C-FER

Technologies
Advancing
Engineering
Frontiers

Production Operations
C-FER Printed September 2015
Technologies
Corporate Profile
For over 30 years, C-FER Technologies has created innovative technologies and developed
new solutions for oil and gas, pipeline and other industries that have reduced costs,
increased revenues, extended the life of systems and ensured regulatory compliance.
C-FER offers state-of-the-art expertise in the following areas: Real World Solutions
• Project Management • Production Engineering One of the keys
• Experimental Design • Limit States Design to successfully
• Investigative Engineering • Software Development bringing new
• Computer Modeling • Solid Mechanics technologies to
• Prototype Design and Manufacture • Field Services market lies in the
• Full-Scale/Structural Testing • Risk and Reliability Engineering ability to perform
tests at full scale,
C-FER holds patents and intellectual property rights to numerous energy simulated within
industry products and processes including revolutionary Downhole Oil/ a controlled
Water Separation technology, PC-PUMP® software, CalTranTM software, environment.
PIRAMID™ software and more.
C-FER’s world class laboratory services offer a
The C-FER Advantage powerful combination of testing and analysis
When there is a lot at risk, operators and suppliers alike rely on C-FER’s third tools designed to accommodate a vast range
party, independent verification methodology. Whether you are pushing of applied research to meet energy industry
the boundaries of technology, optimizing design, or quantifying reliability, requirements. C-FER has the know-how to
C-FER’s expertise and one-of-a-kind facility can meet your performance make solutions work in the real world.
qualification requirements.
For more information on our
For energy producers who use technology for strategic advantage, C-FER’s products and services visit
innovation expertise is a powerful resource for improving profitability
and safety. Our know-how extends beyond applied research to include www.cfertech.com
collaboration with manufacturers and service companies to ensure the
viable commercialization of new energy industry products and services.

C-FER
Technologies
Production Operations
...finding innovative solutions to production engineering problems.
Artificial Lift Assessment & Testing
• Progressing Cavity Pumps 0.07

Mode
9.4
Median
11.7
f(t) data
Weibull Distribution

• Electric Submersible Pumps

0.06
Mean
14.4

0.05

0.04

• Hydraulic Jet Pumps

f(t)

60
0.03 y = -0.0361x + 10.348
R 2 = 0.0029

50 0.02

• Gas Lifts
0.01

40
T em p eratu r e Rise ( C)

0
o

1.5 4.5 7.5 10.5 13.5 16.5 19.5 22.5 25.5 28.5 31.5 34.5
Te mpe rature Rise, t (degC)

• Gear Pumps
30

20

• Dewatering Systems 10

0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Ambient Temperature (oC)

Downhole Processing Technology

• Oil/Water Separation (DHOWS)
• Gas/Liquid Separation

Production Operations Analysis

• Thermal Enhanced Oil Recovery (CSS & SAGD)
• Cold Heavy Oil Production (CHOPS)
• Offshore and Subsea
• Mature Fields

C-FER www.cfertech.com
Technologies
Production Operations
Engineering Consulting
• Production Enhancement Studies
– Analysis of Field Data
– Technical and Economic Assessment of Novel and Alternative Practices
– Analysis of Thermal Recovery Alternatives
• Risk & Reliability Assessments
– Quantitative Risk Analysis (QRA) related to Production Operations,
Completions and Workovers
• Technical Training
– Gas Well Deliquification Options
– Downhole Oil/Water Separation
– Cold Heavy Oil Production Operations

Applied Research & Development

• Surface & Downhole Tool Development
– Concept Development
– Prototype Design
– Performance Verification

Full–Scale Testing
• Artificial Lift System Performance
– High/Low Temperature
– Multiphase
– Heavy Oil
• Deliquification System Performance
– Novel Systems
– Controlled Gas Liquid Ratios (GLR),
Pressures
• Production Equipment
– Tubing Wear/Coatings
– Sucker Rod Performance
– CT Testing
• Hostile Environments
– Sour/Explosive Gases
– High/Low Temperature

C-FER www.cfertech.com
Technologies
 Cyclic Steam Well Pad Flow Assurance

Heavy Oil
The future of oil production is heavy. The World’s heavy oil resources are unparalleled in
magnitude but they present unique challenges to ensure recovery is done in an environmentally
and economically efficient manner. C-FER is ideally positioned and experienced in the
following recovery methods to assist operators and equipment manufacturers in tackling these
challenges:
Thermal Recovery
Thermal extraction of heavy oil, using techniques such as cyclic steam, SAGD
and air injection require special approaches for the well casing and
artificial lift systems. Issues that have been investigated by C-FER include:
• Low intake-pressure pumping in SAGD wells
• Technical and life-cycle economic assessment of normal wellbore and
completion concepts
• Casing connection evaluation and qualification for thermal wells Managing Produced Sand
• Design and structural modeling of casing, slotted liners and various forms Managing Produced Sand
of sand screens
• Beam pump optimization in horizontal wells
• Steam injection and production inflow control in SAGD wells
• Drilling and completion best practices

Cold Production
Cold Heavy Oil Production with Sand (CHOPS) is a process developed in
Canada where sand production is encouraged to increase inflow in non-
thermal heavy oil operations. Issues that have been investigated by
C-FER include: SAGD Pump Testing System
• Technical and economic feasibility of CHOPS in other areas around the world
SAGD Pump Testing System
• Progressing cavity pumping system selection, optimization and run-life tracking
• Elastomer compatibility testing
• Gathering line operation with complex water-assisted flow regimes
• Handling and disposal of sand

www.cfertech.com
 (PH,TH)
Heat Transfer
(PT,TT)

SAGD Dual-String Injection Well

(PH,TH)
Heat Transfer
(PT,TT)

SAGD Dual-String Production Well

Thermal Well Design

Bitumen recovery operations using thermal methods such as SAGD, CSS or steam drive often require complex well designs that
must resist extreme loading conditions on the well casing and liners yet provide efficient means to inject and distribute steam
through long horizontal sections. C-FER has developed an advanced thermal well design approach that addresses all of these
structural and thermo-hydraulic issues.

Structural Design Considerations

Since the casing and liner loads in a thermal well may exceed the yield strength of the pipe material, conventional tubular
design approaches are inadequate. Consequently, a strain-based design approach has been developed which considers the
following factors:
• Loads in excess of yield strength
• Cyclic loading due to rotating pipe during installation in deviated wells
• Cyclic loading due to thermal cycles
5600
• Strain localization due to complex liner and Short String (ST)
Long String (LT)
connection geometries 5400

• Pressure and structural integrity of connections 35% flow down LT

• Material degradation due to stress-corrosion synergies 5200

Heat
transfer from inner

Thermo–Hydraulic Design 5000

Pressure
LT to outer ST

Considerations (kPa,abs)
4800

The design process for selecting appropriate injection and 65% flow down ST

production string sizes and configurations (i.e., parallel vs 4600

concentric strings) must consider how these choices affect

4400
the following for both the circulation and production phases
of the wells: 4200
0 ------
200 -------
400 --------
600 --------
800 --------
1000 --------
1200
• Steam quality reaching the sand face Measured Depth (mKB)

• Steam injection distribution along the horizontal section

• Inflow distribution and flow induced pressure losses in
the wellbore and tubulars

www.cfertech.com
LP–SAGD: Lab Testing of
Artificial Lift Systems JIP
In large regions of the Athabasca oil sands, where SAGD
recovery techniques are currently being used or considered,
the presence of a depleted or naturally low–pressured
formation directly above the reservoir makes it necessary to
operate the producing wells at relatively low pressures.
It is still uncertain if current artificial
lift systems can operate efficiently and reliably at these low pressures, especially
at low degrees of sub-cooling (i.e. close to steam saturation conditions). It is the
objective of this JIP to test a number of downhole and surface–driven pumping
systems at low intake pressures and low degrees of sub–cooling in a laboratory
environment to prioritize and select candidates for further field trials. Anticipated
downhole operating conditions will be replicated to the extent possible by installing
the pumping systems in a section of 244.5 mm (9 5/8”) casing at approximately 87°
inclination (close to horizontal).

For each pumping system, a baseline performance curve will be established, and then additional performance curves will be
determined for different temperatures and degrees of sub-cooling. The main goal of this study is to determine the minimum
intake pressure (or degree of sub-cooling) at which each downhole or surface–driven pumping system can operate without
suffering significant deterioration in performance, over a range of operating temperatures. The experimental flow loop consists
of a 244.5 mm, 60 kg/m (9 5/8”, 40 lb/ft) casing with 88.9 mm (3.5”) tubing that has the following capabilities:
Physical Setup
• Accommodates downhole and surface–driven pump systems up to Project Status
24.4 m (80 ft) in length, up to 12 m (40 ft) per section; Pump testing for the JIP began in June 2004. Five
• Allows for downhole gas (steam and air) separation at the pump systems have been tested to date. The flow loop
intake with a simulated submergence of approximately 2 m (6.6 ft); is now available for other pump or downhole
• Fully instrumented to allow real time pressure, temperature, flow equipment tests.
measurements and pump torque and speed.
• Fully automated to allow for continuous 24 hour long–term Participants
reliability testing
• The flow loop can be operated as either an open–loop or a • ChevronTexaco • NAOSC (Statoil)
modified–closed loop (i.e. inert atmosphere) system, meaning • ConocoPhillips • Paramount Resources
that a large range of field representative test fluids can be tested. • Devon Canada • Petro-Canada
Pressure and Temperature Limits • EnCana Oil and Gas • Suncor Energy
• Pump intake pressure from 0.1 MPag to 5.515 MPag (15-800 psig); • Esso-Imperial Oil • Total E&P Canada
• Pump discharge pressure to 12.410 MPag (1800 psig); • Husky Energy • Petrobras
• Pump intake temperature from 60°C to 260°C (140-500°F). • Innovation & Science (AERI)
Volumetric Capability • Nexen
• Liquid flow rate up to 1500 m3/d (9400 bpd)
– Water, oil or oil/water mixture
• Air injection up to 120 std-m3/h (70 scfm) at 4.137 MPag (600 psig)
at the downhole pump intake..

www.cfertech.com
SAGD Downhole Flow Control JIP
(SAGD Steam Injection Control JIP)
Operational experience in vertical and deviated thermal wellbores has shown that proper control of steam injection and
production inflow can have a significant impact on the steam-oil ratio (SOR), oil recovery , the rate of recovery and overall
economics of a thermal recovery project. Field evidence suggests that better downhole flow control methods are called for in
order to improve steam injection and production conformance, and to improve the uniformity of the steam chamber in order to
increase the oil rates, thermal efficiency and recovery in a number of SAGD projects currently in operation.

However, SAGD operators recognized that the industry must first address a number of technical and economic questions and
challenges in order to advance alternative steam injection and production inflow control methods to the point where it may be
considered a viable alternative. The common need to address these uncertainties became the motivation for the industry and
C-FER to initiate the SAGD Downhole Flow Control JIP, which for Phase I was named the SAGD Steam Injection Control JIP.

Phase I: Steam Injection control Examples:

The first phase of the JIP was completed in 2012 and was focused on:

• Defining the state-of-the art of SAGD steam injection control

methods and in-well and reservoir monitoring technologies
• Reviewing the fundamental basis, status and field experience of the
various devices and technologies that may be used for controlling
steam injection in SAGD horizontal wells
• Completing model developments and analyses to gain a better
understanding of the key factors which may affect the design and
performance of these various devices in a range of SAGD applications
(e.g. such as variations in well depth and horizontal length, device
type and placement, injection rate and pressure.
Tubing Deployed
Steam Injection Slotted Liner
At the end of the phase, there were fourteen SAGD operating companies Control Device

participating in the JIP. The JIP is still open to new participants.

Tubing–Deployed Steam Injection Devices & Methods
Phase II:
While Phase I of the JIP focused on steam injection control, Phase II will
include both steam injection and production inflow control. C-FER and the
Phase I participants are looking to launch Phase II phase of this project in
mid 2013. The areas of focus for the second phase include:

• Examining the potential to develop improved SAGD-specific inflow

control devices (ICDs) for SAGD applications
• Developing software tools to assist operators in assessing the design
and performance of selected steam injection control technologies
• Updating the state-of-the-art review of steam injection and
production inflow control methods
Liner-Deployed Non-perforated
• Holding interactive workshops to provide participants with the Production Inflow
Control Device
Liner Pipe

opportunity to share field experience related to downhole steam

injection and production flow control in their SAGD applications.
Liner–Deployed Production Inflow Control Devices
& Methods

www.cfertech.com
Risk Analysis of Thermal Operations
Oil production using thermal stimulation, such as in SAGD, is becoming more prevalent. To aid in the identification and
quantification of the risks associated with the operation of a thermally-stimulated well, C-FER offers a quantified risk
assessment. In a Quantified Risk Assessment, the root causes of undesired events are identified, and the relative importance
of such events are determined. The risk associated with any design scenario is quantified with:

Risk = Probability x Consequence

The risk can then be readily compared for the various scenarios, and key areas of concern can be highlighted.
Risk Scenario Comparisons:
Various scenarios are studied and compared according to the details of a specific project.
In a typical analysis, these could include:

• events that occur during workovers or normal operations,

• events that occur at different times in a well’s production life,
• leaks or blowouts through the injector or the producer,
• leaks or blowouts through the tubing, annulus, both, or outside the casing,
• failures of components of different completions (different wellheads, with and without a DHSV, packer, etc…).

Such a comparison provides a foundation for the development of a project, including a preferred completion, operational
practice, and safety response plan. It can also highlight areas of concern that may require special attention.

Our studies are customised and flexible, with a focus that is directed according to the customer’s needs.

Determining Failure Probabilities Example of a fault tree

The probability of a failure is generally estimated through the use of Release through
tubing only
a fault tree analysis. The probability of a top event, such as a release E7

at surface, can be assessed by considering the combined probability

of failure of individual components that would allow a flow path Flow tee
failure
Fluid to flow
tee

to the surface. An example of a fault tree is provided. Base events E27

combine to give the probability of the event at the top of the tree.
E2

External event
Flow tee causes flow tee
failure
Historical data is used where possible to define base event normal
failure
base event
B51

probabilities, and also to help fine-tune the fault tree so that higher- top of another tree

B20
level probabilities accurately reflect field knowledge. Testing and ‘OR’ gate

experimentation can also be used to determine the probabilities ‘AND’ gate

used in the analysis.

www.cfertech.com
Risk Analysis of Thermal Operations
Example of STARS™ output temperature
Reservoir Release Modeling contours in a SAGD reservoir (symmetric)
Fluid flow rates during a leak or blowout will vary for different reservoirs
and release scenarios, affecting the severity of the consequences. To
quantify these release rates, C-FER has made special use of the STARS™
reservoir simulator, combined with a wellbore simulator. This has allowed
for an estimate of release rates for conditions where wellhead pressures
are at, or near, atmospheric conditions. Independent critical flow checks
are also completed.

By modeling the flow through the wellbore in concert with the reservoir
response during a release, the rates and composition of the fluids can be
determined for each scenario. This information can then be used in the
consequence models to determine the severity of various hazards.

Consequence Modeling:
Several possible consequences are generally associated with an undesired
event during thermal production Schematic diagram of fire plume resulting Study Benefits:
operations. In a typical study, from a vertical jet of natural gas A Quantified Risk Assessment
models of consequences may
include: Thermal
offers strong value by
Radiation collecting often loosely-
• a gas jet or oil pool fire
Fire
defined hazards and risks, and
• oil spills
Plume Damage setting them in the context of
• a release of hazardous gas Receptor
• a steam jet a logical framework.
• lost production
Radius of
hazard area, Customers have noted that
Each relevant consequence is
modeled to assess the impact
vertical jet the assessment provides
on life safety, environmental boundaries in the design of
damage, and project economics. Contour plot of critical H2S concentrations major projects by identifying
along the ground near a release
areas of concern and
Consequences will differ
depending on the scenario.
Critical Threshold
30
H2S Concentration confirming when issues have
For example, a fire that occurs 20
10 ppm
50 ppm
100 ppm
been adequately resolved.
during a workover will likely 300 ppm
Bounds of Hazard Area (m)

10

pose a much greater hazard

The study can provide a
than if it occurred during normal 0

operations, because of the larger higher level of certainty

when proceeding into new,
-10

number of people located near

to the hazard. The consequence -20
uncertain territory.
models are therefore customised -30

for each scenario considered. Downward Distance (m)

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000

www.cfertech.com
DHOWS–Downhole Oil/Water Separation
System Course
Registration
The course is open to all industry operators.
Course Description Participants inC-FER’s Downhole Oil/Water Separation
C-FER Technologies has spearheaded (DHOWS) Joint Industry Project included...
downhole oil/water separation system
(DHOWS) technology through its Joint Industry • Alberta Department of Energy
Project (JIP) since 1992. The knowledge • Amoco Exploration & Production Technology Group
• Anderson Exploration Ltd.
gained in the JIP has been compiled into a
• Aramco Services Company
comprehensive course on the implementation
• ARCO Exploration and Production Technology
of hydrocyclone separator-based DHOWS • BP Exploration Operating Company Limited
systems. • Baker Hughes Inc.
• Canadian Natural Resources
The course provides a complete overview of • Canadian Petroleum International Resources Ltd.
the technology, from field and candidate well • Chauvco Resources Ltd.
screening based on economic and technical • Chevron Petroleum Technology Company
criteria to basic design and operation of the • Conoco Inc.
systems. In addition to the systems based • CS Resources Ltd.
on hydrocyclone separators, systems based • Den norske stats oljeselskap a.s.
on gravity separation and reverse coning • ELAN Energy Inc.
• Gulf Canada Resources Ltd.
applications are also discussed in the course.
• Imperial Oil Resources
• Instituto Mexicano Del Petroleo
Who should Attend? • Marathon Oil Company
The course has been developed for personnel who deal with the • Maxus International Energy Company
• Morrison Petroleums Limited
design, implementation and operation of DHOWS systems. This
• Norcen Energy Resources Limited
includes field operators, completion and production technologists
• Norsk Hydro a.s
and engineers, and the staff of equipment manufacturers and • PanCanadian Petroleum Limited
vendors. Introductory material is included to accommodate • Penn West Petroleum Limited
participants with a limited knowledge of various pumping systems. • Petrobras
• Petro-Canada
Topics • Saga Petroleum a.s.
• Evaluating economics of DHOWS systems • Poco Petroleums Limited
• Guidelines for pool and well screening • REDA
• System design and implementation • Renaissance Energy Limited
• Review of the field experience from the initial prototypes • Phillips Petroleum Company Norway
and onwards • Schlumberger
• Shell International Exploration & Production B. V.
• Advanced topics such as Offshore Implementations,
• Talisman Energy Inc.
Dual Stage Separation and Desanding Systems
• Texaco Inc.
• Tri Link Resources Limited
• Wascana Energy Inc.

www.cfertech.com
Production Enhancement for Gas Wells
Background
• Water production in gas wells may result in liquid loading, which in turn...
– reduces gas production rates
– reduces recoverable reserves
– increases operating costs.
• Downhole gas/water separation technology (as well as established techniques such as velocity string or plunger lift) may
improve gas production rates.
• The applicability of each technique depends on specific field and well conditions.
• An engineering assessment of a number of wells in a field can determine the applicability of various commercially
available production systems.

Potential Benefits
• Increased gas flow rate (production acceleration)
• Reduced water handling (with downhole injection system) and other operating costs
• Increased recoverable reserves (capture)
• Reactivation of shut-in wells

Capabilities
• Multidisciplinary engineering team with state-of-the-art knowledge of production technology
• Extensive experience in petroleum applications and new technology deployment, including gas/water separation
• specialized in-house computer models for performance prediction

Engineering Services
C-FER’s approach to determining the suitability of different production systems consists of the following steps...
• Initial meeting with client to define ultimate objectives, based on client’s
development plans and current operating status of a property
• Pre-screening of candidate wells from field, based on overall reservoir and
well characteristics and on location-specific requirements or constraints
• Detailed review of top well candidates/systems including... Deliverables
– Well tests, logs, fluid analyses • In-house presentation of results
– Wellbore configuration of technical and economic analysis,
– Workover history including go-forward recommendations
– Production history • Formal report with format and level of
• Development of alternatives for enhancing production of candidate wells detail determined by client
• Detailed technical and economic analysis of selected alternatives... • Proposal for assistance in field
– Build/use proprietary nodal & economic models implementation and performance
– Determine impacts on production volumes monitoring (if warranted)
– Determine impacts on operating & capital costs
• Selection of top alternatives based on results of analysis

www.cfertech.com
Laboratory Facilities
LOAD FRAMES
C-FER operates a variety of large-scale servo-hydraulic load frames to simulate complex loading scenarios representative of field
conditions.

Auxiliary Equipment Example Tests

• Electric resistive or inductive heating systems • ISO / Thermal well casing connections
• Hydrotest equipment • Biaxial Tension/Compression of line pipe
• High pressure cooling system • Four-point bend of line pipe
• Leak detection equipment • Wave loading on composite risers
• Bending systems • Makeup of subsea pipeline collets
• Torsion systems • Drilling top drive assemblies
• Pass-through pressure vessels • Crack growth in aerospace structural panels
• Seismic building dampers

System Universal Testing System Tubular Testing Connection Testing Horizontal Testing System
System System
Maximum Length 6m Length 15 m Length 11.6 m Length 5.5 m
Specimen Base 2 x 18 m Diameter 1.5 m Base 2x2m Diameter 1.2 m
Dimensions
System can be reconfigured to
accept larger specimens
Maximum Compression 15 MN Compression 15 MN Compression 15 MN Tension 71 MN
Load Tension 15 MN Tension 15 MN Tension 15 MN
Dynamic 5 MN

Structurally capable of
22 MN with additional
actuators
Frame Vertical Vertical Vertical Horizontal
Orientation
Special Maximum stroke rate Bending capacity Bending capacity Energy dissipation system for
Features 100 mm/sec 27 MNm 8 MNm destructive testing

Bending capacity of Sour service capability

27 MNm
Laboratory Facilities SPECIAL ENVIRONMENTS
LABORATORY
C-FER’s Special Environments Laboratory (SEL) is
DEEP WELL SIMULATOR one of the world’s largest and most comprehensive
The Deep Well Simulator (DWS) is used
containment test
by the oil industry to develop and test
facilities. The SEL
a wide range of systems and products
is utilized for tests
under carefully simulated bottomhole
demanding the safe
service conditions. The well is actually a
containment of toxic and
subsurface pressure vessel equipped with
flammable gases and
a wellhead to simulate a wide array of
potential explosions.
downhole temperatures, pressures and
flow rates encountered in the field.
Each of two independent
systems consists of
Using appropriate fluids, this facility
an in-ground primary containment chamber that
allows carefully controlled testing for
houses the test specimen, and an above-ground
drilling and production equipment.
secondary containment chamber that houses control
Full–scale testing reduces the risk of
equipment and provides expansion volume for any
costly downhole problems during field
release from the primary containment chamber.
implementation.
The internal dimensions of this facility accommodate
• Operating temperatures from 20°C (68°F) to 200°C (392°F)
testing at full–scale with a wide range of loads,
• Coupled to a flowloop
pressures and fluid flow conditions, yielding results
• Able to handle a variety of fluids
that are more representative of processes occurring
• Cased well bore 0.6 metres (2 feet) in diameter, providing
under real field conditions.
14 MPa (2,000 psi) containment capacity
• Control tests on pump systems with full pressure fluid mixing
• Twin in-ground test chambers provide
(single and two phase), flowmeters, and tankage
secondary containment for toxic and flammable
• Easy access to electric and hydraulic power, fluid handling
gases, with capacity to fully contain explosions
and instrumentation
• Simulation of corrosive and flammable
• Accommodates concentric and multiple tubing/casing strings
environments, including flow
• Maximum tool string and specimen configuration 46 m (150 ft)
• External remote control of test systems
in length and 560 mm (22 inches) in diameter
• Sealable below-ground test vessel,
12 m deep x 2.5 m diameter

C-FER www.cfertech.com
Technologies
Laboratory Facilities
EXPERIMENTAL FLOW LOOP
The Experimental Flow Loop is used to test the performance of
downhole pumping systems over a range of operating temperatures,
pressures, flowrates and gas/liquid ratios.

The flow loop consists of an 85 ft long, 244.5 mm OD (9 5/8”, 40 lb/ft),

casing section; separator; and heating and cooling equipment.

Physical Setup
• Accommodates downhole- and surface-
driven pump systems up to 24.4 m (80 ft) in length,
up to 12 m (40 ft) per section;
• Allows for downhole gas (steam and air) separation at the pump
intake with a simulated submergence of approximately 2 m (6.6 ft);
• 11” 3000# API wellhead flange which allows for a variety of
standard wellheads to be installed.
• Fully instrumented to allow real time pressure, temperature, flow
measurements and pump torque and speed.

Pressure and Temperature Limits

• Pump intake pressure from 100 kPag to 4140 kPag (15-600 psig);
• Pump discharge pressure to 7580 kPag (1100 psig);
• Pump intake temperature from 60°C to 200°C (140-400°F).

Volumetric Capacity
• Liquid flow rate up to 800 m3/d (5050 bpd)
– Water, oil or oil/water mixture
• Air injection up to 120 std-m3/h (70 scfm) at 4140 kPag (600 psig)
at the downhole pump intake.

C-FER www.cfertech.com
Technologies
Laboratory Facilities
DEEPWATER EXPERIMENTAL CHAMBER STRONG FLOOR AND WALLS
C-FER’s Deepwater • High capacity multi-use reaction floor
Experimental Chamber (DEC) (22 m x 12 m)
enables full-scale testing • Buttressed multi-directional reaction wall
of deepwater pipeline and (15 m long x 6 m high) for application of
production equipment. The multi-directional loading
vessel is unique because of the • Accommodates large-scale structural
size, pressure rating and ease assemblies and components with more than
of access. Equipped with quick 1,300 tie-down locations
release end caps, the vessel • Serviced by 15 tonne overhead travelling crane
ensures rapid installation
and removal of equipment, COMPONENT TESTING
reducing both testing time • 1000 kN capacity
and cost. servohydraulic
MTS machine for
Full-scale tests with comprehensive instrumentation, control and coupon testing
video monitoring minimizes the potential for costly equipment under a variety of
failures in deep water. load & temperature
conditions
• Working pressures to 55 MPa (8,000 psi) • 16,200 N-m
• 10.7 m (35 ft) long with a 1.22 m (4 ft) diameter torsion testing unit,
• Equipped with internal rams and reaction frames to apply with independently
tension, compression, torsion and bending loads to operated axial
specimens while under pressure tensile load
• Full–scale pipeline testing at working pressures, both capacity to 1,300 kN
internally and externally • Other self-contained computer-controlled load
• Rapid installation and removal of test specimens and and pressure systems for serviceability and proof
assemblies testing of hoisting equipment, couplings, valves,
• Internal video monitoring vessels, etc.
• Accommodates hydraulic, electrical, video and
instrumentation leads

C-FER www.cfertech.com
Technologies
Contacts
MANAGING DIRECTOR
Francisco Alhanati 780.450.8989 x253 f.alhanati@cfertech.com

CHIEF ENGINEER & C-FER FELLOW

Maher Nessim 587.754.2339 x207 m.nessim@cfertech.com

C-FER FELLOW
Cam Matthews 780.450.8989 x252 c.matthews@cfertech.com

BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT & PLANNING

Brian Wagg, Director 780.450.8989 x235 b.wagg@cfertech.com

EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION

Kelly Piers, Director 780.450.8989 x246 k.piers@cfertech.com

DRILLING & COMPLETIONS

Kirk Hamilton, Manager 780.450.8989 x236 k.hamilton@cfertech.com

PRODUCTION OPERATIONS
Wayne Klaczek, Manager 780.450.8989 x306 w.klaczek@cfertech.com

ENGINEERING SERVICES
Paul Skoczylas, Manager 780.450.8989 x299 p.skoczylas@cfertech.com

PIPELINES & STRUCTURES

Qishi Chen, Director 587.754.2339 x215 q.chen@cfertech.com

DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION

Chris Timms, Manager 587.754.2339 x259 c.timms@cfertech.com

INTEGRITY & OPERATIONS

Jason Skow, Manager 587.754.2339 x308 j.skow@cfertech.com

C-FER www.cfertech.com
Technologies
C-FER Printed September 2015
Technologies
C-FER
Technologies

200 Karl Clark Road

Edmonton, Alberta
Canada T6N 1H2

www.cfertech.com