Tu l s a U n i v e r s i t y A r t i f i c i a l L i f t P ro j e c t s
60th Advisory Board Meeting Age nda
N o v e mb e r 5 t h & 6 t h , 2 0 1 5
A l l e n C h a p ma n S t u d e n t C e n t e r – 4 4 0 S o u t h G a r y Av e
T h e U n i v e r s i t y o f Tu l s a , Tu l s a , O K
Thursday, November 5th , 2015
4:00pm
Facilities Tour with Refreshments in Alpine House
TU North Campus
6:00pm
Reception
Allen Chapman Student
Union, Chouteau C
Friday, November 6th , 2015
8:30am
Registration and Breakfast
Allen Chapman Student
Union, Alcove
Progress Report Meeting
9:00
Welcome and Review of TUALP Research Projects
Holden Zhang
9:30
Experimental Study and CFD Simulation of ESP
Performance under Gassy Conditions
Jianjun Zhu
10:10
CFD Simulation of Oil Viscosity Effect on Multi-Stage
ESP Performance
Jianjun Zhu
10:30
Coffee Break
10:45
Experimental Study of Viscosity Effect and Oil/Water
Flow in ESP
Hattan Banjar
11:15
Modeling of Transient Operations and Instabilities in
Gas Lift
Fahad Al-Mudairis
12:00pm
Lunch
1:00
Transient Plunger Lift Modeling
Allen Chapman Student
Union, Chouteau C
Weiqi Fu
1:20
Downhole Gas-Liquid Separation Literature Review
and Research Plan
Haiwen Zhu
1:45
Eccentric Pipe-in-Pipe Downhole Gas Separator for
ESP – New Designs
Holden Zhang
2:10
2015 Questionnaire Results and New Project Plan
Holden Zhang
2:30
Business Report and Open Discussions
Holden Zhang
2:40pm
Adjourn
Tulsa University Artificial Lift Projects
Welcome to the
TUALP 60th ABM
Holden Zhang
McDougall School of Petroleum Engineering
The University of Tulsa
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
TUALP 60th ABM
 TUALP 60th Advisory Board Meeting
 Handout
 All presentations on thumb drive
 Will be posted on TUALP website after ABM
for download by members who cannot attend
(www.tualp.utulsa.edu)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Our Team
 Holden Zhang
 Director
 Bryan Sams
 Project Engineer
 Donna Trankley
 Project Assistant
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Our Team…
 Jianjun Zhu
 PhD candidate
 Hattan Banjar
 PhD candidate
 Sponsored by Saudi Aramco
 Saul Gomez
 PhD student
 Sponsored by PEMEX
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Our Team…
 Fahad Al-Mudairis
 PhD candidate
 Sponsored by Kuwait University
 Haiwen Zhu
 PhD candidate, TA
Congratulations to Fahad and Haiwen for
passing qualifying exams!!
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Our Team…
 Weiqi Fu
 MSc student
 Jiecheng Zhang
 MSc student
 Yuchen Ji
 MSc student
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Our Team…
 Dr. Junqi Wang
 Xian Petroleum University (Xian, China)
 Joining at end of this month
 Dr. Jie Liu
 Yangtze University (Wuhan, China)
 Joining at end of this year
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Guests
 AppSmiths
 Larry Peacock
 Borets
 Bert McCoy
 Dover
 Paul Song
 eLynx Tech
 Ryan McDonald
 Summit ESP
 Walter Dinkins
 Louis Lee
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
2015 TUALP Members
 Baker Hughes
 Chevron
 GE
 KOC
 Pemex
 Petrobras
 PetroChina
 Petroleum Experts
 Schlumberger
 Statoil
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Possible New Members
 Instituto Mexicano del Petroleo (IMP)
 eLynx Tech
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Agenda
Time
Topic
Presenter
9:00am
Welcome
Holden Zhang
9:10
Industry Challenges and Our Researches
Holden Zhang
9:30
Experimental Study and CFD Simulation of ESP
Performance under Gassy Conditions
Jianjun Zhu
10:10
CFD Simulation of Oil Viscosity Effect on MultiStage ESP Performance
Jianjun Zhu
10:30
Coffee Break
10:45
Experimental Study of Viscosity Effect and
Oil/Water Flow in ESP
Hattan Banjar
11:15
Modeling of Transient Operations and Instabilities
in Production
Fahad Al-Mudairis
12:00pm
Luncheon
All
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Agenda…
Time
Topic
Presenter
1:00
Transient Plunger Lift Modeling
Weiqi Fu
1:20
Downhole Gas-Liquid Separation Literature
Review and Research Plan
Haiwen Zhu
1:45
Eccentric Pipe-in-Pipe Downhole Gas Separator
for ESP – New Designs
Holden Zhang
2:10
2015 Questionnaire Results and New Project
Discussion
Holden Zhang
2:30
Business Report and Open Discussions
Holden Zhang
2:40pm
Adjourn
All
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Tulsa University Artificial Lift Projects
Industry Challenges
and Our Researches
Holden Zhang
McDougall School of Petroleum Engineering
The University of Tulsa
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Industry Needs
 Efficiency and optimization
 Cost reduction
 More important at low oil price
 Reliability and flow assurance
 Best models for multiphase flow in
artificial lift systems
 Best design and selection rely on
accurate characterization
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Industry Needs…
 New challenges
 High oil viscosity, HPHT, emulsions
 Horizontal well, slugging, fast decline…
 New developments
 Smart wells
 Mechanistic models of multiphase flow in pipes
and artificial lift systems serve as backbone
simulator for data interpretation, diagnosis,
prediction and control
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
High Oil Viscosity and Oil/Water
Emulsion in ESPs
 Oil viscosity affects ESP performance
Significantly
 Oil/water emulsion rheology complicated
 Effective viscosity
 Inversion point
 Droplet size
 Stage effect
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
TUALP Project (PI: Hattan Banjar)
 Study of oil/water flow and emulsion
characterization in ESPs
 Measure ESP stage performance
 Oil viscosity effect
 Mechanistic modeling
 CFD simulation
 Three-phase flow?
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas Entrainment in ESP
 ESP performance degradation
 Gas lock and instabilities
 Poor heat transfer
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
TUALP Project (PI: Jianjun Zhu)
 Experimental study and CFD simulation of
ESP performance under gassy conditions
 Measurements
 Surfactant effect
 CFD simulations
 Mechanistic modeling
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
High Oil Viscosity Effect on ESP
Performance
 High-viscosity oil and oil/water flow loop
to be built, 3”, 10,000 bpd
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
TUALP Project (PI: Holden Zhang)
 Mechanistic modeling of ESP performance
 Based on overall pump geometry, fluid viscosities,
densities, interfacial tension and flow rates
 High oil viscosity
 Gas-liquid flow
 Oil-water flow
 Gas-oil-water flow
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Sand Production with ESP
 Sand erosion
 Abrasion
 ESP performance change
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
TUALP Project (PI: Saul Gomez)
 Experiments and CFD simulation of ESP sand
erosion
 Experimental measurement and observation
 CFD simulation of sand particle trajectory and
accumulation
 Identify areas vulnerable to sand erosion
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Casing Heading in Gas Lift
 Commonly exist in gas lift
wells
 Reduce production rate
 Consume more
compressed gas and
power
 Intermittent flow
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
TUALP Project (PI: Fahad Al-Mudairis)
 Transient gas lift modeling
 Develop a transient model to simulate various
unsteady/unstable gas lift processes
 Liquid unloading with gas lift
 Analyze gas lift instabilities
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
New Design – Self-Stabilizing Gas Lift
Valve
 Self stabilized by flow
 Small pressure drop
 Can avoid damage due to
high pressure drop and
high shear
 Patent pending
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Liquid Loading in Gas Well
 Reduce production rate
 Eventually kill well
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
TUALP Project (PI: Weiqi Fu)
 Plunger lift modeling and
optimization
 Transient mechanistic
model
 Cover all phases of
plunger lift cycle
 Incorporate inflow and
pipeline to separator
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Downhole Gas Separation
 ESP doesn’t like gas
 Separation limited by space
 Separation affected by
slugging
 Most current methods have
limitations
 Low efficiency
 High resistance
 Poor slug handling
 High power consumption
 ……
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
TUALP Project (PI: Haiwen Zhu)
 Experimental study and CFD simulation
of downhole gas separation
 Evaluate different downhole gas separation
methods
 Select best design
 Performance modeling
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
New Design – Eccentric Pipe-inPipe Downhole Gas Separator
 High efficiency and low cost
 Low pressure drop
 Sufficient length for slug
elimination
 Sand handling
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Horizontal Well Challenges
 Liquid loading
 Terrain slugging (or severe slugging)
 Artificial lift location
 Rapid decline
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Smart Field Development
 Data interpretation
 Problem diagnosis
 Sensor optimization
 Control algorithm
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
TUALP Mechanistic Models
 Mechanistic models for multiphase pipe flow
 Steady state unified model
 Transient unified model
 Mechanistic models for multiphase flows in
artificial lift systems
 ESP
 SRP
 Valves
 Separators
 Serve as engine for online and offline
simulations
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Tulsa University Artificial Lift Projects
Experiments, CFD Simulation and
Modeling of ESP Performance under
Gassy Conditions
Jianjun Zhu
McDougall School of Petroleum Engineering
The University of Tulsa
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Application
 Entrained gas deteriorates ESP performance
and causes gas locking
 Mechanistic models needed to predict ESP
performance under gassy flow conditions
 CFD simulations help better understand
degradation mechanism
 Experimental data needed to compare with
simulation results and validate model
predictions
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Objectives
 Test ESP performance under gassy condition
 Investigate effects of multistage, viscosity, intake GVF
and pressure, interfacial tension, etc.
 CFD simulations of ESP performance
 Mesh quality and numerical accuracy
 Intake hydraulic parameters
 Develop mechanistic models for predictions of
 Bubble size
 In-situ gas void fraction (α)
 Initiation of gas pocket
 ESP two-phase performance
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Outline
 Experimental study update
 Facility modification
 Experimental test results
 Mechanistic modeling update
 Bubble size prediction
 In-situ gas void fraction (α)
 Conclusions and discussions
 Near future work
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Study Update
 Facility modification
 Fully closed loop has been replaced by semiclosed loop with the external supplement of
compressed air
 Air compressor was adopted with capacity
186 cfm @ 217 psig
 Venturi pipe was replaced with straight pipe
 Fitting for bubble size measurement
instrument (e.g. PVM or FBRM)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Facility Update…
 Schematic of new loop
NI Fieldpoint Modules
Computer
Data Wiring
Box
PT
Surfactant Injection
P
T
Air Compressor
VSD
Coriolis Flow
Meter
Vent
Separator
Syringe Pump
RFT9739
Flow Control
Valve
Coriolis Flow Meter
RFT9739
Torque & Rotary
Speed Monitor
T
Motor
P
P
P
DP
DP
ESP TE2700 GE
60th Advisory Board Meeting
P
T
Flow Control
Valve
November 6, 2015
Experimental Facility Update…
 LabView-based DAQ (front panel)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Facility Update…
 Water flow rate PID control (front panel)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Facility Update…
 Water flow rate PID control (rear panel)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Facility Update…
 Air flow rate PID control (front panel)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Facility Update…
 Air flow rate PID control (rear panel)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Facility Update…
 Bubble size measurement considered
 Particle Vision & Measurement (PVM)
Probe based instrument
Visualize particles and particle behavior
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Facility Update…
 Bubble size measurement considered
 Focused Beam Reflectance Measurement (FBRM)
Focused laser scans
Tracks individual chord lengths to acquire particle size
and population information in real time
In-situ measurement
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Test Matrix
 Single phase test matrix
Rotational Speed
(rpm)
3500, 3000, 2400, 1800
Liquid Flow Rate
(bpd)
0, 100, 200, …
 Two phase test matrix
Surfactant
Rotational Intake Pressure
Concentration Speed (rpm)
(psig)
Liquid Flow
Rate (bpd)
Gas Flow Rate (lb/m)
0%
3500, 1800
50, 100, 150
0, 100, 200, …
0.01, 0.02, 0.03, …, 0.5
1%
3500, 1800
50, 100, 150
0, 100, 200, …
0.01, 0.02, 0.03, …, 0.5
2%
…
3500,1800
50, 100, 150
0, 100, 200, … 0.01, 0.02, 0.03, …, 0.5
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Matrix
 Nomenclature
 Qmax coefficient = Qmax/N, is a constant for
ESP, but will change due to rusty condition
 Qmax is the open flow capacity of ESP with
zero-head performance
 qld , qgd are dimensionless variables – ratio of
actual fluid flow rates (bpd) to the maximum
flow rates of single-phase water in ESP
𝒒𝒍𝒅
𝑸𝒍
=
𝑸𝐦𝐚𝐱
𝒒𝒈𝒅
60th Advisory Board Meeting
𝑸𝒈
=
𝑸𝐦𝐚𝐱
November 6, 2015
Experimental Matrix…
 Qmax coefficient (Qmax/N)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Air Properties
 Based on CIPM-81
 Density
pM a

ZRT


MV  
 
1  xv  1 
M a 



M a  28.9635  12.011 xCO2  0.0004
D

pSV  1  exp AT 2  BT  C  
T

f     p  t 2
Kg/m3

g/mol
Pa
pSV t 
pSV t r 
xV  hf  p, t 
 f  p, t r 
p
p
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Air Properties…
 Compressibility Z



p
p2
2
2
Z  1  a0  a1t  a2t  b0  b1t xV  c0  c1t xV  2 d  exV2
T
T

 Constants
A
0.000012811805
a0
0.00000162419
B
-0.019509874
a1
-0.000000028969
C
34.04926034
a2
0.0000000001088
D
-6.3536311
b0
0.000005757
b1
-0.00000002589
α
1.00062
c0
0.00019297
β
0.0000000314
c1
-0.000002285
γ
0.00000056
d
0.0000000000173
e
-0.00000001034
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Isopropyl Alcohol (IPA)
 A surfactant that reduces interfacial
tension between water and air
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Single-phase Test Results
 100 psig, stage 6
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Single-phase Test Results
 3500 rpm, 100 psig
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Single-phase Test Results
 3500 rpm, 150 psig
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Surging Test Results
 100P3500N2700QL
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Surging Test Results…
 50P3500N2700QL
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Surging Test Results…
 150P3500N2700QL
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Surging Test Results…
 150P3500N2700QL & 5 % isopropyl alcohol
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Surging Test Results…
 Comparison at average stage 1 and 2
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Surging Test Results…
 Comparison at stage 3
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Constant GVF Mapping Test
 100P3500N, stage 3
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Constant GVF Mapping Test…
 100P3500N, stage 7
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Constant GVF Mapping Test…
 100P3500N, stage 0-12
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Constant qgd Mapping Test
 100P3500N, stage 0-2
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Constant qgd Mapping Test…
 100P3500N, stage 7
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Constant qgd Mapping Test…
 150P3500N, stage 0-2
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Constant qgd Mapping Test…
 150P3500N, stage 3
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Multiphase CFD Simulation
 Predicted ESP performance with modified
bubble size model at BEP
1.2
0.02 mm
0.05 mm
Normalized Pressure
1
0.06 mm
0.07 mm
0.1 mm
0.8
0.11 mm
0.6
0.125 mm
0.4
0.14 mm
Salehi (2012)
0.2
Constant bubble size_0.1 mm
0.185 mm
Modified bubble size_Drag force only
Modified bubble size_Drag force+Lift force
0.19 mm
0
0
4
8
12
16
20
λG (%)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Bubble Size Modeling
 Existing models
 Murakami and Minemura (1974)
 N 
d m  21.82

 6.862 

3
4
0.618  4.273 
 Barrios (2007)
d b _ surg
0.8809 1 / 4  
 0.0348 N
 
 l
 Gamboa (2008)

d max  14.27
 l



3/ 5
 D 4 


  


2 / 5



3/ 5
 l


 g
1
N r 
3 2 2/ 5
1




60th Advisory Board Meeting
1/ 5
1  191.7 
0.2
November 6, 2015
Bubble Size Modeling…
 Modified bubble size prediction model
 Levich (1962) droplet breakup theory
 Wecrit by Kouba’s (2003) model
 Turbulent kinetic energy (e ) from Padron’s
(2005) postulation
 
d max  14.06  
 c 
3/ 5
 Pq 


  cV 
2 / 5
 
d 32  0.43d max  6.034  
 c 
3/ 5
 c

 d



1/ 5
 Pq 


  cV 
60th Advisory Board Meeting
2 / 5
 c

 d



1/ 5
November 6, 2015
Bubble Size Modeling…
 Model comparison with CFD simulation
 QL= 2700 bpd, 3500 rpm (TE2700)
0.6
Murakami & Minemura (1974)
Barrios (2007)
Gamboa (2008)
Simulation_Drag force
Simulation_Drag force+Lift force
This study
0.5
db (mm)
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
λG (%)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Bubble Size Modeling…
 Model validation with CFD simulation
 QL= 1157 bpd, 1500 rpm (TE2700)
0.5
0.4
db (mm)
0.3
0.2
Murakami & Minemura (1974)
Barrios (2007)
0.1
Gamboa (2008)
This study
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
λG (%)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Bubble Size Modeling…
 Predicted ESP performance with modified
bubble size model at off-design point
1
0.8
Np
0.6
0.4
0.2
Experiment_Salehi (2012)
Simulation with predicted bublbe sizes
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
λG (%)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas Void Fraction (α) Modeling
 Empirical correlations
 Chisely (1997)
0.07
0.36
0.64







1

x



g
  L  
  1  0.28
 

 x    L    g  


 Estevam (2002)

 Zapata (2003)
1

1   1   
0.5
 q  q 
 g  L 
 qmax  qmax 

N
0
.
598

0
.
223
N



1.277 0.034N N
60th Advisory Board Meeting
1
 0.921 0.068N N






November 6, 2015
Gas Void Fraction (α) Modeling…
 Pros and cons of correlations
 Easy to implement
 Empirical
 Poor extrapolation
 Lack of interacting mechanism between gas
and liquid
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas Void Fraction (α) Modeling…
 Zhang (2013) proposed mechanistic
modeling of α inside ESP
 Centrifugal buoyancy force
on a gas bubble
FC 
d B3
6
FD
 L  G RI  2
 Drag force due to slippage
2
VSR
d B2
FD  C D  L
2 4
FC
ω
 dB - bubble diameter
 RI - impeller representative radius
 CD - drag coefficient
 VSR - bubble slip velocity in radial direction
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas Void Fraction (α) Modeling…
 From force balance on gas bubble
d B3
2
2
V

d
 L  G RI  2  C D  L SR B
6
2 4
 Radial bubble slip velocity
VSR 
4d B  L  G 
RI  2
3C D
L
 VSR in ESP impeller can be written as
VSR  VLR  VGR
Q  QLK 
 1   

 

2RI  Z I TB YI  1    
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas Void Fraction (α) Modeling…
 Equalize two expressions of VSR
Q  QLK 
 1   
 

2RI  Z I TB YI  1    
4d B  L  G 
RI  2
3C D
L
 Rearrange and denote
RS 
4d B  L  G 
RI  2
3C D
L
2RI  Z I TB YI
Q  QLK
 Then, one can get
1  
  Rs  RS 2  1  RS     0
1 
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas Void Fraction (α) Modeling…
 Solve for α and discard negative root:

RS  1 
1  RS 2  4 RS 
2 RS
 Questions
 How to determine dB?
 How to calculate CD?
 How to validate mechanistic modeling?
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas Void Fraction (α) Modeling…
 dB ̶ bubble diameter
 Bubble size predicted by new model of this
study
 
d 32  6.034  
 c 
3/ 5
 Pq 


  cV 
2 / 5
 c

 d



1/ 5
 CD ̶ drag coefficient
 Most CD models have no consideration of
rotating/shear effects
 Few experimental data for CD in ESP
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas Void Fraction (α) Modeling…
 Existing models for CD
 Clift et al. (1978)
No shear effect!
 Mei et al. (1994)
CD 


24
0.42
1  0.15 Re 0.687 
Re
1  4.25  104 Re 1.16
1
 
16   8 1 
CD 
1
  1  3.315 Re 2  



Re   Re 2 



1




 Legendre and Magnaudet (1998)
Shear effect considered
0.55 

C D , sr  C D ,0  1 
2 
Sr


Sr 
d b
U v
Re  50
 Rastello et al. (2011)
0.3 

C D , sr  C D ,0  1  2.5 
Sr 

60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas Void Fraction (α) Modeling…
 CD ̶ drag coefficient
 Legendre and Magnaudet (1998) model for Re ≥ 50,
and Rastello et al. (2011) model for Re < 50 are used:
C D , sr

0.55 

C
1

Re  50
 D ,0 
2 
Sr 


C D ,0  1  0.3  Re  50

Sr 2.5 

 CD,0 is drag coefficient calculated without shear
effect, Clift et al. (1978) model is used
C D ,0 

24
1  0.15 Re 0.687
Re

60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas Void Fraction (α) Modeling…
 Model validation and comparison
 3500 rpm, 2700 bpd & 1500 rpm, 1157 bpd
60
3500RPM_Simulaiton
3500RPM_Model
50
1500RPM_Simulaiton
1500RPM_Model
αG
40
30
20
10
0
0
4
8
12
16
20
λG
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas Void Fraction (α) Modeling…
 Model validation and comparison
 Case I: 3500 rpm, 2700 bpd
60
Chisely (1997)
+25%
Estevam (2002)
Zapata (2003)
50
3500RPM_This study
-10%
Perfect line
αG,predicted
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
αG,simulation
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas Void Fraction (α) Modeling…
 Model validation and comparison
 Case II: 1500 rpm, 1157 bpd
60
Chisely (1997)
+25%
Estevam (2002)
Zapata (2003)
50
1500RPM_This study
-10%
Perfect line
αG,predicted
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
αG,simulation
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Conclusions and Discussions
 Experiments of TE2700 ESP under gassy
conditions were conducted
 Effects of intake pressure, GVF, rotary
speed, surfactants etc. were investigated
 Mechanistic modeling of bubble size inside
ESP and local gas void fraction was
validated by multiphase CFD simulation
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Near Future Plan
 Facility modification
 Replace old TE2700 with the new one from GE
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Near Future Work…
 Experimental work
 Run testing with different IPA concentrations
 Dynamic operation to observe transient
phenomenon (fluctuations of flow rates and
performance etc.)
 Mechanistic modeling
 Surging initiation modeling
 Flow pattern prediction
 Comprehensive model for predicting ESP twophase performance
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Near Future Work…
 CFD simulation
 Unsteady state simulation of ESP dynamic
phenomenon
 MUSIG (multiple size group), poly-dispersed
phases (oil, water and gas), multi-momentumtransfer mechanisms (virtual mass force,
turbulence dispersion force, wall lubrication
force etc.)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Tulsa University Artificial Lift Projects
CFD Simulation of Oil Viscosity
Effect on Multi-stage ESP
Performance
Jianjun Zhu and Hattan Banjar
McDougall School of Petroleum Engineering
The University of Tulsa
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Application
 Significant effects of fluid viscosity on ESP
performance
 Only water performance available
 Actual flow condition very different
 Prediction model for ESP performance under
higher fluid viscosity and multiphase flow
conditions needed for production design and
artificial lift integration
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Outline
 Experimental study
 CFD simulation
 Geometry and mesh
 Single-phase water
 Viscosity effect
 Streamline comparison
 Conclusions and discussions
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Study
 Banjar (2015) experimental facility
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
ESP Geometry and Mesh
 ESP geometry
 DN 1750, Schlumberger
 Series 400, BEP: 1750 bpd at 3500 rpm
 Specific speed: 2900 (mixed type)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
ESP Geometry and Mesh
 DN1750 3D model
 Mesh generation
Seven stage cascade assembly
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Mesh Validation
 Wall function
𝒚+ < 𝟏𝟎, 𝒖+ =𝒚+
𝟏
𝜿
𝟏𝟎 < 𝒚+ < 𝟏𝟎𝟎, 𝒖+ = 𝐥𝐧⁡(𝒚+ ) + 𝑪
𝒚+ =
𝒖𝝉 𝒚
𝝂
𝒖+ =
𝒖
𝒖𝝉
500
9.2
400
8.9
300
8.6
200
𝑴𝒂𝒙 𝒚+
8.3
100
12.00
10.00
8.00
ΔP (psi)
9.5
Y+ (blade surface)
Pressure Increment (psi)
 Turbulence model: SST (shear-stress-transport)
6.00
4.00
2.00
𝑨𝒗𝒆 𝒚+
8
0
200000
400000
600000
0
800000
0.00
1000
Experimental
KE
SST
BSL
KOmega
RNGKE
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Q (bpd)
Mesh Number
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
2200
Comparison with Catalog Curves
 Dimensionless group
Q
D 3

gH
 2 D2

 3 D 5
0.4
80
0.3
60
0.2
ψ
Phorsepower
40
𝜺 = 𝟐𝟓𝟎𝝁𝒎
0.1
η

20
π
0.05
0
0
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.2
φ
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
CFD Simulation vs Measurement
 56 cp oil, overall performance of 7 stages
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
CFD Simulation vs Measurement…
 56 cp oil, performance of stage 3
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
CFD Simulation vs Measurement…
 220 cp oil, overall performance of 7 stages
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
CFD Simulation vs Measurement…
 220 cp oil, performance of stage 3
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
CFD Simulation vs Measurement…
 Water
+10%
-10%
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
CFD Simulation vs Measurement…
 56 cp
+15%
-10%
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
CFD Simulation vs Measurement…
 98 cp
+15%
-10%
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
CFD Simulation vs Measurement…
 180 cp
+15%
-10%
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
CFD Simulation vs Measurement…
 220 cp
+15%
-10%
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Streamline Comparison
 3500 rpm, 0.4QBEP, 0.5 span
Water
56 cp
60th Advisory Board Meeting
220 cp
November 6, 2015
Streamline Comparison
 2000 rpm, 0.25QBEP, 0.5 span
Water
56 cp
60th Advisory Board Meeting
220 cp
November 6, 2015
Conclusions and Discussions
 Steady state CFD simulation results of ESP
performance with water are comparable to
catalog curves and experimental data
 CFD simulation can capture trend of ESP
performance with viscosity increase
 CFD simulation over predicts ESP
performance at higher oil viscosity with up
to 15% error
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Tulsa University Artificial Lift Projects
Experimental Study of Viscosity
Effect and Oil/Water Flow in ESPs
Hattan Banjar
McDougall School of Petroleum Engineering
The University of Tulsa
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Outline
 Application
 Experimental system
 Experimental program
 Mechanistic modeling
 Experiment results
 Project schedule
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Application
 Fluid viscosity affects ESP performance
significantly
 Oil/water emulsion rheology depends on:
 Oil and water properties
 Water fraction
 Droplet characteristics (shear, mixing, etc)
 Prediction model for ESP performance
under oil/water emulsion flow conditions
needed for production design and artificial
lift integration
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental System
 Improvements:
 Choke valve relocated
 Entrance length of pipe viscometer extended
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental System…
 Improvements:
 Pressure ports drilled horizontally to the flow
 Temperature probes separated from pressure
measurement lines and moved from ESP to
upstream and downstream
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental System…
 Current flow loop schematic
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental System…
 DAS (LabVIEW 2013)
 Speed control
 Choke valve control
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental System…
 Pipe viscometer
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental System…
 Pipe viscometer
 Effective viscosity of emulsion (laminar)
𝒅𝑷(𝑷𝒂)
𝝅𝑫𝟒 𝒅𝑷
𝒄𝑷 = 𝟐𝟏.
𝟕𝟐𝟏
𝝁𝒆 =
⇒ 𝝁𝒆 (𝒄𝑷)
𝟐𝟕. 𝟕𝟓𝟓
𝑸(𝑩𝑷𝑫)
𝟏𝟐𝟖𝑸 𝒅𝑳
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental System…
 Measuring emulsion
droplet sizes?
 Particle Video
Microscope (PVM)
Droplet images
 Focused Beam
Reflectance
Measurement (FBRM)
Reflected pulses measure
droplet chord length
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Program
 Test Fluids
 Tap water
 Mineral oil
ISOPARTM V
DN-20
Aquamarine-460
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Program…
 Viscosity
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Program…
 Test Conditions
 Pump inlet pressure: ~50 psig
 Motor speed: 3500, 3000, 2500 and 2000 rpm
 Heat exchanger to maintain temperature
 Starting from 100% water (oil) by volume,
water (oil) is replaced by oil (water) step by
step
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Program…
 Oil and water ratios:
 Obtain mixture density from flowmeter
𝝆𝒎 = 𝝆𝒘 𝒇𝒘 + 𝝆𝒐 (𝟏 − 𝒇𝒘 )
 Sampling
𝟐𝟒 𝒉𝒐𝒖𝒓𝒔
60th Advisory Board Meeting
𝑯𝒆𝒂𝒕
𝟏 𝒎𝒐𝒏𝒕𝒉
November 6, 2015
Mechanistic Modeling
 Develop mechanistic model for
prediction of ESP performance under
high viscosity and oil/water flows
 Based on physics
 Verify with experimental data
 Easy to use
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Results
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Results…
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Results…
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Results…
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Experimental Results…
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Pipe Viscometer
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Pipe Viscometer…
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Pipe Viscometer…
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Pipe Viscometer…
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Project Schedule
2014
Q1
Q2
Q3
2015
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
2016
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
2017
Q4
Q1
Q2
Q3
Q4
DAS Communication
Literature Review
Facility Upgrade 1
Two Phase Experiments
Two Phase CFD Simulation
Facility Upgrade 2
Three Phase Experiments
Three Phase CFD Simulation
Modeling and Model
Validation
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Tulsa University Artificial Lift Projects
Modeling of Transient Operations and
Instabilities in Production Operations
Fahad Al-Mudairis
McDougall School of Petroleum Engineering
The University of Tulsa
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Outline
 Objectives
 Unified model transient extension
 Transient simulator applications
 Graphical interface
 Conclusions
 Future works
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Objectives
 Develop transient gas-liquid flow model for simulation
and analysis of various steady and unsteady state
production processes
 A tool for design and optimization
 Help estimate steady state stabilization times
 Compare with experiments, field data and transient
simulators
16
160
Superficial Velocity (m/s)
Outlet gas
Bottomhole pressure
140
12
120
10
100
8
80
6
60
4
40
2
20
0
Pressure (bara)
Outlet liquid
14
0
0
2
4
8
10
60th6Advisory Board
Meeting
t (hr)
12
14
16
November 6, 2015
Steady State Zhang et al. (2003)
Unified Model
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Steady State Zhang et al. (2003)
Unified Model…
 Inputs:
 Pipe inner diameter
 Pipe roughness
 Inclination angle
 Liquid and gas densities
 Liquid and gas viscosities
 Surface tension
 Liquid and gas flow rates
 Inlet pressure
 Inlet temperature
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Steady State Zhang et al. (2003)
Unified Model…
 Outputs:
 Pressure profile
 Temperature profile
 Flow pattern
 Liquid holdup
 Local and superficial velocities
 Slug characteristics
 Wetted wall fraction
 ……..
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Unified Model Transient Extension
 Mass and momentum conservations are
function of time
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Unified Model Transient Extension
 Initial conditions are calculated using the
steady-state Unified Model
 Fluid properties are calculated at each
time step
 Pressure and temperature profiles are
estimated simultaneously
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Transient Model Outputs
Inputs
Unified
Transient
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Transient Simulator
Modifications and Applications




Original transient simulator for single pipe
Integrating heat transfer model
Basic transient operations
Gas-lift instabilities:
 Gas-injection at bottomhole
 Gas-lift with variable valve position
 Gas-lift with multiple valves
 Self-stabilizing valve (Zhang and Arellano, 2014)
 Pump intake pressure depletion for bounded
reservoir
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Original Transient Simulator
for Single Pipe
 Transient Unified Model for single pipe
gas-liquid flow at all inclination angles
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Integrating Heat Transfer Model
 Need to solve the pressure and temperature
dependency
Get pwf for given Q
Get Tbh for given temperature gradient
Guess pi+1 and calculate pavg
Guess Ti+1 and calculate Tavg
Calculate fluid properties at pavg and Tavg
Calculate Ti+1 using heat transfer model
Calculate pi+1 using transient model
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Example of Heat Transfer Model
Predictions
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Basic Transient Operations
 Gas or liquid flow rate change
 Liquid blow down
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Minami 1991
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Example of Basic Transient Operations
 Gas flow rate change
0.14
5
QG (m3/sec)
0.10
4
QG
3
0.08
0.06
2
QLout
0.04
1
0.02
0.00
QL(x10-3 m3/sec)
0.12
0
0
500
Elapsed Time (sec)
1000
1500
 Liquid blow down
5
QG
0.10
4
0.08
3
0.06
2
0.04
QLout
0.02
1
0.00
0
0
500
1000
58th Advisory Board Meeting
Elapsed Time (sec)
1500
October 9, 2014
QL(x10-3 m3/sec)
Qg (m3/sec)
0.12
Gas-lift Instabilities
 Gas lift instabilities (casing heading)
Tubing pressure decreases due to gas injection
Gas injection becomes higher than needed due to tubing
pressure decrease and gas in the annulus expands
Annulus pressure is depleted followed by lower or no gas
injection and tubing pressure builds up
Annulus pressure builds up and new cycle repeats
1
2
3
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
140
120
100
80
60
40
2
1
3
20
Bottom hole pressure
(bara)
Outlet v SG (m/s)
4
0
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
t (hr)
3.5
60th Advisory Board Meeting
4
4.5
5
November 6, 2015
Gas-injection at Bottomhole
 1: Gas injection valve:
 2: Gas-lift valve:
 3: Surface valve:
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
OLGA Hypothetical Well
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Example of Gas-injection at Bottomhole
150
OLGA Simulations
New Model
140
130
120
p (bara)
110
100
90
80
70
Gas injection rate = 0.6 kg/s
Gas injection rate = 0.8 kg/s
60
50
40
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
t (hr)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas-lift with Variable Valve Position
 4: Interval below gas-lift valve
Get pwf for given Q
Calculate pressure drop for casing
interval
Get pressure at tubing end
Calculate pressure drop for tubing interval
up to gas-lift valve
Get pressure at gas-lift valve
Integrate the calculated value into the
previous model
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Example of Variable Valve Position
Maloob Field Poblano et al. (2002)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Stability Map by Poblano et al. (2002)
for Maloob Field Data
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Predicted Results when Switching to
Point 2 in Maloob Well
10
100
Outlet liquid
9
Outlet gas
Bottomhole Pressure
90
8
80
6
5
70
p (bara)
vSL & vSG (m/s)
7
4
60
3
2
50
1
0
0
200
400
600
t (minutes)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
800
1000
40
1200
November 6, 2015
Predicted Results when Switching to
Point 3 in Maloob Well
6
94
Outlet liquid
Outlet gas
Bottomhole Pressure
92
5
90
88
86
3
84
2
p (bara)
vSL & vSG (m/s)
4
82
80
1
78
0
0
200
400
600
t (minutes)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
800
1000
76
1200
November 6, 2015
Gas-lift with Multiple Valves
Kuwait Oil Company Well #1
Perforation interval (ft)
7622-7752
Wellhead pressure (psig)
134-166
Water cut (%)
33%
Casing diameter (in)
9.625
Tubing diameter (in)
3.5
Tubing depth (ft)
7528
Gas injection specific gravity
0.884
Oil API
32.7
Reservoir pressure (psig)
2100
Productivity index (bpd/psig)
0.5
Oil flow rate (bbl/day)
1012-1602
GOR (SCF/STB)
482-757
Injection flow rate (MMSCF/day)
0.2-0.6
Valves locations (ft)
1400-7062
Wellhead temperature (F)
121-127
Gas lift valve port size (in)
0.187
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas-lift with Multiple Valves
Kuwait Oil Company Well #1
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas-lift with Multiple Valves
Kuwait Oil Company Well #1
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas-lift with Multiple Valves
Kuwait Oil Company Well #2 (Long String)
Perforation interval (ft)
7822-7956
Wellhead pressure (psig)
122-126
Water cut (%)
45%
Casing diameter (in)
9.625
Tubing diameter (in)
3.5
Tubing depth (ft)
7740
Gas injection specific gravity
0.83
Oil API
32.7
Reservoir pressure (psig)
2100
Productivity index (bpd/psig)
0.5
Oil flow rate (bbl/day)
1159-1169
GOR (SCF/STB)
1351-1418
Injection flow rate (MMSCF/day)
1.8-2
Valves locations (ft)
1428-7300
Wellhead temperature (F)
125
Gas lift valve port size (in)
0.1875
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas-lift with Multiple Valves
Kuwait Oil Company Well #2 (Long String)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas-lift with Multiple Valves
Kuwait Oil Company Well #2 (Long String)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas-lift with Multiple Valves
Kuwait Oil Company Well #2 (Short String)
Perforation interval (ft)
7434-7672
Wellhead pressure (psig)
145-141
Water cut (%)
22%
Casing diameter (in)
9.625
Tubing diameter (in)
3.5
Tubing depth (ft)
7326
Gas injection specific gravity
0.83
Oil API
32.7
Reservoir pressure (psig)
2100
Productivity index (bpd/psig)
0.5
Oil flow rate (bbl/day)
1809-1799
GOR (SCF/STB)
1255-1143
Injection flow rate (MMSCF/day)
2-1.8
Valves locations (ft)
1396-7268
Wellhead temperature (F)
124
Gas lift valve port size (in)
0.25
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas-lift with Multiple Valves
Kuwait Oil Company Well #2 (Short String)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gas-lift with Multiple Valves
Kuwait Oil Company Well #2 (Short String)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Self-Stabilizing Valve
(Zhang and Arellano, 2014)
1
0.9
y = -0.0022x2 + 0.1348x - 1.2169
Injection Factor
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
PA-PT (psia)
40
60th Advisory Board Meeting
50
60
April 17, 2015
Self-Stabilizing Valve
(Zhang and Arellano, 2014)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Pump Intake Pressure Depletion for
Bounded Reservoir
Radial Transient Flow
Radial Pseudosteady State Flow
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Pump Intake Pressure Depletion for
Bounded Reservoir
 1: Steady state flow:
 2: Pseudosteady state flow:
 3: Transient flow:
 4: Transient multi rate flow:
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Pump Intake Pressure Depletion for
Bounded Reservoir
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Graphical Interface
Gas-Lift Transient Simulator
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Conclusions
 A unified transient model is developed
for gas-liquid flow based on
conservations of mass and momentum
 Two sections for heat transfer modeling
– from bottom hole to gas-lift valve and
from gas-lift valve to surface
 Black oil model is added for fluid
properties
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Conclusions
 New transient model verified with experimental
results for four different transient phenomena
 Effects of three factors on casing heading are
simulated
 Gas injection rate
 Port size of gas-lift valve
 Productivity index
 Model applied for different applications such
as self-stabilizing gas-lift valve and reservoir
transient response
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Future Works
 Final version of GUI and model will
be available to TUALP members by
next ABM
 Gas-liquid transient model will be
extended to three-phase (gas-oilwater)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Tulsa University Artificial Lift Projects
Transient Plunger Lift Modeling
Weiqi Fu
Zhiyuan Wang
McDougall School of Petroleum Engineering
The University of Tulsa
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Outline
 Liquid loading prediction
 Plunger lift modeling
 Future works
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Application of Plunger Lift
 Liquid loading usually happens in gas wells
and leads to production rate decrease or
stop
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Application of Plunger Lift…
 Plunger lift can be used to deliquify gas wells
 Liquid loading prediction is important for
plunger lift simulation and optimization
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Liquid Loading Prediction Models
 Liquid loading prediction models can be
classified into two groups
 Traditional models
 Mechanistic models
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Traditional Models
 Traditional models:
 Turner et al. (1969) – terminal velocity
𝝈𝟏/𝟒 𝝆𝑳 − 𝝆𝑮
𝑣𝑡 = 𝟏𝟕. 𝟔
𝝆𝑮 𝟏/𝟐
Drag Force
𝟏/𝟒
𝒗𝒕 = terminal velocity, ft/s
𝝆𝑳 = density of liquid, lb mass/cu ft
𝝆𝑮 = density of gas, lb mass/cu ft
𝝈 = interfacial tension, dynes/cm
Liquid
Droplet
Gravity
 Extensions of Turner et al. model, such as
Guo et al. (2005) and Zhou et al. (2009)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Traditional Models…
 Tuner et al. model underestimates terminal
velocity about 40% compared with field data
 Modified Turner models also give larger
errors than expected
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Mechanistic Models
 Mechanistic models:
 Liquid film velocity
 Minimum pressure gradient
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Liquid Film Velocity
 Relationship between film
velocity and liquid loading
 Many researchers, such as
Liquid film
Veeken (2009), Westenden
(2008), Yuan (2011) and Gunner
(2012) proposed that liquid film
reversal leads to liquid loading
 They also conducted
experiments for validation
60th Advisory Board Meeting
Gas
flow
Tubing
November 6, 2015
Liquid Film Velocity…
 Liquid loading determined by film
velocity
 Film velocity > 0, unloading
 Film velocity < 0, loading
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Minimum Pressure Gradient
 Relationship between the minimum
pressure gradient and liquid loading
 Veeken (2009) suggested that, when OPR
reaches the minimum pressure, liquid
loading happens
 Yuan (2011) and Gunner (2012) had similar
observations in their experiments
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Minimum Pressure Gradient…
Liquid Loading
Boundary
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Zhang et al. Unified Model
 Predict liquid loading with Zhang et al. (2003)
Unified Model
Step 1: Input: well geometry, fluid properties and flow rates
Step 2: Calculation
Step 3: Output: HL, vF, pressure gradient, flow pattern, etc
Step 4: Use film velocity and minimum pressure gradient to
determine liquid loading
Step 5: Compare simulation results and experiment results
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Liquid Loading Prediction
 Pressure gradient prediction in vertical gas
wells
Liquid Loading
Boundary
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Liquid Loading Prediction…
 Film velocities in vertical gas wells
Liquid Loading
Boundary
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Liquid Loading Prediction…
 Liquid loading boundary in vertical gas wells
59th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Liquid Loading Prediction…
 Pressure gradient prediction in 75° gas wells
Liquid Loading
Boundary
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Liquid Loading Prediction…
 Film velocities in 75° gas wells
Liquid Loading
Boundary
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Liquid Loading Prediction…
 Liquid loading boundary in 75° gas wells
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Liquid Loading Prediction…
 Pressure gradient prediction in 60° gas wells
Liquid Loading
Boundary
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Liquid Loading Prediction…
 Film velocities in 60° gas wells
Liquid Loading
Boundary
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Liquid Loading Prediction…
 Liquid loading boundary in 60° gas wells
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Comparison
 Result comparisons and discussions
vSW, m/s vSG, exp, m/s vSG, Dp/DL, m/s vSG, Liquid film , m/s
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.01
0.05
0.1
0.01
0.05
0.1
15.1
14.9
20
17.5
20.1
25
20
27.5
27.5
10
12.6
17.4
10
12.5
12.5
10
12.5
14.9
18
15.78
22.5
21
26
24
24.96
25.84
26.16
60th Advisory Board Meeting
θ
90
90
90
75
75
75
60
60
60
dP/dL,
vF,
Discrepancy Discrepancy
34%
15%
13%
43%
38%
50%
50%
55%
46%
19%
6%
13%
20%
29%
4%
25%
6%
5%
November 6, 2015
Bubble and Film Velocities
 Results validation
 Direction of film velocity in
experiment is determined by
direction of bubble in liquid
film
 There is slippage between
bubble and liquid film
 Film velocity needs to be
corrected with slippage
velocity
60th Advisory Board Meeting
Bubbles
Tubing
Liquid film
November 6, 2015
Slippage
 𝐯𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐩 = 𝐯𝐠𝐚𝐬 𝐛𝐮𝐛𝐛𝐥𝐞 − 𝐯𝐥𝐢𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐝 𝐟𝐢𝐥𝐦
 𝐯𝐬𝐥𝐢𝐩 = 𝟏. 𝟓𝟑
𝐠𝛔𝐋 𝛒𝐋 −𝛒𝐆
𝛒𝟐𝐋
𝟏
𝟒
 Slippage velocity is 0.25 m/s
Input
g, m/s2
ρL, kg/m3
ρG, kg/m3
σ, N/m
Output
9.81
998
1.27
0.07
vslip,
m/s
0.25033323
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Correction
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Trends of Liquid Film
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Conclusions
 Liquid loading determined by film velocity
shows smaller errors than the minimum
pressure gradient method
 Considering slippage, film velocity value of 0.3 m/s is recommended
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Transient Plunger Lift Modeling
 New function:
 Integrated all four steps
 Moving up
 Blowout
 Moving down
 Build up
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Transient Plunger Lift Modeling
 Simulation
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Transient Plunger Lift Modeling
 Data analysis
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Future Works
 Case studies using TUALP Plunger Lift
Simulator
 Simulator improvements based on case
studies
 Thesis writing and defense
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Tulsa University Artificial Lift Projects
Downhole Gas-Liquid Separation
Literature Review and Research Plan
Haiwen Zhu
McDougall School of Petroleum Engineering
The University of Tulsa
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Outline
 Application
 Introduction
 Literature review
 Research plan
 Future schedule
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Application
 Downhole separator is used to overcome
gas problem like gas lock, gas pound
and gas interference in artificial lift
systems
 More efficient and optimized geometry
needed
 Better understanding of downhole
separation mechanism and constraints
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Introduction…
 Types of downhole separator
 Gravity type
Advantages: simple geometry, easy to operate and
cheaper
Disadvantages: not capable of handling very high
flow rate, larger size
 Rotary type
Advantages: more efficient, smaller size, can
handle higher flow rate
Disadvantages: more expensive, higher pressure
loss
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Introduction…
 Types of downhole separator
 Impeller type
 Cyclone type
 Combined type
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Literature Review…
 Rotary downhole separator
 Alhanati (1993)
For the first time, a theoretical simplified model for
downhole rotary gas separator (RGS) efficiency
was developed
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Literature Review…
 Rotary downhole separator
 Gernot Lackner (1997)
Introduced an improved turbulence model for twophase flow
 Serrano (1999)
Introduced empirical correlations for region in
front of pump intake
 Harun (2000)
Introduced a new mechanistic inducer model to be
incorporated into Alhanati’s simplified model
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Literature Review…
 Downhole natural separation
 Liu (2001)
Developed a natural separation efficiency model
based on bubble tracking method
 Marquez (2004)
Presented three approaches for downhole
separation efficiency
One-cell simplified model
Mechanistic model
New two-dimensional two-phase flow model
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Literature Review…
 Gravity type downhole separator
 Podio et al. (1995)
 Robles and Podio (1996)
 McCoy and Podio (1998)
 Lisigurski (2004)
 Guzman (2005)
 Lisigurski et al. (2005)
 Bohorquez et al. (2009)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gravity Downhole Separator
 Natural downhole gas separator (McCoy,
1999)
Prototype of gravity
downhole separator
Pump inlet below
perforations
Dip-tube
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Gravity Downhole Separator…
 Concentric and eccentric gas anchor
 Above perforations
 Separation chamber
Lopes (2002)
Stewart (2001)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
McCoy et al. (1997)
November 6, 2015
Gravity Downhole Separator…
 Packer-type downhole gas separator
 Above perforations
 Packer/Diverter/Tail pipe
 Complex geometry
Page (1990)
Don-Nan (2011)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
McCoy (2014)
November 6, 2015
Rotary Downhole Separator…
 Lee et al. (1984)
 Impeller rotated by motor
 Three working regions
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Rotary Downhole Separator…
 Two stages RGS (Morrison, 2013)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Impeller Downhole Separator…
 Weingarten et al. (1995)
 Fixed axis and impeller
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Impeller Downhole Separator…
 Different impeller geometry
Ward (1985)
Shi et al. (2015)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Cyclone Downhole Separator
 Tangential inlet
 Cylindrical or conical chamber
Schultz (2015)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
Stevens (1978)
November 6, 2015
Combined Downhole Separator
 The SPIRIT downhole gas separator (Raglin,
2013)
 Impeller on inner tubing
 Gravity separation in casing
annulus
 No moving mechanical parts
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Research Considerations
 Pressure loss
 Reliability
 Ability to handle slug flow
 Separation efficiency
 Chamber geometry effect
 In situ condition effect
 Fluid properties effect
 Flow rate and effect
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Research Plan
 Simulation and modeling
Conduct 3-D CFD simulation
Develop a mechanistic model
 Experimental program
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Research Plan
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Schedule before Next ABM
NOV
DEC
Primarily
design
Literature review,
design one or
more separator
geometry
JAN
FEB
Geometry
generation
Software study
and build CFD
geometry and
meshing
60th Advisory Board Meeting
MAR
APR
Simulation
study
Affecting factor
analysis, choose
optimized design
and do
evaluations
November 6, 2015
Tulsa University Artificial Lift Projects
Eccentric Pipe-in-Pipe Downhole
Gas Separator
Holden Zhang
McDougall School of Petroleum Engineering
The University of Tulsa
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Why Separate Gas in Downhole?
 Gas involvement reduces pump capacity
and efficiency, even causes gas lock
 Gas needs to be separated upstream of
pump
 Slugging causes separation problems,
especially in horizontal wells
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Previous Designs
 Don-Nan Pump &
Supply Co.
 Use a ported coupling
 Concentric
 Two-phase flow in
annulus
 Single-phase liquid flow
in central pipe
 High resistance to flow
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Previous Designs…
 Helical gas separator
(US5,431,228)
 May not separate
completely
Liquid entrained by gas
Gas entrained by liquid
 Not good for handling
slugging
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Previous Designs…
 Gas separator within
ESP shroud
 For ESP application
 Gas may be dispersed
in liquid due to small
area and high velocity
 May not be good for
handling slugging
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Previous Designs…
 Centrifugal separator
 For ESP application
 Consumes more power
 More failure causes
 Not good for handling
slugging
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
New Separator Design
 Eccentric pipe-in-pipe
configuration
 Multiphase flow in inner pipe
 Gas separates from liquid after
exit from inner pipe
 Gas flows upward
 Liquid flows downward slowly
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
New Separator Design…
 Single-phase liquid enters
crescent area between outer
tube and inner tube at bottom
 Free of gas, liquid flows
upward in the crescent area
and into pump intake
 Sufficient liquid volume in
annulus for slug elimination
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
New Downhole Separator Design…
 Large area in annulus
between separator and
casing for liquid settling
 Inner tube cross-sectional
area larger than the
crescent area for
multiphase flow
 Multiple holes on outer pipe
bottom for liquid to enter
the crescent area
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Sand Handling Design
 Multiphase fluids first flow
into the crescent area
between the outer tube and
the inner tube
 Gas and liquid exit from the
crescent conduit at the top
of the outer tube, and
separate
 Gas flows upward
 Liquid flows downward slowly
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Sand Handling Design…
 Single-phase liquid enters
the inner tube through
opening(s) at the bottom
 Free of gas liquid flows
upward in the inner tube to
the pump intake
 The crescent area is larger
than the inner tube crosssectional area for multiphase
flow
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Sand Handling Design…
 Ball valve at bottom of
inner tube
 Ball valve closed in
normal operation
 Due to suction force
 At shut-in, ball valve open
 Ball falls to lower position
in its cage due to gravity
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Sand Handling Design…
 Sand particles in inner
tube and annulus can sink
through ball valve
 Sand plug is avoided
 After restart, ball valve is
automatically closed by
suction force
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Sand Handling Design…
 Side view of bottom
opening connecting
annulus and inner tube
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Advantages of New Design
 Simple eccentric pipe-in-pipe
configuration – low cost
 Less resistance to flow – low pressure
drop
 Optimized areas for low velocity and
better gas bubble separation
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Advantages of New Design…
 Sufficient length for slug elimination
 Sensor to monitor liquid level
 Valve or pump speed control to maintain liquid
level
 Sand handling with a bottom ball valve
 Open at shut-in
 Allows sand particles to go through
 Automatic close after restart
Provisional patent filed on Nov 3, 2015
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Tulsa University Artificial Lift Projects
TUALP 2015 Questionnaire
and Project Discussions
Holden Zhang
McDougall School of Petroleum Engineering
The University of Tulsa
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
TUALP 2015 Questionnaire
 Your evaluation is important to guide the
direction of TUALP research
 Conducted yearly
 Drop topics with lowest scores
 Add new topics
Proposed by members or others
Based on our understanding
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Please Let Us Know Your Interest
 If feedback from a member is not
received, the previous year’s evaluation
from the same member will be used
 New topics are assigned as “Low interest”
 Please feel free to let me know of any
specific topics you are interested in
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Overall
15
16
9
10
18
Statoil
13
SLB
11
14
Petrochina
17
Petrobras
4
8
Petex
7
Pemex
6
3
12
KOC
5
Study of Gas/Oil/Water Flow and Emulsion Characteristics in ESPs
CFD Simulation and Experiments of ESP Sand Erosion
Mechanistic Modeling of ESP Performance for High-Viscosity Oil and GasLiquid Flows
Experiments and CFD Simulation of ESP Performance under Gassy Conditions
Effect of Liquid Viscosity on Gas/Liquid Stage Performance of ESPs
Experimental Study of High Speed ESP Performance
Modeling of Multiphase Flow in Horizontal Wells with Distributed Influxes
for Artificial Lift Application
Transient Gas Lift Modeling
Downhole Gas-Liquid Separation and Slug Elimination
Problematic Case Characterization and Data Interpretation for Well
Surveillance
Unified Modeling of Transient Multiphase Flow in Well and Pipeline
ESP Testing at High Pressure and Temperature
Testing ESP Performance with High-Density Gas to Simulate High-Pressure
Gas-Liquid Flow Conditions
Experiment and Modeling of Multiphase Heat Transfer around ESP Motor
Water Assisted ESP Application to Increase Heavy Oil Production
Plunger Lift Modeling and Optimization
Self-Stabilizing Gas Lift Valve to Prevent Casing Heading
Improve Gas Handling with Gradual Type Change in ESP
GE
1
2
Research Topics
Chevron
No.
Baker
2015 Questionnaire Results
2
3
5
4
5
4
5
3
5
5
41
5
5
5
4
5
1
4
3
5
5
2
3
4
4
3
4
5
4
3
5
41
38
5
4
4
2
3
4
4
4
1
1
5
5
4
3
4
4
4
5
5
3
2
4
3
3
5
4
4
3
4
4
1
4
5
3
2
4
5
5
4
3
38
37
36
35
Ongoing
Ongoing
Potential
1
3
4
5
4
3
2
1
3
3
4
5
3
5
3
5
2
5
4
1
3
5
5
5
3
4
3
3
3
3
34
32
32
Ongoing
Ongoing
2
2
3
3
5
3
1
5
1
3
4
4
5
3
3
5
3
3
1
3
4
5
1
2
4
1
3
2
4
4
31
31
30
Ongoing
Potential
1
4
1
4
5
3
1
1
4
4
28
2
1
3
3
2
4
5
1
1
1
1
1
4
3
2
3
4
2
3
1
3
5
2
3
3
3
3
1
2
5
4
3
3
2
2
1
4
1
2
1
28
27
27
18
Potential
Potential
Ongoing
Ongoing
Potential
60th Advisory Board Meeting
Status
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Ongoing
Potential
Potential
November 6, 2015
No. 1 and 2
 Study of Gas/Oil/Water Flow and Emulsion
Characterization in ESPs
 Combines oil viscosity effect, oil/water flow,
gas/liquid and three-phase flow
 Hattan Banjar (PhD Candidate) leads this project
 Ongoing
 Experiments and CFD Simulation of ESP
Sand Erosion
 Saul Gomez (PhD student) leads this project
 Planning experimental setup
 Ongoing
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
No. 3 and 4
 Mechanistic Modeling of ESP Performance
for High-Viscosity Oil and Gas-Liquid Flows
 Frame work developed by Holden Zhang
 Collecting experimental data for verification
 Ongoing
 Experiments and CFD Simulation of ESP
Performance under Gassy Conditions
 Jianjun Zhu (PhD candidate) leads this project
 Significant results obtained
 Ongoing
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
No. 5 and 6
 Effect of Liquid Viscosity on Gas/Liquid
Stage Performance of ESPs
 Ongoing project
 Combines with Hattan’s study
 Experimental Study of High Speed ESP
Performance
 Potential project
 High viscosity and gas/liquid flow
 Can start if member provides pump unit
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
No. 7 and 8
 Modeling of Multiphase Flow in Horizontal
Wells with Distributed Influxes for Artificial
Lift Application
 Transient gas-liquid flow model has been
developed
 Model will be extended for horizontal well
simulation
 Transient Gas Lift Modeling
 Ongoing project
 Fahad Al-Mudairis (PhD Candidate) leads this
project
 Significant recent progress
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
No. 9 and 10
 Downhole Gas Separation and Slug
Elimination
 Ongoing project
 Haiwen Zhu (PhD Candidate) leads this project
 New designs proposed by Holden Zhang
 Problematic Case Characterization and Data
Interpretation for Well Surveillance
 Potential
 Tailor mechanistic models for surveillance data
analysis
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
No. 11 and 12
 Unified Modeling of Transient Multiphase
Flow in Well and Pipeline
 Serves as backbone for production and artificial
lift system simulations
 Significant recent progress
 ESP Testing at High Pressure and
Temperature
 Potential project
 Possible with TUALP research well
 High temperature through recirculation
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
No. 13 and 14
 Testing ESP Performance with High-
Density Gas to Simulate High-Pressure
Gas-Liquid Flow Conditions
 Potential project
 Experiment and Modeling Multiphase
Heat Transfer around ESP Motor
 Potential project
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
No. 15 and 16
 Water Assisted ESP Application to
Increase Heavy Oil Production
 Potential
 Plunger Lift Modeling and Optimization
 Weiqi Fu (MSc Student) leads this project
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
No. 17 and 18
 Self-Stabilizing Gas Lift Valve to Prevent
Casing Heading
 Patent applied
 Test with a model
 Seek manufacturing and application
 Improve Gas Handling with Gradual Type
Change in ESP
 Potential
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Tulsa University Artificial Lift Projects
TUALP Budget and Open
Discussions
Holden Zhang
McDougall School of Petroleum Engineering
The University of Tulsa
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
2015 Budget
GL with Object Code
14-2-1202136-81801
14-2-1202136-90101
14-2-1202136-90600
14-2-1202136-90601
14-2-1202136-90610
14-2-1202136-90701
14-2-1202136-91000
14-2-1202136-91800
14-2-1202136-92102
14-2-1202136-93100
14-2-1202136-93101
14-2-1202136-93102
14-2-1202136-93103
14-2-1202136-93104
14-2-1202136-93106
14-2-1202136-93150
14-2-1202136-93194
14-2-1202136-93200
14-2-1202136-93300
14-2-1202136-93400
14-2-1202136-93500
14-2-1202136-93601
14-2-1202136-93602
14-2-1202136-93701
14-2-1202136-94813
14-2-1202136-94861
14-2-1202136-95103
14-2-1202136-95200
14-2-1202136-98901
14-2-1202136-99001
14-2-1202136-99300
2016 Budget
Scholarships-Graduate : Zhang-TUA
Salary-Principal Investigator : Z
Professional Salaries (Non-Teachi
Salary-Professional 1 : Zhang-TUA
Professional - Part-Time : ZhangSalary-Non Professional 1 : Zhang
Students-Graduate : Zhang-TUALP-P
Employee Benefits : Zhang-TUALP-P
Health Ins-Externally Funded A :
General Supplies and Expenses : Z
Research Supplies : Zhang-TUALP-P
Copier or Printer Supplies : Zhan
Parts for Fabricated Equipment :
Computer Software : Zhang-TUALP-P
Office Supplies : Zhang-TUALP-Pri
Computers $1-4999 (non cap) : Zh
Improvement of Research Facilitie
Postage and Shipping : Zhang-TUAL
Printing and Duplicating : ZhangTelecommunication : Zhang-TUALP-P
Memberships and Subscriptions : Z
Travel-Domestic : Zhang-TUALP-Pri
Travel-Foreign : Zhang-TUALP-Prim
Public Functions : Zhang-TUALP-Pr
Outside Services : Zhang-TUALP-Pr
Outside Services excluded IDC : Z
Equipment Rental : Zhang-TUALP-Pr
Indirect Costs : Zhang-TUALP-Prim
Employee Recruiting : Zhang-TUALP
Equipment >=$5000 : Zhang-TUALP-P
Bank Service Charges : Zhang-TUAL
60th Advisory Board Meeting
$ 5,000.00
$ 61,556.00
$ 36,540.00
$ 60,000.00
$ 36,000.00
$ 50,930.00
$ 19,800.00
$ 75,249.00
$ 1,584.00
$ 1,800.00
$ 12,000.00
$ 1,200.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 1,200.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 6,000.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 500.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 600.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 8,000.00
$ 11,144.00
$ 7,000.00
$ 12,000.00
$ 5,000.00
$160,857.00
$ 1,000.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 40.00
$
600,000.00
November 6, 2015
2016 Budget
Income
80917 Membership Fees
Total Income
Expenses
81801 Tuition
90101 PI - H. Zhang (25-100%)
90600 Project Coordinator - D. Trankley
90601 Post-Doc Researcher - TBD
90701 Technician - B. Sams
90610 Part-Time Professional
91000 Student Stipends
91800 Employee Benefits @ .36
92102 Student Insurance Benefits @ .08
93100 General Supplies
93101 Research Supplies & Equipment <$5K
93102 Copier/Printer Supplies
93103 Component Parts (non-IDC)
93104 Computer Software
93106 Office Supplies
93150 Computers <$5,000
93194 Improvement of Research Facilities-Supplies (non-IDC)
93200 Postage/Shipping
93300 Printing/Duplicating
93400 Telecommunications
93500 Memberships/Subscriptions
93601 Travel - Domestic
93602 Travel - Foreign
93701 Entertainment (Advisory Board Meetings)
94813 Outside Services
94861 Outside Services-Facilities Improvement (non-IDC)
95103 Equipment Rental (non-IDC)
98901 Employee Recruiting
99001 Equipment >$5,000 (non-IDC)
99300 Bank Charges
Total Direct Costs
MTDC
95200 Indirect Costs (40% of MTDC)
60th Advisory Board Meeting
Total Expenses
$
$
480,000
480,000
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
5,000
61,556
30,000
60,000
50,930
36,000
19,800
72,895
1,584
1,800
12,000
1,200
5,000
1,200
2,000
6,000
5,000
500
2,000
1,000
600
5,000
8,000
11,144
7,000
12,000
5,000
1,000
5,000
40
430,248
393,248
157,299
587,548
November 6, 2015
TUALP Financial
 Significant saving in 2015 due to an
additional CNOOC project
 Surplus will be spent on facility buildup
 Membership outlook in 2016
 Member pullout due to financial constraints
 Possible 2-3 new members
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015
Adjourn
 Next ABM
In Tulsa
April 29 (Friday), 2016, right before the
OTC
 Thanks for your support!
60th Advisory Board Meeting
November 6, 2015