SPE-183337-MS

Testing the Untestable… Delivering Flowrate Measurements with High

Accuracy on a Remote ESP Well

L. Camilleri, M. El-Gindy, and A. Rusakov, Schlumberger

Copyright 2016, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference held in Abu Dhabi, UAE, 7-10 November 2016.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
Flow-rate testing is the most fundamental form of reservoir surveillance and is typically performed on a
monthly basis using a test separator. Unfortunately, in some remote locations, the logistical challenges are
so onerous that testing cannot be conducted. This case study demonstrates the novel use of gauge data for
obtaining accurate liquid rate and water cut trends for such a well equipped with an ESP in an unmanned
desert location.
The liquid flow rate calculation was based on the principle that the power absorbed by the pump is equal
to that generated by the motor, which provides a linear equation which can be resolved for rate. Water
cut was calculated by measuring the production tubing differential pressure, which provides the average
fluid density, which is subsequently converted to a water cut. Analytical equations are used throughout the
process ensuring that the physics are respected at all times, which yields greater repeatability and confidence
than analogous methods, which are based on correlations and artificial intelligence.
The algorithms used real-time data from existing permanent downhole gauges and ESP surface
controllers, which provided the necessary measurement metrology to capture well performance transients
and provide a full production history. This method also has the advantage that there is no need to mobilise
testing equipment to the well site thereby minimizing cost as well as eliminating flaring and HSE risks
associated with remote location operations. This case study demonstrated a new technique for providing
continuous calibration of the flowrate models without any physical measurement of flowrate or fluid
specific gravity, while taking into consideration changing well and ESP performance over time. This novel
calibration method is also based on analytical equations and derived from first principles. After one year of
production, a test separator was specially mobilized to the well-site to validate the liquid rate and water cut
calculations and associated calibration technique in order to consider the method for field wide application.
This case study demonstrates that the proposed real time algorithm provides the necessary metrology and
data frequency to determine the production index as well as a trend of drainage area reservoir pressure over
time. Finally it enables a reduction in physical testing frequency while providing liquid rate and water cut
with high frequency, repeatability and resolution thereby delivering both cost savings and improvements
in information quality.
2 SPE-183337-MS

Introduction and Problem Statement

For some wells and fields located in the Middle East in desert locations, the logistics are so onerous that it
is only possible to obtain a physical measurement of flowrates once a year and in some extreme cases none
at all. When these measurements are taken, a test separator or a multiphase meter is mobilised to the well
site for testing operations which can last between 6 hours and several days depending on production rate,
completion abd whether a multirate test is planned. The well considered in this paper presented the same
challenges and only two well tests were available over a period of 18 months. In actual fact, the second well
test was specifically planned in order to evaluate the proposed flowrate calculation method. The well was
equipped with an ESP fitted with a gauge and real time data transmission to a historian, which could then
be accessed for data processing in one of two ways:
i. Real time processing using an engine in the "cloud" as shown in Figure 1
ii. or downloaded for visualization and post processing as shown in Figure 2

Figure 1—Real Time data data delivery and processing architecture

In addition to evaluating whether flowrate could be calculated with sufficient accuracy, repeatability and
resolution, a key requirement of the flowrate calculation method was to evaluate whether it could support
traditional surveillance activities such as calculating the evolution over time of the following parameters:
– ESP condition monitoring
– ESP operating point
– ESP power consumption and optimisation
– Reserve calculations
– Drainage area pressure i.e. depletion, preferably without reverting to build-ups.
– PI (Productivity Index) and therefore skin
SPE-183337-MS 3

Figure 2—Available real time data from downhole gauge and VSD (Variable Speed
Drive) covering 18 month. Also available were two well tests in April 2015 and May 2016.

The problem is further aggravated by the high number of stop/starts experienced due to power outages
caused by generator shut-downs. The well experienced 6 shut-downs per month i.e. an average drawdown
duration of 5 days over the 18 months considered, with a peak of 20 stop/starts per month during the month
of December 2015 as illustrated by the uptime analysis shown in Figure 3

Figure 3—The Stop- Start analysis shows that there are an average of 6
stops per month and therefore the average drawdown duration is 5 days.

Available Field Measurements for Case Study Well

One of the objectives was to demonstrate that flow rates can be measured using commonly available ESP
instrumentation, which is connected in real time via SCADA, thereby providing high-frequency data. The
4 SPE-183337-MS

six real-time measurements used in the calculations are summarized in Table 1 and can be deployed for any
ESP using off-the-shelf technology. ESP fluid intake and motor winding temperatures were also measured;
however, these were not directly used in the calculations and therefore are not listed in Table 1. All the
available real-time input data have been plotted in Figure 2 for the production period considered.

Table 1—Real-time ESP gauge data used in the flow-rate calculations.

Measured Parameter Data Source/Gauge

ESP intake pressure (PIP*)

Downhole gauge fitted to the ESP
ESP discharge pressure (Pd)

Tubinghead pressure (Pth) Wellhead gauge

Current at VSD** output (Id)

Voltage at VSD output (Vd) VSD controller

Frequency (F)

* PIP = pump intake pressure

** VSD = variable speed drive

As data frequency is key to analyzing the evolving trend in flow rate and pressure, Table 2 summarizes
the number of measurements captured during the production period analysed. Data frequency of once every
5 minutes was found to be sufficient, however it would have also been possible to capture data once per
minute with the existing telemetry system or even once per 4 seconds for very short periods of time of say
1 or 2 days.

Table 2—Data processing.

ESP start date after installation and beginning of production period 18 December 2014
analyzed are both the same

End date for data available 15 May 2016 (514 days)

Production period 514 days = 17.1 months

Number of measurements used after filtering Between 140,000 and 160,000 gauge measurement points depending on the
signal

Real-time data frequency One measurement every 5 minutes

A completion diagram is shown in Figure 4 and key parameters are listed in Table 3 below. The
noteworthy point is that the gauge is very close to the top of perforations and therefore no correction was
made for depth to the pressure measurements to obtain Pwf i.e. flowing pressure at sand face depth.

Table 3—Completion summary.

Pump 182 stage D3500N

Gas Separator 456 Series VGSA

Motor 375 Series, 192 HP, 2227 Volts, 62.5 Amps @ 60 Hz

Tubing size, OD 3.5" OD

Depth of gauge fitted below ESP (Measured depth (MD) is equal to 7024 ft
Vertical depth (VD)

Top of reservoir (MD= VD) 7043 ft

SPE-183337-MS 5

Figure 4—Well completion diagram; ESP is deep set and gas is vented up the annulus.

Liquid Rate Calculation Methodology

The liquid rate calculation was based on the power equation described in the five papers by Camilleri et
al. (2010, 2011, 2015, and two papers in 2016). This technique underwent an initial field trial in 2011 on
conventional wells (Camilleri and Zhou 2011) and a more recent application in an unconventional well,
Camilleri et al. (URTEC 2016) demonstrated the accuracy of the algorithm in a high GLR/low-flow-rate
application to be 1%, without any calibration to surface flowmeters. An explanation of the formula is
provided in Appendix A and is based on the principle that the power absorbed by the pump is equal to that
generated by the motor. The technique was chosen because it offers the four benefits listed below.
6 SPE-183337-MS

1. The power equation provides a unique solution across the full flow-rate range of the pump curve
irrespective of the pump type, which is not the case with the traditional pump-rate calculation method.
A comparison of the two methods is explained below and illustrated in Fig. 5.
a. The traditional method used in the industry for calculating liquid flow rate involves using the
pump characteristic head-flow curve and a measurement of the pump differential pressure. This
can be impossible to use at flow rates below the best efficiency point (BEP) because some pumps
in the industry exhibit either a very flat or saddle curve shape; see Fig. 5 for an illustration of
the three main head-flow curve types found in the industry. In such cases, the flow-rate solution
for a given measured differential head is non-unique and is very difficult to automate.
b. In Fig. 5, the ratio ηp/Qp is plotted against normalized flow rate for the same three pump types
to illustrate that there is a unique solution for any measured DP/Power. This demonstrates that
the power equation method provides a unique solution across the full flow-rate range of any
pump independently of the pump head-flow curve shape. While it transpires that the ESP in the
well considered in this case study operated to the right of the BEP (Best Efficiency Point), this
could not be known before performing the analysis and it was essential to deploy a generalized
solution which could operate in any well condition.
2. The use of an analytical equation derived from first principles as opposed to a correlation or neural
networks ensured that any change in measured data was translated into a change in flow rate. The
main benefit is that the trend in liquid rate is captured even when the model is uncalibrated so one
knows whether flow rate is increasing or decreasing. This is analogous to a flow-rate versus time type
curve for the well that respects the power equation. Furthermore, because the calculation respects the
physics at all times, once the model is calibrated, the validity can be confidently extrapolated to other
pump operating points and points in time as long as the pump efficiency curve remains unchanged
(i.e., there is no degradation in pump performance), otherwise, recalibration is required. Finally, one
can derive mathematically the derivative of an analytical equation and thereby calculate the flow-rate
resolution as a function of the instrumentation resolution, which is essential to measuring change in
flow rate.
3. The power equation relies on the fact that current is proportional to flow rate. Another way of
expressing this concept is that the pump-required power is the "action" and current is the "reaction."
This property is well suited to ESPs because of their inherent low inertia, which means that current
reacts quasi-instantaneously to any changes in flow rate. This property is routinely observed by ESP
surveillance engineers as current oscillates with large amplitudes and at high frequency when a pump
surges because of ingested free gas.
4. The power equation method is independent of fluid specific gravity (SG), which was also an important
feature because changes in WC were unknown both during startup due to phase segregation and
during production due to varying WC and GLRs in the pump and tubing. This feature was particularly
important in view of the PVT uncertainties on the subject well, but more importantly because liquid
rate becomes independent of WC estimates, which are more difficult to obtain in some cases.
SPE-183337-MS 7

Figure 5—Nondimensional pump curves illustrating the three main types of pumps found in the industry
and the ensuing impact on the two main methods for calculating liquid flow rate based on gauge data.

WC Calculation Methodology & Calibration

WC calculation was based on the pressure drop in the production tubing; which was field tested in 2011 as
documented by Camilleri and Zhou (2011). Sultan et al. (2012) also demonstrated its validity on ESP wells
located in Saudi Arabia. The calculation of Pd–Pth provides a measurement of the average mixture fluid
density, which can then be translated to a WC based on the in-situ oil and water densities as illustrated by the
equations in Appendix B, which is why the uncalibrated WC trends plots the tubing differential pressure as
it is a good proxy, although it assumes that hold-up is constant, which is not always true and requires care.
The previous papers and case studies by Camiller et al. used the theory shown in Appendix B, with
equation B-2 assuming constant hold-up. This assumption is reasonable for wells with high WC and low
GOR, however in view of the fact that it was known that the well started with water cuts less than 20%
and that hold-up was expected to change as the water cut increased, an alternative method was sought.
The method deployed was to calibrate a multiphase correlation which can then be used to convert tubing
differential pressure to WC as shown in Figure 6. The multiphase correlation and fluid PVT models
provide the method for predicting the liquid hold-up variation in time as WC varies. Because hold-up
varies, the relationship between tubing differential pressure and WC is quadratic, whereas if hold-up were
assumed constant with the use of equation B-2, the relationship would be linear. This method does make
the assumption that GOR and tubing head pressure are constant, which is obviously not always the case,
but for the wells in the reservoir under consideration, was considered a reasonable assumption because:
i. The reservoir is undersaturated. Furthermore, the bubble point (1935 psia) was substantially lower
than the initial reservoir pressure of 2450 psia, therefore, GOR spiking was not expected and
GOR would not be much greater than the solution GOR of 490 scft/bbl. This assumption could
nevertheless be precarious and required monitoring. While measuring liquid rates is logistically
challenging, obtaining wellhead fluid samples is feasible as personnel can be mobilized to the well
site with relative ease to obtain WC measurements on a quarterly basis to verify the WC model
8 SPE-183337-MS

calibration, so the assumption did not carry a high risk from this point of view. One will note from
Figure 6 that the dependence on GOR reduces as WC increases.
ii. The constant tubing head pressure assumption was not considered an issue as real time
measurements were available. An alarm was therefore set-up to recalibrate the model should the
tubing head pressure change by more than 100 psi.

Figure 6—Calibration of Water Cut Model using multiphase correlation.

The curves in Figure 6 can also be used to validate well test measurements. One can draw a "triangle"
for the expected envelope of water cuts based on the minimum and maximum expected GORs. Typically
the lower curve is based on GOR being equal to the solution GOR. Therefore, if a field measurement of
WC falls outside the "triangle", it is a deemed to be a non-validated test or, at a minimum, be subjected
to further investigation.

The Value of Uncalibrated Trends and plotting (Pi-Pwf)/q versus time

The first step in the process was to generate the uncalibrated trends, which involved calculating liquid rate
and WC using the formulae in Appendix A and Appendix B, but without any calibration. The uncalibrated
trend captures the change in flow rate but not the correct absolute value as calibration is required to remove
measurement and modeling inaccuracies. Because the uncalibrated absolute value is potentially misleading,
the liquid rate is normalized using the pump maximum flow rate at 60 Hz. Therefore, the scale is 0 to 1,
which ensures that the user is not misled into using the absolute value and redirects the focus on the trend.
The same cannot be done for WC because it is already nondimensional; therefore the tubing DP is plotted
because it is a proxy for the average SG in the tubing and for the WC if hold-up is constant. Note that
frictional losses are deducted from the tubing DP, although this is academic in this application as the tubing
is not undersized and the variation in liquid rate is low. The calculations of uncalibrated liquid rate and
tubing differential pressure are plotted in Figure 7.
SPE-183337-MS 9

Figure 7—Uncalibrated liquid rate and WC trend illustrating how the liquid rate varies
with frequency and choke changes and confirming that there is no water coning.

Although calibration provides accuracy, even without any calibration, the trend is captured correctly
because it takes advantage of the high repeatability, high frequency and high resolution of the algorithm.
The uncalibrated trends are therefore valuable for the practicing production and reservoir engineer. As an
example, the following conclusions can be drawn from Figure 7 for this case study:
– One can see that WC is stable and has not increased "suddenly" for over one year as intake pressure has
decreased. This suggests that water coning is not expected and will contribute positively to deciding
on higher drawdowns.
– Period "A" in Figure 7: Why does intake pressure increase over a two month period (January and
February) when flowrate is stable? Is the drainage area increasing by connecting more fractures,
which would be plausible in a naturally fractured carbonate? i.e. has this well's drainage area increased
thereby increasing the well PI?
– Period "B" in Figure 7; Liquid rate is essentially stable when frequency and Pth are stable, although a
gentle decline can be observed and seems to be correlated to dropping intake pressure i.e. a possible
decline in reservoir pressure?
While the uncalibrated trends do not provide answers to these questions, without the calculated flowrate,
one would not have been able to observe the phenomena and be in a position to even ask these questions.
The uncalibrated trends also allow identification of flow regime evolution by plotting (Pi–Pwf)/q versus
time on a log-log scale, as illustrated in Figure 8 and Figure 9. This analysis takes advantage of the principle
characterized by equation 1 below. The rate normalized drawdown enables comparison of several production
periods on an apples for apples basis independently of the absolute drawdown.

(1)
10 SPE-183337-MS

Figure 8—Flow regime identification using plot of (Pi-Pwf)/Q_calc, which cannot be achieved with
traditional weekly or monthly well test measurements. The calculated flowrate does not need
to be calibrated, only a high frequency, high repeatability and high resolution trend is required.

Figure 9—Zoom-in on in Figure 8 order to detect exactly the time periods when BDF is observed.

Where a, b, and n are constants:

– a and b are constants related to the well productivity and the analytical form will depend on the flow
regime, see page 83 of Jones and Britt (2009) for a more detailed expression of this equation.
SPE-183337-MS 11

– n = 0.25 or 0.5 for bilinear and linear flow regimes where the well is fractured
– n = 0 for IARF (Infinite Acting Radial Flow)
– n = 1.0 for BDF (Boundary Dominated Flow)
– qtotal downhole is the total liquid flowrate at downhole conditions and is obtained automatically from the
power equation without the traditional need to convert surface flowrate to downhole conditions using
PVT properties as flow is calculated downhole by virtue of the pump position.
It is important to point out that the flow regime can be identified with the uncalibrated flowrate. The key
is to have a trend which has high repeatability and high frequency, accuracy is not required to identify the
factor "n" in the above equation as long as the trend is consistently inaccurate i.e. has high repeatability.
The analysis demonstrates that the well is in IARF for an initial period of 150 days and then switches to
BDF, which is valuable information for the reservoir engineer to manage drawdown as well as calculate
the drainage area.

Calibrating Liquid Flow-Rate Trends

The next step in the workflow was to calibrate the model and obtain an absolute value of liquid flow
rate. This was necessary to estimate recoverable reserves and PI. The main purpose of calibration is to
eliminate inaccuracies in either the gauge measurements or modeling. It is interesting to note that calibration
is performed on all flowmeters; the only difference is that a virtual flowmeter requires in-situ calibration
whereas most physical flowmeters are factory calibrated, although test separators and multiphase flow
meters (MPFM) still require some form of calibration on site to account for fluid-specific properties. The
fact that calibration is required is not an issue in itself as long as the following can be achieved:
– The model does not require frequent recalibration because this would defeat the purpose and an
alternative means of determining flow rate would be required. The power equation meets this
requirement as it is independent of fluid SG and functions at any point on the pump curve, although
recalibration is indeed required if there is pump performance degradation.
– Calibration can be determined early in the life of the ESP so that depletion can be monitored over
the life of the ESP.
– There is a method for determining when recalibration is required, which can be calculated at high
frequency. This was achieved by monitoring the pump health indicator (PHI), which is explained in
detail further on.
With regard to the power equation, the possible sources of error are reviewed below and the conclusion
is that calibration is only required to compensate for efficiency degradation and errors in the motor model
used to calculate absorbed power, as long as best practices are being followed with regard to pump factory
testing and ESP installation.
1. Gauge pressure measurements. Although errors in gauge pressure measurements exist, the error was
found to be very small relative to other errors and the impact on the flow-rate calculations is minimal.
2. Surface electrical measurements. The current and voltage readings reported in real time can contain
a bias (as opposed to a random error) if they are not calibrated in the field against a hand-held meter.
These errors can easily be corrected in the field at the time of ESP installation and commissioning.
Alternatively, a correction can be entered in the calculation model as long as a reliable field
measurement is taken at least once in the life of each ESP, preferably after well unloading has finished.
3. Pump efficiency curve. The normal reference is the "catalog" curve. However, two potential errors
should be taken into account:
12 SPE-183337-MS

a. The actual pump installed has a slightly different efficiency curve, although it is within the
tolerances of API RP11S2 (1997). To remove this bias, a corrected efficiency curve based on
factory test points for the actual pumps installed was used in the power equation model for each
ESP, as shown in Figure 10.
b. There is potential degradation of the efficiency curve caused by wear, gas, or viscosity.
Following inspection of the fluid properties and the downhole temperature, no viscosity
degradation was expected; however, degradation due to free gas and wear could not be ruled
out. The methodology used in other applications by the authors and applied here was to perform
calibration at a time when both of these types of degradation should not be present; e.g.,
immediately after ESP installation because:
– Gas degradation is unlikely as GOR is approximately equal to solution GOR in this field and
the intake pressure is greater than the bubble point (1935 psia) by a margin of more than 100
psi and usually 300 psi. Therefore the GVF is minimal. Even if there is some free gas present,
at least 50% will be eliminated by the gas separator and up to 10% GVF can be handled by
the pump, as explained by Gamboa and Prado (2012). If free gas is a concern on future wells,
then a gas handler can be installed in order to handle larger volumes of free gas. The flowrate
calculation trial on a multifractured horizontal well showed less than 1% error with GVFs
up to 30% using a helicoaxial gas handler, see Camilleri et al (URTEC 2016).
– As the pump is new, one can safely assume that degradation due to wear is minimal during
the initial month and even 2 months after installation.
– The need for recalibration is subsequently flagged using a calculated quality factor called the
PHI, which is explained further on.
4. There are potential errors in the calculation of the motor-generated power, which relies on modeling
of the motor to obtain the motor power factor and efficiency. These factors are effectively constant
when operating at motor load factors greater than 50%, which is typically the case, and therefore only
introduces a bias in the calculations as explained by Camilleri et al. (2010). However, to improve
the accuracy, the latest motor power model includes an algorithm that takes into account changes
in voltage (i.e., motor saturation) which can also be used to optimize motor current. This provides
the possibility of calculating power at load factors below 50%. Despite these recent improvements,
there are still some inaccuracies and calibration is required to take into account changes in motor
performance associated with bottom hole temperature.
SPE-183337-MS 13

Figure 10—Pump curve for 182 stage D3500N calibrated using

factory test measurements for both sections of 91 stage D3500N

The traditional process for calibrating calculated flow rates is to simply shift the whole flow-rate curve
(up and down) using a factor that is calculated by comparing the calculated and surface-measured flow rate
defined by Eq. 2:

(2)

Although this method is fine, it presumes that surface rates are available, which was not the case for the
subject well. For this reason, the case study utilized an alternative novel technique, which had already been
used and evaluated on unconventional oil wells with excellent results. The results documented by Camilleri
et al. (URTEC 2016) showed a difference in liquid rate of less than 1% between the measured surface test
separator and the calculated results. Furthermore, the calculated liquid rate had improved repeatability when
compared to the test separator measurements. Based on these results and those shown by Camilleri et al.
(2015), this new technique was deployed on this well. The method involves making an initial assumption
that the in-situ pump efficiency curve is performing as per the factory test curve, which is fair as long as
the following two conditions are met:

• Condition #1. The pump has not suffered any wear prior to calibration. This is a fair assumption
if the calibration is performed immediately after installation of the ESP, which was the case, see
Figure 11.
• Condition 2. There is no pump performance degradation caused by gas during calibration. To
ensure that this was the case, the real-time pump DP was plotted versus time to identify the start of
14 SPE-183337-MS

surging, which never occurred during the 18 months of production, see Figure 11, which confirmed
the low GVF expectation based on PVT analysis discussed above.

Figure 11—Liquid Rate Calibration achieved by correcting power calculations in order to achieve a PHI of 1.0 during initial
month of production. In actual fact PHI remains constant at 1.0 confirming that the liquid rate does not need recalibration.

This calibration method relies on the comparison of the ratio of pump DP to power, as described in Eq.
3, which is called the PHI (Pump Health Indicator)

(3)

A detailed explanation of the workflow can be found in the patent by Camilleri (2015); however, a
summary is as follows:

• (DP/Power)actual (numerator); the pump-absorbed power is calculated using the same method
employed for liquid rate calculation (i.e., using voltage, current, and frequency real-time
measurements as per Appendix A), whereas the pump DP is taken directly from the downhole
gauge intake and discharge pressures.
• (DP/Power)reference= ηp/Qp is obtained from the pump curve using factory test points.

• Both these values should be calculated at the same differential pump pressure

It can be seen from Eq. 3 that:

– The PHI can be calculated using the same readily available real-time parameters listed in Table 1.
SPE-183337-MS 15

– DP/Power is independent of SG because it is implicit in both the numerator and denominator and
therefore cancels itself out.
– The PHI is directly related to pump efficiency and flow-rate degradation, which is the main reason
it can be used a recalibration trigger.
– To calculate the PHI, one needs to know the relative change with time in fluid SG through the ESP
in order to calculate the numerator and denominator at the same DP.
The basis of the calibration is that the PHI should be equal to one during the initial calibration period when
no degradation is expected and it is this principle that is used to calibrate the liquid rate as shown in Figure
11. In actual fact, the PHI stays constant at 1.0 throughout the whole 18 month production period which
corroborates the fact that the liquid rate model does not require recalibration. PHI can be observed on a time
based plot as show in Figure 11, or alternatively on a plot of DP/Power versus DP as shown in Figure 12.

Figure 12—Alternative visualization of PHI=1.0 to confirm calibration and that recalibration is not required.

Once the model has been calibrated, the absolute values can be displayed on the PCL (Production
Composite Log) and these are shown in Figure 13. Other tracks can be added to the log such as cumulative
production, PHI and rate normalized pressure difference, however the recommended minimum number of
tracks is to concurrently visualize the control parameters (i.e. choke and frequency) and the resulting main
production parameters i.e. flowing pressure, liquid rate and WC, which is the selected format for Figure 13.
16 SPE-183337-MS

Figure 13—Final Calibrated Log

Liquid Rate Accuracy or Repeatability?

The calculated rates were compared to the two physical well test measurements and the results are shown
in Figure 14 and were very encouraging. When the calculated flowrate is calibrated utilizing the PHI
technique described above, the difference in flowrate after 1 year of operation is less than 2.5%. Is
this a sign of excellent accuracy or repeatability? In actual fact both, as even with excellent accuracy,
without repeatability, the difference would have been greater after one year of operations, which included
5 frequency changes and more than 6 choke movements. At the time of writing this paper, we were not
sure if this difference was due to the inaccuracy of the liquid rate calculation or inconsistent physical test
measurements as we could not account for uncertainties due to:
– Different test devices were used, the initial 2015 test was performed with a MPM(multiphase meter)
and the second 2016 test was perform with a classical test separator. Later on some doubt was shed
on the repeatability of the multiphase meter.
– The comparison of physical test rates and calculated rates requires knowledge of formation volume
factors, which always contains some uncertainty.
– Test separators also contain some inaccuracy, which is of the order of 1% to 9% depending on in-
situ calibration
SPE-183337-MS 17

Figure 14—Comparison of Calculated Liquid Rates with Well Test Measurements

Because of the above, the (Pi-Pwf)/q values were also compared in Figure 14 and these showed an
excellent match confirming that the trends matched. This comparison is especially valuable for the first
2015 test when the MPM liquid rate data is noisy, but when plotted as (Pi-Pwf)/q, tracks the calculated rates
perfectly thereby confirming our confidence in the rate calculation technique to provide the correct trend.

ESP Surveillance Part I—Monitoring Pump Operating Point

Most pump operators keep a close eye on where the pump is operating relative to the best efficiency point
(BEP). This is because, depending on the pump mechanical configuration and material selection, there
is less mechanical wear on the pump and power consumption is minimized when operating within the
recommended range (i.e., as close to BEP as possible). Furthermore, head degradation caused by free gas is
increased when operating at flow rates below the minimum recommended operating flow rate, as explained
by Gamboa and Prado (2012). Interestingly, calculating the liquid rate using the power equation provides the
downhole average flow rate through the pump directly without the need to correct from the surface measured
rate to downhole conditions using FVF effects. Therefore, this analysis is independent of WC calculation
and fluid PVT properties and solely dependent on the downhole liquid rate calculation. To illustrate this
monitoring workflow, the downhole flow rate has been plotted after normalizing by the flow rate at BEP
to remove the effects of frequency and is shown in Figure 15. In this case, the ESP was correctly sized and
is operating to the right of the curve.
18 SPE-183337-MS

Figure 15—ESP Operating Point;

– The liquid rate calculation effectively automates an often laborious and repetitive task for many field
production engineers who conduct nodal analysis on a regular basis to monitor pump operating point.
– Since there is often uncertainty associated with bubble point and FVF data, this method provides a
means to calculate downhole rate without any prior knowledge of PVT.
– Subsequent ESP installations benefit from this analysis because it provides advice on whether
additional stages are required to operate an ESP within its operating range.
To summarize, the liquid rate data can help the production engineer take into consideration ESP run life
concerns when deciding on choke position, pump speed, and future ESP designs.

ESP Surveillance Part II—Monitoring and Optimizing Motor Current

One of the natural byproducts of using the power equation for the liquid rate calculation is that a
detailed calibrated motor model is made available to calculate the motor-generated power, which takes into
consideration the changes in motor winding saturation as voltage is modified, thereby providing an estimate
of the product of power factor (PF) and motor efficiency (ηm) at all times. This means that it is possible to
calculate the voltage that would minimize the current and thereby minimize both consumed power as well
as motor operating temperature without any change in pump frequency and production. The results of such
modelling is shown in Figure 16 with the use of normalized voltage, as expressed in Eq. 4, to remove the
effect of frequency when plotting versus time.

(4)
SPE-183337-MS 19

Figure 16—ESP Power Optimisation

In this case, the potential current reduction is minimal, especially at the higher operating speed of 55 Hz.
In other cases, especially where the motor is underloaded, there may be opportunities to reduce the voltage
to reduce the current, which not only provides a power saving but also reduces the motor temperature.

Reserve Estimates
Reserve estimates are typically obtained from simulation i.e. history matching of measured rates and
pressure. This remains the preferred method and is enabled by the high frequency rate data, examples of
such simulation are shown in two papers by Camilleri et al. (2015 and 2016). It is nevertheless possible to
obtain real-time reserve estimates using the flowing material balance equation. The first known explanation
of this technique was provided by Blasingame and Lee (1986), and it has been more recently reviewed by
Matter and Anderson (2003). The technique is summarized by Eq. 5.

(5)

Where:
– = material balance time
– = inverse of productivity equation for pseudo steady-state condition

Key conditions to be respected when using this equation are the following:
– The well should be in boundary-dominated flow regime: This can be seen from Figure 8 and Figure
9, where the production engineer can readily identify the time periods when a unit slope is apparent
and therefore the condition is met.
20 SPE-183337-MS

– It is an undersaturated reservoir (i.e., reservoir pressure is greater than bubble point). The initial
measured reservoir pressure was 2450 psia at gauge depth and the bubble point is 1935 psia, therefore
this condition is met unless depletion is greater than 500 psi.
– The original derivation by Mattar and Anderson (2003) for bpss was for a vertical well in a cylindrical
reservoir. However, we are not trying to identify the components of the pseudo steady-state equation
in this study because we are only interested in the "bundled" PI.
– Finally, the original derivation used FVF to convert surface rates to downhole conditions. In this
application, all the calculations have been performed using total calibrated downhole liquid rate as
calculated by the power equation and therefore there is no need convert to downhole conditions,
which is an inherent advantage of the power equation rate calculation. Furthermore, we have the total
liquid rate without the need to recombine phases; again, this is correct because it is this total rate that
causes the pressure drop in the reservoir volume connected to the well.
With Eq. 5 in mind, (Pi-Pwf)/q versus tmb was plotted and this is displayed in Figure 17. We are immediately
pleasantly surprised with the ease and confidence with which one can fit a straight line to the data despite
varying pressures and flow rates, and this is confirmed by coefficients of determination which are greater
than 0.85, with the exception of two time periods due to the inclusion of some transient data, which confirms
the repeatability of the liquid rate calculation. Note the slope of the flowing material balance equation
provides an estimate of the liquid pore volume which is mobilised by the drawdown applied by the ESP. With
these linear relationships in hand, the production engineer can easily develop rough estimates of production
profiles for late-time production (i.e., boundary dominated) and can examine different drawdown scenarios.

Figure 17—Flowing material balance plot provides real time measurement of connected liquid pore volume

The analysis yields an estimate of 1 / N Ct, which can be converted to reservoir size with knowledge
of initial water saturation and compressibility. In this case, the analysis shows a decreasing slope over the
SPE-183337-MS 21

17 month production period which indicates that the ESP is draining an ever increasing area. One would
expect this to be associated with an increasing PI, which is corroborated by a reducing Y-intercept in Figure
17, which is the inverse of PI in equation 5.
This is one of many techniques for taking advantage of flowrate trends with high frequency, resolution and
repeatability to estimate reservoir properties, however one should consider other techniques to corroborate
any answers, such as simulation, although the flowing material balance technique has the merit of being
fast and simple to use.

Reservoir Pressure Trend

While the preceding analysis provides us with dynamic points on the IPR curve (flow rate and flowing
pressure), what we do not know is how the drainage area reservoir pressure evolves with time, which is
indispensable to calculating the well PI. This is because none of the shutdowns are long enough to capture
a buildup that can provide a measurement of the reservoir pressure. The objective is to have a real time
measurement of drainage area static pressure without performing a build-up. The classical technique is to
perform simulation as illustrated by Camilleri et al (2015 & 2016), however we will show how a rapid
estimate can be obtained from the high resolution high frequency rate data generated by the flowrate engine.
The frequency changes and choke movements provide the production engineer with multirate tests that
can be used to plot an IPR curve and thereby estimate reservoir pressure and PI. Figure 18 illustrates how
this is achieved for the subject case study well. The flowrate model for this well has a calculated resolution
(see theory in Appendix B) which ranges between 7 and 18 bpd depending on the ESP operating point
i.e. this is less than 0.5% of the nominal pump flowrate of 3,000 bpd. With this metrology, one can detect
the small changes in flowrate which occurred in March 2015 and May 2016, which are shown in Figure
18. The stabilized rates and flowing pressures are subsequently plotted on an IPR curve, which provides a
calculation of the PI and drainage area reservoir pressure with a high coefficient of determination for the
3 and 4 drawdowns captured. This technique provides an excellent tool for an "on-the-fly" IPR estimate
and confirms that there is depletion of 145 psi over an 11 month period and that PI increased from 11 to 19
rbpd/psi based on downhole liquid rate, which was also observed with the flowing material balance graph
(Figure 17). Note that these multirate tests and analysis should be performed over a short duration of time as
they assume constant reservoir pressure, in this well, less than 2 weeks is advisable. Confidence in this type
of analysis can be substantially improved substantially by flowing the well at a lower flowrate of say 3,000
rbpd to provide an additional point on the IPR curve and reduce reservoir pressure estimate errors due to
extrapolation. This could have been achieved by operating the pump at 45 Hz in May 2016 (see Figure 19)
22 SPE-183337-MS

Figure 18—Using High resolution flowrate to measure PI and reservoir pressure

Figure 19—ESP and well performance May 2016

SPE-183337-MS 23

ESP Performance
With knowledge of the PI and reservoir pressure, it is possible to develop an up to date system curve for
the ESP and generate the plot shown in Figure 19. This provides the production engineer with a direct
relationship between liquid rate and ESP frequency. For instance, the production engineer can determine
the required operating frequency to flow the well at a lower rate of 3,000 rbpd to confirm reservoir pressure
using the graph Figure 18. Alternatively, an estimate is provided of how production would increase if pump
speed were increased from 55 to 60 Hz i.e. 450 rbpd in this case.

Delivery of PCL – production Composite Log

For this well, the PCL was delivered in two formats to the end user, which is typically the production and
reservoir engineer.
i. Real-time delivery is generally the preferred choice of the production engineer in charge of field
operations. This person needs to see instantaneously the change in rate associated with a change in
frequency and/or choke movement as shown in Figure 18.
ii. The reservoir engineer who usually performs quarterly or annual inflow analysis on each well
generally preferred the format shown in Figure 13. This was also made available to the users in both
log and electronic formats for loading in other software such as pressure and rate transient analysis
commercially available packages.

Conclusions
This case study demonstrated the following:
1. Using commonly available ESP gauge data, it is possible to generate a liquid rate trend that has
sufficient frequency, repeatability, and resolution to perform reservoir analysis.
2. The liquid rate model can be calibrated without reference to a physical meter utilizing a novel PHI
(Pump health Indicator).
3. A single calibration was valid for 17 months
4. A difference of only 2.5% was measured with the physical meters after 13 months of production.
5. The resolution of the calculated liquid rate was less than 18 bpd i.e. less than 0.5% of the pump
nominal flowrate of 3,000 bpd.
6. The flowrate calculation can be performed in real time and delivered to multiple users via the internet.
7. The rate calculation provided the ESP operating point in real time.
8. The power model enabled optimization of the motor voltage to minimize the current drawn and thereby
minimize consumed power and motor temperature.
9. Reservoir flow regime can be identified with the uncalibrated calculated liquid rate by plotting rate
normalized pressure difference versus elapsed time on a log-log scale, thereby identifying in real time
periods of IARF and BDF.
10. The high frequency liquid rate calculations made it possible to obtain reserve estimates in real time,
or, more precisely, connected liquid pore volume calculations can be obtained utilizing the flowing
material balance equation.
11. The high frequency, high resolution and high repeatability of the liquid rate calculations made it ideal
for capturing multirate well test data to determine PI and reservoir pressure without the need for a
build-up, which can cause deferred production.
24 SPE-183337-MS

Nomenclature

Abbreviation Example Unit of Measure Meaning:

Bo nondimensional Oil FVF

Ch nondimensional Pump head degradation = Ha/Hr

Cq nondimensional Pump flow degradation = Qa/Qr

Cη nondimensional Pump efficiency degradation = ηa/ηr

DP psi Differential pressure across the pump

H ft or m Pump differential head

F Hz Power frequency

g ft/s 2 Gravitational acceleration

GLR Gas Liquid Ratio

h ft Vertical depth of ESP relative to wellhead

MFHW Multiple Fractured Horizontal Well

MPFM Multiphase Flowmeter

Power hp Power absorbed by the pump

HL nondimensional Average tubing liquid holdup

Pi psia Initial reservoir pressure

Pd psia Pump discharge pressure

PIP psia Pump intake pressure

Pwf psia Flowing pressure (in this case study, it is assumed that Pwf=PIP because the pump setting
depth is very deep and there is very little difference)

Pth psia Tubinghead pressure

PI bpd/psi Productivity Index

ηp nondimensional Pump efficiency

ηm nondimensional Motor efficiency

I amps Current, subscripts are

– d for current measured at variable speed drive output
– m for downhole current at motor

V volts Motor voltage (volts) and subscripts define where the voltage is measured:
– m for downhole voltage at motor terminals
– s for surface voltage on secondary of step-up transformer where this exists
– d for voltage or current measured at VSD output

PF nondimensional Motor power factor

q B/D Flow rate

WC % WC

Subscript a Actual measurement

Subscript m motor

Subscript p pump

Subscript r Reference measurement

Subscript np Nameplate

ρ nondimensional Density and with m, w, HC subscripts for mixture, water, and hydrocarbon
SPE-183337-MS 25

References
API RP11S2 1997. Recommended Practice for Electric Submersible Pump Testing, Second edition. Washington, D.C: API.
Blasingame, T.A. and Lee, W.J., 1986, Variable-Rate Reservoir Limits Testing, presented at the Permian Basin Oil & Gas
Recovery Conference, held in Midland, Texas, 13 March.
Camilleri, L.A.P. 2013. System, Method, and Computer Readable Medium for Calculating Well Flow Rates Produced
with Electric Submersible Pumps. U.S. Pat. No. 8,527,219.
Camilleri, L.A.P. 2015. Centrifugal Pump Degradation Monitoring Without Flow Rate Measurement. International
Application No. PCT/US15/44241, August 7, 2015.
Camilleri, L.A.P., Banciu, T., and Ditoiu, G. 2010. First Installation of Five ESPs Offshore Romania—A Case Study and
Lessons Learned. Presented at the SPE Intelligent Energy Conference and Exhibition, Utrecht, The Netherlands, 23–
25 March. SPE-127593-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/127593-MS.
Camilleri, L., Brunet, L., and Segui, E. 2011. Poseidon Gas Handling Technology: A Case Study of Three ESP Wells in
the Congo. Presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and Gas Show and Conference, Manama, Bahrain, 6–9 March. SPE
141668-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/141668-MS.
Camilleri, L.A.P. and Zhou, W. 2011. Obtaining Real-Time Flowrate, Water Cut and Reservoir Diagnostics from ESP
Gauge Data. Presented at the SPE Offshore Europe Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Aberdeen, UK, 6–8
September. SPE-145542-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/145542-MS.
Camilleri, L., El Gindy, M., and Rusakov, A. 2015. Converting ESP Real-Time Data to Flow Rate and Reservoir
Information for a Remote Oil Well. Presented at the SPE Middle East Intelligent Oil & Gas Conference & Exhibition,
Abu Dhabi, UAE, 15–16 September. SPE-176780-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/176780-MS.
Camilleri, L., El Gindy, M., and Rusakov, A. 2016. ESP Real-Time Data Enables Well Testing with High Frequency,
High Resolution, and High Repeatability in an Unconventional Well. Presented at the Unconventional Resources
Technology Conference, San Antonio, Texas, USA, 1–3 August 2016. URTEC 2471526.
Camilleri, L., El Gindy, M., and Rusakov, A. 2016. Providing Accurate ESP Flow Rate Measurement in the Absence of
a Test Separator presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference held in Dubai, UAE, 26 –28 September 2016,
SPE –181663 - MS
Gamboa, J. and Prado, M. 2012. Experimental Study of Two-Phase Performance of an Electric-Submersible-Pump Stage.
SPE Production & Operations 27 (4): 414–421. SPE-163048-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/163048-PA.
Jones, J.R and Britt, L.K., 2009, Design and Appraisal of Hydraulic Fractures, Society of Petroleum Engineers, ISBN
978-1-55563-143-7
Mattar, L. and Anderson, D.M., 2003, A Systematic and Comprehensive Methodology for Advanced Analysis of
Production Data, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, USA, 5–8
October. SPE-84472-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/84472-MS.
Sultan, M., Al-Enezi, M., Warwick, L.M., Almusabeh, M.I., and Kaba, A.A. 2012. Forecasting and Monitoring Water Cut
Utilizing ESP Pump Discharge Pressures and Fluid PVT Analysis. Saudi Aramco Journal of Technology, Summer 2012
26 SPE-183337-MS

Appendix A
Liquid Rate Calculation and Resolution Formulae
The method for calculating liquid rate is based on the ESP "power equilibrium equation." This is based on
the principle that the torque and speed of the pump-absorbed power and motor-generated power are equal
at all times in an ESP, as shown in Eq. A-1:

(A-1)

A simplified form of this equation:

(A-2)

The form in Eq. A-2 is useful because:

– DP/Power is measured from real-time data.
– ηp/Qp is obtained from the pump characteristic curve as shown in Fig. 5 which is how rate is obtained.
A more detailed procedure for resolving this equation is contained in the patent by Camilleri (2013). The
following is a review of the meaning of each term in this equation and, more importantly, the source of the
data and assumptions made. Eq. A-1 includes the constants that should be used in conjunction with oilfield
units to calculate the power in horsepower:

DP This is the differential pressure across the pump in psi. The downhole gauge measures the
intake (Pi) and discharge (Pd) pressures in real time; DP is just the difference between the
two. Note that it is important to run a gauge that measures discharge pressure in addition to
intake pressure to enable flow-rate calculation.
ηp This is pump efficiency. Because the pump efficiency cannot be measured directly, the
solution requires that the pump efficiency is based on that of a new pump taken from either
the catalog or test curves.
I This is the motor current (amps) and is usually measured directly by the VSD or
switchboard controller. Often, the current is measured at the VSD and needs to be
multiplied by the transformer ratio to obtain downhole current.
Vm This is the downhole motor voltage (volts). Because only surface voltage can be measured,
it is necessary to subtract the voltage loss in the power cable. This can be estimated from
cable resistance properties and the measured current. As with the current measurement, the
surface voltage is measured by the VSD controller and therefore needs to be divided by the
transformer ratio to obtain downhole voltage.
ηm× PF This is the product of motor efficiency and power factor. For the current case study, these
values could not be measured. However, it is possible to take direct measurements of power
factor with additional surface electrical instrumentation, which can be considered on other
wells. A motor model based on motor laboratory test data calculates the product of motor
efficiency and power factor for all loads and voltages, thereby ensuring that the liquid rate
was valid at low startup frequencies when the load factor is low.
SPE-183337-MS 27

Calculating Flow Rate Resolution

The power equation A-1 can be rewritten in the following format:

(A-3)

where qn = (2q-qBEP)/qBEP.
The resolution for DP/P at time t becomes:

(A-4)

where .
Formulation in Eq. A-4 assumes constant ηm×PF, which is not strictly true, but is a first approximation,
and the authors have found that a more complex form does not impact the calculation of resolution. The
gauge measurement resolutions used in the case study are:
– δPd = δPi = 0.1 psi is the gauge pressure resolution
– based on frequency resolution being at least 0.1 Hz
– δI = 0.1 amps is the current measurement resolution and is 1% of the full load rating of the VSD
– δV = 0.1 volts.
The resolution for nondimensional flow is then obtained by multiplying the resolution of DP/P by the
inverse of the derivative of the pump characteristic curve shown below
28 SPE-183337-MS

Appendix B
WC Calculation
The proposed method for calculating water is based on calculating the average mixture density in the
production tubing above the ESP as a function of the pressure difference between the pump discharge
and wellhead, as expressed by Eq. B-1. This technique is analogous to a gradiometer, with the difference
being that because of the length of the tubing, friction must be taken into consideration to achieve a single
calibration over a wide range of flow rates. In environments where the average tubing holdup change is
small, the change in density can be related to a WC change using Eq. B-2. Once such a model is calibrated
against measured WC, ideally measured with a multiphase flowmeter, trending WC with time becomes
possible. This technique requires both pump-discharge pressure and tubinghead-pressure measurements in
real time, and when slugging is present in the tubing, the data are required at high frequency to capture
pressure oscillations. The relationship between mixture density and outflow pressures is:

(B-1)

WC is then obtained using Eq. B-2 after neglecting the pressure drop in the gas phase:

(B-2)