Tracking of Downhole ESP Reliability Status of Industry ...

Tracking of Downhole ESP Reliability – Status of Industry Adoption of ISO 14224 Terminology and Concepts

International ISO Standardization Seminar for

the Reliability Technology and Cost Area

NEN - Vlinderweg 6 - 2623 AX Delft

29th March 2017

Francisco Alhanati

John Sheldon

C-FER Technologies

Outline

• ESP-RIFTS JIP Overview

– Objectives

– Approach

• Incorporation of ISO 14224 Terminology and Concepts

– Failure Nomenclature Standard

– Minimum Data Set (MDS) Overview

– KPIs for Benchmarking

• Industry Adoption

– Status and Common Challenges

March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 2

ESP-RIFTS JIP Objectives

• ESP-RIFTS JIP:

– ESP Reliability Information and Failure Tracking System (RIFTS) JIP

• Ultimate goal is to help operators reduce the failure frequency

of their ESP systems

– Therefore maximizing production and reducing workover costs

• Objectives include:

– Understand the factors that affect ESP Run-Life

– Determine attainable Run-Life targets for different applications

– Identify ways to improve ESP Run-life across Participant’s operations

– Find ways to increase the inherent reliability of the equipment


ESP-RIFTS JIP Approach


C-FER Role

C-FER manages the

JIP as directed by the

Participants, which

includes:

• Assisting with data

collection (tools and

standards)

• Conducting technical

investigations

• Sharing the

knowledge gained


Failure Nomenclature Standard

• The following key terms were adopted from ISO 14224

– Failure: loss of ability to perform as required

– Item: subject being considered• can be an individual part or component • good compatibility with ISO 14224, Table A.112

– Failure Mode: manner in which failure occurs • as a subset of “Reason for Pull”• associated with the symptoms of the loss of functionality• poor compatibility with ISO 14224, Table B.11

– Failure Mechanism: process that leads to a failure • physical, chemical

– Failure Cause: set of circumstances that leads to failure• can originate during design, manufacture, installation or operation of the

ESP System


ISO 14224

ESP System Boundary


ESP Failure Nomenclature Standard

ESP System Boundary


Data Set

• JIP Participants strive to collect data for a Minimum Data Set

(MDS) of 40 parameters in the following groups:

– Field and Well Data

– Reservoir and Fluids Data

– Runtime and Failure Data

– Production Data

– Equipment Data

• Discussions have also taken place on detailed ESP equipment

“trim” parameters that may be important to capture

– May vary depending on the application


Motor “Trim” Parameters

Parameter Library

Motor Vendor Vendor Table

Motor Series Free text

Motor Type / Model Controlled based on vendor nomenclature

Serial Number Free text

Radial Bearing Material Conductive / Non-Conductive

Nameplate Motor Horsepower Free text

Nameplate Motor Voltage Free text

Nameplate Motor Current Free text

Shaft Power Rating Standard / High Strength / Ultra High Strength


Data Set

• A few parameters listed in ISO 14224, Table A.113 as “high” priority have a high degree of completeness in the project database:

– Well Identification Number, ESP Application (Onshore, Offshore/Topsides, Offshore/Subsea), Fluid Corrosiveness (CO2 and H2S content), Fluid Handled (Oil API, Water Cut, GOR)

• However, the large majority of the parameters associated with equipment specifications/trim in Table A.113 have a very low degree of completeness

– Not very good compatibility with “trim” parameters considered important by JIP Participants?

– Several difficulties in collecting this detailed data, e.g.:• Pothead Thermal Cycling Performance• Motor Winding Temperature Rise• SCS Number and Severity of Pressure Cycles


KPIs for Benchmarking

• Mean Time To Failure and Failure Rate used as the main KPIs

– Estimates as per ISO 14224, Annex C (items C3, C5)

– Also concepts from ISO 12489

– JIP uses actual Operating Time, not Up Time, whenever possible • as defined in ISO 14224, Table 4


Analysis Tools

• Project data tracking

and analysis

software tool assists

Participants with

tracking, qualifying

and analyzing data

– Also C-FER with

processing the data

and uploading to the

overall project

database


Benchmarking Report

• C-FER generates an ESP

Benchmarking Report that

compares equipment

reliability around the world

for six different classes of

applications


Industry Adoption

• Many companies have adopted the standard terms,

definitions to track their data

• Many have also adopted the recommended KPIs for

benchmarking, as well as for:

– evaluating improvement over time

– forecasting workover frequencies, and

– deciding what actions to take to try and improve the economics

• Unfortunately, in some cases companies have struggled to

bring these in-line with their own internal language or

terminologies, and traditional ways to evaluate performance


Common Challenges

System Failure

• An ESP system is considered to have failed when it has lost its ability to perform as required

– Regardless of what caused the failure

• A company indicated that they consider the system to have not failed when a liner failure occurred first - “it wasn’t the system’s fault it failed”

• C-FER worked with the company representatives to convince them that the system failure should still be tracked

– Failure Statistics could still be segregated by cause for analysis

• C-FER developed a flow chart to assist operators make consistent decisions


Common Challenges

Failure Mechanism/Cause

• Participants collect three main pieces of failure information:

– Failed Item (Component/Part): “What Failed?”

– Failure Mechanism: “How did it Fail?”

– Failure Cause: “Why did it Fail?”

• Unfortunately, failure mechanisms are still frequently used to describe why the system failed

– “Material degradation as a result of high temperatures, corrosion and metal embrittlement as a result of fluid exposure are examples of common failure causes for ESPs.” – SPE 184169

– “Listed below are a list of common failures broken out into three different classes, based on the root cause. Those classes are: mechanical, chemical and thermal failures.” – SPE 185129

• C-FER continues to work with industry to encourage people to use the proper terminology

– As per ISO 14224 and the ESP-RIFTS JIP Failure Nomenclature Standard


• Unfortunately, there is still confusion between “MTTF” and “MTBF” and “Average Runtime of Failed”

– ISO 12489: MTBF = MTTF + MTTRes

– “The main criterion defining ESP performance … is MTBF, which is calculated as average run days for all ESPs that already failed.” – SPE 166891

• C-FER continues to work with industry to educate people on the meaning of certain terms and for what purposes some KPIs are appropriate (or not…)

– Skoczylas, P., Alhanati, F., Sheldon, J., and Trevisan, F. 2015. Use of Run-Life Measures in Estimating Artificial Lift System Reliability. Paper presented at the SPE Gulf Coast Section Electric Submersible Pump Workshop, The Woodlands, Texas, 22-24 April.

Common Misuses

MTTF vs MTBF vs Avg RT of Failed


Common Misuses

Confidence in MTTF

• People still often note that the estimated MTTF value is much higher than their experience would indicate:

– “It is not clear how MTTF is relevant to the operation economics”

– “MTTF often appears unrealistically high compared to our perception for typical ESP Run-Life in our fields”

– “How can I tell my management that we have five-year run-life when my systems don’t seem to run longer than two years?”

• These people will then rely on other run-life measures, in particular:

– Average runtime of failed systems

– Average runtime of running systems

– Average runtime of all systems (running and pulled)

• C-FER continues to work with industry to show that these are not good predictors of failures or workovers in subsequent years

– With some limited success…


Common Misuses

Run-Life Measures Example


Summary

• In general, C-FER has observed increased adoption of the terminology, concepts, and recommendations in ISO 14224, ISO 12489 and ISO 15551-1

– ISO 15551-1 - Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries - Drilling and Completion Equipment - Part 1: Electric Submersible Pump Systems for Artificial Lift

• C-FER continues to encourage operators to use terminology and concepts in these standards

– Including help interpret some areas that may not be easily understood

• As with all efforts related to industry standardization, further dissemination of these standards continue to be required

• Further revisions of ISO 14224 may be warranted, to adapt to current practice in the industry

– e.g. Table A.113 (equipment specific data); Table B.11 (Failure Modes)

• Recommendations seem to be missing regarding what time to use in MTTF and Failure Rate estimates

– Up Time versus Operating Time March 2017 ISO Standardization Seminar - Delft NL 21

Questions


Tracking of Downhole ESP Reliability Status of Industry ...

Documents

Transcript of Tracking of Downhole ESP Reliability Status of Industry ...