 Electric 8,800
Siberia TNK
Nizhnevartovsk
Onshore 2001 2 MPP 7 75,000 210 90 Electric 2,650
Siberia Yukos Onshore 2002 2 MPP11 280,000 540 91 Electric 8,800
Siberia TNK
Nizhnevartovsk
Onshore 2003 1 MPP7 150,000 210 90 Electric 3,210
Siberia TNK BP Onshore 2004 1 MPP7 260,000 110 90 Electric 3,210
Algeria Agip Onshore 2006 2 MPP7 60,000 1,100 90 Electric 3,350
North Sea BP Offshore 2007 1 MPP8 180,000 1,200 95 Electric 2,650
Korea Lotte Dassan Onshore 2007 2 MPP6 14,000 340 20 Electric 70
1 Never deployed.
Sulzer can supply pumps that are horizontally or vertically mounted. All pumps
supplied to date are electric motor driven.
Packaging
To date, Sulzer has not packaged its pumps on skids.
Testing Facilities
Sulzer has an existing test loop in France and another loop under construction in the
UK. Both will be able test an MPP with a mixture of nitrogen and water. Each one
has the same maximum capacity of 4,000 m
3
/hr (600,000 bpd), but the UK unit is
considered larger because it will be able to pump more water at 700 m
3
/hr
(11,000bpd) and nitrogen at 3,500 m
3
/hr (530,000 bpd). Sulzer can test at just about
any suction pressure up to 430 psi.
Because Sulzer tests with a water/nitrogen mixture, it needs to make adjustments to
match the pumps characteristics to that of a proposed crude oil/natural gas mixture.
Sulzer does this by adjusting the pump suctions water/nitrogen density such that it
is the same as that expected under crude oil/natural gas.
If sand is present, Sulzer coats its impellers and diffusers with a proprietary coating,
called Sulzer Metco, SUME. Sulzer claims the coating is 5 to 10 times more wear
resistant to sand than stainless steel and/or carbide coatings. Sulzer has a couple of
installations in Siberia where the sand content is 300 ppm.
Like Framo helico-axial pumps, Sulzer MPPs run fast, up to 6,800 rpm. With this
speed, if sand is present, erosion would be expected, even with a SUME coating.
Sulzer makes its pump cases out of carbon steel for onshore applications and either
duplex or super duplex for offshore platform installations. For applications that
involve particulate in the incoming flowstream, Sulzer will coat the impellers and
diffusers with SUME. (Refer to Particulate Handling and Speed in Section663.)
On several occasions, Chevron has requested that Framo demonstrate or present
data to show that its pumps wear from particulate is indeed minimal, but Chevron
has not received much supporting evidence from Framo, other than statements that
the wear is minimal. Framo claims that the angle at which the flowstream
particulate hits the impeller vane has been optimized, minimizing the wear. (This
angle is usually found to be roughly 30 degrees.) The problem is that the angle of
the incoming flowstream particulate (as it leaves the case and contacts the impeller)
will change, depending on its speed and density. Thus, in reality, a variable angle is
required, such as perhaps, one provided by a variable inlet guide vane.
Framo has tested its MPP with quartz sand in water using a tungsten carbide coating
on the leading edge of the impellers, the wear rings, and other potentially wearing
parts. The pump eroded somewhat with a significant reduction in efficiency.
Chevron has no operational experience with sand erosion in a helico-axial pump
and, to date, does not recommend these pumps be used in particulate containing
streams. Anyone who considers a helico-axial pump for use where sand is present
should investigate the erosion issue more thoroughly before proceeding with any
purchase.
The reliability of helico-axial pumps is suspect. Some applications have MTBFs on
the order of 5 years, but many have MTBFs of only 2 years. At a presentation,
Framo listed a number of installations, but when questioned about their reliability,
Framo often found fault with the installation, the application, or the operation of the
equipment for the failures which often occurred within 2 years.
670 ManufacturersProgressing Cavity MPPs
671 General
There are two major manufacturers of progressing cavity pumps (PCPs) that can be
designed for multiphase applications. They are Moyno and seepex. Bornemann,
Netzsch, Mono, and Tarby also manufacture PCPs, but they have not actively tried
to gain MPP business and are not discussed in this section.
As discussed in Section620, a PCP is a single, hardened steel alloy serpentine rotor
that revolves inside and seals against a stationary stator, usually manufactured of an
elastomeric material. Lubrication between the two is absolutely necessary. The
pumped fluid enters the pump near the coupling and is discharged axially at the end
of the screw.
Most of the PCPs used in multiphase service are installed on the surface, lying
horizontally. Some are also installed vertically, downhole, run by a long shaft from
an electric motor on the surface. Also, their speed is often controlled by an ASD.
PCP manufacturers claim they can pump multiphase fluids up to 100 percent gas.
Despite this, and because a PCP must never run dry, surface PCPs should be limited
to a GVF of 30 percent, unless an adequate and reliable external or recycled liquid
stream is introduced into suction that keeps the GVF at or below 40 percent. The
maximum GVF for PCPs deployed down hole should be 40 percent. Finally, PCPs
should not be used if slugging will occur, because it is likely that the GVF will
exceed 40 percent under these conditions. As mentioned earlier, slugging always
leads to a GVF of 100 percent. Chevrons experience to date indicates that, even if
pumped fluids are restricted to GVFs in the 40 percent range, the MTBFs for PCPs
will typically run in the 2 year to 3 year range.
672 Moyno
Applications
The Moyno MPP is called the Moyno Tri-Phase System. Moyno claims to have
manufactured 150. Most of the Moyno installations are in Canada and the United
States. A lesser number are installed in Venezuela, Trinidad, Mexico, and Colombia.
All Moyno machines are installed on the surface. Most are onshore, with a few on
offshore platforms. Moyno has not deployed any pumps subsea.
Moyno claims it can pump up to 60,000 bpd of multiphase fluid to 900 psi with a
GVF up to 95 percent. Moyno claims that its PCP MPPs are reliable, running up to
10 years with minimal maintenance. Figure600-38 is a list of some of the Moyno
installations.
As can be seen from Figure600-38, most Moyno pumps are small, with only one
having a flowrate as high as 60,000 bpd with a 125 HP electric motor. What is
unusual is that many of Moynos earlier pumps used packing. The later Moyno
installations use a modified single or dual pressurized mechanical seal. Packing or
even a conventional single mechanical seal, without a close clearance bushing, is
not recommended for environmental and safety reasons. The modified single
mechanical seal typically uses an API flush plan 11, 21, or 32 to the seal chamber,
entering the pump through a close clearance throat bushing. This type of single seal
is described in Single Mechanical Seals in Section632.
Most of the Moyno pumps reduce wellhead backpressure to increase production and
extend the life of oil wells. Moyno also points out that its pumps have, in some
cases, brought back to life dead wells.
Fig. 600-38 Significant Moyno MPP Installations (Information Courtesy of Moyno)
(1)
Location or
Oil Field Customer Date No. Model
Capacity
(bpd)
Seal or
Packing Driver HP
Canada Renaissance E J an-97 1 BFD-2 29,000 Packing Electric 100
Canada Probe Explor J an-98 1 BPD-4 7,000 Packing Electric 30
Venezuela Maxus J ul-98 1 BPD-4 12,000 Packing Electric 75
Canada TriLink Apr-99 1 BPD-5 7,000 Packing Electric 20
USA Mobil Exp Aug-99 1 BPD-2 29,000 Dual S. Electric 125
Canada BP Amoco Nov-99 1 BPD-4 7,000 Packing Electric 30
USA U of Tulsa Sep-00 1 BPD-6 11,000 Single S. Electric 75
Canada Pancanadian Dec-00 1 BPD-4 12,000 Packing Electric 50
Canada AEC Oil/Gas Mar-08 1 BPD-4 7,000 Single S. Electric 60
Canada Triumph E. Apr-08 1 BPD-2 3,000 Packing Electric 10
USA Exxon/Mobil Aug-08 1 BPD-2 29,000 Dual S. Electric 125
Colombia BP Exp Apr-00 1 BPD-2 29,000 Dual S. Electric 125
USA Control CTR Sep-08 1 BPD-1 60,000 Single S. Electric 125
Trinidad Onyx Res J an-08 1 BPD-4 5,000 Dual S. Electric 50
Mexico Pemex - 1 BPD-4 15,000 Dual S. Electric 100
1 Note: Information for Location (onshore, offshore or subsea), Delta P, and GVF is not available
Moyno can supply pumps for use in the horizontal position. The drivers to date have
all been electric motors, most driven through ASDs.
Packaging
Moyno will provide packaged pump skids with valving and instrumentation if
requested.
Testing Facilities
Moyno does not own a test loop testing facility. It has used others in the U.S. and
internationally.
Moyno MPPs run with a maximum speed of 550 rpm. Moyno claims it has
experience pumping sand at concentrations up to 5 percent. The Moyno MPPs have
also pumped salt, which can be just as abrasive.
Materials and Corrosion
The standard material for Moyno pumps is 316 SS for the rotor and a nitrile based
elastomer for the stator. Moyno coats its rotors with tungsten carbide if particulate is
in the fluid stream. Other materials are available upon request.
Moyno pumps are conventional, with an elastomer stator and metal rotor. They have
no unique features.
673 seepex
Applications
seepex has factories in Ohio and Germany. Before 2004, seepex supplied
approximately 50 MPPs through another company to extract water and methane gas
from coal bed seams. Since 2004, seepex has made 16 PCP MPPs with 12 still
installedall onshore. Currently, seepex has an order for two additional pumps to
be deployed on offshore platforms. seepex does not have any subsea pumps yet, but
one is scheduled for development by 2010.
seepex installations include reducing wellhead backpressure to gain more
production. seepex also claims to have successfully replaced other suppliers pumps
that were gas locking. A complete list of seepex installations is not currently
available.
The maximum flowrate available for a single seepex MPP is currently 50,000 bpd.
The pumps maximum pressure boost is 600 psi. However, seepex claims a higher
pressure boost can be obtained by connecting pumps in series. A system that uses
PD pumps in series is very difficult to control and often leads to failure. PCP
pumps, as has been mentioned several times earlier, cannot run dry, thus the control
system for series operation is very complicated. Unless a pressure vessel is installed
between the pumps to provide a cushion of fluid for the second pump, the second
pump can easily run dry if the flow from the first pump is not adequate. Series
operation of PCPs should be avoided, unless there is just no other pump or pumping
system that can meet the application need, and the pressure vessel between the two
pumps is included in the system design.
They are all motor driven, usually using ASDs.
Packaging
seepex does not provide packaged pump skids with valving and instrumentation.
Testing Facilities
seepex claims it has tested its pumps in its flow loop in Ohio at a continuous GVF
of 99 percent and up to 100 percent for a short duration. seepex uses nitrogen for
testing. seepex claims that 1 percent nitrogen or less is enough to keep the pump
lubricated and running without damage. seepex further claims that nitrogen and also
natural gas, directly from an oil well, provide better lubrication than air. To date,
Chevron has no experience with these tests or the testing facilities. Until more
information is available, these pumps should be operated at a GVF of 40 percent or
less.
seepex further claims that its pumps exhibit good reliability because it uses:
A complicated computer program to optimize the exact interference fit between
the rotor and stator, which minimizes the contact surface;
A proprietary elastomer, hydrogenated nitrile (HNBR) for stator material,
which is further chlorinated to reduce friction and heat generation;
An Equal Wall Stator that has a uniform rubber thickness all around each
cavity. This is different than a conventional stator, where the elastomer has a
varying thickness. seepex claims this design allows higher pressure boosts,
dissipates heat more efficiently, and allows the pump to handle higher GVFs. It
is also much shorter than a conventional stator, which is an advantage, espe-
cially on an offshore platform where space is a premium.
seepex pumps run at a maximum of 350 rpm.
seepex makes its PCP cases out of various materials, including carbon steel,
stainless steel, and duplex. The rotors can be made out of these same materials, plus
titanium. For a high GVF, seepex recommends coating the rotors with its
proprietary hard chrome material, called Duktil. In addition to being good at a high
GVF, the Duktil material offers good abrasion resistance. Additionally, if pumping
high GVF streams, seepex recommends chlorinated HNBR as stator material to
reduce friction.
Having an elastomeric stator and metal rotor, the seepex basic pump designs are
conventional. However, the seepex Equal Wall Stator, described in Testing
Facilities in Section673 and Equal Wall Stator in Section6144, is unique in the
industry.
Chevron has had success with PCPs but only in services that have approximately
40percent GVF or less. Historically, Chevron has had field problems pumping
higher GVF streams due to poor lubrication between rotor and the stator. As
mentioned before, the MTBF of PCPs in multiphase service is typically 2 years to 3
years.
680 ManufacturersElectric Submersible (ESP) MPPs
681 General
Most ESPs are installed downhole. They must fit in the well casing, and for this
reason, the diameter of the pumps body is small, and there are many pump stages to
develop the head. Thus, the pumps are very long and thin. The ESP consists of
several impellers in series with sleeve type bearings between each impeller (in the
more robust designs), all lubricated by the fluid being pumped. An ESP assembly
for a multiphase application, from bottom to top, consists of a motor, a protector
(also called the seal), usually a gas separator, sometimes a gas handler, and the ESP
itself. A cross section of an ESP is shown in Figure600-20.
The two most common ESP manufacturers are Centrilift and Schlumberger (Reda).
Each has been active in trying to capture additional MPP business. Both claim that
their units can handle high concentrations of gas, 90 to 100 percent, with gas
separators and gas handlers. Even with these devices, ESPs should not be used if the
GVF exceeds 60 percent. With slugging, the MPP will experience a 100 percent
GVF stream at times, and if this is anticipated, ESPs should not be used.
682 Centrilift
Applications
Centrilift ESPs are common throughout the oil industry. Centrilift defines an MPP
as one that has a GVF of over 20 percent. More than 25 percent of Centrilift
installations meet this definition.
The maximum capacity of Centrilift MPPs is 14,000 bpd, with a maximum pressure
boost of 5,000 psi. These maximums, based on a fairly low GVF, decrease as the
GVF increases. Note that, since an ESP is usually installed downhole, 14,000 bpd
represents the production from a very large well.
An installation list, such as the one that describes Schlumberger ESPs in
Figure600-39, is not available. Centrilift ESPs are deployed as MPPs in at least
three Chevron installations: in Thailand, New Mexico, and California. The
installation in New Mexico involves 27 ESPs that pump an unknown quantity of gas
but probably less than 40 percent. They have been operated for only 2 years, but to
date, no failures have occurred.
Centrilift applies its MPPs in oil wells that are onshore, on offshore platforms, and
subsea. Centrilift has installed a few onshore and on platforms in the horizontal
orientation. As with many MPPs, Centrilift MPPs have been used to increase
production by decreasing wellhead backpressure.
If applied subsea, the pumps typically are installed in a subsea well(s) and pump the
wells fluid to the oceans surface. To decrease the pressure boost, the ESP can
discharge into a skid on the seabed floor. The skid collects fluid from several ESPs
or wells and uses another ESP to send the fluid to the surface. In these cases, they
offer a complete design for the subsea installation.
Centrilift has the ability to apply its pumps at temperatures up to 400F (204.4C).
Their MPPs are sized as any other multistage ESP. Centrilift uses a proprietary
computer program, AutoGraphPC, that analyzes the fluid volume in each stage as
the fluid progresses up the pump.
As stated in Section681, Centrilift ESPs can be positioned vertically or horizontally
in a well or horizontally on the surface. All Centrilift pumps are electrically driven.
Testing Facilities
Centrilift has a test facility in Claremore, Oklahoma, where it can test ESPs up to
10,000 bpd and vary the GVFs up to a maximum of 50 percent.
Centrilift usually runs its pumps at 3,600 rpm but has the ability to run them up to
4,800 rpm, using an ASD to increase the electrical frequency. If sand or other
abrasives are present, Centrilift coats its impellers and bearings with a surface
treatment called Armor I or Armor X. Note that the bearings are lubricated by the
produced fluid. If the bearings were uncoated, the sleeve bearings between each
impeller (in the robust design) would wear quickly in the presence of sand.
Centrilift claims the Armor X is harder than Ni-Resist or even silica sand. Armor X
is almost as hard as tungsten carbide. The intent is to crush the sand getting into the
bearings and flush it through the bearings with the pumped stream without damage.
This becomes problematic as the GVF of the stream increases, since gas will not
effectively flush particulate away or provide lubrication.
Centrilift offers a wide variety of materials, depending on the production fluid
chemistry and the environment. As mentioned in Materials and Coatings in
Section682, Centrilift coats its bearings with Armor X to extend the life of the
bearing when sand is present.
Design Improvements
Centrilift claims it has a unique MPP impeller design that avoids gas locking, and
this alone can pump up to 70 percent free gas. Gas locking is common for
centrifugal pumps and, especially, ESPs, if fed a high GVF. To avoid gas locking,
Centrilift impellers deploy a steep vane angle with large balance holes.
Centrilift offers two types of gas separators: rotary and vortex. One or the other is
used and attached ahead of the inlet to their ESP. The separated gas is vented into
the annulus between the pump or tubing and the casing, above the liquid level.
Centrilift claims that its pumps can handle 90 percent free gas with the vortex
separator.
683 Schlumberger (Reda)
Applications
Schlumberger ESP MPPs are installed downhole in an oil well. They are not
deployed horizontally on the surface.
Their maximum flowrate is 9,000 bpd, with a maximum pressure boost of 4,000 psi.
As with Centrilift, these numbers decrease as the GVF increases.
As of 2004, Schlumberger deployed 17 MPPs, as shown in Figure600-39.
Fig. 600-39 Significant Schlumberger ESP MPP Installations (Information Courtesy of Schlumberger) (1 of 2)
Location or Oil
Field Customer
Onshore
Offshore
Capacity
(bpd)
Delta P
(psi)
GVF
(%) Driver HP
Colombia Hocol Onshore Apr-02 1 538 - - 60 Electric -
New Mexico Devon Onshore Aug-03 1 538 - - 65 Electric -
New Mexico Devon Onshore Apr-04 1 538 - - 65 Electric -
Midland, TX Aethon Onshore Mar-04 1 400 - - 30 Electric -
New Mexico Devon Onshore Mar-04 1 400 - - >60 Electric -
Midland, TX Oxy Onshore Apr-04 1 400 - - - Electric -
Garden Grove Oxy Onshore Aug-04 1 400 370 3,000 - Electric 250
Garden Grove Oxy Onshore Aug-04 1 538 - - - Electric -
Garden Grove Oxy Onshore - 1 538 - - - Electric -
New Mexico Devon Onshore - 1 400 - - - Electric -
Schlumberger has installed MPPs in oil wells that are onshore, with at least one
associated with an offshore platform. Schlumberger has not deployed any in subsea
locations. The pumps are used primarily to decrease a wells downhole
backpressure, thereby increasing production. Schlumberger has also replaced
conventional ESPs with its MPP version, using their gas handler, after the previous
conventional ESP gas locked.
Schlumberger ESPs are manufactured by its subsidiary, Reda. Schlumberger also
owns Framo, who makes helico-axial MPPs. (Refer to Section623 for a discussion
on helico-axial pumps in general and Section 062 for specific information on
Framo). As a result, Schlumberger offers a gas handler that is based on Poseidon
technology. It is a helico-axial pump called the Poseidon ESP that is 6.3 meters long
and is attached ahead of the suction of a Reda ESP. With this helico-axial gas
handler, Schlumberger claims it can pump a GVF up to 75 percent. Schlumbergers
first gas handler unit was installed in 2003, designed to handle approximately
60percent gas. Since 2003, Schlumberger has installed 16 similar machines at
various locations, none of which involve a GVF as high as 75 percent.
Schlumberger claims that its Poseidon gas handler can pump such a high GVF
because it homogenizes the mixture, puts some of the gas back in solution, and
increases the fluid pressure, reducing the gas volume and bubble size as the stream
enters the conventional ESP, the next section after the Poseidon.
Schlumberger has several MPPs with the Poseidon gas handler installed in fields
that experience a GVF from 45 to 65 percent. One of them listed in Figure600-38,
in Colombia, involved its Poseidon MPP replacing a conventional ESP.
Schlumberger claims that the new MPP eliminated gas locking and increased
production by 100 percent, pumping a fluid with a GVF of 60 percent. Another
installation in Elk Hills included a Poseidon MPP installed in the vertical portion of
a well that also includes a horizontal segment. Schlumberger claims that the MPP
increased production by 40 percent.
Finally, a Poseidon pump was installed in the Garden Grove field. This field is a
CO
2
injection field, and the Poseidon pump was installed to replace a conventional
ESP that gas locked from CO
2
breakthroughs. Schlumberger claims the new MPP
increased production by 130percent.
Schlumberger uses its proprietary software to size their MPPs. During this process,
it derates the pump to offset a high GVF.
Qatar QPD Offshore - 1 538 - - - Electric -
Colombia Hocol Onshore - 1 538 - - - Electric -
Elk Hills, CA Occidental Onshore Feb-05 1 - - - >50 Electric -
Fig. 600-39 Significant Schlumberger ESP MPP Installations (Information Courtesy of Schlumberger) (2 of 2)
Location or Oil
Field Customer
Onshore
Offshore
Capacity
(bpd)
Delta P
(psi)
GVF
(%) Driver HP
As mentioned, Schlumberger pumps are deployed downhole in wells in the vertical
and horizontal positions. The pumps have not been deployed on the surface. All
Schlumberger pumps are electrically driven. Schlumberger MPPs are controlled to
shut down on high motor temperature, as opposed to the conventional approach of
using motor current. If the GVF is high, motor current is not a reliable indicator of
motor problems.
Packaging
Schlumberger packages its pumps itself. It packages them to be installed in pods,
under packers, and in series (two ESPs in one well).
Testing Facilities
Schlumberger has a testing facility in Bartlesville, Oklahoma, and another in
Rosharon, Texas. Schlumberger test facilities include two test wells that can test
pumps requiring up to 1,500 HP. Schlumberger does not test with natural gas, using
air and water instead. Schlumberger also tests bearings without liquid lubrication to
evaluate conditions with slugs of gas.
Schlumberger tries to mitigate the erosive affects of sand with a proprietary hard
material called 5530. Schlumberger can run its pumps up to 80 hz or approximately
4,800 rpm, using an ASD to control the frequency.
The materials used in Schlumberger MPPs depend on the fluid chemistry and the
environmental conditions in the well. It offers a wide variety of materials, including
5530 metallurgy. If CO
2
is present, Schlumberger offers a material called
Redalloy. In addition, Schlumberger uses a silicon carbide for the bearings.
Schlumberger claims that this silicon carbide bearing material is self-lubricating,
offsetting the effect of poor lubrication from the gas-laden multiphase fluid.
ESPs are considered to be reliable for applications having GVFs of approximately
40 percent. However, even liquid only ESPs have MTBFs of only 2 years to 3 years.
It is difficult to get information on ESPs that demonstrate even this reliability when
the GFV exceeds 60 percent. Despite claims by Centrilift and Schlumberger that
they can do better, actual proven reliability to date is not impressive.
As mentioned earlier and Centrilift agrees, the average ESP is pulled every 2 years
to 3 years for maintenance. Some of the reasons are described in Driver in
Section625. ESP reliability will decrease further if the pumped fluid is a multiphase
fluid having a substantial amount of particulate and a GVF over 60 percent.
Based on operating experience throughout Chevron, ESPs should not be used
horizontally, above grade, in place of an API 610 pump. Chevron has several
examples of this orientation, and the reliability has been poor, requiring frequent
maintenance, with availability sometimes being only a few months.
690 Sizing of the MPP, Its Driver, and Associated Facilities (Upstream
Applications)
691 Twin ScrewMPP Design Guide for UpstreamApplications
Figure600-40 shows the MPP design guide for upstream applications.
Fig. 600-40 Twin ScrewMPP Design Guide for UpstreamApplications

692 Sizing
The following are required to size an MPP:
Average and maximum anticipated gas volume fraction (GVF);
The GVF is simply the percent gas in the total flow. (The units for gas flow are
standard cubic feet per day or actual cubic feet per day, with the suction
pressure and temperature provided.) GVF percentage will determine if a screw
sealant is necessary. Screw sealant is discussed in Section633. Gas oil ratio
(GOR) can also be provided in place of GVF, but the liquid water must then be
provided.
Liquid oil flowrate (bbl per day);
Liquid water flowrate (bbl per day);
Constituent breakdown of the liquid (e.g., percent composition of water, oil,
natural gasoline, gas/oil fraction, and sand);
Suction pressure to pump;
Suction temperature to pump;
Discharge pressure;
Liquid viscosity;
The sand or particulate quantity by weight and volume, size distribution, its
composition (i.e., is it quartz or any other hard mineral), and its shape (sharp or
rounded edges);
This affects the size of the inlet screen mesh, the types of coatings for the
internal parts, and the pumps internal clearances. (Refer to Section637.)
Wax or paraffin content and cloud point;
Solid wax particulate in the inlet stream will plug up the MPP suction strainer
or filter. Either a duplex strainer or duplex filter is always recommended to
catch particulate and debris in the inlet stream, including applications in which
wax is not expected. If wax is present, a duplex filter (not the coarser mesh
duplex strainer) should be used. The filter must be sized to have a larger area
and a greater collapse differential pressure than the duplex strainer. The duplex
design is always recommended to enable switching screens while operating.
Specific recommendations are given in Suction Strainer in Section639. For
example, refer to Section6135, Princess Field Lessons Learned, item B and
Section6136, Main Pass 313 Lessons Learned, item F.
The flow regime (in particular, the tendency for slugging);
Slugging may not be a significant problem if the pump is located near the
well(s). However, slugging could be severe if the pump is located a distance
away with the suction line traversing hilly terrain. Slugging is discussed in
Section635. It is often recommended that the suction and discharge pipe be
simulated to determine the extent of slugging. Refer to Section639 for
additional information on this subject on Mitsue Field, Lessons Learned.
Type of driver: electric motor direct drive (with or without an adjustable speed
drive), a diesel engine driver, natural gas engine driver, hydraulic turbine drive,
belt drive, etc.;
An electric motor direct drive runs the MPP at the speed of the driver, but
the speed can be varied if an adjustable speed drive (ASD) is installed. An
ASD allows the operators to change speed to compensate for a fields
changing flow conditions or to increase the speed to maintain the same
production rate as the pump wears or to simply make up for unanticipated
conditions that show up after the pump is installed.
By design, the diesel engine, natural gas engine, and hydraulic turbine
drives are all adjustable speed drives. These drives can all be used to vary
the speed of the MPP by operating the pump speed off a specified set
suction pressure.
Hydraulic drives are available and sometimes very appropriate, especially
if a field is being water flooded.
Belt drives, though not recommended due to maintenance problems, are
much cheaper than the others, and with them, speed can be changed in
steps by replacing sheaves and belts. Note that belt drives are limited to
approximately 250 HP.
Additional criteria for choosing the type of drive are the size and weight
allowed by the application (especially if downhole, on a platform, or
subsea), its reliability, and the type of fuel available (e.g., diesel, natural
gas, or electric power).
Estimated variation of flow conditions over the design life of the field or the
pump, realizing that there are many unknowns that cannot be determined prior
to purchasing the MPP, such as:
What production rate will be possible as the field ages?
What composition changes (e.g., percentages of water, gas, particulate,
H
2
S, and crude) can be anticipated in an existing field after the installation
of an MPP? (Changes in the percentage of H
2
S will affect the pumps
material selection.)
An estimate of the recycle, slip, and flashing factor. The pumps recycle
liquid is usually hotter than the feed to the MPP. Therefore, it may flash
into gas, occupying the capacity of the pump. If this is expected, the pump
may need to be designed larger. Flashing is discussed in Section638.
Recycle, slip, and flashing are discussed in Section695.
Due to these uncertainties, the MPP should be designed with flexibility in mind. If
the MPP is electric motor driven (and most are), an ASD is strongly recommended
such that the speed of the MPP can be adjusted to compensate for potential
production increases or decreases. If practical for additional flexibility, an API 682
Seal Flush Plan 32 is recommended, rather than relying on a Seal Flush Plan 11 or
31. Section6100 also offers some assistance in estimating future production flow
conditions.
693 Pump Sizing Calculation
MPP suppliers rate their pump capacities in barrels per day of mixed flow at suction
conditions. Mixed flow means the combined flow of oil, water, particulate, and gas
in barrels per day. Normally, gas is described as either standard cubic feet per day
(SCFD) or actual cubic feet per day at suction conditions (ACFD). Sometimes, it is
described by the GOR.
The following equation shows the conversion of the flow of gas to equivalent
barrels per day (BPD) at suction temperature and pressure:
Actual cubic feet per day (acfd) =
(Gas rate, scfd) (14.7/Actual suction press in psia) (Actual suction temp/520R) Z,
(Eq. 600-1)
where:
Z is the compressibility factor and 520R =460F +60F (Z is often
taken as 1).
After the gas rate is converted to actual cubic feet per day, it must be further
converted to bpd using the following conversion:
Actual barrels per day (abpd) =
(Actual gas flowrate, acfd) (7.481 gal/ft
3
) (1 bbl/42 gal)
(Eq. 600-2)
Example:
Given: oil production rate =1,000 bopd
GOR =400 scf/bbl
Water cut (wc) =25% of the liquid rate (water and oil)
Suction pressure =50 psig
Suction temperature =150F
Discharge pressure =350 psig
API gravity =24
Gas compressibility, Z =0.98
Steps:
1. Determine the gas rate as follows:
(1,000 bpd) (400 scf/bopd) =400,000 scfd
150F +460F =610R
50 psig +14.7 =64.7 psia
Actual gas flowrate =(400,000 scfd) (14.7 psia/64.7 psia) (610R/520R) (0.98)
=104,870 acfd
Actual bpd of gas =(104,870 acfd) (7.481 gal/ft
3
) (1 bbl/42 gal)
=18,680 bpd of gas
2. Determine the water rate:
Water rate =(wc/(100 wc)) (oil rate)
=(25/(100 25)) (1,000 bopd) =330 bbl of water per day (bwpd)
3. Determine the total liquid rate:
Total liquid rate =1,000 +330 =1,330 bbl of liquid per day (blpd)
=40 gpm
4. Determine the total mixed flowrate of all substances:
Total flowrate to the pump suction =(18,680 +1,330) bpd
=20,010 bpd (at 50 psig and 150F)
694 Gas Volume Fraction (GVF)
Suppliers use the term gas volume (or void) fraction (GVF). This is simply the
actual gas flowrate (by volume, determined at suction conditions) divided by the
total mixed flowrate (by volume). For the above example:
GVF =18,680/20,010 =0.93 (or 93%)
(Eq. 600-3)
695 The Recycle, Slip, Flashing Factor for Twin ScrewMPPs
An MPP must be sized to handle more that just the design capacity obtained from
Section691 because of both external and internal losses. These losses can come
from external liquid recycle, which may flash into gas or internal slip (flow from
discharge back to suction). Flashing is discussed in Section638. Refer to Recycle,
Slip, Flashing Factor in Section638 for specific values for the recycle, slip, flashing
factor.
As mentioned in Recycle, Slip, Flashing Factor in Section638, one simply
multiplies the design capacity obtained in Section691 by the recycle, slip, flashing
factor to get the actual pump capacity.
In the above example, if the factor is 1.15 percent, the design flowrate of the pump
would be:
Design flowrate =20,010 bpd (1.15) =23,011 bpd or 670 gpm
(Eq. 600-4)
Section638 recommends that once the MPP flow diagram is determined, the
streams be simulated using HYSIM or PRO II. This simulation will provide a good
estimate of the amount of flashing and, thus, a better estimate of the increased pump
capacity one needs to add. Section6910 shows and describes a typical flow
diagram.
696 Pump Efficiency for Twin ScrewMPPs
Slip for a twin screw pump is defined as fluid that flows backwards through the
screw clearances. As slip increases, the pump efficiency is reduced. Slip increases
as the pump differential pressure increases or if the internal pump clearances
increase due to wear. Slip decreases as the viscosity of the fluid increases and as the
pump speed increases.
If pumping a pure incompressible liquid, the volume of the pumped fluid does not
change, and the increasing pressure difference across each lock is constant. (Refer to
Figure600-41.) In this pure liquid application, the pumps efficiency is maximized.
If pumping a multiphase fluid with a substantial GVF, however, most of the pressure
rise occurs in the final stages of the pump. (Refer to Figure600-42.) This is due to
the compressibility of the large volume of gas at the inlet, where the gas volume is
substantially reduced, with relatively low pressure increases.
The low pressure rise across the first few locks means that, in relative terms, a
reduced amount of slip exists there, with an increased amount of slip across the
latter locks (those near the outlet). This reduced amount of slip across the first few
locks is somewhat offset by the fluids lower viscosity there, which is due to the
relatively large amount of gas in the stream. This reduced viscosity allows the fluid
to slip easier through the first few locks, versus later in the pump, where the volume
of gas is greatly reduced, and the multiphase fluid becomes more viscous. The
bottom line is that the pump efficiency will be lower if pumping a multiphase fluid
than if pumping a pure liquid.
697 Overall Mechanical Efficiency Calculation
Mechanical efficiency is defined as the theoretical horsepower required for pumping
liquid and gas, divided by the actual horsepower delivered to the shaft.
This is shown in the following equation:
Fig. 600-41 Pressure Distribution when Pumping Only Liquid
DIRECTION OF FLOW
SLIP
LIQUID ONLY
DISCHARGE PRESSURE
I
N
C
R
E
A
S
I
N
G

P
R
E
S
S
U
R
E

SUCTION PRESSURE
SCREW
LOCKS
Overall mechanical efficiency =
(Theoretical gas HP +Theoretical liquid HP)/shaft HP
(Eq. 600-5)
where:
Theoretical liquid hp = [liquid rate (gpm)] [pump DP (psi)]/1,714
Theoretical gas HP = (Inlet press, psia) (Gas rate, acfm) (ln [(1+pump DP/inlet
pressure)/229.7])
Actual shaft HP = [equivalent mixed flowrate (gpm)] [pump DP (psi)]/1,714 (the
mechanical efficiency factor)
The mechanical efficiency factor is usually 1.1 to account for
inefficiencies due to bearings, gear boxes, seals, etc.
For the above example:
Theoretical liquid HP =(40 gpm) (300 psi)/1,714 =5.0 HP
Theoretical gas HP = (64.7 psia) (73 acfm) [ln(1+(300 psi/64.7 psia))/29.17] =35 HP
(Note that both equations are rounded to nearest 5 HP.)
Actual shaft HP =[(670 gpm) (300 psi)/1,714] (1.1) =130 HP
Overall mechanical efficiency = (Gas HP +liquid HP)/shaft HP =(5 +35)/130 =0.31 or 31%
698 Volumetric Efficiency Calculation
Volumetric efficiency is the delivered pump capacity divided by its theoretical
capacity. Mathematically, it is expressed as:
Volumetric efficiency, Ev =Qc/Qt
(Eq. 600-6)
Fig. 600-42 Pressure Distribution when Pumping a Multiphase Fluid
DIRECTION OF FLOW
SLIP
LIQUID PHASE
DISCHARGE PRESSURE
I
N
C
R
E
A
S
I
N
G

P
R
E
S
S
U
R
E

SUCTION PRESSURE
GAS PHASE
where:
Ev = volumetric efficiency
Qc = actual delivered capacity, gpm
Qt = theoretical capacity, gpm (provided by the vendor after a given
model is specified)
699 Pump Sizing Spreadsheet for Twin ScrewMPPs
An example of the Excel twin screw pump sizing spreadsheet is shown in
Figure600-43.
The following example problem is included on the Figure600-43 spreadsheet to
demonstrate the use of this tool. As mentioned in the example spreadsheet,
information that has to be input into the spread sheet is in the gray shaded area (red
font color), whereas the calculated quantities are blue and yellow font colors.
The spreadsheet calculates:
Water rate (bwpd)
Total liquid (blpd)
Formation or produced gas rate (mscfd)
Z (the gas compressibility factor of approximately 1 for suction pressures less
than 100 psig)
Total gas rate (mscfd)
Delta P (psi)
Gas rate (actual bpd)
Gas rate (acfm)
Total pump throughput (abpd, gas, and liquid)
Total pump throughput (gpm, gas, and liquid)
Gas fraction (%)
Theoretical liquid HP
Theoretical gas HP
Theoretical total HP
The recycle, slip, and flashing factor
Equivalent pump capacity (gpm and bpd, including the recycle, slip, and
flashing factor)
Required bhp
Mechanical efficiency
Power (kW)
P
u
m
p

M
a
n
u
a
l
6
0
0

M
u
l
t
i
p
h
a
s
e

P
u
m
p
s
M
a
r
c
h

2
0
0
9

2
0
0
9

C
h
e
v
r
o
n

U
.
S
.
A
.

I
n
c
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

6
0
0
-
8
9
Fig. 600-43 Example of a Multiphase Pump Design Sizing Spreadsheet
Input data into the gray shaded fields. The spreadsheet calculates the blue and yellow colored numbers.
Yellow shaded columns are calculated capacity and power required to meet given case flows and
conditions.
Project Name
Engineer
Date
Case
API
Gravity
Oil
Rate
(bopd)
Water
Cut
(%)
Water
Rate
(bwpd)
Total
Liq.
(blpd) GOR
Form.
Gas
(mscfd)
Lift
Gas
(mscfd)
Gas
Com.
Fact.
(Z)
Total
Gas
(mscfd)
Pump
Suction
(psig)
Suction
Temp.
(F)
Pump
Dsch.
(psig)
Delta
F
(psi)
1 24 1,000 25 330 1,330 400 400 100 0.98 500 50 150 350 300
2 24 1,000 25 330 1,330 400 400 0 0.98 400 50 150 350 300
3
4
5
6
7
Case Gas
Rate
Gas
Rate
Total
Pump
Thruput*
Total
Pump
Thruput*
Gas
Fraction
Theoretical Theoretical Theoretical
Recycle,
Slip,
Flashing
Factor
Equivalent
Pump
Capacity
Req Mech Power
abpd* acfm*
abpd,
gas &
liq
gpm,
gas &
liq
liquid
hp**
gas hp** total hp (%)
GPM BPD
***
BHP Effcy kW
1 23,360 91 24,690 720 95% 5 45 50 15% 830 28,390 160 31% 120
2 18,680 73 20,010 580 93% 5 35 40 15% 670 23,010 130 31% 95
3
4
5
6
7
*Calculation is based on the pump suction conditions listed.
**Calculation is based on the fluid theoretical horsepower to pump the liquid or gas fraction only.
***Leistritz believes the bhp is the same as pure liquid when pumping a mixture of gas and liquid.
Contacts: Bob Heyl
Updated:
The recycle, slip, and flashing factor was developed from field trials. It is used to
increase the total pump throughput to account for slip in the pump and gas flashing
out of the solution from the recycle stream. Minimum recommended value for this
factor is 15 percent. The spreadsheet uses the following guidelines for calculating
the factor to be used:
15 percent for API gravities less than or equal to 25 and having any GVF
percent;
25 percent for API gravities greater than 25 and GVFs less than 50 percent;
33 percent for API gravities greater than 25 and GVFs greater than 50 percent.
For example, the background and need for the recycle, slip, and flashing factor is
explained thoroughly in Section6134 Lessons Learned, item J .
6910Piping and Instrumentation Diagram(P&ID) for a Twin ScrewMPP
Early in the decision process, a draft P&ID of the MPP and its associated
equipment should be developed. Figure600-44 shows a typical diagram.
The type and number of alarms, shutdowns, and various devices required for a twin
screw MPP installation should follow the requirements of appropriate Chevron and
industry specifications. Each installation is somewhat different, and each should be
reviewed to determine the proper devices. The diagram in Figure600-44 is
considered a typical representation of such devices for a typical electric motor
driven MPP installation:
Fig. 600-44 Piping and Instrumentation Diagram(P&ID) of an MPP Installation (Courtesy of Leistritz Corporation)
The various devices shown in the P&ID are:
1. Suction strainer or filter: The dual strainer or filter installed in the suction line
can be switched from one basket to the other while continuing to run the MPP.
A high differential pressure alarm and shutdown are required. The shutdown is
required to be set lower than the collapse pressure of the basket strainer/filter.
Each baskets surface area in the dual strainer is required to have an area
150percent of the inlet pipe area. A mesh size of 1/8 inch square is
recommended. If wax is present, a dual filter should be used instead of the dual
strainer with each baskets filter having an area 200 percent of the inlet pipe
area. (Refer to Section6135 Lessons Learned, item B and Section6136
Lessons Learned, itemF.)
2. Instruments on the suction line: A high temperature and a high/low pressure
alarm should be installed in the suction line, immediately ahead of the pump.
3. MPP instruments: The MPP should have an RTD or thermocouple touching the
outer race of each antifriction bearing. It should be connected to a monitor to
alarm at 200F (93.3C). As an alternate, a RTD or thermocouple could be
installed in the lube oil reservoir set to alarm at 180F (82.2C). Refer to
Lubrication in Section622. Additionally, an accelerometer should be installed
on the case, over each bearing, to be connected to a vibration monitor.
4. Pressure safety relief valve: A pressure safety relief valve is required on the
pump discharge line ahead of any valve to avoid overpressuring the positive
displacement MPP and the discharge piping. The safety valve should relieve
back to suction entering the suction line upstream of the alarms/shutdowns
described in item 2. Chevron prefers the safety valve relief to be routed to a
suction tank or as far upstream as possible. A separate safety valve located on
the discharge piping is required, as opposed to a safety valve built into the
pump.
5. Instruments on the discharge line: A high temperature alarm and a high
pressure alarm/shutdown on the pump discharge are required upstream of any
block valve.
6. Liquid knockout boot or vessel on the discharge: If the GVF is ever expected to
be above 95 percent, a liquid knockout boot or vessel is recommended. It is to
be located on the MPP discharge piping upstream of any block valve. It is
required to supply screw sealant and seal flush fluid to the MPP. Note that, if
slugging conditions are expected, the GVF will exceed 95 percent, and the
knockout boot or vessel is required. The knockout boot can be a wide spot in
the line, or it can be a separate vessel. Either one should include a high/low
level gage with a low level alarm. (Refer to Section633 and Section635.)
7. Instruments on the screw sealant/seal flush line: A flow indicator with a low
flow alarm on the screw sealant/seal flush line from the knockout boot to the
MPP inlet. If the crude oil is light, more than 30 degrees API, a cooler (not
shown) is recommended to minimize flashing inside the MPP. Flashing will
occupy much of the MPP capacity and will limit the amount of production from
the field. This cooler is not shown in Figure600-44. (Refer to Section6134
Lessons Learned, item K.)
8. Bypass/recycle line: Piping should be installed between the suction of the MPP
and its discharge to allow the multiphase fluid to bypass the pump before
startup to relieve the wellhead shut-in pressure. It may also be necessary to use
it during startup of the system to control the amount of fluid the MPP is
pumping through the entire discharge line, reducing the discharge backpressure
that the pump is pushing against. This bypass line should be blocked during
normal operation.
9. Electric motor instrumentation: RTDs are required for the motor stator
windings, two per phase. Additionally, the motor should have vibration sensors,
either proximity probes for sleeve bearings or an accelerometer on the motor
bearing cases for antifriction bearings. The sensors should be connected to a
vibration monitor. Finally, an RTD or thermocouple should be mounted on the
outer shell of each sleeve bearing or touching the outer race of each antifriction
bearing. The vibration sensor and temperature indicators for the bearing are not
shown in Figure600-44.
10. ASDs: ASDs are highly recommended with an MPP electric motor driver to
allow the MPP to vary its speed. A separate computer with a variety of alarms
and indicators is deployed to monitor the ASD and the motor driver.
11. Seal drain tank: A seal drain tank with associated piping is shown in the P&ID
to collect mechanical seal leakage. It should have a high level alarm.
6911Separator Sizing for Twin ScrewMPPs
The following is a guide for sizing the downstream separator:
If the GVF is less than 95 percent and no slugging is expected, the externally
supplied screw sealant is not needed, and a downstream separator is not neces-
sary. (Note that, if no slugging is expected, but an API Seal Flush Plan 32 has
been chosen, an external source [a source other than the MPP pumped stream]
of liquid, such as water or oil is required.)
If the GVF will exceed 95 percent, the screw sealant needed is 4 percent of the
pump capacity using the following formula:
Amount of screw sealant (bpd) =4 percent of the MPP capacity (bpd)
(as calculated in Section693.)
If the pumps final capacity is 23,011 bpd, the screw sealant would be 4 percent of
that or 920 bpd.
If the MPP suction line is simulated using Olga and Olga indicates that a gas slug
will occur for 1 hour, the downstream separators capacity would be:
Separator capacity =950 bpd/24 hr per day,
or approximately 38 bbl/hr (1,600 gal/hr or 27 gal/min).
A 38 bbl storage volume would be a vessel approximately 6 feet in diameter by
8feet in height. This is a fairly large vessel, but its size can be decreased if the MPP
is moved closer to the well(s). If this closer location is practical and another
simulation is performed, Olga will indicate a reduced possibility for slugs, and the
slugs will be of a shorter duration. This, of course, allows the downstream vessel to
be reduced in size.
6100Typical MPP Application Opportunities
6101General
There are many opportunities for MPP applications in upstream and a few in
downstream.
In upstream, an MPP is often compared to a conventional system that consists of a
production separator vessel, transfer pumps, a gas compressor, possibly a test
separator, associated metering/instrumentation, and usually two pipelinesone for
the gas and another for liquid.
By contrast, an MPP installation is simpler, consisting of the MPP itself and a single
production pipeline to transfer both gas and liquid. MPPs boost pressure without the
need to separate, costing less to purchase and install, plus saving space and weight.
6102UpstreamApplication OpportunitiesListing
The following is a list of the opportunities for upstream applications. Each
opportunity is detailed further after this listing:
1. Reducing the back pressure on the well(s) or taking suction from an oil well(s)
to increase the production and extend the life of the well(s);
2. Replacing old, worn out conventional facilities;
3. Bringing abandoned wells back to life;
4. Producing marginal fields;
5. Transporting production several miles through one pipeline;
6. Producing subsea reservoirs with a more cost effective installation and ease of
retrieval;
7. Overcoming the static pressure from a deep subsea well;
8. Reducing emissions;
9. Producing into a high pressure header.
Advantage
MPPs also have a particular advantage in many applicationssaving weight and
space compared to a conventional system, especially on a platform.
6103UpstreamApplication OpportunitiesDetails
The following describes in more detail each of the MPP upstream application
opportunities:
1. Taking suction from an oil well(s) to increase production and extend the life of
the well(s);
The value of increased production is used to pay out the MPP installation.
An MPP can be installed to take suction from one or more oil wells. This is
probably the most common of all MPP applications. The MPP reduces the
wellhead backpressure.
In addition, an MPP can be economical when it takes suction from the
discharge of almost any type of artificial lift, including gas lift, electric
submersible pumps (ESPs), progressing cavity pumps (PCPs), and rod pumps
(where the flow line is tied to the casing). (An MPP taking suction from a
well(s) that has a downhole progressive cavity pump [PCP] installed will not
usually increase production.)
Gas Lift
Gas lift involves natural gas injected into the tubing string at intervals from
the bottom to the top. Gas bubbles decrease the fluid density, which helps
move the fluid to the surface. Installing an MPP at the surface will increase
production, because it essentially lowers the bottom hole flowing pressure
by the same amount as the wellhead backpressure. An MPP could also
reduce the amount of gas lift required, saving energy costs.
The quantity of gas involved in gas lift is often considerable. The MPP has
to process this gas, along with any increase in production from the well.
This often requires the MPP to be large and, perhaps, uneconomical. As
stated many times, each installation must be evaluated on its own merits.
Electric Submersible Pumps (ESPs)
The capacity of an ESP depends on its speed and the diameter of its
impellers. It follows a normal centrifugal pump performance curve of
differential pressure (head) versus capacity. Production could be improved
by replacing the ESP with a larger capacity ESP. The replacement pump
would have to be one that operates at a higher speed or has larger
impellers. Increasing its speed may not be feasible or, at least, expensive.
Increasing the impeller size is often not feasible, because the impeller
diameter is limited by the casing. An MPP at the surface reducing the
discharge pressure of the ESP will decrease the ESP differential pressure.
This moves the ESP operating point on its performance curve and
increases capacity.
Rod Pumps
A rod pump consists of a motor, speed reducer, and chicken head on the
surface next to the wellhead. The chicken head moves a downhole
positive displacement pump up and down at the bottom of a long rod,
usually 1,000 feet or so long. Since the pump is a positive displacement
type, theoretically its capacity remains constant for any discharge pressure.
For this statement to be entirely true, slip has to be ignored.
The downhole pump is connected to the well tubing string. The casing
surrounds the tubing. Crude oil, water, etc., enters the casing annulus
through perforations. Fluid in the casing annulus feeds the downhole
pump. The pump can be sped up to produce more, if the level remains high
enough. If the level gets too low, the rod pump is shut down or slowed
down to wait for more fluid to enter the casing.
If one can lower the pressure in the casing annulus, the level will rise and
the rod pump can be sped up to produce more. This is often accomplished
by installing a casing gas collection system. A casing gas collection system
consists of a vacuum pump connected to a piping network that is connected
to several well casings at the surface. It keeps the casing pressure low and,
thus, the downhole casing level as high as possible. An MPP connected
immediately downstream of a rod pump with this type of system will not
appreciably increase production. It merely lowers the discharge pressure of
the downhole pump without affecting the level in the casing.
Occasionally, if rod pumps are spread out with a considerable distance
between them, a casing gas collection system is not installed, and the
casing at the surface is connected to the flow line. Here, the casing
pressure is fairly high, and the downhole level in the casing is substantially
lower. In this case, an MPP taking suction from the discharge of a rod
pump will increase production, because the casing gas pressure is reduced
along with the rod pump discharge pressure. Note, however, to get more
production out of the well, the rod pump has to have the capability to
increase its speed.
The logic that an MPP will not increase production if the rod pump has a
casing collection system is not entirely correct. Production will increase a
little because the MPP lowers the downhole pump discharge pressure.
These pumps wear out and are operated almost until complete failure.
During a large part of their operating life, they circulate much of their
capacity back to suction (slip). Slip increases as they wear. An MPP
installed at the surface lowers the discharge pressure of these pumps,
which in turn, increases their capacity by decreasing slip. The pump life is
thereby increased. Connecting an MPP to several wells like this extends
the Mean Time Between Failures (MTBFs) of these pumps, saving a
considerable amount of maintenance cost and down time.
2. Replacing old, worn out conventional facilities;
A cost effective MPP can replace old, worn out conventional facilities and
often keep a marginal field operating longer. Its cost is almost always less than
replacing the conventional facility. For example, several Bornemann MPPs
were installed in older German oil fields taking suction from wells in different
fields. The MPPs increased the production, extending the life of the fields.
Without the MPP, the oil field would have been shut in.
3. Bringing abandoned wells back to life;
MPPs have brought back to life wells that were shut in, because they were
considered too uneconomical due to the amount of gas and water produced. In
these cases, the cost of the conventional system was too expensive to make
reopening the wells profitable. The lower cost MPP made these wells profitable
again.
4. Production from marginal fields;
A common application for an MPP is to move multiphase fluid from a remote,
marginal, or satellite oil field to a processing facility several miles away.
Without the MPP pressure boost, the wellhead pressure is often not enough to
transport enough fluid to make the remote marginal well profitable.
A more expensive conventional system could do this, as well. However, the
MPP is less expensive and requires only one pipeline, whereas the conventional
system usually requires two.
a. In California, the Midway-Sunset field needed to increase production from
some remote wells. A twin screw pump was installed, and the production
increased dramatically. Refer to the pump installation in Figure600-45 and
the strip chart results in Figure600-46.
As can be seen in Figure600-46, the total oil and water production
increase due to the installation of the MPP was 1,750 bpd, that is, from
1,000 bpd to 2,750 bpd. The wells involved were located in a remote
location and by installing the MPP, the back pressure on the wells was
reduced significantly, causing the increase in production. Note that, when a
second pump was installed, another increase of 650 bpd was seen (from
2,750 bpd to 3,400 bpd). The production increase was so cost effective that
Midway-Sunset now has four twin screw MPPs in operation. (Refer to
Section6138.)
b. In Duri during the field testing of the helico-axial MPP versus the twin
screw MPP, the production increased from 10,900 bopd to 12,500 bopd
when the twin screw pump was put online. When the helico-axial MPP
was put online, the increase, though smaller, was still significant,
increasing from 10,900 bopd to 11,900 bopd. (Refer to Figure600-47 and
Figure600-48.)

Fig. 600-45 Bornemann Twin ScrewPump at Midway-Sunset
Fig. 600-46 Strip Chart Showing the Increase in Production at Midway-Sunset
Fig. 600-47 Duri, Indonesia, MPP Field Testing
Fig. 600-48 Strip Chart Showing the Increased Oil Production with MPPs during Field Testing in Duri, Indonesia
5. Transporting production several miles through one pipeline;
An MPP can pump fluid to an existing processing facility several miles away,
through a single pipeline. This is attractive compared to a conventional facility,
which would require more equipment to perform the same task, including a
possible second pipeline. For example, the Mitsue pump, mentioned several
times in this manual, was moved to the Princess Oil Field in Canada, where it
moved multiphase fluid from several wells to the processing facility, 18 miles
away, through one pipeline. (Refer to Section6135 for further details.)
The capability to pump mixed fluids through miles of pipeline can also be
important for a new offshore platform, eliminating the need for a second
pipeline to shore.
Another good application for an MPP is to boost pressure from subsea wells
that are far from an existing platform. Often, preliminary analysis shows that
the recoverable reserves for the new field are too small to justify a stand-alone
full production platform that is closer to the wells. A subsea MPP has the
capability to eliminate the need for a new platform.
6. More cost effective subsea installation and ease of retrieval;
For a subsea installation, space is valuable, and an MPP requires a much
smaller, simplified seabed support structure than a conventional system. Lifting
an MPP pump from the seabed for maintenance is easier and less expensive
than a conventional pump and compressor, because it weighs less than their
combined weight.
7. Overcoming the static pressure in a deep subsea well;
Deep subsea oil wells often have their production limited because of the static
pressure needed to transport the fluid from the wellhead to the surface. This
becomes worse as the well depletes, and its wellhead pressure decreases. If
located a mile below the surface, the pressure required to move fluid to the
surface would be approximately 2,300 psi. A subsea MPP, taking suction from
such a wellhead, can increase the fluid pressure significantly to get the fluid to
the surface, reducing the wellhead backpressure and greatly increasing
production.
8. Reducing emissions;
MPPs reduce pollution by eliminating the emissions from the many pieces of
equipment needed for a conventional system. For example, in California, the
Midway-Sunset field needed to add a few new wells, but the permitting process
for the vent for the atmospheric collection tank had stalled the fields
production. An MPP, which required no emission permit, was installed to pump
the gas and liquids to the existing permitted collection facilities several miles
away.
9. Producing into a high pressure header.
Occasionally, a wells pressure is not sufficient to transfer its production into a
distribution header supplied by higher pressure wells. An MPP, taking suction
on the well and boosting its pressure, allows the lower pressure well(s) to
produce into the higher pressure line, thus increasing the fields total
production. Refer to the Section6125 example for Main Pass 59A, Gulf of
Mexico (2007).
Advantage
MPPs also have the following particular advantage, which is extremely useful in
many applications:
Reducing offshore platform costs by reducing weight and space. An MPP weighs
less and involves a smaller footprint than a conventional system. This is important
for an offshore platform, where the additional weight and space would be costlier if
a conventional separation system were installed. An MPP occupies approximately
25 percent of the area and weighs approximately 25 percent as much compared to a
conventional system.
6104DownstreamApplications
There are several downstream applications that are important to consider:
1. Flare gas knockout drum pumps.
MPPs have successfully replaced flare gas KO drum pumps in refining. Since
the pumps can handle gas, water, particulate, and oil, the pumps are well suited
for this application. They are particularly more reliable than the old
reciprocating pumps often used in these situations. The MPPs also use
mechanical seals instead of the packing required by the recips, thus reducing
emissions. In new installations, the old required flare gas pits are no longer
required, since unlike the recips that required the pit to provide their high
NPSHr, the twin screw MPPs require little or no NPSHr. Since the KO pits can
contain and confine the often hazardous vapors leaked by the recip packing,
locating the pump at ground level where vapors are not confined, allows for a
much less expensive installation, providing a safer work place, as well.
2. Pumping high vapor containing streams or boiling hydrocarbon streams.
Since twin screw MPPs have little or no requirement for NPSHr, they can
handle these streams very well. Twin screw MPPs are especially well suited in
this regard and will soon be covered by API 676 standards when the 3
rd
edition
of that standard is published (expected 2009).
6110 Technology Qualification Process (TQP)
6111Introduction
MPP technology is being used in applications with ever more challenging
environments and process conditions. To determine the risk involved in using MPPs
in such applications, the pumps must be evaluated for operability and reliability.
Chevron has developed a TQP to assist in making this determination. Chevrons
system is a process initially developed by Det Norske Veritas (DNV).
6112Chevron TQP
The following is taken from the Chevron TQP home page.
TQP is a versatile and scalable process to formally assess new (and existing)
technology and make high quality, risk based decisions regarding the technologys
further development or deployment and utilization on projects. TQP also provides a
common language for the understanding and communication of a technologys
readiness for use. The logic diagram in Figure600-49 gives an overview of the
major process elements.
Fig. 600-49 Logic Diagram
We will have demonstrated leadership in deploying technology to create
value across the company, both high impact and where multiple opportunities
for application create high impact. It will be measurable and widely recognized.
Leaders will put a priority on enterprise behavior so that we can take full
advantage of the intellectual capital of an integrated company, quickly
deploying best practices and technology. - Dave OReilly, The Next Five
Years.
The link to the home page of TQP is provided for further reference:
http://etc.chevron.com/team-tqp/default.asp
Contact Chris Chaplin of the TQP team for additional information:
chris.chaplin@chevron.com.
6113Definition of Qualification
Qualification is the process of providing the evidence that a technology will
function within specific operational limits with a specified level of confidence.
6114Machinery TQP
Mark Weatherwax of the ETC Machinery and Power Systems team has developed a
general overlay for the general TQP discussed above. The overlay is intended to be
used as a guideline for evaluating the specific risks involved with a specific set of
project conditions. The following logic diagrams, Figure600-50 and Figure600-51,
taken from the overlay, are logic diagrams of how the process should be used to
evaluate risks associated with machinery technologies.
At the time this MPP manual is being published, the machinery TQP is in
development.
Figure600-52 is an example of the use of this machinery TQP in flowsheet format.
The example is for a General Electric LM6000PF gas turbine mechanical drive
application.
For more information contact Mark Weatherwax by email at
Mark.Weatherwax@chevron.com.
6115Technology Development Stages (TDSs) for MPPs
MPP technology is composed of four different pump types: twin screw, helico-axial,
progressing cavity pumps (PCPs), and electric submersible pumps (ESPs). Each
pump type is developing at its own rate, and each has expanding application and
performance envelopes, where pump manufacturers are increasing current limits on
capacity, differential pressure, gas volume, reliability, and operating environment
(onshore, on platforms, or subsea). Each has a history of proven experience onshore
and in association with platform installations. Each pump type design and current
limitations have been covered in this manual, but regarding subsea in particular,
each pump type is developing rapidly.
Fig. 600-50 Logic DiagramMachinery Technology Qualification Process (Part A)
YES
NO
NO
YES
(TC2)
YES
NO
NO
YES
YES YES YES
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
NO
YES
NO
(TC4)
NO
(TC4)
NO
(TC3)
NO
YES
Potential
Equipment
Selection
Typically the potential equipment selection is a specific supplier model or train configuration.
Other cases may include a process specification and development of equipment to meet the
process conditions. In either condition, the process operating conditions and any unusual
ambient conditions should be identified during the qualification process.
In Chevron
Fleet?
Used Within
Existing
Chevron
Operating
Parameters?
All Sub
Components
Within
Experience?
Do Lessons
Learned
Exist?
Are Lessons
Learned
Incorporated?
Document
References -
Classified as a
TC1
Used Within
Industry?
Are Operating
Parameters
Within Existing
Industry
Operation?
Review of Industry
Experience
Is Industry
Experience
Considered
Acceptable?
All Sub
Components
Within
Experience?
Do Lessons
Learned Exist?
Document
References -
Classified as a
TC2
Are Lessons
Learned
Incorporated?
A Threat
Assessment is
Required.
Identify
Individual
Components
That Are
Step-outs
Fig. 600-51 Logic DiagramMachinery Technology Qualification Process (Part B)
YES
The level of effort for the Technology Qualification Process should be based on magnitude of
the step-outs being considered. The attendees at the Risk Assessment Workshop should also
be determined based on the magnitude of the step-outs.
Potential outcomes from the Risk Assessment Workshops include determining that the risks
exceed the potential benefits and therefore abandon the qualification process.
1. Identify individual risks and create an overall Threat Register.
2. Create a Threat Risk Table for each component identified.
3. Create action items to address individual risk items.
4. Identify alternate solutions or risk mitigation options.
5. Use a Risk Matrix to rank each risk.
6. Agree on Acceptance Criteria for identified actions.
Note: Equipment risks can range from operational reliability and equipment failures to
schedule risks from testing or manufacturing delays.
This plan is a detailed document that addresses the risks and action items identified during the
Risk Assessment Workshop. The plan will become the basis for performing the Technology
Qualification.
During this phase all the activities outlined during the Qualification Plan will be addressed. For
equipment packages, this typically entails the following types of activities:
1. Analytical analysis by Suppliers or 3
rd
Parties (Torsional, Lateral Rotordynamics, Stress
Calcs, CFD, FEA, etc.)
2. Model testing of components.
3. Full scale testing of components.
4. Etc.
Individual activities may be completed at various stages in a project depending on the
associated risks.
YES
NO
NO
Risk Assessment
Workshop
Technology
Qualification Plan
Are the risks fully
addressed by the
actions identified?
Technology
Qualification
Execution
Perform a GAP
Analysis. Was
the
Performance
Criteria
Satisfied?
Document Qualification
Process
P
u
m
p

M
a
n
u
a
l
6
0
0

M
u
l
t
i
p
h
a
s
e

P
u
m
p
s
M
a
r
c
h

2
0
0
9

2
0
0
9

C
h
e
v
r
o
n

U
.
S
.
A
.

I
n
c
.

A
l
l

r
i
g
h
t
s

r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
.

6
0
0
-
1
0
5
Fig. 600-52 General Electric LM6000PF Gas Turbine Mechanical Drive Application
Performing a rigorous TQP evaluation to develop a TDS or Maturity Rating for a
specific project requires the engineer to have a specific set of operating conditions.
Since, in this manual, there is no specific application to judge against, it is not
possible to provide definitive numbers or ratings. In each specific MPP application,
a TDS assessment should be made of the specific pump type(s) to be considered. If
the stage number assessment indicates the development stage is lower than TDS 9, a
TQP evaluation should be initiated.
The general TDS definitions, associated with the TDS numbers, are provided in
Figure600-53.
Onshore and PlatformInstallations
As has been described in earlier sections of this manual, all four MPP pump types
are well established, as represented by multiple surface installations both onshore
and on platforms, and the technology can be assigned a TDS number of TDS 9
(field proven).
The current limits of MPP technology, proven in project applications, were
presented (Section650, Section660, Section670, and Section680), and certain
aspects of the commercially available MPP technologies were compared. (Refer to
Section621, Figure600-7 and Figure600-8.)
Fig. 600-53 Technology Development Stage (TDS) Definitions
Subsea Applications
Subsea applications are developing very rapidly for all the MPP designs. As was
stated in the manual, these applications are in various stages of development and are
for various environments and operating conditions. While ESPs in dry tree
applications (pump is downhole subsea, but the driver is on a platform deck) have a
significant history, those applications where the pump and driver are all on the
seabed floor are in a much lesser stage of development (TDS 5). Wet tree helico-
axial pumps also have a reasonable history (TDS 9), while wet tree twin screw
pumps to date have a very limited number of subsea applications (TDS 9). Wet tree
applications of PCP MPPs are still being developed (TDS 5).
Table of TDS Ratings for Various Pumps for Various Applications
Figure600-54 shows in tabular form some general TDS number guidelines and
important qualification limits for the various MPP designs. Note that these
guidelines are based on each technologys development at the time of publication.
Fig. 600-54 TDS Ratings for Various MPP Pumps for Various Applications
Pump Type Application TDS Number Important Limitation(s)
Twin screw Onshore TDS 9 Differential pressure limited to 1,400 psi, flowrates
limited to 370,000 bpd, GVF unlimited.
Platform TDS 9 Differential pressure limited to 1,400 psi, flowrates
limited to 370,000 bpd, GVF unlimited.
Subsea Seabed TDS 9 Differential pressure limited to 750 psi, flowrates
limited to 170,000 bpd, GVF unlimited, water depth
limited to 5,500 ft.
Helico-axial Onshore TDS 9 Differential pressure limited to 1,200 psi, flowrates
limited to 290,000 bpd (Framo), 560,000 (Sulzer) GVF
unlimited.
limited to 290,000 bpd (Framo), 560,000 (Sulzer) GVF
unlimited.
limited to 290,000 bpd, GVF limited to 90%, water
depth limited to 3,000 ft.
PCPs Onshore TDS 9 Differential pressure limited to 900 psi, flowrates
limited to 60,000 bpd, GVF limited to 40%.
Platform TDS 9 Differential pressure limited to 900 psi, flowrates
Subsea Seabed TDS 5 Considerable development required before commercial
application in a subsea environment.
ESPs Onshore TDS 9 Differential pressure limited to 4,000 psi, Flowrates
Subsea Seabed TDS 9 Dry tree applications: differential pressure limited to
4,000 psi, flowrates limited to 10,000 bpd, GVF limited
to 60%, water depth limited by dry tree applications.
Population Chart
The population chart in Figure600-55 is provided to show the current common
usage range of the various types of MPPs.
6116TQP Summary
In general, all of the MPP technologies can be considered as proven for applications
involving surface onshore and surface platform installation. It is only in subsea
seabed applications that some of the technologies are currently considered less than
proven, and limitations are still significant. Having said this, it is still important to
remember that, even though a technology is proven, it doesnt necessarily mean that
the technology has a high level of reliability for a specific project application. Each
pump type must be evaluated for the specific environment and range of operating
conditions, and its reliability must be estimated in order to make the proper
selection that provides the lowest cost of ownership for the application.
6120Economics
6121General
In the past, Chevron has often avoided MPPs because the risks associated with a
new application were considered too great to offset the benefits. The decision
makers often installed conventional complex and costly facilities instead, consisting
of a separator, compressor, pump, etc., as described more fully in Section614. This
was done even though the MPP alternative was more economically attractive. Such
concerns are no longer valid. As shown in Section6110, MPPs should no longer be
Fig. 600-55 Population of Various MPP Types and Their Operating Regions
considered a new product. Hundreds of MPPs now function reliably throughout
the world, operating with great success.
6122Existing Facilities
Options
Often Chevron is faced with existing facilities that require extensive maintenance
and repair. In such cases, Chevron needs to consider no longer replacing these
facilities in kind but to install an MPP instead. There is a basic process that can be
used to help the decision. The process involves comparing the economics of the
following options:
Continuing with maintenance and repairs;
Installing direct replacement conventional facilities;
Installing an MPP.
Calculations Associated with the Options
1. Continuing with maintenance and repairs;
List the value of the current revenue, expenses, and profits for the gas and oil
produced or recovered and the cost to maintain and repair. Prepare a balance
sheet of annual income versus expenses, and determine if it is economical to
continue in this mode of operation.
2. Installing direct replacement conventional facilities;
List the benefits of installing a conventional facility that includes the cash
generated. Also, list its capital cost and operating expense. Compare this to
option 1 to obtain a rate of return, payout period, and NPV for the conventional
system.
3. Installing an MPP.
List the benefits of installing an MPP, including the cash generated. Also list its
capital cost and operating expense. Compare this to No Improvement case to
obtain a rate of return, payout period, and NPV for the MPP. Compare this to
the Conventional Facility case to decide which is the most attractive.
The alternative that has the best economic outcome, taking into account risk, is the
one that should be chosen.
6123NewFacilities
For a new facility, compare the MPP case to the conventional facility case.
6124Factors to Consider
The following factors need to be considered in determining the economic payout of
an MPP installation:
MPP cost, equipment weight, foundations, possible support systems, spare
parts inventory, and spaceA paper study conducted several years ago
confirmed that an installed MPP is less expensive than a conventional system,
in that the MPP costs approximately 70 percent less, occupies approximately
25percent less area, and weighs approximately 25 percent fewer pounds. The
MPP has the following advantages:
No separation vessel (twin screw MPP);
No compressor;
Fewer instruments;
One foundation;
One baseplate grouted (if at an onshore facility) into place or one skid
installation (if on a platform or subsea facility);
One electrical power supply line, one electrical connection, one starter, and
other electrical components;
Required spare parts for the MPP versus those required for the conven-
tional systems pump and compressor;
One multiphase mixed flow discharge line.
MPP energy consumptionIf compared to a conventional facility, an MPP will
likely cost less, but it may require more energy to operate. If power costs are
high, such as at some onshore locations, and the application has a high GVF, a
conventional system may be more economical. Offshore (especially if gas has
no value and is intended to be flared), the MPP is likely to be more cost effec-
tive.
Productivity index (PI)A PI is used to measure the ability of the well to
produce, and it is defined as the ratio of the total liquid rate to the pressure
drawdown. The PI should be a valid measure of the well productivity potential
only if the well is flowing under pseudo-steady state conditions. During a tran-
sient period, the productivity index will vary, depending on the measurement of
the flowing bottom hole pressure (Pwf).
PI is given by the following expression:
PI =Q/(Pr Pwf)
(Eq. 600-7)
where:
Q = Total fluid rate, stb/day
PI = Productivity Index, stb/day/psi
Pr = Reservoir static pressure, psi
Pwf = Flowing bottom hole pressure, psi
For example, if the bottom hole flowing pressure can be reduced by 50 psi and
a well has a PI of 0.1, a production increase would be expected to be 5 bpd
(0.1 x 50 =5).
When considering a new MPP to reduce a wells backpressure, one must
assume the bottom hole pressure is reduced by the same amount as the back
pressure. This is not always true. However, most of the time, the assumption is
accurate enough.
When applying PI, make sure its definition is understood. Some people define
PI as an increase in crude oil production, while others define it as the total
liquid produced, meaning that the PI could include both crude oil and water.
Pressure reduction limitAn MPP may become large if the existing wellhead
pressure is low. Gas occupies a very large volume at a low pressure. Therefore,
to reduce the wellhead pressure further, the MPP has to be very large and
quickly becomes uneconomical. This can better be explained in the following
example:
The Mitsue pump handled 25,000 bpd of gas at 50 psig suction pressure and
10,000 bpd of liquid. If the pump were designed for a suction pressure of
0psig, the gas volume would rise to 110,000 bpd, while the liquid rate would
stay essentially the same. The pump would have to pump approximately
120,000 bpd or almost 5 times the original capacity. Under these conditions, a
potential MPP may be too large to pay out from the expected production
increase.
Many oil fields, especially older ones, have maximized their production by
reducing the wellhead pressure. It is not uncommon to see a 10 psig or 20 psig
wellhead pressure. If one wishes to install an MPP under these conditions, the
size may be too large to be economical. Though this is generally true, there are
exceptions, and each installation needs to evaluate its own economics.
Note that most subsea wells have a high wellhead pressure because they need to
overcome the static pressure to get the fluid to the ocean surface. Because the
initial wellhead pressure is high, an MPP could reduce it significantly, making a
huge impact on crude oil production, all with a reasonably sized pump.
6125Examples
Both of the Chevron MPP field tests (Main Pass 313 offshore platform and the
Mitsue Field in Alberta, Canada) completed in early 1996 decreased wellhead
backpressure and increased crude oil production. The economics for these tests are
described as follows:
Main Pass 313 Offshore Platform(1993)
Extended well performance information was collected on the best performing well
on the platform, well A-23D. The well showed a boost in production from 70 bopd
before the MPP to more than 600 bopd with the pump. Later, the pump maintained
an average increase of approximately 200 bpd.
The installed cost of the MPP was approximately $150,000 (in 1993 dollars). The
economics on an annualized basis are listed in Figure600-56. It is assumed that well
A-23D was always lined up to the pump with an operating factor of 0.9 (which
means that the pump is operational 90 percent of the time). The economic
calculations are shown in Figure600-56.
Note that the analysis in Figure600-56 was done in 1996. Assumptions used then
would be quite different today. The assumptions used then were:
Oil price is $15.00/bbl;
Operating factor is 0.9;
Gas price is $2.00/mscf;
Tax rate is 38 percent;
Liquid treating expense is $0.12/bbl fluid;
Royalty rate is 13.0 percent;
Depreciation life is 7 years;
Efficiency of gas engine power generators is 30 percent;
Discount rate is 11.0 percent;
Inflation rate is 3.0 percent;
Gas compression cost is $0.06/mscf;
Project life is 10 years;
Composite water cut is 40 percent (for calculation of total liquid rate from
known oil rate).
Mitsue Field, Slave Lake, Alberta, Canada (1993)
At approximately the same time as the Main Pass 313 pump was installed, another,
larger MPP was installed in the Mitsue Field, Slave Lake, Alberta, Canada. In this
situation, the economic analysis was based on accelerated production, not new
production. The resulting rate of return, based on Canadian economics, was
11percent, making it a marginal project. The project went ahead anyway, partially
because it was a field trial to obtain important technical information. Later, this
Fig. 600-56 Main Pass 313 Economics
Revenue/Cost Calculation $/Yr
Oil Revenue (200 bpod) x (330 days/yr) x ($15.00/bbl oil) $990,000
Gas Revenue (200 bpod) x (1000 scf/bbl oil) x (330 days/yr) x ($0.12/bbl fluid) 132,000
Liquid Treating Costs (200 bpod) x (1 bbl fluid/0.6 bbl oil) x (330 days/yr) x ($0.12/bbl
fluid)
(13,200)
Energy Consumption
Costs
(56kw) x (2730 btu/hr/kw) x (24 hr/day) x (1/scf/ 1000 btu) x (330
days/yr) x ($0.06/mscf)
(8,100)
Added Gas Compression
Cost
(200 bpod) x (1000 scf/bbl oil) x (330 days/yr) x ($0.06/mscf) (4,000)
Net Revenue $1.097 MM/yr
After Tax Profit (Takes into account royalties, operating expenses, and
depreciation.)
$570M/yr
NPV $2.8 MM
Payout 3 Months
pump was moved to the Princess Field, also in Alberta, Canada, at a cost of
approximately $100,000 (U.S.). The economics of that installation are not currently
available. However, the project was economical, and a conventional system was not
installed. Besides being more expensive, the lead time for the conventional system
components was much longer, costing considerable production.
Escravos 3B Platform, Nigeria (2004)
During the Escravos 3B Flares Out project in Nigeria, the Malu, Opolo, Ewan, and
Isan platforms were evaluated for MPPs as opposed to a conventional separation
system. Initially, based on economics, it was determined that MPPs would be
installed on all the platforms. Unfortunately, it was only then realized by the project
that the gas lift gas volume would also be handled by the MPP. This significantly
increased the gas volume to 95 percent GVF and resulted in the MPPs becoming
uneconomical on all but the Opolo platform. On this platform, the capital
expenditure savings alone was approximately $6 million. However, operations
wanted to have similar facilities on all the platforms, and the MPP for Opolo was
dropped.
Main Pass 59A, Gulf of Mexico (2007)
GOMBUs Main Pass 59A platform handled a field consisting of 18 wells, some of
which produced at a higher pressure than others. The higher pressure wells
prevented the lower pressure wells from producing through the tieback pipeline.
When they were able to produce, the low pressure wells produced oil, water, and
gas (95 percent GVF). After researching several options, including larger diameter
lines, other piping configurations, and the cost of a conventional system, the largest
Leistritz MPP manufactured was purchased for $3 million (installed for $5 million).
It is driven by a 1,700 HP natural gas engine to take advantage of the low cost gas
available on the platform. (Refer to Figure600-57 and Figure600-58.) The MPP
was chosen over a conventional separation system based on capital expenditure cost
savings and a smaller footprint. Production has increased by 1,000 bpd so far (in
2007) and is expected to increase further as more of the low pressure wells are
brought online. Based on only the increased production seen thus far, the simple
payout is 0.17 year with oil valued at $80/bbl. Refer to Comparison #2 in
Section6126 for additional information.
Fig. 600-57 Main Pass 59A Leistritz MPP on Test (Courtesy of Leistritz Corporation)
Fig. 600-58 Leistritz MPP Installed on Main Pass 59A
6126Cost Comparison Study for an exceedingly high GVF of 98 Percent
MPPs versus a Conventional Separation System
Comparison 1
During the late 1990s, a cost analysis (paper study) was made to determine the
conditions in which MPPs should be used and in which a conventional separation
system should be used. Conclusions from that study are:
1. The capital cost of an MPP facility is typically approximately 70 percent that of
a conventional system. This was the same for all flowrates and pressures.
2. An MPP facility weighs approximately a quarter of a conventional system, and
it occupies approximately a quarter of the space of a conventional system.
3. A conventional system usually uses less energy, especially if the GVF is
exceedingly high. Under these conditions, there could be an economical payout
for a conventional system.
The following operating conditions were used in this study:
Three flow cases were considered: 40,000 bpd, 80,000 bpd, and 120,000 bpd.
Three, six, and nine wells were assumed to be involved in the three flow cases,
respectively.
The test separator and multiphase metering capacity are adequate for one well
at a time.
Gas composition of the multiphase mix is (GVF) 98 percent by volume at pump
suction conditions. This equates to a GOR of 500.
Three electrical rates were considered: $.03/kW-hr, $.05/kW-hr, and
$.07/kW-hr.
All machinery is electrically driven.
No spare equipment capacity was included, except for the crude transfer pumps
associated with the conventional system. Here, two pumps are included.
Both systems operate at a suction pressure of 15 psig. The discharge pressure
varies, depending upon the three cases considered for differential pressure:
100psi, 400 psi, and 800 psi.
Oil gravity is 30 degrees API.
Gas gravity is 0.7.
Wellhead temperature is 100F (37.8C).
Additional deck costs are based on $5,000/st and 0.065 st/sq.ft. Note that a
conventional system occupies more space, and its cost on an offshore platform
would be greater.
The gas and liquid separated in a conventional system are re-combined into one
discharge pipeline.
To simplify the analysis, a few items were not considered. They are the utility costs
(air, water, etc.), lights, safety equipment, office or shop costs, and transportation.
At the high GVF (98 percent), the energy costs played a significant role and were 25
to 50 percent lower for the conventional separation system, compared to the
multiphase energy costs. The 25 percent figure was associated with the 100 psi
differential case, while the 50 percent figure was associated with the 800 psi case.
Therefore, the higher the differential pressure, the greater the difference in energy
consumption for the MPP. This is due to the decreasing efficiency of the MPP with
the combination of high GVFs and high differential pressures. The higher additional
energy costs associated with a multiphase system can be used to pay out the more
efficient conventional system. This could be a factor for onshore applications in
which energy costs are high, but it may not be a factor for offshore applications in
which the electrical costs are low due to power generated on the platform itself.
Comparison 2
In 2006, a potential MPP application existed on the Main Pass 59A platform in the
Gulf of Mexico. An analysis was performed by Greg Sinclair of GOMBU to
compare the cost of the conventional system versus an MPP. The application
involved taking the discharge of several wells and increasing the pressure of these
wells to match the discharge pressure of other wells served by the platform. The low
pressure wells needed boosting so that they could produce an economic flow, while
using the same tieback line to the coast.
The analysis showed the following results:
1. Several scenarios were evaluated. The MPP solution was the most economic
for the Main Pass application, even when compared to numerous other alternate
solutions.
2. In spite of the 95 percent GVF, the MPP solution had a simple payout of
0.17year. (Note that, at the time these calculations were performed, all the low
pressure wells had not been brought online yet. Based on only those wells
already brought online, the simple payout was still found to be only 0.17 year.)
3. In the economic analyses performed for platforms, MPPs have the advantage of
less weight and a smaller footprint than conventional separation systems.
AppendixI contains Greg Sinclairs presentation at the 2007 Mechanical Equipment
Round Table (MERT). His presentation was given after the startup of the Leistritz
twin screw natural gas driven MPP. This pump is the largest twin screw MPP in the
Gulf of Mexico. The second presentation is a shortened version of the first, sticking
to the comparisons and the economic details.
As mentioned several times in this document, each potential installation must be
evaluated economically on its own merits, using assumptions and conditions related
to that specific installation. The sample analysis is good only for general
considerations and should not be considered for anything else.
6130Selected MPP Installations (including Lessons Learned)
6131General
As mentioned in Section 2, almost all of Chevron and legacy-Texaco MPP
experience has been with twin screw pumps. Chevron has experience with one
helico-axial pump that was part of a 1 month Indonesian trial in Duri (refer to
Section6138). Since 1990 and as of the printing of this manual, Chevron and
legacy-Texaco have installed at least 94 MPPs. A list of these installations is
included in Figure600-1.
The installations presented in this section were carefully monitored by specialists to
learn as much as possible about MPPs. Though many of these installations have
been referred to throughout this manual, this section is specifically devoted to
covering these installations in detail and discussing the Lessons Learned from
each application.
6132Humbles Fluid FlowTest Facility MPP
This motor driven Leistritz L4MK 82-40 MPP was tested in the legacy-Texaco
Humble Flow Loop MPP test facility from 1992 through 2002 on heavy and light
oil, with different water, sand, and gas volume fractions. The maximum flowrate
was 120 bpd, with a designed maximum of 225 psi differential pressure. The pump
performed admirably, and its success was the driver for other applications
throughout the company.
Lessons Learned
Twin screw MPPs were proven to be flexible in handling different ranges of oil,
water, gas, and particulate.
6133Trinidad
The Leistritz twin screw pump was installed in 1992 at this facility. The pump was
one of the first twin screw pumps installed on an offshore platform by legacy-
Texaco. The pump took suction from one or more wells that were essentially shut-
in, and the MPP brought them back into production. The MPP successfully pumped
heavy crude oil, water, and gas with a substantial quantity of particulate.
Lessons Learned
MPPs can pump heavy crude oil, water, gas, and particulate at the same time. MPPs
are effective in bringing shut-in wells back into production economically.
6134Mitsue Field, Slave Lake, Canada (later moved to Princess Field in Canada)
In 1992, a 700 HP, Leistritz L4H twin screw pump was tested for a joint industry
project at the Texaco Humble Fluid Flow facility. The test was sponsored by
Chevron, legacy Texaco, and several other major oil companies. It successfully
demonstrated that the MPP could pump multiphase fluids in the controlled
environment of the test facility.
The next phase was to determine if an MPP could successfully pump multiphase
fluids in an actual oil field environment. Chevron purchased this pump in 1993 and
installed it in the Mitsue oil field (Slave Lake, Alberta, Canada). This MPP was
installed at a pipeline junction for the purpose of increasing production from sev-
eral wells by lowering wellhead backpressure. Figure600-59 shows a simplified
flow diagram of this arrangement.
At Mitsue, flow from several wells fed the pump simultaneously. One was free
flowing, one used an ESP, and the remainder used rod pumps. As shown in the
figure, most of the production came from wells approximately 2 miles upstream of
the MPP. The suction piping ran through several hills and valleys that caused severe
slugging as described in Lessons Learned example D. Note from the figure that the
MPP discharged into a dedicated vessel in which the gas and liquid phases were
separated and measured. Liquid was recycled from this vessel to supply screw
sealant for the pump.
The 800 psi pressure boost capability of this pump was not required for this oil
field. However, because one of the goals was to push the pump to its design limits,
the pump discharge was throttled to achieve this differential pressure.
The process conditions for the Mitsue field trial are summarized as follows:
At 1,800 rpm, flow was 25,000 bpd (485,000 scfd, 845 bpd of liquid);
At 3,000 rpm, flow was 42,000 bpd (845,000 scfd gas, 1,765 bpd of liquid);
Pump differential =800 psi;
Pump discharge =850 psi (upstream of pressure letdown valve);
96 percent GVF to 97 percent GVF;
Wellhead pressure drop =150 psi;
Increased oil production =100 bpd @ 3000 rpm;
Crude oil gravity =40 degrees API to 43 degrees API.
Fig. 600-59 Mitsue MPP Field Trial
FROM
SATELLITE
TO
BATTERY
6 WELLS
600,000 SCFD
400 BPD
10,000 FEET
FROM
SATELLITE
100 FEET
2 WELLS
80,000 SCFD
130 BPD
MULTIPHASE
PUMP
RECYCLE
FIC
FR
T
E
S
T

S
E
P
A
R
A
T
O
R
FR
CHEVRON MULTIPHASE METER LOOP (CMML)
LC
The duration of the field trial was to be 6 months, but it ran for 10 months. The
pump was then shut down for inspection.
Goals and Results
A summary of goals and results follows, and additional details are provided in the
Lessons Learned section.
Goal 1. The primary goal was to demonstrate the technology in an actual oil field,
its robust design, and its reliability.
Results. Many unanticipated challenges were corrected to allow the pump to
operate reliably, with no mechanical failures for the pumps entire run. After
10months, the pump was shut down and inspected. The pump showed almost no
wear, and it was estimated that the pump could have operated reliably for at least
another year.
Goal 2. Another goal was to develop pump selection techniques.
Results. The Chevron MPP sizing method was greatly improved due to experiences
with this application.
Goal 3. The final goal was to confirm the pumps economics.
Results. Crude oil production was expected to increase by 130 bpd to 270 bpd.
Even with this additional production, the financial justification for a commercial
application was marginal. The project broke even, with the value of money near
11percent.
While the pump was being operated, Chevron Canada Resources was unable to
determine any incremental crude oil production, and the pump was shut down and
moved to a more profitable location, the Princess Field.
Lessons Learned
1. To accommodate the higher temperatures associated with pumping a high
GVF fluid, the pump clearances should be increased to accommodate a
300F (150C) rise above the highest suction temperature.
During the 1992 J IP test, rotors on the MPP seized while pumping a high
percent gas. Because all MPPs are more inefficient while pumping high
percentages of gas than pure liquid, the rotors heat up and expand.
During the Mitsue test, the screws did just thatthey expanded, rubbed, and
seized. Leistritz increased the clearances between the two screws and also
between the screws and the case, such that the pump could expand without
rubbing. It was designed to accommodate a 392F (200C) rise. Later, after
being deployed at Mitsue, the MPP saw a 284F (140C) rise.
2. Require the pump manufacturer to design the twin screw pump rotors
with adequate stiffness.
The rotor design for a twin screw pump that pumps pure liquid allows the
rotors to bend and touch. The liquid acts as a cushion and lubricates each
screws interface with the other screw and with the case.
In an MPP with a high GVF fluid, hardly any lubrication is available to
lubricate the screws. Since the screws touching each other or touching the case
would result in seizure of the screws, the screws in an MPP have to be stiffer
than in a liquid pump. This condition is even more critical at higher differential
pressures, since a higher discharge pressure causes the screws to deflect more
than a lower discharge pressure.
Based on this experience, the pump should be designed such that the maximum
rotor deflection is less than half the internal screw clearance.
3. A screw sealant should always be provided if the gas content could rise
above 95 percent.
A screw sealant should always be provided if slugs are anticipated, even if the
average GVF is less than 95 percent. An externally supplied screw sealant is
one from a wide spot in the discharge piping, a separator vessel, or from an
outside source. The Mitsue pump experienced many severe liquid slugs.
Between these slugs, it pumped 100 percent gas for up to 2 hours, and a screw
sealant became absolutely necessary.
MPP installations might average less than 95 percent gas but still require a
screw sealant. If slugs are possible, the alternating liquid and pure gas streams
can occur while the overall average stream remains less than 95 percent. If pure
gas is fed to the pump during slugging conditions, the pump must have an
externally supplied screw sealant to prevent it from vapor locking, overheating,
and failing.
4. Twin screw pumps, properly designed, will operate reliably under severe
slugging conditions.
The Mitsue MPP was fed from a satellite 2 miles away. Flow from several
wells entered this satellite where the streams were tested. Fluid was then sent to
the MPP through a common suction line traveling through hilly terrain. Before
the MPP started, liquid collected in these pockets at the bottom of each hill.
After the pump started, this liquid was flushed out and then partially filled
again, with the cycle repeating itself. The net result was alternating slugs of
pure gas and liquid.
The most severe slugs occurred during the first 6 hours after startup. This initial
slugging is called terrain slugging. During terrain slugging, the MPP was fed
pure gas for 2 hours. The pumps discharge temperature rose by 284F (140C).
Note that the pump was designed to accommodate discharge temperatures of
392F (200C).
After feeding the pump with gas, a liquid slug hit the pump, and the sound for
the motor changed dramatically (sounding like wood being cut by a table saw).
At the same instant that the liquid hit the pump, the suction pressure dropped by
approximately 30 psi, while the discharge pressure rose by approximately
2,000kPa because of a downstream pressure control valve nearby. (Later, this
control valve was removed, and the discharge pressure surges became less
severe.) Next, the separator level rose significantly. The liquid, being cooler,
caused the temperature in the reservoir to drop by as much as 212F (100C).
After approximately 6 hours, the terrain slugs diminished but were replaced
with hydrodynamic slugs. This type of slug occurred more often but was less
severe. A hydrodynamic slug was arbitrarily defined as one that slowed the
pump down by approximately 20 rpm. There were 17 of these occurrences
counted in 5 minutes, which equates to approximately 5,000 slugs per day.
Throughout all this, the pump operated reliably. After 10 months of operation,
the pump was shut down. The inspection confirmed that the pump was in good
condition, and it was determined that the pump would have operated for at least
another year before requiring any maintenance.
The pump remained undamaged by the slugs, because as the slugs enter a twin
screw pump, they are split into two equal parts. These parts enter the screws
from the opposite ends at exactly the same time, cancelling out the resulting
forces.
5. Do not locate a downstream restriction (control valve, orifice, etc.) close to
the pump and preferably avoid having any, if possible.
A control valve, orifice, etc., if necessary, should be located at least 10 feet
downstream of the pump discharge flange. This distance provides a cushion to
dampen any surges. In the Mitsue installation, the MPPs discharge pressure
spiked at 2,000 kPa when the control valve was in place. When the control
valve was removed, the pressure spikes were almost nonexistent.
6. Locate the MPP as close as possible to the wells to reduce the severity of
slugging.
The severe slugging experienced by the Mitsue pump could have been reduced
if the pump had been located closer to the wells, instead of 2 miles away, with
the suction line traveling through hilly terrain.
7. Model the MPP inlet and discharge piping to identify potential slugging
conditions and to design related equipment (piping, separator, etc.).
For future installations, the multiphase simulator, Pipephase, should be run on
the inlet and on the discharge piping from the pump to the downstream
separator. If Pipephase indicates slugging, a transient simulator, such as OLGA,
should be used to predict the size and frequency of the slugs.
With the results from these two programs, the facilities engineer will know if
slugs are likely and understand the length of time one could expect the
alternating 100 percent gas and 100 percent liquid slugs. This information will
also be required to size the associated system equipment (piping, separator,
etc.).
8. Size the downstream facilities to accommodate the MPP flowrate as if it
were pure liquid.
As mentioned, the Mitsue MPP experienced severe slugging, operating for at
least 2 hours on 100 percent gas and then several minutes on pure liquid. While
feeding pure liquid, the downstream separator could not dump the liquid fast
enough. As a result, the MPP shut down due to a high separator level.
If a liquid slug enters an MPP, the MPP pumps the liquid at its theoretical
flowrate. For the Mitsue pump, this was 40,000 bpd, or approximately
1,200gpm for the length of time the liquid slug was present. The downstream
separator in combination with the discharge flow line needed to be designed to
handle this amount of liquid. However, in this case the discharge piping was
originally designed for only 100 gpm, relying on a small separator vessel for
surge capacity. Both had to be enlarged to accommodate the 1,200 gpm rate.
9. For electric motor drivers, check the motors available torque against the
pumps required torque at all speeds but especially at the minimum
operating speed.
The motor size selected to accommodate the pump at normal conditions was
not large enough to supply adequate torque at the pumps minimum speed. The
motor horsepower had to be increased substantially to handle the minimum
speed condition.
10. Use HYSIM or PROII to simulate the process conditions around the MPP
and to identify where flashing will occur. Flashing liquid into gas decreases
the pumps total volumetric capacity.
One of the most important lessons learned from the Mitsue trial was that flow
from the Mitsue field amounted to only 60% of the MPPs theoretical capacity.
The decreased capacity was due to flashing of the hot screw sealant or crude
oil, recycled from the downstream separator. Mitsue crude oil (40 degrees API
to 43 degrees API) is light and flashes easily. The flashed gas volume is much
greater than the liquid volume and occupies several times the pump capacity.
Figure600-60 was developed from the process flow simulator, HYSIM, to
demonstrate where the flashing occurred. Referring to Figure600-60, most of
the flashing occurred across the flow control valve, where the recycle stream
pressure dropped from 414 psi to 50 psi, flashing 64 bpd of liquid into
4,171bpd of gas. This stream mixed with the crude oil coming from other
wells, and because the recycle was hotter, another 31 bpd of liquid flashed into
2,958 bpd of gas. The difference, in volume of over 7,000 bpd, represents
approximately 27 percent of the pumps theoretical capacity of 26,200 bpd at
2,000 rpm. The 7,000 bpd of gas occupied pump capacity and backed out the
same quantity from the field.
The HYSIM simulation also showed more internal slip than originally
anticipated, approximately 12 percent of the theoretical pump capacity. The
same pump during the Houston J IP test showed only an 8 percent slip, but that
testing was done with a heavier crude oil (26 degrees API versus the 40 degrees
API to 43 degrees API crude at Mitsue). Adding all losses together (flashing,
internal slip, and the liquid that is recirculated), the internal losses amount to
43percent. Thus, while the pump actually pumped 26,200 bpd, it was only
pumping approximately 57 percent of that amount or 14,867 bpd from the
Mitsue field, with the remainder being recycled within the pump.
As mentioned earlier, MPPs handling GVFs above 95 percent need to be
designed larger to compensate for these high losses. An additional 15 to
35percent of the field requirements should be added in sizing an MPP: for
heavy crude, use 15 percent, and for light crude, use 35 percent. The increased
pump capacity is determined from the recycle, slip, flashing factor, fully
described in Recycle, Slip, Flashing Factor in Figure638.
11. Install a cooler to decrease anticipated flashing and to increase the actual
production flow.
One possible approach to decrease flashing if MPPs are used in light crude oil
service is to install a small cooler in the recycle stream. The HYSIM process
simulator indicated that this would have increased the actual pumped
production from the Mitsue field by approximately 10 percent. The cooler in
this case would have been small, approximately the size of a radiator in a diesel
truck.
12. If slugging is anticipated, size the driver HP as though the MPP were
pumping pure liquid.
Finally, because of the Mitsue experience, MPP sizing criteria was reviewed
and changed. It is recommended that, if slugging is anticipated, add up all the
fluid volumes (liquid and gas) at suction conditions, and calculate the
theoretical horsepower for that entire quantity, as if it were all liquid.
6135Mitsue Pump Moved to the Princess Field
As mentioned earlier, the Mitsue pump did not pay out economically. It was,
therefore, moved in 1997 to the Princess Field, also in Canada. There, it pumped
crude oil, water, and gas from several wells through a pipeline approximately
18miles long to an existing process facility.
Fig. 600-60 HysimResults, Mitsue MPP Test
The cost of moving the pump to the Princess Field was approximately $100,000,
which was considerably less than installing a conventional separation facility
(separator, liquid pump, compressor, etc.) at the Princess Field.
The process conditions for the Princess Field were as follows:
40,000 bpd (crude oil, 3,000 bpd, 70 percent GVF, 70 percent water cut) at
3,000 rpm;
Pump differential =725 psi;
Pump discharge =850 psi;
Wellhead pressure =125 psi;
API gravity of crude oil =23.
Note that the API gravity in the Princess Field was heavier (23 degrees) than at
Mitsue (40 degrees to 43 degrees). Therefore, the Slip, Recycle, Flashing factor at
the Princess Field was only 15 percent.
The Princess Field was still being developed when the MPP was installed. As new
wells were brought online, the pump capacity became inadequate. To gain more
pump capacity, the MPPs speed was increased to 3,600 rpm, the highest speed
within the Chevron organization. The pump has run reliably under these conditions
for several years.
Lessons Learned
1. Leistritz or Bornemann twin screw pumps can operate reliably at
3600 rpm.
A Leistritz or Bornemann pump, if properly applied and installed, using the
information presented in this manual, can run reliably at 3,600 rpm. The
Princess Field application proved this.
2. Install a dual filter or strainer on the MPP suction.
If wax is present, a filter should be used. If a more coarse material is
anticipated, a strainer should be used. The filter/strainer should include a
differential alarm/shutdown where the filters can be changed while the MPP
runs. Design the shutdown setting such that the filter collapse pressure is
greater than the shutdown setting.
The crude oil at Princess Field was very waxy. Thus, the inlet filter plugged
several times, automatically shutting down the MPP. A dual filter was
eventually installed with the capabilities mentioned above.
3. Directly contact the mechanical seal supplier and carefully review the
seals design.
The pump manufacturer should not be relied on completely to communicate
accurate data to the seal supplier.
For the Mitsue pump, it was discovered that the pump supplier had planned to
install a seal with an unacceptably low pressure rating. The pump supplier
determined that the static rating of the seal, which was above the design
requirement, was adequate. However, the dynamic rating, which is the rating
of the seal while rotating, was actually higher, and therefore, the seal design
was not acceptable.
6136Main Pass 313, Offshore Platformin the Gulf of Mexico
In 1993, a second Chevron MPP was installed on the offshore platform, Main
Pass313, in the Gulf of Mexico, as shown in Figure600-61.
This site included an unused well test header and test separator that could be
dedicated to the MPP. The field trial equipment arrangement is shown in
Figure600-62. With this arrangement, any well or combination of wells could be
directed to the MPP, discharging into the dedicated test separator. The separator
measured the gas and liquid phases accurately. The discharge pressure of the pump
was regulated by the back pressure controller on the gas stream on the outlet of the
test separator.
The field trial at Main Pass 313 required a low pressure boost of 125 psi. The size of
the pump in relation to the well output dictated handling only one well at a time.
Most of the wells were gas lifted.
Fig. 600-61 Leistritz Pump at Main Pass 313
This field trial used a Leistritz twin screw pump (pump capacity: 26,000 bpd at
1,800 rpm). The process conditions changed, depending upon which well was
tested. One of the wells on the platform produced the following:
500 bpd of liquid (mostly oil);
98 percent GVF amounting to 385,000 scfd or 25,500 bpd of gas at suction
conditions of 30 psig, 100F (37.8C);
26,000 bpd total of mixed flow (500 bpd of liquid and 25,500 bpd of gas).
The well normally produced into a separator at 100 psig. By reducing the wellhead
pressure to 30 psig with the MPP, incremental oil production was expected to
increase by 200 bpd.
Goals and Results
Goal 1. Demonstrate that the pump can operate reliably.
Results. During its run of 10 months, the double mechanical seals failed and were
replaced with single seals, flushed with liquid from the downstream separator. Also,
debris (weld slag) damaged the pump before a suction strainer was installed. After
these changes, the pump operation was considered reliable.
Goal 2. Confirm the economics.
Results. By decreasing the back pressure on various wells, the crude oil production
increased. Well A-23D increased production by 200 bpd when the backpressure
decreased from 100 psi to 60 psi. The economic payout was 3 months.
Fig. 600-62 Main Pass 313 FlowDiagram
MULTIPHASE
PUMP
LIQUID RECYCLE
FC
FR
T
E
S
T

S
E
P
A
R
A
T
O
R
FR
CHEVRON MULTIPHASE METER LOOP (CMML)
LC
FROM TEST HEADER
PUMP BYPASS
GAS TO LP SYSTEM
O
I
L
/
W
A
T
E
R

T
O

L
P

S
Y
S
T
E
M

Goal 3. Validate the selection and application process.
Results. The pump and driver sizing criteria were revised based on the test.
Lessons Learned
1. Specify that the mechanical seals meet Chevron specification PMP 4662
that modifies API 682. (Using this standard will avoid many of the problems
detailed below.) If possible, use the less expensive, and perhaps more reliable,
single seals with an external flush.
Most of the problems encountered with the Main Pass 313 pump were related
to the four pressurized dual mechanical seals. The pressurized dual seal barrier
fluid must operate at a higher pressure than the seal chamber. Pressure reversal
occurs if the seal chamber pressure gets higher than the barrier fluid pressure.
The original Main Pass 313 seals could not tolerate any pressure reversal.
When this occurred, they failed.
Chevron specification PMP 4662 that modifies API 682 was not used for the
seals on this MPP. API 682 requires a pressurized dual seal to be able to
withstand 40 psi pressure reversal without damage.
The dual seals, because of poor reliability, were replaced with single seals with
a flush from the downstream separator. With this change, the seals were easier
to operate and proved to be reliable.
2. Specify balanced mechanical seals.
The seals at Main Pass 313 were not balanced. Hydraulic forces closing the seal
faces are lower with balanced seals, generating less heat and improving
reliability. API 682 and Chevron PMP 4662 call for using balanced mechanical
seals.
3. For pressurized dual mechanical seals, specify an external barrier fluid
pump, not a shaft driven unit.
On Main Pass 313, the dual seals were supplied with barrier fluid that was
delivered by a shaft driven pump. Therefore, until the pump started, the barrier
fluid to the dual seals was 0 psi. Note that, in a pressurized dual seal
arrangement, the barrier fluid must always be greater than the pressure in the
seal chamber, which is slightly above the suction pressure. A hand pump was
used to raise the barrier fluid pressure to a level above the suction pressure
before starting the MPP. An accumulator, a small vessel containing barrier fluid
in one end and process fluid at suction pressure in the other, was installed to
keep the pressure above suction while the pump operated. The two fluids were
separated with a rubber bladder. With this device, suction pressure was
communicated to the barrier fluid controller to keep the barrier fluid above
suction pressure.
Since this test, the MPP manufacturers have deployed a more reliable
pressurized dual mechanical seal that eliminates the need for a hand pump and
accumulator. Modern seals are designed with an external barrier fluid pump,
with its discharge pressure controlled high enough such that the seal chamber
pressure stays constant and is always higher than suction pressure.
An external barrier fluid pump also allows the barrier fluid system to operate if
the MPP is shut down, preventing corrosion. Finally, the operator can be
assured that barrier fluid is circulating at the proper pressure before attempting
to start the MPP.
4. Design the mechanical seals for an additional 200 psi to accommodate
pressure spikes.
At Main Pass 313, high pressure rushed into the pump when the inlet valve was
opened, causing a pressure surge. The pressure was communicated to the seal
system via the accumulator. The pressure differential across the twin screw
pump caused it to act like a motor and turn. This motion rotated the shaft driven
barrier fluid pump, producing a significant pressure spike. This added pressure
was enough to blow a gasket in the seal oil filter. It is now recommended that
the seals be designed for unanticipated spikes by adding another 200 psi to their
design.
The pressure spikes were caused by the shaft driven barrier fluid pump, which
increased pressure faster than the control system could react. An external
barrier fluid pump would decrease the possibility of spikes. However, even with
the external pump, requiring additional pressure for the seal design is
recommended.
5. For pressurized dual seal designs, make sure the barrier fluid cannot leak
into the lubricating system. Design for 5 gpm barrier fluid rate into the
seal chamber of each seal.
Lubricating oil was used for the barrier fluid, instead of the preferred mixture
of water and ethylene glycol. This water and ethylene glycol mixture was
preferred for the barrier fluid, because it dissipates heat better than the
lubricating oil. As stated, this mixture was not used, because it could have
leaked from the outboard mechanical seal and contaminated the lubricating
system. For future designs, the pump should be designed such that leakage of
barrier fluid cannot contaminate the lubrication system, allowing the barrier
fluid to be a mixture of water and ethylene glycol.
The barrier fluid flowrate to each mechanical seal was originally 1 gpm per
seal.
During the purchase order stage, the flowrate was raised to 5 gpm to allow for
better dissipation of heat.
6. Install a strainer in the suction line to the MPP.
The Main Pass 313 pump ran fine until early J anuary 1995, when it began to
rub. The pump was inspected and repaired at the Leistritz facility in New
J ersey, where damage to the rotors and the pump case bore was found. The
damage was caused by a small piece of weld slag (1/4 inch) entering the
suction of the pump. The damage could have been avoided if a suction strainer
had been installed.
MPPs are usually installed downstream from a crude oil well. It is common for
well debris (weld slag, metal parts, etc.) to be flushed into the MPP. Therefore,
a dual strainer is absolutely necessary.
6137Humble, Texas, Production Field
This motor driven, Leistritz L4NG 126-98 MPP operated from 1997 until 2004,
when a well rework overpressured the pump, destroying it. This pumps maximum
rate was 13,000 bpde at 92 percent GVF, with a differential pressure of 75 psi.
Though the pump increased the production of the field, its main purpose was to give
legacy-Texaco some operating experience with MPPs. Before being destroyed by
the well rework, the pump had been the longest continuously operating MPP in the
U.S. The pump was also used as a test pump for a new grease canister seal flush
system installed, which is revolutionary in its development and application. (Refer
to Grease Canister Seal Flush System in Section6146.) Figure600-63 shows a
Leistritz pump at the Humble, Texas, field being removed for maintenance.
Lessons Learned
1. Twin screw MPPs can have a long mean time between failure (MTBF).
2. Mechanical seals operating at 6 psig suction pressure can be flushed with
grease from an intermittently feeding grease canister.
This system can be very useful if the MPP stream is continuously high in GVF
or particulate or both.
Fig. 600-63 Humble Field, Texas, Leistritz Pump Being Removed for Routine Maintenance
6138Duri Trial, Indonesia
In 1998, a Bornemann twin screw pump and a Sulzer helico-axial pump were
installed side by side in Duri, Indonesia. They operated under the same conditions,
pumping crude oil from 33 wells. The purpose of this trial was to determine the best
pump type (twin screw or helico-axial) that should be used in the future light oil
steam flood (LOSF) project, also in Indonesia. The pump is shown in
Figure600-64, and its simplified flow diagram is shown in Figure600-65.

Fig. 600-64 Test Facility at Duri, Indonesia
Fig. 600-65 Simplified FlowDiagramof the Duri Test Facility
Duri is a typical steam flood oil field, where steam is continuously injected to
reduce the viscosity of the heavy crude oil and pressurize it into the producing
wells. Each Duri producing well used a rod pump to lift the crude and send it on to a
processing unit. The MPPs were installed between the wells and the processing unit.
As mentioned, both pumps were designed to meet the same conditions. They are:
Total multiphase fluid flowrate =125,000 bpd;
Composition =20 percent water, 5 percent API 22 gravity crude oil, 75percent
gas, and 90 bpd sand; (Sand concentration was 0.3 percent by volume or
0.5percent by weight.)
Inlet temperature =250F (121C);
Inlet pressure =50 psig;
Pressure Boost =150 psig.
Twin ScrewMPP Test Results
The twin screw MPP was a Bornemann pump, model MW 9.5zk-67, coupled
directly to a 500 HP electric motor with speed controlled by an adjustable frequency
drive (AFD). This allowed the pump to operate from 650 rpm to 1,950 rpm,
although 1,800 rpm was used throughout the trial. The pump bearings were partially
submerged in four self-contained lube oil reservoirs, cooled by a water jacket.
Four single mechanical seals were installed in the pump at the end of each screw.
The seals were flushed with 5 gpm of fresh water (API Plan 32). The water went
through the mechanical seal chamber into the pump through a close clearance throat
bushing. The pressure drop across the bushing eliminated the possibility of the
pumped fluid being released to the atmosphere. During a seal leak, only the water
flush was released. The flush not only cooled and lubricated the seal as flush, but it
also acted as screw sealant for the pump.
The Bornemann pump incorporated a discharge containment chamber that separated
gas and liquid, retaining the liquid and letting the gas flow on. It also included a
recycle valve to send a variable amount of retained liquid back to suction. The
recycle valve was closed during the trial. However, because of a groove in the
valve, it still transferred 3 to 4 percent of its capacity back to suction. This, plus the
external seal flush, was more than adequate to supply the screw sealant needs.
After operating 24 hours, the pump was shut down and partially inspected to
determine if any wear occurred in the recycle valve or if any sand had collected in
the containment chamber. There was no sign of wear or sand accumulation in either.
The pump ran a total of 1 month and was shut down for a thorough internal
inspection. During the first 25 days, the pump was fed crude oil from the wells. On
the 26th day, the crude oil feed was stopped and replaced with steam. This was done
to simulate steam breakthrough, a condition expected at the LOSF.
The pumps slip was calculated daily, and it showed no significant wear during the
first 25 days of operation. However, the slip increased during the steam injection
test, indicating significant wear. After 3 hours, the steam was discontinued, and
crude oil was again fed to the pump. The slip stayed high but constant, indicating
that no additional wear was occurring. This is shown in Figure600-66.
The exact reason for the different wear patterns is not known. It was theorized that
wear did not occur during the first 25 days because the sand in the crude oil stayed
in suspension and passed through the pump without touching the rotors or case. It
did not separate out and, therefore, did not cause erosion. Crude oil also lubricated
and protected the metal.
On the 26
th
day, during the steam injection test, the pump suffered significant wear.
It is believed that steam condensed in the suction line and/or inside the pump. The
pump then processed steam, condensate, and sand. The sand in the steam and/or
condensate centrifuged out and wedged between the screws and the casing, causing
significant wear.
As mentioned above, the pump ran a month and was then shut down and inspected.
It confirmed the slip data that showed significant wear patterns. They are
summarized as follows:
The screws were worn an average of 0.012 inch. Note that they were originally
carbon steel, coated with Praxair Super D-Gun 2015 at 0.003 inch thick.
Much of the coating on the screws was worn off.
A groove occurred at each balance hole in the screw OD, through the coating
into the parent metal, extending to the outside of the non-leading edge of each
screw.
The leading edge of each screw was rounded on the OD. This is shown in
Figure600-67.
Fig. 600-66 Twin ScrewPump Slip versus Time
Helico-Axial MPP Test Results
A Sulzer helico-axial pump was tested for a month, after the twin screw test. As
mentioned earlier, this pump was tested under the same process conditions. The
pump, Model MPP 7/7, was a seven stage machine on one shaft, driven by a
700HP electric motor. Its speed was controlled by an ASD between 2,200 rpm and
3,600 rpm. During the test, the motor ran most of the time at 3,450 rpm.
The Sulzer helico-axial pump was more complicated than the Bornemann twin
screw pump. It contained two mechanical seals, one single and the other a
pressurized dual seal. The single mechanical seal was located at the outboard end
and a pressurized dual mechanical seal at the motor end. A radial bearing was
located outboard of the single seal on the outboard end, while another radial bearing
was positioned between the two seals in the pressurized dual seal configuration. A
thrust bearing was located on the motor end, outboard of the mechanical seal and
the radial bearing.
Unlike the twin screw pump, on which thrust was balanced, here, thrust from slugs,
etc., was not balanced, and the helico-axial pump required a thrust bearing. With
severe slugging conditions, the thrust force would become too large and overload
this bearing. Therefore, a buffer tank is usually required to be installed ahead of the
pump to smooth out the slugs and minimize pump thrust. Because of the flat terrain
at Duri, severe slugging was not anticipated, and the buffer tank was not installed.
This turned out to be the correct decision, because severe slugging did not occur.
The pump ran for a month and showed little or no apparent process problems or
wear. On the 26
th
day, a steam injection test was attempted. During the initial phases
of the test, the pump shut itself down several times, refusing to pump high gas
fractions. For example, at 94 percent gas, the pump produced only 20 psi
Fig. 600-67 Twin ScrewWear Patterns
differential pressure instead of the desired 150 psi. The steam test was aborted after
several attempts lasting 40 minutes, and the pump wear from a possible steam
breakthrough could not be determined.
The helico-axial MPP was shut down after running 1 month because of a dual
mechanical seal failure. Additionally, a malfunctioning solenoid valve in the
lube/barrier oil system caused the lube oil to overheat, creating several leaks. The
seal and the solenoid valve were repaired, and the pump started again approximately
1 month later. It ran another 2 months, and the seals failed again. While the pump
was shut down, an internal inspection was not attempted, because the LOSF project
management had already decided to use the twin screw pump. The Bornemann twin
screw pump was less expensive, less complicated, more efficient, could handle
slugs better, and had a wider range of flowrates and pressures. Detailed reasons are
presented in Figure600-7 and Figure600-8 in Figure621 and Figure600-68 in the
following Lessons Learned section.
Lessons Learned
1. Twin screw pumps can pump crude oil containing large quantities of sand,
with little or no wear, if the crude oil is heavy or viscous enough. Sand will
pass through the pump and will not cause wear or settle out.
This is probably the most important lesson learned from the Duri test. Sand at
90 bpd was pumped by the Bornemann pump without any wear, and it did not
settle out inside the containment chamber. This statement is based on the
findings of an inspection after 24 hours of operation, the process data obtained
throughout the test, and finally, the complete inspection after a month of
operation.
Also, the Sulzer helico-axial pump that operates at a much higher speed did not
show signs of wear while operating. However, it was never opened and
inspected for sand, as was done on the Bornemann pump.
2. Pump wear from sand erosion will likely occur during a steam
breakthrough or if a lighter, less viscous crude oil is fed to the pump.
Duris crude oil was 22 degrees API, which is fairly heavy. It is believed that, if
it were less viscous, more wear would have occurred. Water is less viscous, and
the twin screw pump suffered significant wear while attempting to pump steam,
steam condensate, and sand. Additionally, a study by the University of
Erlangen in Nuremburg, Germany, with sand in water, confirmed significant
wear, destroying a Leistritz twin screw pump in only a few hours.
To better define the viscosity in which wear would occur, a computer
simulation program was run. It showed significant wear from sand in water and
light crude oil. There was virtually no wear when the crude oil was heavier than
an API gravity of 30 degrees.
3. The Bornemann twin screw pump is a better choice than the Sulzer helico-
axial pump for most surface applications.
Figure600-68 compares the Bornemann twin screw pump to the Sulzer helico-
axial pump.
In Figure600-68, it is obvious that the twin screw pump was the better choice
for the future LOSF project in Indonesia. The twin screw pump was less
expensive, less complicated, more efficient, better at handling slugs, and
pumped a wider range of flowrates and pressures.
It is difficult to extrapolate this conclusion to other applications, although this
conclusion is probably correct for most surface facilities, such as onshore
installations or offshore platforms. Helico-axial pumps are installed extensively
subsea and perhaps, there, they might be a better choice. Each installation must
be evaluated on its own merits.
4. If sand is anticipated, consider the following to minimize wear:
Using a removable liner;
Rounding the leading edge of each screw;
Coating the liner with satellite or tungsten carbide, and boride or nitride the
screws; (Refer to Section640.)
Fig. 600-68 ComparisonTypical Twin ScrewMPP versus the Helico-axial MPP
Item Twin screw Helico-Axial
Purchase price $400,000 $600,000
Ability to handle slugs Excellent without additional
equipment.
Requires additional equipment, a buffer
vessel.
Lube oil system Self-contained, each bearing. Requires a circulating system (pump,
cooler, filter, etc.).
Mechanical seals Four single seals with API Plan 32. One single and one pressurized dual
seal with a seal oil circulating system.
Ability to withstand sand erosion Good because the sand was
included in a heavy (22 degrees
API gravity or lower), viscous (330
cp) crude oil.
Unknown
Flow range (bpd) 4,000 to 125,000 (design =
125,000)
110,000 to 140,000 (design =125,000)
Suction pressure (psig) 50 (80 initially) 50 (80 initially)
Discharge pressure (psig) 100 (175 design) 100 (175 design)
Design speed 1,920 rpm 3,450 rpm
Electric motor size 500 HP 700 HP

Efficiency during test 45% 22%
Keeping the original design speed as low as possible;
Using an ASD to allow the speed to increase if wear is indicated;
Considering additional screw turns or locks to develop the head required.
Balance holes should not be drilled on the OD of the screws.
6139COB Facility, El Tigre Field, Venezuela; Boscan Field, Venezuela; Kome,
Miandoum; and Belobo Fields, Chad
COB Facility, El Tigre Field, Venezuela
This field had four twin screw transfer pumps that pumped a multiphase stream of
crude oil, water, and gas from El Tigre to Hamaca. The manufacturer of the pumps
was Flowserve, a manufacturer not recommended by Chevron. These pumps were
purchased by Chevrons Venezuelan partner. The four pumps were motor driven
NPS 14 HP pumps, capable of pumping 75,000 bpd, with 10 to 20 percent GVF at
800 psig differential pressure and 1,800 rpm, using 1,600 BHP motors. The pumps
were installed in 2002 and immediately became a continuous problem.
These pumps were out of service so frequently that a machinist specializing in twin
screw MPPs was hired full time to keep them operational. The pumps primary
failure mode was its mechanical seal system, but rubbing of the rotor against the
stator bore was also common.
The suction line was a significant distance from the suction tank and had a 30 foot
high loop in it immediately prior to the suction flange of the pump. As a result, gas
slugging was a problem.
In 2005, the pumps were replaced by five Bornemann MW 10.6zk pumps. These
pumps have been operating since then without problems. They are shown in
Figure600-69.
Fig. 600-69 Bornemann Pumps at El Tigre Field, Venezuela (Courtesy of Bornemann
Corporation)
With the installation of the Bornemann pumps, the following corrective actions
were taken:
The pumps were located much closer to the suction tank.
The suction line was kept in the horizontal plane, with as little rise as possible
anywhere along the line.
The Bornemann pumps had stiffer rotors, which prevented contact between the
rotor and the bore.
Boscan Field, Venezuela
Chevron had similar problems with Flowserve twin screw pumps in the Boscan
field, Venezuela, prior to this application. Here, too, the pumps were purchased by
the Venezuelan partner.
Kome, Miandoum, and Belobo Fields, Chad
Chad is another example where Flowserve pumps failed. The MPPs repeatedly
failed vibration limits on the Flowserve test stand. The order was cancelled, and
Leistritz pumps were purchased instead. Today, the Leistritz pumps are operating
reliably. The installations are shown in Figure600-70 and Figure600-71.
Lessons Learned
1. Purchase reliable MPPsdo not purchase pump designs that are not
recommended.
As mentioned above, the pumps at the COB facility experienced continuous
maintenance problems, averaging an extensive repair each week. To solve the
problem, all four pumps were replaced with reliable Bornemann pumps.
As mentioned earlier, the two manufacturers of twin screw pumps
recommended are Bornemann and Leistritz. As of this writing, no other
Fig. 600-70 Leistritz Pumps in Kome Field, Chad (Courtesy of Leistritz Corporation)
manufacturers are recommended. Perhaps, in the future, the other
manufacturers will improve their design and have a reliable pump to offer.
Flowserves original pump design allowed for contact between the two rotors
and between each rotor and the case. Each shaft was allowed to deflect under
the discharge pressure. This design was originally for liquid only service but, in
these applications, was being supplied for multiphase service. We have seen
some of the El Tigre shafts fatigue at the root of one of the screws, where the
screw joins the shaft. The fatigue crack eventually propagated to the point
where the working diameter of the shaft became so reduced that the shaft failed
in torque.
Flowserve has also provided extensive rework of its pumps at the Chevron
Boscan, Venezuela, location. The work was unprofessional, and the pump soon
failed. (Photos are available.) Flowserve has admitted problems with its
workmanship and has vowed to redesign its pump, fabrication methods, and
QA/QC methods. To date, no successful applications of Flowserve MPPs are
known.
2. Keep the suction line as short as possible, and avoid vertical loops.
The pumps at the COB facility were located several hundred feet from the
suction tank. The suction line looped approximately 30 feet up and down to get
over an elevated walkway. The pumps were unreliable by themselves, but the
poor routing of the suction line aggravated the situation. The new Bornemann
pumps mentioned above were installed closer to the suction tank without any
vertical loops.
Fig. 600-71 Leistritz Pumps in MiandoumField, Chad (Courtesy of Leistritz Corporation)
61310Main Pass 59 A
In 2007, a Leistritz MPP, Model 4HK-365-175, was installed on this offshore,
unmanned platform in the Gulf of Mexico. It is driven by a 1,700 HP natural gas
engine, the largest of any current installations. Its speed is approximately 1,200 rpm.
The installation is shown in Figure600-72.
The MPP was designed to meet the following process conditions:
Flowrate =150,000 bpd with 95 percent GVF;
Pressure boost of 640 psi.
The pump increased production from 18 wells by decreasing wellhead pressure
from 350 psig to 150 psig, while the pump took over boosting the pressure into the
higher pressure discharge line. Before the pumps installation, each well had to
match the wellhead pressure from adjacent wells, such that the 18 wells could flow
into a common production line. After various options were considered, the MPP
was shown to be the most economic solution to the situation. The unit went online
in September 2007. It is the only Chevron application driven by a natural gas
engine. This driver was chosen since excess gas was being produced, and the gas
was then essentially free for the application. (Refer to Figure600-72.)
Lessons Learned
1. If properly sized, natural gas engines can be used for driving MPPs.
Though natural gas engine drivers are not constant torque machines and twin
screw pumps are, these engines can effectively be used, if sized for the
maximum torque requirements of the pump.
Fig. 600-72 Leistritz MPP Installed on Main Pass 59A
2. Use free fuel when it is available.
If excess or uneconomical or hard to recover natural gas is available, such
gas should be considered for use as fuel for the MPP driver.
3. Make certain that the mechanical seals are rated for the shut-in pressure
of the well.
In the Main Pass 59A installation, it was determined after installation of the
MPP that the mechanical seals were not designed to withstand the wells shut-
in pressure. The suction piping to the well had to be modified by installing a
pressure control valve in the suction line and using it and the bypass line to
allow the shut-in pressure to be handled by the pump. (See Figure600-73.)
6140New Developments (as of 2008)
6141General
This section describes technological developments from various MPP and
mechanical seal manufacturers. Some are being researched by the manufacturer and
are not yet commercially available. Others can be purchased but have not yet
established a track record for reliability.
These new developments, before being applied, should be thoroughly investigated,
and all the information that is possible should be obtained from the manufacturer
and the users, including a user list with names, phone numbers, and Internet
addresses, such that the developments reliability can be substantiated. Finally, an
ETC expert should be involved before any of these new developments are used in
any application.
Fig. 600-73 Main Pass 59AAddition of the Suction Control Valve
6142Twin ScrewPump Developments
Downhole Twin ScrewPump
This type of twin screw pump is designed to be installed vertically in an oil well.
Thus, its diameter is small, as are its screws. The larger the diameter of the well, the
more likely this pump will be able to be used. CAN K, a company in Edmonton,
Alberta, Canada, manufactures such a twin screw pump. Chevron installed one in
2002 at the Rangely field, but the results were poor, partly because the wells
process conditions were not adequately transmitted to CAN K. CAN K has had
other failures, as well, although most of the failures were because the application
was poorly defined by the user. (Technology development stage TQP rating of
TDS6.)
CAN K has a few other downhole pumps operating elsewhere, driven by a long
shaft from a driver on the surface. The reliability of the shaft driven units is
unknown. (Technology development stage TQP rating of TDS 7.)
Flowserve and Colfax also have plans to develop a downhole pump and are looking
for a partner with whom to develop the pump. (Technology development stage TQP
rating of TDS 3.)
Bornemann and Leistritz, the two major manufacturers of twin screw pumps, are not
actively developing a downhole pump.
As of this writing, a reliable downhole twin screw pump is not available. This concept
should be avoided until its reliability has been proven by actual field applications.
Digressive ScrewPitch
Bornemann recently developed a digressive screw pitch for its twin screw pump
rotor design, and it is commercially available. A digressive screw pitch rotor is one
in which the pitch decreases as the flow moves from the inlet to the outlet.
Bornemann claims the new pitch improves the pump capacity, efficiency, and
reliability.
Since 2007, Bornemann has produced several, and it has made the digressive screw
pitch standard for its MW 8.5, MW 9.5, and MW 10.5 pumps.
The digressive screw pitch concept makes technological sense. Screw pitch
decreases towards the discharge, where the pressure increases and the volume of gas
decreases. Thus, the pump efficiency should improve. Manufacturers of helico-axial
MPPs have included this concept in their designs for years. Because of this and
because Bornemann has decided to make the digressive screw pitch standard on
several of its MPPs, the digressive screw pitch should be considered for future
Chevron applications. (Technology development stage TQP rating of TDS 9.)
Subsea Twin ScrewPumps
Subsea MPPs are usually economically attractive, because they can dramatically
increase production by overcoming the huge static pressure needed to move the well
fluid to the oceans surface. However, installing them such that they are quickly and
economically retrievable and increasing their reliability such that they will not need
to be retrieved for a number of years is a difficult task. A reputable packaging
company must be used, usually one other than the MPP manufacturer. Chevron
should consider installing subsea pumps if the economics show they could be
attractive. The Chevron TQP should be used to determine the equipments
suitability for the specific application.
There is currently only one commercial twin screw subsea pump installation,
consisting of two Bornemann pumps, installed for the British Petroleum King Field
in the Gulf of Mexico. The packaging was done by Aker Kvaerner.
British Petroleum claims the pumps increase production by 20 percent and overall
recovery by 7 percent, extending the life of the field. The pumps are on the ocean
floor under 5,500 feet of water. The pumps are driven by subsea electric motors
controlled by an ASD on a host platform. They supply 6.6 kv to the subsea pumps
15 miles away. (Technology development stage TQP rating of TDS 9.)
A Leistritz subsea twin screw pump is expected to be operational soon, off the coast
of Brazil. That pump, SBMS-500, will pump from the ocean floor (2,100 feet below
sea level) to the surface, requiring 870 psi. This pump will experience an average
GVF of 87 percent but is designed for 100 percent, with an external supply of screw
sealant. Slugs are expected, because the pump is located 1.5 km from the well.
Lubricating oil is supplied to the pump and motor from a tank located on the host
platform. This system has been extensively tested for years onshore at facilities in
Brazil. It is unique and patented. (Technology development stage TQP rating of
TDS 8.)
Finally, Flowserve initiated an effort to develop a subsea twin screw pump with
Shell and an independent contractor, SubSea 7. The relationship with SubSea 7 has
since been discontinued, and the future of the project is currently unknown.
GE-Vetco Gray is developing a new subsea twin screw pump, as well. It has been
designed to overcome many of the current subsea MPP problems. It has not yet been
field tested. (Technology development stage TQP rating of TDS 5.)
6143Helico-Axial Pump Developments
High Boost and/or Hybrid Pumps
Framo has developed a high boost pump that extends its operating parameters.
Framo has also developed a hybrid pump that extends the operating parameters
even further. The hybrid pump is a helico-axial pump followed by a section of
conventional centrifugal pump impellers. This concept is similar to the
Schlumberger ESP gas handler, in which the helico-axial portion homogenizes the
mixture, returns some of the gas into solution, and increases the fluid pressure to
reduce gas volume and bubble size before the fluid enters the conventional
centrifugal stages. (Refer to High Boost and/or Hybrid Pumps in Section6143.)
Framo claims its hybrid pump will develop a differential pressure up to 2,900 psi
with a GVF of 50 percent. (Technology development stage TQP rating of TDS 6.)
Sulzer and Aker Kvaerner are also developing a hybrid pump, similar to the
Framo pump, with the first stages being helico-axial, followed by more stages of
radial flow impellers. Their plan is to develop this pump to be installed subsea at
deeper depths than are currently available. (Technology development stage TQP
rating of TDS 6.)
Wet Gas Compressor
Framo has recently developed a wet gas compressor that can pump a 90 percent
GVF at a differential pressure of 600 psi. Framo is now testing its first unit at its
Norway test facilities. The compressor has not yet been deployed in any field
application. Therefore, applying one of these in a Chevron facility is not
recommended until the concept has proven its reliability. (Technology development
stage TQP rating of TDS 4.)
Dresser has also recently developed a wet gas compressor. However, its wet gas
compressor separates the liquid and compresses only the gas.
6144PCP Developments
Equal Wall Stator
seepex recently started to sell its PCP with an equal wall stator that has a uniform
elastomer thickness. This is different than a conventional stator, in which the stator
wall has a varying thickness. seepex claims this design delivers a higher pressure
boost, dissipates heat more efficiently, and allows the pump to handle higher GVFs.
Finally, the equal wall stator is shorter than a conventional stator, which is an
advantage, especially on an offshore platform where space is a premium.
One known installation is in the Northern UK near the Shetland Islands, for Conoco.
seepex is proud of this installation and wrote a paper entitled, The Next Generation
of Progressive Cavity MPP, Use of a Novel Design Concept for Superior
Performance and Wet Gas Compression, by Kamran Mirza of seepex.
This concept appears technologically solid, and Chevron should consider using the
equal wall stator if a PCP is being considered the most attractive MPP alternative.
(Technology development stage TQP rating of TDS 9.)
seepex is also currently developing a wet gas compressor using the equal wall
stator concept to handle 100 percent gas indefinitely. The seepex unit has not yet
been deployed. (Technology development stage TQP rating of TDS 5.)
Metal to Metal PCP
Kudo has developed a PCP with a metal rotor and a metal stator. Kudo has
approximately 40 operating PCPs but, as yet, has not sold any for multiphase
service. In 2005, Kudo Industries developed this high temperature PCP for liquid
phase only and has deployed all its pumps in downhole, single well applications.
Kudo calls its PCP the mm-PCP or PCM Vulcan.
The main advantage of this type of PCP is that it can tolerate high temperatures, up
to 570F (300C) that occasionally exist in oil wells. Conventional elastomeric
stators are limited to 300F (150C). Also, the mm-PCP can handle wide swings in
temperature that can be created from a steam flood operation.
The mm-PCP also has promise in pumping particulate. To date, wear caused from
pumping particulate has not been quantified, although the manufacturer claims this
pump should be able to handle up to 5 percent (by weight) sand.
The mm-PCP has been field tested in France and Canada. During both tests, the
pump wore with time, opening its clearances. This wear was seen by observing the
reduction of its volumetric efficiency that dropped from 70 to 90 percent, to as low
as 35 percent, although the time it took for this efficiency drop is not known. During
another test, it ran effectively for over a year without failurea period considered a
success by the pump manufacturer.
The mm-PCP has not yet been applied in multiphase service, and therefore, the
concept should be approached with caution, and this pump should not be applied in
multiphase service until the concept has proven reliability. (Technology
development stage TQP rating for multiphase of TDS 1.)
6145ESP Developments
Helico-Axial Gas Handlers
As mentioned in Section683, Schlumberger owns Framo, the manufacturer of
helico-axial pumps and Reda, who makes ESPs. As such, it has developed a helico-
axial gas handler to be installed ahead of the suction to its ESP. (Refer to
Section623 for a discussion on helico-axial pumps in general and Section662 for
specific information on Framo). The gas handler is 6.3 meters long. The
combination of gas handler and ESP is called the Poseidon ESP. With this
configuration, Schlumberger claims the ESP can pump a GVF up to 75 percent,
because it homogenizes the mixture, returns some of the gas into solution, and
increases the fluid pressure to reduce gas volume and bubble size to the inlet of the
conventional ESP. Schlumbergers first gas handler was installed in 2003, designed
to handle approximately 60 percent gas. Since 2003, users have installed 16 similar
machines.
Gas handlers are fairly common. However, this application of a gas handler is
unique. It should be considered for use only after the subject has been thoroughly
investigated, which includes contacting users to determine the pumps reliability.
(Technology development stage TQP rating of TDS 9.)
6146Mechanical Seal Developments
Diamond Faced Seals
Mechanical seals with diamond faces on the rotating and non-rotating surfaces have
been developed by J ohn Crane, Flowserve, and Burgmann. This type of seal face
material may have promise for MPPs that handle sand or other types of abrasives.
The J ohn Crane diamond face material is called J CDiamond. It uses a proprietary
diamond growth process that is a crystalline pure diamond film, consisting of ultra-
nano sized crystals on a lapped surface of the seal face. The diamond facing
material is very hard and smooth, building less heat between the faces. J ohn Crane
claims that, compared to a conventional seal face material, silicon carbide, the
J CDiamond films wear resistance is higher, its power consumption is lower, its
need for lubrication is reduced, and its operating range (temperature and pressure) is
wider.
J CDiamond is now available for use, but the material has not yet been applied
commercially. It does not yet have a track record for reliability. J ohn Crane is
looking for someone to test the material.
The Burgmann diamond faced seals are similarly grown diamond crystals on a base
material.
These seals have the potential to reduce the need for the large seal flush streams
required today, the necessity to have a constant seal flush stream, and the potential
to handle flush streams containing particulate. These seals could make a significant
impact on MPPs located in remote areas, pumping a stream containing particulate.
Diamond seal technology is new and not yet deployed. Although the concept sounds
good, a potential application should be approached with caution until it has proven
reliability. (Technology development stage TQP rating of TDS 5.)
Grease Canister Seal Flush System
Chevron developed a grease canister seal flush system, as yet unpatented, that ran
reliably for several years in a Leistritz twin screw MPP in the Humble production
field. The system used grease canister lubricators to feed a stream of grease between
the inner seal and the outer lip seal. The canister held the grease and used an
extremely small integral pump with which to pump the grease from the canister to
the seal faces, as required. So far, the seal system has been tried on only one MPP
with an operating suction pressure of 6 psig. This system also has the potential to
make a significant impact on MPPs located in remote areas, pumping a stream
containing particulate.
This seal should be tried in a future application, in which other, more proven seals
are difficult to deploy. ETC should be involved in the application. (Technology
development stage TQP rating of TDS 9.) Contact Bob Heyl at ETC:
bob.heyl@chevron.com.
6150Definitions and Acronyms
6151Definitions
Adjustable Speed Drive (ASD), also called Variable Speed Drive (VSD)An
electrical speed controller that varies the speed of an electric motor driver, thereby
controlling the flowrate of the driven pump. A Variable Speed Drive (VSD) is one
common subcategory type of an ASD.
Armor I or Armor XA proprietary material used by Centrilift to coat bearings,
usually specified if pumping a high GVF fluid, sand, or particulate.
Centrifugal PumpA pump classification in which a pump uses centrifugal force
to increase pressure at the pump discharge. Fluid flows into the eye of an impeller
and is thrown outward by its rotation. ESPs and helico-axial or rotodynamic pumps
are types of centrifugal pumps.
Conventional SystemSeparation equipment that can perform the same function
as a multiphase pump and consists of a separator, gas compressor, liquid pump,
separate sand or particulate handling system, and perhaps two discharge pipelines
(one gas and one liquid).
ChromeA material overlay, installed to withstand sand or particulate erosion.
DuktilA proprietary material used by seepex to coat the rotors in its pumps
designed for high GVF applications.
Electric Submersible Pump (ESP)A centrifugal pump or combination helico-
axial/centrifugal pump usually installed in an oil well, consisting of multiple small
diameter impellers on one shaft. The pump assembly can be very long, consisting of
an electric motor, protector, gas separator, and the pump itself. When applied
downhole in a well, the motor is submerged in liquid.
Equal Wall StatorA proprietary stator configuration by seepex that has a
uniform thickness around each screw cavity. This design differs from the
conventional stator in which the elastomeric thickness varies.
FlashingThe process in which a liquid near its boiling point quickly changes
phase to a gas, if its pressure is suddenly reduced. Note that the flashed gas occupies
several times the original liquid volume.
Gas HardeningA metallurgical coating to harden the surface of a metal in order
to withstand erosion from sand or particulate. Two types are used in multiphase
pumps, nitriding, and boride gas diffusion, or boriding.
Gas HandlerAn ESP subcomponent, usually installed between the gas separator
and the pump itself, to increase the pressure of the suction stream. The gas handler
homogenizes the mixture and re-liquefies some of the gas, lowering the GVF to the
ESP.
Gas SeparatorAn ESP subcomponent that uses centrifugal or rotary motion to
separate gas from the pumped fluid and vent it into the annulus of an oil well.
Gas Volume Fraction (GVF)Volume of gas as a percent of the total volume of
all fluids (gas and liquid) at pump suction conditions, usually expressed as a percent
of total flow.
Helico-axial (Rotodynamic) PumpA pump design having numerous impellers
and diffusers with characteristics similar to a centrifugal axial flow pump and which
is capable of pumping multiphase fluids.
Lock or Screw LocksIn a twin screw pump, the point at which the edge of the
screw meets the inside diameter of the case or case liner.
Material 5530A proprietary hard material used by Schlumberger to withstand the
erosion of sand or particulate.
Multiphase FluidA fluid composed of two or more phases (e.g., produced well
fluids containing natural gas, crude oil, water, wax, natural gas hydrates, sand, and
particulate).
Multiphase Pump (MPP)A pump that is capable of pumping at least two phases,
usually a liquid and a gas, but often includes a liquid, gas, and solids.
Productivity Index (PI)A number that describes the expected production
increase from a crude oil well if the bottom hole flowing pressure is reduced.
Progressing Cavity Pump (PCP)A positive displacement rotary pump
consisting of a single, serpentine screw that contacts a stationary liner, called a
stator. The stator is pressed into the case and usually is an elastomeric material.
Fluid is pushed along the shaft by the screw as the pressure is increased from the
pump suction to its discharge.
Protector (Seal)An ESP subcomponent that separates the pumped fluid from the
coolant in the electric motor.
Recycle, Slip, Flashing FactorA factor used to increase the calculated pump size
to allow for slip and flashing inside a twin screw pump.
RedalloyA proprietary material used by Schlumberger in pumps designed for
applications that contain an appreciable amount of CO
2
.
Rotary Positive Displacement PumpA pump classification in which a circular
rotating pump traps a fixed volume of fluid and then pushes it through the pump,
increasing its pressure along the way. Twin screw and PCPs are rotary positive
displacement pumps.
Rotodynamic (Helico-axial) PumpA pump design having numerous impellers
and diffusers with characteristics similar to a centrifugal axial flow pump and which
is capable of pumping multiphase fluids.
Screw SealantIn a twin screw pump, the fluid that is used to provide a liquid seal
between the edge of the screw and the case and between the edge of one screw and
the root of the adjacent screw.
Single Phase PumpA pump that pumps only liquid.
SlipIn a positive displacement pump, fluid that passes backward across the edge
of the screw from a high pressure area to a lower pressure area, expressed as a
percent of total flow.
Slugging (Slugs)Alternating of large pockets of liquids and gas.
Stellite 12 Weld OverlayA weld overlay used to withstand erosion from sand or
particulate.
Subsea Seabed InstallationPumps that are installed on the seabed floor.
SUMEA proprietary coating used by Sulzer to withstand erosion from sand or
particulate.
Surface InstallationPump installations located on the surface, either onshore or
on an offshore platform.
Technology Qualification Process (TQP)A Chevron process used to assess new
and existing technology, enabling risk based decisions to be made by rating the
appropriateness of a technology for a specific set of project conditions.
Tungsten CarbideA metallurgical coating used to withstand erosion caused by
sand or particulate.
Twin Screw PumpA positive displacement rotary pump, consisting of two
noncontacting screws installed side by side, in a case. One screw is driven by a
driver, while the second screw is driven by the first through a set of gears. The
screws are held apart and timed by the set of gears.
Variable Speed Drive (VSD)An electrical speed controller that varies the speed
of an electric motor driver, thereby controlling the flowrate of the driven pump. A
VSD is a particular type of Adjustable Speed Drive (ASD).
6152Acronyms
ASDAdjustable Speed Drive
BHPBrake Horse Power
ESPElectric Submersible Pump
ETCEnergy Technology Company (Chevron)
FEDFacilities Engineering Department (Chevron)
GOMBUGulf of Mexico Business Unit
GORGas Oil Ratio
GVFGas Volume Fraction
LOSFLight Oil Steam Flood
MEPSMachinery and Electrical Power Systems (Chevron)
MPPMultiphase Pump
MTBFMean Time Between Failures
NPVNet Present Value
ODOutside Diameter
P&IDPiping and Instrumentation Diagram
PCPProgressing Cavity Pump
PDPositive Displacement
PIProductivity Index
PSAPreferred Supplier Agreement
QA/QCQuality Assurance/Quality Control
RTDResistance Temperature Detector
SSStainless Steel
SSUSaybolt Seconds Universal
TDSTechnology Development Stage
TQPTechnology Qualification Process
VFDVariable Frequency Drive
VSDVariable Speed Drive
WCWater Cut
6160References
6161Company Specifications
1. PMP-DG-4662 CRN, Data Guide for API 682, Data Sheets for J ohn Crane
Mechanical Seal Selection
2. PMP-DG-4662 FS, Data Guide for API 682, Data Sheets for Flowserve
Mechanical Seal Selection
3. PMP-SC-4662, Shaft Sealing Systems for Centrifugal and Rotary Pumps
(Chevrons exception specification for API 682)
6162American PetroleumInstitute (API)
1. API RP 11S, Operation, Maintenance and Troubleshooting of Electric
Submersible Pump Installations
2. API RP 11S1, Electrical Submersible Pump Teardown Report (ANSI/API RP
11S1-1998)
3. API RP 11S2, Electric Submersible Pump Testing
4. API RP 11S3, Electric Submersible Pump Installations (formerly API RP 11R)
5. API RP 11S4, Sizing and Selection of Electric Submersible Pump Installations
6. API RP 11S7, Application and Testing of Electric Submersible Pump Seal
Chamber Section
7. API RP 11S8, Electric Submersible Pump System Vibrations
8. API 610, Centrifugal Pumps for Petroleum, Petrochemical and Natural Gas
Industries (ANSI/API Std 610-2004) (also ISO 13709)
9. API 676, Positive Displacement PumpsRotary (includes Errata dated J une
1994)
10. API 682, Shaft Sealing Systems for Centrifugal and Rotary Pumps
6163National Association of Corrosion Engineers (NACE)
NACE MR 01-75, Petroleum and Natural Gas IndustriesMaterials for Use in
H
2
S-Containing Environments in Oil and Gas Production (also number as
ISO15156)

PMP 600 CVX Pump Manual - Multiphase Pumps

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

PMP 600 CVX Pump Manual - Multiphase Pumps

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

March 2009 2009 Chevron U.S.A. Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like