IPTC-18167-MS

The Importance of Critical Flow Considerations in Understanding Jet Pump

Performance: The Mangala Field
S. Verma, S. P. Ojha, M. Jha (Tullow Oil Plc.), and A. K. Singh, Cairn India Ltd; P. Kefford and S. Kumar,
Integrated Production Technologies Limited; R. Tandon, P. Kumar, D. Prasad (Wintershall Holding GmbH),
and M.K. Singh, Cairn India Ltd.

Copyright 2014, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 10 12 December 2014.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s).
Contents of the paper, as presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s).
The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers
presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted
to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper
was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 1-972-952-9435

Abstract
The Mangala field, located in Rajasthan, India, is characterized by multi-Darcy sandstones, containing
waxy and viscous crude oil from which most of the production is being lifted using jet pumps. This is one
of the largest applications of hot water jet pumping in the world. The earlier works presented on jet
pumping by the operator highlight pump screening, design, monitoring, and operational challenges
(Chavan et al-2012 and Singh et al-2013).During the jet pump design work over the years, it was observed
that the field results were not matching with the design particularly for wells with relatively high free gas
at the pump intake. It was realized that the physics of multiphase flow in critical flow conditions was not
captured fully. This paper highlights the new approach taken to model jet pumps based on the theory
presented by R.G. Cunningham (ASME, JFE 1995) which explicitly captures the effect of free gas
entering the pump and the onset of critical flow. The approach taken to analyze the well and jet pump
performance firstly involved evaluating each part of the well independently (sand face to pump suction,
flow through the jet pump, and flow from the jet pump to surface). The availability of downhole gauges
in a number of the Mangala wells allowed each component of the well performance to be analyzed and
validated in isolation. A final complete mathematical model of the entire well was then developed to allow
predictions of the hydraulic performance of the jet pumps to be made. This paper presents the above
methodology and validation of results through field trials in the Mangala wells.

Introduction
Jet pumps are widely used as a form of artificial lift due to numerous advantages like the absence of
reciprocating parts which allows tolerance of power and a viscous production fluid can be produced.
Another advantage is the compactness of working section and ability to attain variation in liquid rates with
minimal variation in jet pump design. Disadvantages include the cost of infrastructure associated with
requirement of high pressure power fluid which needs to be pumped downhole and increase in the liquid
handling capacity required at plant level.
2 IPTC-18167-MS

In the Mangala field where even the downhole

flow assurance of the produced crude is a challenge
due to the high wax content, jet pumps provide
down-hole flow assurance by utilizing hot water as
power fluid. They are also very convenient to install
and retrieve with no workover cost required. These
features and others as mentioned by Chavan et al.
(2012) led to the field-wise use of jet pumps in
Mangala.
Figure 1Jet Pump Working Principle
Jet Pump Working Principal
The jet pumps operate on the venturi principal (Fig.
1).
Bernoullis Theorem: An increase in the speed of moving fluid past the nozzle is accompanied by
decrease in pressure of the fluid.
Momentum Transfer: The total momentum of an isolated system remains conserved; the momen-
tum lost by one fluid is gained by other.
The basic components of the jet pump are nozzle, throat and diffuser (Fig. 2). The jet pump is a
hydrodynamic rather than by hydrostatic type of pump and operates principally through momentum
transfer between two adjacent fluid streams. High pressure power fluid passing through the nozzle has its
potential energy (pressure energy) converted to the kinetic energy in a jet of fluid at high velocity. Well
fluid mixes with the power fluid in the constant area throat or mixing tube and momentum is transferred
to the well fluid, causing an energy rise in it. As the mixed fluids exit the throat, they are still at a high
velocity, thus containing substantial kinetic energy. The fluids are slowed in an expanding area diffuser
that converts the remaining kinetic energy to static pressure sufficient to lift fluid to the surface.

Problem Statement
The daily production from jet pumps exceeds 300,000 BLPD. The day to day analysis on the wells
suggested that lowering the tubing head pressure (THP) by opening the choke in the wells did not always
result in a gain in the liquid rate. The reason for this was not understood fundamentally. A deeper look
into the problem showed that there was no problem with the jet pump in place or the production system.
This forced the team to investigate why they were not seeing the predicted gain in rate by lowering the
tubing head pressure. The modeling exercise undertaken to simulate the effect always suggested that there
should be an increase in liquid rate by decreasing the wellhead pressure but the field observations did not
reproduce this behaviour.

Limitation of Earlier Jet Pump Modeling Approach

The limitation of the earlier jet pump modeling approach was that the critical flow behavior in the pumps
was not being considered and there was no way to differentiate between critical and sub-critical flow. The
critical behavior of flow in the jet pump is similar to that within a choke. The flow in a jet pump will be
critical when the fluid velocity reaches that of sound at the nozzle-throat annulus. When this situation
arises, the suction pressure becomes independent of the discharge pressure. In other words, reduction in
discharge pressure brought about by manipulation of choke to lower the tubing head pressure do not result
in a corresponding change in suction pressure and hence there is no increase in production fluid rates.
The critical flow behavior depends on the speed of sound in the fluid. This, in turn depends on the
amount of gas present in the fluid. The presence of gas dramatically reduces the speed of sound in the
fluid. The speed of sound in a gas-liquid mixture is less than that in either the gas or the liquid being
IPTC-18167-MS 3

Figure 2Basic Components of a jet pump

Figure 3Change in speed of sound with change in volume ratio of air. (Courtesy: Sound Speed in the Fluid-Gas Mixture (2009):- HIMR, D.,
HABAN, V., and Pochly, F.)

considered. Fig. 3 shows a plot of speed of sound vs. gas volume fraction for air-water mixtures which
shows that the minimum speed of sound occurs at gas volume fractions between 40 and 60%.
A field example of the problem of critical flow can be seen in Well-X. Well-X is one of the crestal
wells in Mangala which have slightly higher GOR than others. Due to the presence of additional gas in
the well fluid, the jet pump was operating in critical flow. A trial was undertaken to validate the behaviour
of the well in critical flow. The well was beaned up to see the change brought about in the liquid flow
rate. Based on the concept of critical flow, it was expected that there would be no change in the flow rate
with increasing bean size. A summary of the experimental results and predictions made by the model is
shown in Fig. 4. This plot compares the measured and calculated liquid rates for the given well head
pressures. The measured data show the liquid rate initially increasing with reducing well head pressure (P1
to P3) then as the well head pressure is reduced further (P4 to P6) the measured liquid rate does not
continue to increase thereby indicating the onset of critical flow. The calculated liquid rates however do
continue to increase between P4 and P6.
It was seen that there was no change in flow rate for critical flow behavior. This was in accordance with
the theory of critical flow when a change in the discharge pressure would not bring about any change in
the pump suction pressure and therefore there would be no change in liquid rate. On the other hand, the
calculations showed continuous increase in well liquid rate with decreasing wellhead pressure. As well as
the overall trend in rate with changing well head pressure there is also a poor match in absolute rate terms
in both critical and subcritical flow conditions. Thus, the results obtained were not valid. This was a
4 IPTC-18167-MS

Figure 4 Actual results vs. Model predictions with conventional modeling approach

serious challenge for production optimization since the incorrect approach would lead to incorrect
drawdown estimates and would ultimately result in wrong choice of jet pump size which could be
unsuitable for the well.

Calculation Method using Cunningham

The incorrect predictions made it clear that it was necessary to understand the physics of critical flow
behavior. This was found in the method suggested by R. G. Cunningham (1995). A detailed step by step
process for calculation with this method is given in Appendix A.
The key advantage of the suggested process was to be able to predict the point of transition from
sub-critical flow behaviour to critical. Prediction of the onset of critical flow is determined using the Mach
number which is a parameter to compare the speed of the fluid in the jet pump at the nozzle-throat annulus
to the speed of sound in the fluid. A Mach number of one would indicate critical flow. Another advantage
of the Cunningham approach is that it also takes into account the amount of free gas explicitly in its
calculations, this will improve model predictions for both critical and sub-critical flow conditions.
For formulating a suitable modeling approach, it was considered possible to model the fluid properties
and the physics of the flow in the wellbore using available commercial software. Thus the existing
resources could be used for the flow calculations from reservoir to jet pump and from jet pump to surface.
The calculation in between these two segments was done separately to capture the physics of critical flow
and multi-phase flow in jet pumps. Keeping this in mind, the calculation from bottom hole to wellhead
was split into three parts as shown in Fig. 5. The calculation for each part of the system was performed
in the following way:
Production below Pump: This model extends from the reservoir to immediately below the jet
pump. This allows us to calculate the pump suction pressure from the reservoir pressure and
productivity index.
Injection above Pump: Reverse Flow Jet Pumps are being used in Mangala where power fluid is
injected in the annulus which then enters the tubing and jet pump through a Sliding Side Door
(SSD). In this model the well is assumed to be an injector such that water is injected down the
annulus between the tubing and casing. Calculation of the pressure and power fluid flow rate from
the wellhead to the SSD depth is done with the model for injection above pump.
Production above Pump: This model extends from the discharge of the jet pump to surface and is
used to determine the required pump discharge pressure for a given reservoir liquid rate, power
fluid rate and well head pressure.
IPTC-18167-MS 5

A solution to the combined system was obtained

via the following procedure:
1. The Production below Pump model is used
to create curve of pump suction pressure vs.
rate.
2. For each point on suction pressure vs. rate
curve, the power fluid rate and pump dis-
charge pressure are calculated using the In-
jection above Pump model and the Cun-
ningham Jet Pump calculation.
3. The Production above Pump model is used
to create a VLP curve based on reservoir Figure 5Parts of Jet Pump calculation using Cunningham method
fluid rate plus power fluid rate calculated in
step (2).
4. The intersection between Inflow Pump Discharge curve and Outflow Pump Discharge curve
represents solution point Fig. 6 shows a graphical representation of the solution process.

Validation of New Approach with Well Data

A successful validation of the above approach with field data was undertaken in selected wells. Well-B
is an example of the successful validation of the method. The well is equipped with a permanent
down-hole gauge. Therefore suction pressure, discharge pressure and well flow rates were measured at the
same time while changing the tubing head pressure. As the tubing head pressure was reduced in steps of
100 psi, initially the well was subcritical with changes seen in pump suction pressure. A similar response
was predicted with the new modeling approach showing that the well was subcritical with the well fluid
speed being subsonic as indicated by a Mach number less than unity. At the last step, when the lowest THP
was achieved, it was seen that the suction pressure and liquid flow rate were nearly constant. The
modeling approach confirmed the onset of critical flow at this point with a Mach number of one. The
model prediction for the suction pressure was within limits of accuracy for the subcritical and critical flow.
Therefore the model was able to predict with sufficient accuracy the point at which the flow behavior
would transition from critical to subcritical and vice-versa. The summary of this experiment is shown in
Fig. 7. Subsequently the same procedure was performed on wells with no permanent downhole gauge in
place. The suction and discharge pressures were recorded using a temporary gauge and similar results
were seen. The Cunningham model could predict results close to measured values for both critical and
subcritical conditions of flow.

Application of Approach on a Field level

After the encouraging results from the validation of the modeling approach, the same methodology was
applied to more than 100 wells in Mangala which use Jet Pumps as artificial lift. For data monitoring and
confirmation of model predictions, a gauge was attached to the pump suction for measurement of suction
pressure. The liquid flow rate and power fluid flow rate were measured using multiphase flow meters
(MPFM) and orifice meters respectively which are part of the existing surface setup. These measurements
from different wells have increased the confidence on the predictions made by this methodology. A
summary of the comparison of field measurements and model predictions for the cases of critical and
sub-critical flow is shown in Fig. 8 and 9. The detailed table for the same is provided in Appendix B.
It is clearly visible that there is agreement between field data and predictions. The percentage
difference between measured and predicted values for both suction pressure and liquid rates is generally
6 IPTC-18167-MS

Figure 6 Jet Pump Calculation Procedure

Figure 7Validation of New Approach with field data

IPTC-18167-MS 7

Figure 8 Comparison of field measurements and model predictions for pump suction pressure.

Figure 9 Comparison of field measurements and model predictions for liquid rate.
8 IPTC-18167-MS

less than 5%. Larger differences, if observed are believed to be due to inaccuracy in the liquid and gas
rate measurements.

Conclusion
From the analysis mentioned above, it can be concluded that the Cunningham model provides a
significantly improved methodology for capturing the jet pump physics for both critical and subcritical
conditions in the well. The application of this approach for Jet Pump modeling in Mangala is one of the
first undertaken in the industry. The approach provided a great impetus to the production optimization
efforts in Mangala. Other key benefits of the improved approach are as follows:
Reliable estimates of well rates, flowing bottom hole pressures and well productivity.
Improved selection of Jet Pump size as per the drawdown requirements and liquid rate desired
from the well.
Ability to optimize the amount of power fluid required per unit liquid rate produced from well.
This has been helpful in reducing the power fluid requirement on a field level by selection of the
Jet Pump size which is most economical in terms of power fluid requirement. This reduces the
liquid handling capacity requirement of the processing plant.

Nomenclature
Pi Power Fluid Inlet Pressure
Po Throat Inlet Pressure
Ps Jet Pump Suction Pressure
Pt Throat Exit Pressure
Pd Diffuser Discharge Pressure
Kn Nozzle Loss Coefficient
Ken Suction Loss Coefficient
Kth Throat Loss Coefficient
Kdi Diffuser Loss Coefficient
Z Jet Dynamic Pressure
S Suction Liquid Density/Power Fluid Density
M Suction Liquid Flow Rate/Power Fluid Flow Rate
Gas Flow rate/Power Fluid Flow Rate
suction Gas Density/Power Fluid density
b Nozzle Area/Throat Area
c (1-b)/b
Ma Mach number
BOPD Barrels of Oil per Day
BLPD Barrels of Liquid per Day
GOR Gas Oil Ratio
MPFM Multi Phase Flow Meter
OWC Oil Water Contact
PDG Permanent Downhole Gauge
PF Power Fluid
THP Tubing Head Pressure
VLP Vertical Lift Performance
IPTC-18167-MS 9

References
1. Liquid Jet Pumps for Two-Phase Flows by R.G. Cunningham, Journal of Fluids Engineering,
1995
2. Selection and Successful Application of Jet Pumps in Mangala Oil Field: A Case Study, SPE
163116-MS by Chavan C., Jha M., Singh M.K., and Singh R. Presented at the SPE Artificial Lift
Conference and Exhibition, Bahrain, 27-28 November 2012
3. Large Scale Jet Pump Performance Optimization in a Viscous Oil Field. SPE-166077, by Singh
M.K, Prasad D., Singh A.K., Jha M. and Tandon R. Presented at SPE Annual Technical
Conference and Exhibition at New Orleans, USA, 30 September2 October 2013.
4. Research on Jet Pumps for Single and Multiphase Pumping of Crudes. SPE 16923, by J.C.
Corteville et alet al 1987.
5. Jet Pumping Oil Wells, by Petrie H.L., Wilson P.M. and Smart E.E., World Oil, p. 51 (Nov. 1983)
6. Hydraulic Jet Pumps prove Ideally Suited for Remote Canadian Oil field, SPE Paper No. 94263
by J Anderson et alet al, 2005
7. The technology of artificial lift methods, Kermit E. Brown et alet al.
8. Fundamentals of Oilwell Jet Pumping by A.W. Grupping, J.L.R. Coppes and J.G. Groot, SPE
Production Engineering, February 1988
9. Sound Speed in the Fluid-Gas Mixture by HIMR, D., HABAN, V., and Pochly, F., (2009). 3rd
IAHR International meeting of the Workshop on Cavitation and Dynamic Problems in Hydraulic
Machinery and Systems, Brno, Czech Republic, 14-16 October.
10 IPTC-18167-MS

Appendix A
Workflow employed for Jet Pump Calculation

The calculation method is based on the theory given by R. G. Cunningham (1995). The key steps are outlined below:
1. The nozzle and throat entry equations are solved to find power fluid rate and throat entry pressure.

2. The mixing throat momentum equation is solved to determine throat exit pressure.

3. The diffuser equation is solved to determine diffuser exit pressure.

4. The Mach number is calculated. It is a parameter to determine whether the flow is critical. The flow is critical for
a Mach number of unity. It accounts for the reduced velocity of sound in multiphase flow.

5. Critical rate is determined by finding the value of Mach number so that:

IPTC-18167-MS 11

Appendix B
Data from different wells for model validation in different conditions of Water-Cut, Gas-Oil Ratio and
Pump Performance.

Suction Pressure Liquid Rate

Date Well Pump Status WC GOR Measured Predicted Measured Predicted

- - - (%) (scf/stb) (psig) (psig) (BLPD) (BLPD)

Sep-14 A Subcritical 86 400 808 767 3000 3050
Dec-13 B Subcritical 63 180 477 485 1970 1875
Sep-13 C Critical 72 300 804 839 3300 3174
Apr-14 D Subcritical 68 446 930 968 7742 7874
Feb-14 E Subcritical 69 190 1110 1087 2150 2172
Dec-13 F Subcritical 67 260 1129 1073 3074 2934
Nov-13 G Subcritical 35 342 1129 1101 2937 3175
Feb-14 H Subcritical 35 245 1109 1060 2700 2847
Feb-14 I Subcritical 76 243 1219 1177 3600 3688
Apr-14 J Subcritical 82 443 1115 1073 4300 4192
Jun-14 K Critical 54 600 1037 1015 2234 2178
Sep-14 L Critical 92 467 1120 1149 5000 5310
Sep-14 M Subcritical 0 300 614 593 800 780