rI
SPE 48934
Modeling a Jet Pump with an Electrical Submersible Pump for Production of Gassy
Petroleum Wells
P. M. Carvalho *, A. L. Podio, K. Sepehrnoori / The University of Texas at Austin. *Also with Petrobras
Copyright 1S98, Society of Petroleum Engineara, Inc.
~s paper was Wpared fw presentation at t~ 1998 SPE Annual TechnicaKon%rema and
Exhibition held in New Orleans, Louisiana, 27-30 Septembar lWS.
This p- was selected fw presentation by an SPE Prqram Committee following review &
infonnatim mlahad in ~ abstract subnsitted by the atihor(s). Ccmtents of the paper, as
prssented, have Nt been raviawed by fie Society of Petroleum Engineers and ars subjecf to
mtion by the eufhw(s). The mataria[, as presented, dws not wmssarily reflect any
pition of W Society of Petroleum Engineers, its offiare, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subjecl to Nblication reviaw by Editorial Commtitees of the Smiety of
Petroleum Engiwers. Electronic reprmfution, distribution, or stwage of any part d this p~r
for rnmmercial purpoaas without the writtan rnnsent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited, Permission to reprcduce in print is restrided to an abetract of not more than 300
words illuelrafiins may not ba mpied. The abstract must. mntain wspicuoua
acknowledgment of ~re and by whm the papar was presented W!te Libarian, SPE, PO
Sox 83383S, Ritiardson, TX 75C83-383S, US.A, fas 01 -972-952-S43S
Abstract
The objective of this work is to present the concept of the
Electrical Submersible Jet Pump (ESJP). It is a new artificial-
lifi method for application in the petroleum production
industry This proposed artificial-lifi method uses an electrical
submersible multistage centrifugal pump in combination with
a jet pump rnstalled in the well bore along the tubing string.
Such a method is proposed to allow production of high gas-
liquid-ratio petroleum wells using the existing electrical
submersible pump technology. While applicable to any
petroleum well, the driving force and main motivation for the
development of this new technology is deep offshore
petroleum production. In this work, also presented is a
numerical model developed to simulate the operation of the
system. In such a model, the system is analyzed as three
coupled subsystems: the electrical submersible pump (ESP),
the low gas-liquid-ratio (GLR) multiphase flow in the tubing
string, and finally the flow inside the jet pump (JP). Both
individual models used for the ESP performance and the
multiphase flow inside the tubing string are available in the
literature. In this paper we present the modeling of the
multiphase flow of fluids inside the liquid-jet gas pump
(LJGP), which was developed based on the simultaneous
solution of the mass, momentum, and energy conservation
equations.
Introduction
Offshore Petroleum Production
As the technology for offshore deep-water exploitation
becomes available at reasonable cost, the number of subsea
53
~m e
.,,
w
,
Society of Petroleum Engineers
completions in dee~ . and ultra-deep waters is expected to
increase significantly. One evidenc~ of this expec~ed deep-
water production increase is the large number of tracts in
water deeper than 5,000 feet that were leased in the just
completed Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)
lease lales. Figure 1 presents the evolution of the tracts
receiving bids in the last sales and clearly emphasizes the
expectations of the oil companies. Figure 2 presents some
numbers that exhibit the increasing production from deep and
ultra-deep waters in the Gulf of Mexico. Other important
evidence is the increasing activity of Petrobras. The Brazilian
Petroleum Company started the exploitation of the Campos
Basin offshore Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1979 at water depths
of 300 feet and since then has worked continuously towards
deeper waters where some important discoveries have been
made. Today high-productivity wells have been producing
steadily and successfully at water depths greater than 5,000
feet in the Marlin and Albacore fields.
The installation of a production platform in deep waters,
although sometimes technically feasible, is always much more
complicated and, consequently, more expensive fian
installation in shallower waters. So, either for technical or
economical reasons, offshore petroleum production projects
always consider the installation of the host platform in shallow
water, most of the time requiring long flowline to the deep
well. With the wells located far from the host platform, the
wellhead flowing pressures have to be maintained at a level
sufficient to overcome high frictional losses plus the hydraulic
head in order to be able to flow back to the production
platfoms. The high wellhead pressure will in turn limit a
pressure differential (or drawdown) that can be established at
the reservoir and thus limit the production rates to levels that
may be uneconomical.
Artificial Lift
A possible solution to the problem created by the
installation of the host platform far from the production wells
is the application of present artificial-lift (AL) methods. The
AL methods will supply the fluids with additional energy in
such a form that it should be possible to generate adequate
drawdown at the formation while maintaining a high wellhead
pressure that would be sufficient to transport the fluids to the
host platform, at the desired flow rate. The AL method most
2 P. M. CARVALHO, A. L.PODIO, K. SEPEHRNOORI
used for subsea offshore petroleum production is gas lifi (GL).
The purpose o~the GL method is to inject gas into the tubing
string in order to reduce the hydraulic head without increasing
the fiction losses so that the net result is an increase in the
wellhead pressure for a fixed bottomhole pressure. The
increase in the GLR obtained with the GL method is highly
beneficial for vertical multiphase flow but not for horizontal
flow. For long-distance horizontal multiphase flow, the net
result of the increase in the GLR will be detrimental since the
friction loss increases and there is no reduction in the
hydraulic head. Apart from adding no contribution and even
being detrimental, the increase in the GLR will create an
operational problem because of the instability of the slug flow
that is expected to occur. Another problem with the gas-lift
method is that it requires an annulus lift-gas line, which for
long distances will increase significantly the final cost of the
project.
Pumping AL methods are also available for subsea
application such as the ESP, the Progressing Cavity Pump
~CP) and the Jet Pump (JP). In the ESP method, a multistage
centrifugal pump, driven by a coupled electric motor, is
installed at the end of the tubing string inside the well. me
final position of the ESP set is at a certain depth below the
fluid level. An electric cable connecting the surface
transformer to the electric motor feeds electric power. The JP
is an AL method with no moving parts. A pump, consisting
mainly of a body with a nozzle, a throat, and a diffuser, is set
in a nipple inside the tubing string. Clean power fluid is
pumped down from the surface to the pump through the
tubing. This power fluid passes through the nozzle, creating a
low-pressure region connected to the pump intake so that the
well fluid is suctioned into the throat region of the JP. The
mixed flui& i.e., power fluid plus produced fluids, exits the
pump through the difiser into the casing with sufficient head
to overcome the hydraulic head plus the friction losses,
To date the majority of the pumping AL systems are being
operated at conditions where there is a minimum of tiee gas
present at the pump intake. It is common knowledge, as can
learned from Ref. 1 to Ref.6, that free gas is detrimental to
proper operation of these pumps, and consequently it is not
recommended to apply these systems without some provision
for separation of the gas before reaching the pump intake. The
main requirement for the application of AL methods to subsea
petroleum production is the necessity to operate relatively
efficiently with a multiphase gas-liquid mixture because, as
said before, it is not desired for economic reasons, to have an
extra produced-gas flowline for each well. Without the
annulus flowline, it is not possible to utilize the annular space
as a downhole separator and to vent the gas at the casinghead.
Motivation
The application of an ESP to a well that has a high free-gas
volume at the pump intake requires the installation of a gas
separator. The use of the gas separator, by itself, will force the
designer to install an expensive extra flow line to vent the
separated gas to the host platform. To avoid installation of the
vent line, and consequently save the associated cost, while
54
SPE 48934
using the ESP method, we imagined a way to re-inject the
separated gas to the fluid afier it has been pumped through the
ESP. The application of the system will increase the number
of satellite wells, which can make use of an AL method to
increase andor to maintain oil and gas flow rates, since high-
GLR wells are now candidates. It is also expected that the
application of the system should increase the profitability of
fiture exploitation projects because it will be possible to
increase the distance between the host platforms and the wells,
which can result in a reduction of the number of host
platfoms. Application of tiis new technology to deep-water
offshore exploitation is envisioned, although it can be applied
to any petroleum production well.
The Method
The basic idea is to use a JP at the ESP discharge in order
to allow the gas separated by the rotary gas separator (RGS)
and segregated to the annulus to be compressed and injected
back into to the liquid stream being pumped by the ESP to the
surface. The use of RGS will reduce the amount of free gas
that the ESP ingests and, as a consequence, increwe the
pumps performance. It is expected that the wells with larger
GLR should be considered for this method. Figure 3 shows a
schematic diagram of one potential deep-offshore system. To
re-inject the separated gas into the liquid after it has been
pumped through the ESP, a JP is installed downstream from
the ESP discharge. The power fluid to the JP is the same liquid
pumped by the ESP, which is the well production minus the
free gas. The JP intake (or produced) fluid is the gas that has
been separated upstream of the ESP intake.
As mentioned before, the JP is an AL method with no
moving parts. The pump consists mainly of a body with a
nozzle, a throat, and a diffiser and is set in a nipple inside the
tubing string. For this application the power fluid will be the
fluid that has been pumped by the ESP, which is expected to
be mainly liquid, i.e., gas-free. This fluid passes through the
nozzle, creating a low-pressure region connected to the JP
intake. The JP intake is connected to the annulus to which the
separated gas has been directed. In this arrangement, the JP-
produced fluid will be the gas that has been separated by the
RGS from the well production prior to entering the ESP. The
gas is suctioned into the throat region of the JP. The mixed
fluid, i.e., power plus produced fluids, will be the original well
fluid since it is, in reality, the well liquid that has been
pumped by the ESP plus the well gas that has been pumped by
the JP. The total well production exits the JP through the
diffiser into the tubing string with sufficient head to overcome
the hydraulic head plus the head losses.
The Model
Electrical Submersible Pump Performance Correlation
The fwst subsystem of our system is an ESP. It is a
multistage centrifugal pump specifically designed to be
installed inside the casing in petroleum wells, below the liquid
level. A coupled electric motor drives it and it has, generally, a
gas separator at its intake. As in most centrifugal pumps, the
SPE 489~ MODELING A JET PUMP WITH AN ELECTRICAL SUBMERSIBLE
performance of the ESP set is seriously affected by the
presence of free gas. Some studies have been done about the
performance of centrifugal pumps handling gassy fluids with
little application to the petroleum industry. To model the
performance of the ESP, we will use the correlation of
Sachdeva z 34 based on a dynamic model. The approximate
correlation was developed by Sachdeva to overcome the
difficulty in solving the complicated dynamic model and
correlates the pressure increase per stage, pump inlet pressure,
pump inlet void tiction, and the liquid flow rate. The
correlation results were compared with experimental data
obtained by Lea and Bearden5 and showed reasonable
agreement.
~= ~(~n)(ajn) (Q,)
Here AF is in psi per stage, Ph is the pump inlet pressure in
psig, a ~ is the pump inlet void fraction (not percent), and QL
is in gallons/rein. In this correlation the factors K, El, E2 and
E3 are functions of the type of pump. The author obtiined
these factors for three different pumps as presented in Table 1.
The void tiction is obtained from the manufacturers
published RGS efficiencies.
Multiphase Flow in the Pipes
In order to calculate the pressure gradient inside the
tubing, i.e., the graph of tubing pressure versus depth, we have
used the multiphase flow simulator Sirnult7 developed in-
house at Petrobras. The fust step was to choose a vertical
multiphase flow correlation to use. The result for this case is
presented in Figure 4 and shows a good agreement between
the correlation of Beggs-Bri118 and the correlation of
Hagedom-Browng, in the flow rate range we are to investigate.
We chose to use the Hagedom-Brown correlation because it is
one of the most-used in normal petroleum wells. With the
selected vertical multiphase flow correlation chosen, we were
able to calculate the required tubing intake pressure for each
flow rate.
JP Model
Figure 5 shows a sketch of the liquid jet gas pump (LJGP).
Lower case subscripts denote the main points in this figure.
The i indicates the inlet region, which is the region inside the
pipe prior to the nozzle. me s indicates the pump suction
region, which is the region where the gas stream enters the
device. The o and t indicate the beginning and the end of the
throat region, respectively. The m indicates the point in the
throat where we have completed the mixture between the two
entering phases, i.e., the point where we have the very first
homogeneous mixture. Finally the letter d indicates the
diffiser region. From now on, in our nomenclature, we will
adopt a two-digit index whenever necessary. The first digit is a
number and refers to the fluid, 1 to the liquid, which will be
considered incompressible, and 2 to the gas, which will be
assumed ideal. The second letter indicates the point in the
diagram as cited before. For example, VIOindicates the liquid
(index 1) velocity at the throat entrance (index o).
55
PUMP FOR PRODUCTION OF GASSY PETROLEUM WELLS 3
Under normal operational conditions, the liquid jet at a
velocity VIO enters the throat region surrounded by a gas
annulus entering at VZO.The two streams mix in the throat
region and a homogeneous mixture of gas bubbles in liquid is
then decelerated in the diffiser region. The mixing process, in
which the disintegrating liquid jet entrains, accelerates, and
compresses the gas, occurs at a location in the throat region
that can be controlled by the discharge pressure, for a given
nozzle rate Q1 and suction pressure P,. A high pd value forces
early mixing, a lower pressure moves the mixing zone
downstream.
The liquid jet leaves the nozzle and enters the throat region
at point o in Figure 5. From the observation made in the
experiments of Betzler10and Higgins]* with a Plexiglas model
of the LJGP, it was clear that the liquid jet is surrounded by a
gas anmdus with a distinct boundary between the tsvo phases
at the beginning of the throat region. Afier a certain point, the
phases start to mix intimately in the throat and, if the throat is
long enough, there will be a stream exiting from the pump as a
homogeneous bubbly mixture. In the throats mixing process,
the transfer of momentum from the liquid serves largely to
compress the gas, in contrast with the liquid-liquid (LL) jet
pump, in which significant momentum transfer is involved in
increasing the kinetic energy of the secondary liquid stream.
The pressure recovery in the LJG pump diffiser is
significantly reduced because the liquid performs most of the
work in compressing the entrained gas bubbles. The
theoretical development that follows adopts some reasonable
simplification. Application of continuity and momentum
relations (including frictional forces) produces the following
expressions:
Node Equation
},- P. = Z(+Knz)
......... ... ... ... ... ... ...... ... ....(1)
Mking-Throat Momentum Equation
1 ....(2)
D~fuser Flow Equations
Pd -< = -~@oln~+Z(l+y@o)
t .... .....(3)
[b(l++,~-~b(l
+$,~-~.,b(1++,)]
-
The solution of equation (3) requires point-to-point input
of Pt($.) values obtained from the throat equation (2). With
Pt(~O)we are able to calculate $t = P.+. /P& Substituting these
values into equation (3) and rearranging, we have
4 P. M. CARVALHO, A. L.PODIO, K. SEPEHRNOORI SPE 48934

region where the diameter is constant and the area known.

2+~toln~
[)
P~ Hence, the increase in the volumetric flow ratio causes an
Pd +Z(l+Y@o~2b2
1+& =
...(4) increase in the mixing length such that, when it is greater than
d 1
. the throat length, the model does not represent the process
anymore.
Figure 7 shows that as the volumetric flow ratio increases,
the pump efficiency increases and the compression ratio Rds
decreases for a generic case. We define a jet pump number for
the geometric plus operational conditions of the LJGP as
~(p~)=pd+C3 1+
[ ?I+goon[%)-c,o() n=2Zb2c I PO.In Figures 7 and 8, we can observe that as the
jet pump number n increases, the pump efficiency decreases
and the Rds increases. This characteristic will permit the LJG
pump designer to have higher compression ratios by
where increasing the jet pump number at the cost of a lower
eflciency.
c,= 2(1 + y$opb . .. .. . . .. .. . .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. . .. . .. ...(6) Some difference between our results and simulated data
available in the literature12, observed for high gas-liquid
volumetric flow ratio, is possibly explained by the fact that we
c,= ~ + 2(1+ y+o~b(l + $,) - Kdib(l + ~,)J(7) are not neglecting the y~Oand the loss coefficients Ks. The
differences can be observed in Figure 7, where we plotted
along with the simulated results some results from the
To solve this nonlinear equation, we use the Newton- Cunningham* work.
Raphson method with
Application of ESJP
dF(Pd) (Fd + Pooo)(p; - 2C3POOO) -.(8)
The system simulator is used in a case study for an
offshore well in the Campos Basin, Brazil. In order to
dPd = P; investigate the feasibility of this new design, a simple
application to a typical well was calculated. The data from a
The energy input is eh = Ql(pi-pd). The overall pressure
typical medium well are presented below.
drop can be obtained combining the three pressure-difference
Liquid Flow Rate 169 m3/d
equations (1) minus equation (2) ) minus equation (3). The
GLR (Solution Gas) 50 m3/m3
usefil output work is ideally the isothermal compression of
Free Gas at Pump Intake 10%(16 .9m3)
the gas horn P, to pd, which is
API 26

Wout = [1
Q2,R~ in ~
I
.. . .. . .. . . .. . .. .. . . .. . .. .. . . .. .. . . .....(9)
BS&W
Gas Density
Water Density
20%
0.75(air=l .0)
1.05
Reservoir Pressure 189.9 kgf/cm2
The pump efficiency is defined as qjp = WOut/ ein,so that Reservoir Depth 2000 m
Productivity Index Linear 1.41 m3/d / kgf/cm2

~jp=pp
~+,

i d [1
In + , ..................................(lo)

The model for the subsystem LJGP was used and the
Pump Intake Depth
Tubing Internal Diameter
Wellhead Pressure
1970 m
0.076 m
7.0 kgf/cm2
Casinghead Pressure 5.0 kgflcm2
results obtained showed good agreement with literature The results show that the utilization of the system to this
experimental datalOl113. Figure 6 shows the behavior of the typical gassy well is feasible. It can be seen in Figure 8 that
efficiency q as a function of the volumetric flow ratio $.. As this well is not capable of producing naturally, i.e., with the
$0 increases, the e~ciency and the mixing zone length also reservoir pressure we have zero psi at the surface. Therefore, it
increase. There is, however, a point of maximum efficiency. is necessary to install an AL method to supply energy to the
After this point, the measured efficiency drops sharply and the fluids to reach the surface with the desired flow rate. In the
comparison between experimental and theoretical results is case presented in Figure 9, the injection of Iifi gas at 4,500ft
very poor. It was observed that, whenever the mixing zone is results in a wellhead flowing pressure of approximately
in the throat region, the comparison of the experimental data 100psi. Since the GL is not recommended for long-distance
to the theoretical results is excellent. It is attributed to the fact horizontal flowlines, the ESP is an AL method to be
that the experimental data do not agree with the theory, afier a considered. Without the installation of the ESJP, the ESP
certain +., to the hypothesis used in the model, which is that method is not applicable to the well because of the high fiee-
the mixture between the phases is completed inside the throat gas content at the pump intake.

56
SPE 48934 MODELING A JET PUMP WITH AN ELECTRICAL SUBMERSIBLE
The Prototype test
The theoretical result motivated us to continue the
development of the ESJP. A prototype test was conducted in
tie production laboratory at The University of Texas at
Austin. In this test an ESP set (see equipment description in
Table 2) obtained from Reda Pump Incorporated. was installed
with a jet pump obtained from Trico Industries. While the ESP
equipment was a conventional one, the jet pump was a
modified liquid-liquid jet pump. The modification was made
in the liquid-liquid jet pump to allow the power fluid to enter
from the lower part of the device while the produced fluid, air
in our case, was supplied from the armulus. The throat length,
as well as nozzle, throat, and diffuser diameters were the same
used for the liquid-liquid application.
The completion of the 550-fi deep well was made in a way
that the ESP set was installed at the depth of512 ft and the jet
pump was installed at the depth of 129 fi from the surface. A
2-7/8 in fiberglass tubing string was used with a conventional
Christmas tree using a Hercules ESP wellhead adapter. The
well was equiped with some pressure sensors, installed along
the tubing string and in the annulus at different depths, in
order to monitor the pressure profile. A control and data
acquisition system was developed that records in a specific file
all operational well information durin,~ the test run. The
system was developed under Labview and uses two data-
acquisition boards installed at the lab computer. Figure 10
shows the front panel of the control/data acquisition system.
During the test all the measured variables can be read on line.
In addition, we can see the last 1,000 values in the graphs just
by moving the scroll bar backwards. Another feature of the
contro~data acquisition system is the ESP protection. The heat
transfer from the motor house to the liquid that it is pumping
performs the cooling of the ESP motor. Under such
conditions, running the ESP without liquid flow burns out the
motor after a very short time. A safety routine was
implemented in order to prevent the possibility of running the
ESP set without liquid.
Figure 11 shows a schematic diagram of the test loop and
Figure 12 shows in detail the tubing string configuration. We
have installed two pressure sensor in the annulus. One at the
ESP depth for the variable bottomhole pressure and another at
the casinghead for the variable casinghead pressure. Inside
the tubing we have installed four pressure sensors. The first
one is installed halfway betsveen the ESP discharge and the JP
intake for the variable Tubing pressure. At the JP depth we
have two pressure sensors installed, one upstream and another
downstream the jet pump device. The variable names are
JetPumpIntake and JetPumpDischarge pressures. The system
is a closed loop for the liquid and an open loop for the gas,
i.e.; the liquid is pumped back to the well after being separated
in the three- phase separator and the gas is vented to the
atmosphere. Two alternative gas compressors compress the
supplied air to the system with total capacity up to 1 million
SCF/D at 300 psig.
Within the equipment limitation, a series of tests were
performed and 38 different operational conditions were
57
PUMP FOR PRODUCTION OF GASSY PETROLEUM WELLS 5
investigated. One set of results obtained in the test is presented
in Figures 13, 14, md 15. Figures 13 and 14 show us the
pressure behavior and Figure 15 presents the gas and liquid
flow rates. Figure 16 presents a summary of the tests
performed in terms of compression ratio, i.e., the ratio of jet
pump discharge pressure over casing pressure at the jet pump
depth, versus the volumetric flow ratio $0 (Qz / Ql). The
results present very good repeatabili~ and reproducibility.
me behavior observed in the curve presented in Figure 16
is somewhat different from what was expected from the
theoretical model. Although the overall behavior is as
predicted, i.e., as the volumetric flow ratio increases the
compression ratio decreases, the experimental results present a
sharp decrease for the lower volumetric flow ratios while the
theoretical model predicts a flat behavior all along the curve.
One possible explanation for this anomaly is the fact that we
are using a liquid-liquid jet pump to perform gas compression.
The geometry of the device, possibly, is not appropriate and
results in a poor efficiency.
Summary
This study has demonstrated, theoretically and in the
prototype test, the feasibility of the new artificial-lift method
called the Electrical Submersible Jet Pump. Without a
provision of an AL method, the well used as an example is not
capable of producing through natural flow, i.e., using the
reservoir pressure. Even in a naturally flowing well, as the
reservoir pressure decreases the flow rate also decreases up to
a point when the well dies or is shut-in for economic reasons.
The installation of an ESJP should result in a constant higher
flow rate, which means larger volumes of produced oil and gas
and, consequently, higher profits. This result drives us to
continue the development of the ESJP. At this point we
believe that the ESJF is a promising technology for deep-water
offshore development.
From the initially planned three steps, we have already
finished the fwst one, which was the prototype test. The test of
a proto~e of the ESJP was conducted in the well located at
The University of Texas at Austin for various operational
conditions. The prototype was manufactured with the support
of Reda Pump Incorporated. (ESP) and Trico Industries (JP)
and was installed in the well in late December. The second
step will be the completion of the ESJP simulator. Finally the
third step, depending on the results of the first two, will be the
development of a 2D model for the JP, using the commercial
CFD package FIDAP.
Nomenclature
A. = Nozzle area
A, = Throat area
A20 = Gas annulus entrance area = At-An
b = Nozzle/throat area ratio = A,IA,
Ci = Constants for F (p*)
c = Area ratio= AZdAn= (l-b)/b
gc = Gravitational constant
K. = Nozzle friction-loss coeflcient
6 P. M. CARVALHO, A. L.PODIO, K. SEPEHRNOORI SPE 48934

L= Throat ent~#iction-Ioss coefficient

n . Jet pump number 2Zb2c / PO.
Pi = Nozzle inlet pressure
P. = Nozzle outlet pressure
QIo = Liquid volumetricjlow rate
Qti = Gm volumetricjlow rate
R= Universal gas constant ~ Table 1.- Sachdevas Correlation Coefficients.
Rio= Compression ratio P, I PO
v, = Liquid velocity
z= Jet velocity head = PI VIO212gc
Y . Density ratio p2~p1
~ . E@ciency
PI = Liquid density
40 = VoIumetricflow ratio at throat entry QZJQ,
h =. Volumetricflow ratio at throat exit Q2tlQl

References
1. Lea J. F. md Bearden, J, L.: Effect of Gaseous Fluids on
SubmersiblePumpPerformance,paper SPE 9218 presentedat
1 -----
volts
1
456 V I
the 1980 SPE Annurd Technical Conference and Exhibition, Amperes 9A
Dallas,TX, Sep.21-24. lectrical Cable 1
2. Sachdev~ ~ Doty, D.R., Schmidt,Z.: Performanceof Electrical Tv~e Round REDALERT
Submersible Pumps in Gassy Wellsr paper SPE 22767
presented at the 66th SPE Annual Technical Conferenceand v 1 4
Exhibition,Dallas,TX, Oct.6-9, 1991. Table 2. Electrical Submersible Pump Equipment Description
3. Sachdev&R. : Two Phase Flow through ElectricalSubmersible
Pumps. Ph.D. dissertation,The University of Tuls~ Tuls~
Ok 1988.
4. Sachdev~R.: UnderstandingMultiphaseDynamicsin ESP s For
Better Multiphase Pump Design, SPE Gulf Coast ESP
Workshop,April291992.
5. Turpin, J. L., Lea J. F. and Bemden, J, L.: Gas-Liquid Flow
Through Centrifugal Pumps - Correlation of Dat~ Proc., 33rd
Annual Southwestern Petroleum Short Course, Lubbock TX,
1986.
6. Welte, K. A.: Dealing with Excessive Free Gas Electrical
Submersible Pump Operations; paper presented at the 1990
SPE GuMCoast Section ESP Workshop, Houston, TX
7. Simulador de FIUXO MuItif&ico em Tubula$6es-Simult,
Comunicag~o Intema Petrobras.
8. Beggs, H. D., and Brill, J. P.: A Study of Two-Phase Flow in
Inclined Pipes) Journal of Petroleum Technology, May 1973,
pp 607-617.
9. Hagedom, A. R., and Brown, K. E.: Experimental Study of
Pressure Gradients Occurring during Continuous Two-Phase
Flow in Small-Diameter Vertical Conduits, Journal of
Petroleum Technology, April 1965, pp 475-484.
10. Betzler, R L., The Liquid-Gas Jet Pump Analysis and
ExperimentedResults, MS thesis, The Pennsylvania State
University,1969.
11.Higgins,H. W.,: Water Jet Air Pump Theory and Performance,
MS thesis, The Pennsylvania State University, 1964.
12. Cunningham, R. G., and Dopkin, R. J.: Gas Compression With
the Liquid Jet Pump, Journal Of F1uids Engineering, Trans
ASME, Series I, Vol. 94; No. 3, Sept. 1974, pp203-215.
13. Dopkin, R. J.: The Liquid-Jet Gas Pump: A Study of Jet Breakup
and Required Throat Length, MS thesis, The Pennsylvania
State University, Aug. 1973.
14. LabView V 4.5 -Control and Data Acquisition Software from
Nationrd Instruments, Austin, TX

58
SPE 489ti MODELING A JET PUMP WITH AN ELECTRICAL SUBMERSIBLE PUMP FOR PRODUCTION OF GASSY PETROLEUM WELLS 7

Tracts Receiving Bids

700
Royalty Relief Program in Effect
600

500

400

300

200

100

0
1994,Saie 150 1995, Sale 155 i996, Sale 161 1997, Sale 168

Water De~ths
<200m 200-400m 400-800m >800m ~

Figure I-Evolution of Ultradeep-Water Leasing

A Increase

100

Oil Gas BOE

80

+
60

40

20

-20
85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89 89-90 90-91 91-92 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 Ave.
(1995)

Figure 2-Percent Increase in Production from GOM Deep-Waters

59
% P.M. CARVALHO, A. L.PODIO, K. SEPEHRNOORI
SPE 489M

,.
.-,
:
.-.
.
Veil Head
1

F
-------
------- -.
Jet -p

Tg

nAM.

mwon
.-..
Figure 3-Schematic Diagr~ for Deep-Water Application of the ESJP.

3000
250CI

2000
=
s 1500
z
1000

500 .

0
o 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000
Liq. Flow Rate (B~)

Figure 4-Multiphme Flow Correlations Results

60
SPE 48934 MODELING A JET PUMP WITH AN ELECTRICAL SUBMERSIBLE PUMP FOR PRODUCTION OF GASSY PETROLEUM WELLS 9

Secondary Gas
Flow, m2
Mixing Zone
J
B bblymitiure
m Yozze Yixingnroa If Diffustir

Primaty
Liquid ~
Flowl ml

Figure 5-The Jet Pump Model

..-

70
Carvalho
60
x fip.Dopkin
50

g 40
x
x
20
x
x
10
I / x
o
0 0.5 1 i .5 2 2.5 3

$o(Q2/Ql)

Figure 6-Theoretical and Experimental Results for LJGP

61
10 P.M.CARVALHO, A. L.PODIO, K. SEPEliRNOORl SPE 4893

60-
. . . .~zo
50-
n=3.11
40 o EXI),(3.11)
i
* 30
Rds(n=20)
20-
~..
10-
I ~.
04 , m 1 ,
0 0,5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
#&QzlQ,)

Figure 7 Compression Ratio versus Volumetric Flow Ratio

60
.n=20
50 -

40 -

:30

20

10

0[
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
#o(Qz~Q,)

Figure 8-LJGP Efficiency Versus Jet Pump Number.

Press ur4(psia)

o 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600

O* 1
10DO! ~

2000 .
c
s 3000 .
z
: 4000 .
Q
5000.
6000 . . ~>
-T
7000 .

+ Natural Flow + Gzs Lift

Figure 9-Marlin Well Tubing Pressure With and Without Gas Lifi

62
SPE 48934 MODELING A JET PUMP WITH AN ELECTRICAL SUBMERSIBLE PUMP FOR PRODUCTION OF GASSY PETROLEUM WELLS 11

CH 200
Sep
150
WH
JPD 100
JPI 50
TB
0
BH o 20 40 60 80 1001+0 Ii
Figure 10-Contro~ ta Acquisition System F anel
. .............

VultLine
::
.. . . .

Figure 1l-Test Loop Schematic Diagram

63
 P. M.CARVALHO, A. L.PODIO, K. SEPEHRNOORI SPE 48934

] Air

Figure 12-Test-Well Tubing String Configuration

n WellHead o CasingHead ~JetPumpDischarge

Ho
70
~60-
g50- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
g 40
f30- ~n ~B ~ ~ ~
&20
10-
o 1
11600 11800 12000 12200 12400 12600 12800 13000 13200 13400
Time[sec)

-.. . -. - -..
Plgure 13-lestKesults: Fressure Behavior

64
SPE 48934 MODELING A JET PUMP WITH AN ELECTRICAL SUBMERSIBLE PUMP FOR PRODUCTION OF GASSY PETROLEUM WELLS 13

eJetPumpDischarge JetPumpIntake A BottomHole Liq~Lev[ft)

350
300
~ 250
Q.
~ 200
150
i
& 100
50
0
11600 11800 12000 12200 12400 12600 12800 13000 13200 13400
Time(sec)

Figure 14-Tests Results: Pressure Behavior

o Gasln GasOut A Liquid

1500 79
78
77
1000 76
75 3
~
$
74 m
500
73
72
0 71
11600 11800 12000 12200 12400 12600 12800 13000 13200 13400
Time(sec)

Figure 15-Tests Results: Flow Rates Behavior

5
Simulated Data
4

G
53 :

82 I
**& * -w A. .
1- ~ ~ ~- m -

0 , a 1
0 1 2 3 4 5 6

#o(Qzl QI)

Figure 16-Compression Ratio vs. Volumetric Flow Ratio: Summq of Al! 38 .Tests.

65