SPE 30275

Eliminating Sucker Rod Couplings Can Reduce Progressing Cavity

Pump Operating Costs
D.J. Wdtse,* B.A
SPE Members
numw9pmotmd

Weir,* HigMand/Corod

Inc.

tormsNlwonal
ltlolnlolNhoMIHw
wollsymp08m

tlOklncalQary,

Aswh

Cumdl

1s-21

JM-U19S5

Ummcl U&mtldlylhoummrll)
cmamsotlm
Dtow.
nPm-rNa88dymlM
amyp0u10n01n
bylIwa(AhOr@)
llNm8t3nd,
ac Pm9M@.
-m
timteomm?lswod
by IIw SoaMYd PoImbum EnOIIWOrsand amukqsdsdtocumcbmI
pwokum ECammnwsdwwsalmyol
P+~a
SPEmosrqsrnsub@
tocuMubon-bYE-d~
~
m dfcon, u martaus.
~dmn-deywhc
~tOWPYn
m8ffC10d10 MXlmCldnOt
WWSWMn WOti.
Wuamwnurrwy m% Oocquod. ThsaLmtraCt8bM~~
pmwnlcd.
P.o SOx Ss3s3s n~,
TX 7SIMMS3S,
U.S.A. IFiaamb 2144S2-S43S).
m m
cOntudmm
lhmpq0rwnNilc+4dt0rpmnnmbmoymsPsPmgmmcamnmmD
lc4mq-OtInlOmmbOm

Wllm
lAmliM,
WE.

ABSTRACT
It is amunon knowledge that some of the obstacles
that must be overcome to mce#ully operate
arc
Progmasing cavity Pumping (PCP) systems
attributed to amventional sucker rod couplings
andthcupsctarea aroundthmu

This paper address how the use of (X@iIIUOUS

sucker rod in PCP Systems can dramatically
reduce the Ovcmll qxmting costa in high
viscosity, heavy oil lifting application as well as,
high water q high volume lifting applications.
Eliminating the conventional sucker rod
couplings, and therefore the constricting annulus
Cffiiwillaltcrth
cpumprcq~ti

decreasingthe differentialpressure the pump must

overcome. Thereby dccmahg the hmepower
requirement and Uldmately dc==ing the Pm=
Cxmstunption
In Wattling out pay mncs, completed with 73 mm
(2-7/S) tubing a 25.4 mm (l) suckerrod string
the extra torque
may bcrquircdtoa
cxommodatc
amociatcdwith lifting higher volumes of fluid25.4 mm (1) continuous suckerrod can umtribute
to additionalcost savings by providing the
additionaltoquc mrrying capacitywithout
hmasing the tubing aim.
Referencesand illustrationsat end ofpapcr

Through the w of independent softwmc

modeling a comparison of conventional sucker
rods versus continuous sucker rod in PCP Syatcms
Willbeprcsentcd toiuustrate howopemdngcost
reductions may berdizedthrough
thcdimimion
Ofthc conventional sucker rod couplings.
INTRODUCTION
The relatively low upfkont capital cost and
operating cost Ofprogmasing cavity Pumpiig
(PCP) Systems am major reasons fbr their ever
kmasingpopularity.
A with any-or
product line however, its lime success depends
on oontinucd improvements to further enhamx
ymost PcP
performance. biscqud
mmukummhavc
mmcndow R& Dinidativcs
to improve their produus performance inanart
tocontinue tolowcropcming costs. In

economies
andlor opthnizmion
selectingandutiking
application at hand.

can be realizd w
proper equipxnentfixthe

Forinstaxq thcrclativc efktflowloasss

havcon
mm @eW hugely on the application.
Pammetemsuch as flowregime (hminaror
turbulent), tubing *
suck rod aim (with or
without CmIpling$ Centrali?xrs etc.), fluid Viscosity
andcxpctcdflow ratcsal.lhavcadmmatic impau

30275
on the magnitude of flow losses. They can either
be negligible or very significant. If not considered
in heavy oil and high watercutigh volume
designs, flow losses may lead to prematurepump
t%iluredue to over pressuringor readt in much
higher eomected homepowerand subsequent
higher operatingcosts. Thus, properconsideration
must be given to as many parametersas possible,
afterwhich the appropriateequipmentthat will
workmost effectively in the speci6c ckmMamx
shouldbe selected in orderto rninimk operating
costs.

where: Q= PumpDisplwxment (btWday)

P = DiHerentialPump Pressure(psi)
or
H@ydradc = ~ X

LJ6579

(Sx)

where: Q = PumpDisplacement (m3May)

L= Metersof Lift
It is clearilom the above equatiou that kecpii
the differentialpump pressureornelliftas lowas
Posslkdeminiti
Hp@+ouuc.

BACKGROUND
Operatingcost reductionas it pertains to PCP
artificiallift systems can be achieved by using the
least amountof horsepowernecessag to produce
the volume of fluid sought and by reducing
maintenancecosts.
Typieslly the total pump horsepowerrequiredto
lift fluid has two components. The first is the
horsepowerrequiredto overcomefriction within
the pump and the second componentis the
horsepowerrequiredto M fluid (@easenote, there
maybe power demandswithin the pump due to
flow characteristicssuch as viscosity and sand eu~
but will be not emsidered in this discussion).
Total pump horsepowerthen is the summationof
these two componentsas follows:
Hptora[= Hpfiction+ Hphyiraulic
where: Hpttir = Total Pump Horsepower
Hp@rim = Pump Friction Horsepower
HpWMUk = Hydraulic Pump Hp
Hpfictim typically represents10?42O%of the total
pumphorsepower. It is largely dependentupon
the interferencefit between rotorand statorand
the numberof continuous seal lines. The pressure
capabilityof a PCP is based on the numberof
eantinuoussealing lines it has. Therefore,
minimizingthe pressurerequirementof the PCP
reducesthe numberof stages which in turn
reducesHpJHctian.

TINWfor both components differential pump

pressure has a directimpact on horsepowerand
thereforeshouldbe given serious consideration
when designing PCP systems.
The majorcomponentsof tintenance and repair
costs are surfaceand subsurfxx equipment
replacement(e.g. wellhead drivefailure, sucker
rodfailure, tubingfiiilureand PCP life). The best
way to maximix mechanical equipment
performanceis to ensurethat the setice loads they
aresubjectedtoarenot extreme oratleastfall
within the manukturers recommendedoperating
range. Equipmentapplicationto inaccwate
se.rvix loads ean lead to prematureequipment
failure. For example, a PCP and suckerrod string
designed for smaller loads than it is actually
experiencingwill M prematurely. A PCP may
not have the lifting capacityto effectively
overcamethe aclual differentialpump pressure
andthesucker rodstringmaynot beableto
handle theadditional torqueeausedby theactual
difkrential pumppressure. This may result in
prematureequipmentfailure (Torqueis
proportionalto pump displacementand differential
pressure).
Wellparameterswil lbeusedtocakukte
differentialpumppressure,to show how it effects
theweUheadpower, thePCPstiamd thesucker
rod string in the comparative Analysis section.
PREDICllVE SOFIWARE DESIGN

Hp~#,@c constitutesthe largestportion of the

total pump horsepower. It is directly dependent on
flow or pump displacementand difkrent.ial pump
pressure as follows:
Hphydmulic=~ X P158,800

mm)

CFER2has developeda computermftware

programthat enablescomplete PCP system design.
It considerswcllbom geometry,allows for
essentially any typeof equipmentselection and
then predictshow the system will @orm in

3027s
virtuallyany operatingcondition. Atypical output
summaryinckks pdkted hydrostaticp~,
flow losses, pump discharge pmssurc, pump
ditxxential pressure, pump intake pressluq pump
Ioad@ polish rod 1- polish rod
P~
torque,wellhead power, prime moverpower, rod
stretch rod rotatioq maxirnunlmdstringleadi.n&
and maximum tubing wear rate.

psi), with total fiOW losses of 12,700 @a (1842

P@. m pumppxessureloading indicatQ that the
PCP is over pIC3SUldby 47.2% the polish rod
torqueis 316.7 ft-lbsdeveloping 7.24 hp at the

Figure 2 representsthe aimuktion resultswhen

using 25.4mm (1) GradeD contiguous sdcer
rod. Thepurnp difkrential preaaurewas
&term&d to be 8,800 kpa (1%9 psi), with total
flow losacaof 4,100 Icpa(598 psi). The pump
pressm loading was 74.3% well within the
Opera @rangeofthepump,thepoli
shrodtorque
5.27 hp at the wellhed
is 230.3 ft.lbs dWdOp@
Inthiscase continuoussuckrrodmakeaabig
differencewith respectto pump difkrential
pressure.

When the programconsidersflow losses it

quantiticathe flow regime (either laminaror
turbulent)and then mkulates the losses
throughoutthe system. The flow losses that ocalr
within the tubing and across suckerrod couplings
are usually the most dominateand perhapsnot
easy to calculate. For instance, the suckerrod
body and coupling may not be perfectly
centralizedin orderto considerconcentricfluid
flow effects. The programrecogniza this fact and
uses the wellbore geometxyinput to calculatethe
position of the rod string within the tubing along
the entire length of the wellbore. When the rod
body and couplings are ofket or non~ncentric
there is a largerflow area preseng thus reducing
the flow losses accordingly. The program
mnsiders such vmying fixtors and calculatesflow
10ssincrementallythroughoutthe entire welbore.
Suffice it to say that the programdoes a reasonable
job in calculating flow losses throughout
prospectiveand actualPCP *ins.

The firstscenario would most likely lead to

prematurepumpililure or would requirea more
expensive higher lifting pump. The net polish rod
horsepowersavings with continuous rod is
8pprOXimSk]y27% as ihst@ed in Table 1.

Figures 3 and 4 again representsthe same oilwell

with the same equipmentconfiguration 73mm (2
7/8) tubing, a PCP capable of lifting a l,800m
(5,900 ft) fresh waterpressuregradientwith a
nominal displacementof 31 m3/day/100rpm (195
BFPD/100rpm). The operating conditions include
150 rpmP.C.P. speed lifting 980 k@n3 3,000cP
fluid with a dynamicfluid level of 900m from
Surface.

COMPA3L4TIVE ANALYSIS

Well parameters fkom three exkting oil wells were

usedinthecFERpredictive
software
Conventional 25.4mm (1) GradeD sucker rod
with shmhole couplings was compamdwith
25.4mm (1) GradeD continuousauckr rod.

Figure 3 representsthe simulation resultswith

25.4mm (l) GradeD sucker rod with sknhoie
COUPU3S.The PUXDP
diffed
P~
is
29,400 kpa (4,258 psi) with total fiow losses of
20,817 kpa (3,017 -@i). The PCP was over
~wfi%dtipoudtirqwof
884.3 ft.lbs was su5cient to yield the suckerrad
atringanddeveloped 25hpaitheweUead.

Figures 1 and 2 representthe same hetwyoil well

with the same equipment configuration 73mm (2
7/8) tubi~a PCPcapable oflMnga&shwater
gradient of 1200m (3,937 ft) with a
P~
nominal displacement of 10 m3/day/100rpm(65
BFPD/100rpm). The operatingconditions wtre
identicalfor both runs, PCF operatingat 120 rp~
lifting 970 k@n3 fluid with a viscosity of 15,000
cp, having a dynamicfluid level of 490m fiom
surfke.

Figure 4 representsthe simulation reds with

25.4mm (1) GradeD continuous suckerrod. The
pump dilTerentialpressureis 15,300 kpa (2,222
psi) with total flow losses of6,800 kpa (981 psi).
m PCF was not over preasumd(86.7% of rated
Pmssure)and the prdishml torqueof521.5 fibs
losdedthesuckrrod toody59?Aofyield and
developed 14.9 hp at the wellhead.

Figure 1 representsthe simulation resultswhen

using 25.4mm (1) GradeD sucker rod with
slimhole couplings. The pump diffntird
pressure was determined to be 17,300 kpa (2513
2
- ..
#

30275
1

Similarconclusions can be drawnwith this

eom@son. The continuous suckerrod did not
overpressurethe P(2P,th&&Olt!the P@ should
last longer. The torquewas lower resulting in less
hp required(40%less) and 1S loading on the
continuoussuckerr@ as illustratedin Table 1.

loads which will allow both PCP and suckerrod

stringto operate longer thus reducing maintenance
costs. Also, when flow losses arc reduced lower
amected homepower is required. The
comparative analysk portion ofthispaperseemsto
-Port statements.
However, t.hemytends to have more erediiity
whenitis supported withactualfielddaa
To
obtain suchdatawould requirea
This initiative is
deliberatdfocused under@@
planned totakeplaee inthenearfuture.
m
resuksofactuald atacomparisonw illbemade
available and provided as a supplement to this
Ww.

Figures 5and6reflect thesarneoil wells with

identicalequipmentconfigurationand opemting
conditions, 73mm (2 7/8) tubing using a P(Y
capableof lifting a 800m (2,600 II-)fresh water
prcssumgradientwith a nominal displacementof
110 M3/day/100rpm(685 BFPD/100rpm). The
operatingconditions include 400~m PCF speed
lifiing 980 kg/m3, 5 cp fluid Ilom a dynamicfluid
level of 600m from surface.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Figure 5 representsthe simulation resultswith
25.4mm (l) GradeD suckerwith slimhole
couplings. The pump differentialpressureis 7,600
kpa (1,097 psi) with total flow losses of 1,900 kpa
(277 psi). The P@ was almost at Ml pressure
loading (96.3% of ratedpressure)and the polish
rodtorqueof 788.1 filbs loadedthe suckerrod
stringto 94.7% of yield and developed 60 hp at the
wellhead. as illustratedin Table 1.

The authors wish to thank the management at

Highland/COmd Inc. in aflbrding the time and
resourees necesmty to undettake and complete this
project.

REFERENCES
1. K. J. Saveth, S. T. Kl~ K B. Fisher, Robbin
&Myers Inc.: A Comparative Analysis of
Mlkiency and Horsepower Between Progressing
~vity pllInpSand Plunger pllmpS,SPE 16194.

Figure6 is the simulation with 25.4 mm (1)

GradeD continuous suckerrod. The pump
differentialpressureis 6,900 kpa (995 psi) with
totalflow losses of 1,200 kpa (175 psi). The PCP
p~
kding was 87% of ratedpreSSUreand
the polish rod torqueof 725.1 ft.lbs loaded the
suckerrod string to 78%of yield and developed 55
hp at the wcllh~ as illustmted in Table 1.

2. Lonnie D~Cam
Mathews, Todd_:
Progressingcavity Pumping systems:DeSigQ
Operationand PerformanceOptimizadon, CFBR
Progressingcavity Pump tlaining (Sept. 1994).

Figure 5 is a severe design in that the high seticx

loads would most likely cause prematurepump
rind/orsuckerrodfailure. Alternativesto this
design would be to run larger88.9mm (3 1/2)
tubing to reduce flow losses and polish rod torque
which will lengthen rquipmentlife or use
continwus suckerrod in 73mm (2 7/8) tubiig as
Figure6 suggests.

-.

CONCLUSION
Continuous sucker rod can help lower operating
costs in PcPsyatems. Bccauseofthelackaf
couplings, overall flow losses are dramatically
redwxd in both heavy Od and COIIVCtiOIId(h@
volume) oilwells.This factcreateslower service

.
(1- Grade D #k slimhole couplings)

Mon Mar 0612:37:111995

Simulation

3027~Pagef

Results

f wGrade D c/w slirnhole couplings

Operating

Conditions
120.0
85.0

Pump Speed
Pump Efficiency
Flow Rate

RPM
%

10.2 mA31D
15000.O cp
0.0 %

vsCOS&
Sand Cut
Densily
Tubing Head Pressure
Casing Head Preaaure
Fluid Level (from surface):

970
15
15
490

kg/mA3
psi
psi
Vm

Summary Output Conditions

685
1642
2542
2513
29

Hydrostatic Pressure:
Flow LosS=:
Pump Dscharge Pressure
Pump Differential Pressure:
Pump Intake Pressure
Pump Pressure Loading:
Polish Rod Load:
Polish Rod Torque

147.2
8560.1
316.7
7.24
N/A
12.64
9.28

Wellhead Powm
Prime Mover Powe~
Rod Stretch:
Rod Rotation
Maximum Rod String Loading
Location:
Load (% Ydd):

psi
psi
psi
pi
psi
k Max
Ibf
fflba
hp
hp
cm
turns

O mKB
39.2 %

Maximum Tubing Wear Rate

Location:
Wear Rate

O mKB
0.0 0/6

Output Warnings
Overpresauring PC Pump ( 147% of rated capacity)

Equipment

Configuration

Pump Manufacturer (Model)

Tubing Type:
Casing Type

HighlandlCorod (12-H-1 O)
73.0 mm x 9.67 kglm (EUE)
139.7 mm x 23.07 kglm

Figwe
Highland&orod

S#OOlo7

PGPump Varskm f.f @ GfER

1994

Mon Mar 0614:29:011995

(1- Corod)

Simulation

Results

7 Corod
Operating Conditions
Pump Speed:
Pump Efficiency
Flow Rate
Vlcosity
Sand Cut

120.0
85.0
10.2
15000.0
0.0

RPM
%
mA3/D
Cp
ah

Density
Tubing Head Pressure

970 kg/mA3
15 psi

Casing Head Pressure:

15 psi
490 Vm

Fluid Level (from surface):

Summary Output Conditions

685
598
1298
1269
29
74.3
6816.5
230.3
5.27
NIA
10.64
6.81

Hydrostatic Pressure:
Flow Losses:
Pump D~charge Pressure:
Pump Dfierential Pressure:
Pump Intake Pressure:
Pump Pressure Loading
Polish Rod Load:
Polish Rod Torque:
Wellhead Powec
Prime Mover Powec
Rod Stretch:
Rod Rotation:
Maximum Rod String Loading
Location:
Load (AYield):

psi
psi
psi
pai
psi
% Max
Ibf
ftWs
hp
hp
cm
turns

3 mKB
25.8

Maximum Tubing Wear Rate

Location:
Wear Rate:

Y.

O mKS
0.0 %

Output Warnings
No Diagnostic Messages

Equipment

Configuration

Pump Manufacturer (Model):

Tubing Type:
Casing Type

Highlan&Corod

Highland/Corod (12-H-1O)
73.0 mm x 9.67 kg/m (EUE)
139.7 mm x 23.07 kdm

Figur)~
SM-OO1O7

PGPump Vera/on 1.10 GFER, 1994

rue Jun ?6 06:50:19 t9f15

C:U%PISPEf.SIM

(f - Grade D du slimholeCouplhtgs)

Simulation

3027&gef

Results

1 Gtade D c/w slimhole

coupiings

Operating Conditions
150.0

Pump Speed:
Pump Efficienqc
Flow Rate
VI
Sand Cut
Density
Tubing Head Pressure:
Casing Head Pressure
Fluid Level (from surface):

RPM

90.0 %
41.9 mA3/D
3000.0 Cp
0.0 %
980
50
50
900

kg/mA3
psi
p
Vm

1380
3017
4448
4258
189
166.3
23335.6
884.3
25.27
WA
75.69
56.57

psi
psi
psi
psi
psi
% Max
Ibf
ftWrs
hp
hp
cm
turns

Summary Output Conditions

Hydrostatic Praaaure
Flow Losses:
Pump Discharge Pressure:
Pump Dfierential Pressure
Pump intake Pressure
Pump Pressure Loading:
Polish Rod Load:
Poliih Rod Torque
Wellhead Powec
Prime Mover Powec
Rod Stretch:
Rod RotStiOfX
Maximum Rod String Loading
Location:

O mKB
109.1 %

Load (% Yield)
Maximum Tubing Wear Rate
Location:
Wear Rate:

O mKB

0.0 %

Output Warnings
Overpressurirrg PC Pump ( 188% of rated Cape*)
fielding Rod String ( 109% of yield stress et

Equipment

Configuration

Pump Manufedurer (Modal):

Tubing Type
Casing Typtx

Highlen(Xomd

O mKB)

SM401O7

HighlendlCorod (18+-31)

73.0 mm x 9.67 I@m (EUE)

177.8 mm x 34.23 kglm

PGPump Veralon 1.18 GFE#%1994

TU9&rn0606:46:4i
i995

C:WCPLSPEf .SIM(f - Grade D Cm@

Simulation
7 Gmie

Results
D Corod

Operating Condtiions
150.0

Pump Speed:
Pump Eftiaency
Flow Rate
viscosity
Sand Cut
DenW
Tubing Head Pressure
Casing Head Pressure:
Fluid Levef (from surface)

RPM

90.0 %
41.9 mA3/D
3000.0 Cp
0.0 %
980 kg/mA3

50 psi
50 w
900 Vm

Summary Output Conditions

1380
981
2411
2222
189
86.7
16817.1
521.5
14.91
N/A
55.26
33.62

Hydrostatic Pressure
Flow Losses
Pump Dkmharge Pressure
Pump Differential Pressure:
Pump Intake Pressure:
Pump Pressure Loading:
Polish Rod Load:
Poliih Rod Torque
Wellhead Powec
Prime Mover Power
Rod Stretch:
Rod RoMon:
Madmum Rod String Loading
Location:
Load (% Ydd):
Mtimum

psi
psi

psi
pai
psi
% Max
Ibf
Wlbe
hp
hp
cm
turns

O mKS
59.2 AI

Tubing Wear Rate

Location:
Wear Rate

O mKS
0.0 1%

Output Warnings
High Dtierential PC Pump Pressure ( 87% of reted capacity)

Equipment

Configuration

Pump Manufacturer (Model):

Tubing Tm.
Casing TYW

Highlanct/Corod (18-N-31)
73.0 mm x 9.67 kglm (EUE)
177.8 mm x 34.23 kg/m

Figure
Hl#hlandCorod

sm-oofo7

P.

PGPurnp VeraJon
tf ~ GFER, 9994

TueJun0606:52:46

1896

C:lPCPtSPEf.SIM (1- G&e

D CAUallmhole couplings)

Simulation

~~.r

Page f

Results

1 Grade D C/W slimhole

Operating

(=-, cd

couplings

Conditions
400.0
90.0
398.0

RPM
%
mA3/D
3.0 Cp
A
0-0

Pump Speed
Pump Efficiency
Flow Rate
viscosity
Sand Cut
Densily
Tubing Head Pressure:
Casing Head Pressure
Fluid Level (from surface)

980

kg/mA3

50 psi
50 psi
600 Vm

Summary Output Conditions

Hydrostatic Pressure:
Flow Losses:
Pump Dschsrge Pressure:
Pump Dfierential Pressure:
Pump Intake Preaeure
Pump Pressure Loading:
Poliih Rod Load:
Poliih Rod Torque
Wellheed Power
Prime Mover Power
Rod Stretch:
Rod Rotation:

1377 psi
277 psi
1704 psi
1097 psi
608 psi
96.3 % Max
13621.2 Ibf
788.1 Wlbe
60.07 hp
WA hp
32.88 cm
51.24 turns

Mu-mum Rod String Loading

Location:
Load (% Yield)

-1 mKB
94.7

Maximum Tubing Wear Rate

Location
Wear Rate

96

0 mKB
0.0 %

Output Warnings
High D~erentiai PC Pump Pressure ( 96% of rated capacity)
High Rod stresses ( 95A of yield stress at

Equipment

Configuration

Pump Manufacturer (Model):

Tubing Type:
Casing Type:

HlghlandComd

-1 mKf3)

~fo7

HighlancLCorod (6-H-110)
73.0 mm x 9.67 kglm (EUE)
177.8 mm x 34.23 k@m

Figure

PGPump Varalon1.18 C-FERS19S4

30275
TueJun0606:64:26

1995

Page f

CAPCPWPE1.SIM (f - Grade D Cw@

Simulation

Results

1 Grade D Corod
Operating Conditions
400.0 RPM
90.0 %
396.0 mA3/D
3.0 Cp
0.0 %

Pump Speed:
Pump Efficiency
Flow Rate
Visity
Sand Cut
Density
Tubing Head Pressure
Casing Head Pressure:
Fluid Level (from surface)

980 kg/mA3
50 psi
50 psi
600 Vm

Summary Output Conditions

1377 psi
175 psi
1602 psi
995 psi
608 psi
87.4 % Max
12480.6 Ibf
725.1 ftWa
55.26 hp
WA hp
34.20 cm
47.74 turns

Hydrostatic %ssure
Flow Losses:
Pump DBcharge Pressure
Pump Dtierential Pressure:
Pump Intake Pressure
Pump Pressure Loading:
Polih Rod Load:
Polish Rod Torqua:
Weflhead Powan
Prime Mover Powec
Rod Stretch:
Rod Rotation:
Mw-mum Rod String Loading
Location
Load (% Ykld)

-1 mKB
78.4 %

Maximum TubinO Wear Rate

Location
Wear Rate

O mKB
f)o %

Output Warnings
High Differential PC Pump Pressure ( 87% of rated capacity)
High Rod stresses ( 769A of yield etfSSSet -1 mKS)

Equipment Configuration
Pump Manufacturer (Model)
Tubing Typ&
Casing Tw

Hlghlandtlvod

MLOO1O7

Highlend/Corod (8-H-110)
73.0 mm x 9.67 kglm (EUE)
177.8 mm x 34.23 kglm

Figure

PGPump Verxion f.1 @ C-FER. f994

FIGURE

TUBING SIZE
73mm
12-H-1O
PCP MODEL
PCP SPEED
1 120 mm
FLUID VISCOSITY ! 15.000 CD

73mm
12-H-1O
120 mm
15,000 Cp

73mm
18-N-31
150 rpm
3,000 Cp

73mm
18-N-31
150 rpm
3,000 Cp

73mm
73mm
8-H-1 10 8-H-11O
400 rpm 3 Cp
3 cl)

17,300 kpa

8,800 kpa

29,400 kpa

15,300 kpa

7,600 kpa 6,900 kpa

PUMP DIFF.
PRESSURE
FLOW LOSSES
PCP PRESSURE
LOADING
POLISH ROD
TORQUE
ROD STRING
LOADING
WELLHEAD HP

I
I 12.700 k~a
147%

I
I
I
I
i

316.7 ft.
lbs.
39.2XO

7.24 hr)

I
4.100 k~a
74.3XO

230.3 ft.
lbs.
25.8XO
5.27 hD

T
884.3 ft.
Ibs.
109.1ZO
25 ht)

521.5 ft.
lbs.
59%
14.9 ht)

1,900 kpa
96.3%

1,200 kpa
87XO

788.1 ft.
lbs.

725.1 ft.
lbs.
78?40

94.7%

&!L

co
o

N
+