This invention relates to methods and systems for maximizing downhole fluid pumping using a sucker rod pumping system, and more particularly to methods and systems for maximizing fluid production by optimizing the sucker rod prime mover speed.
Reciprocating oil pumps are traditionally operated by a beam pumping unit, as illustrated in
A conventional sucker rod pumping system comprises surface equipment (the beam pumping unit, or pump jack), and downhole equipment (the sucker rod and pump) which operates in a well bore drilled into an oil reservoir. The interaction of the movable and stationary elements of the well and dynamic interaction with fluids present in the well creates a complicated mechanical system that requires precise design and control to be able to work in an efficient way.
In order to increase oil production, analysis and optimization of all of the elements of the sucker rod pumping system must be performed. The design of the oil well system equipment is usually performed on the basis of mechanical laws and special methods, and certain established analytical standards are required to enable development of a beneficial design and desired operation of the oil well. Such an analysis generally involves:
Such a system analysis presented in the prior art can provide correct and useful information on the original design of the well and on its performance, but only for the constant speed of the prime mover. Past attempts to increase well production have incorporated changing the components of the rod string and size of the pump, changing the overall rotational velocity of the crank, varying the speed within the stroke by choosing different constant crank speeds for upstroke and clown-stroke with a variable frequency drive, or by utilizing ultra high slip electric motors to slow down speed of the prime mover during peak torque periods within a single stroke. Prior art has taught allowing for speed change of the prime mover as a response to the need for controlling pump-off conditions (U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,490,094; 4,973,226; and 5,252,031; please note that U.S. Pat. No. 5,252,031 is based on calculation of the down-hole pump behaviour as originally presented in U.S. Pat. No. 3,343,409), limiting loads on the rod string connecting surface unit with reciprocating pump and other components (U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,102,394 and 5,246,076; PCT Application No. WO 03/048578), optimizing pumping conditions of the pumping unit (U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,102,394 and 4,490,094), or converting the sinusoidal speed characteristic of the polished rod powered by a beam pumping unit to a linear characteristic throughout most of the upstroke and down-stroke motion (U.S. Pat. No. 6,890,156) to mimic long stroke behaviour with a typical pump-jack unit.
Most of the prior art methods and systems are based on various analyses of loads or energy on the polished rod and indirect detection of various problems with pump performance or fluid inflow to the well. U.S. Pat. No. 4,102,394, for example, teaches setting a different constant speed for the prime mover during upstroke movement as opposed to down-stroke movement to match inflow of the oil from the reservoir and to avoid pump-off conditions. The method of U.S. Pat. No. 4,490,094 determines and modifies the instantaneous speed of the prime mover for a predetermined portion of the polished rod stroke, based on power output and work done by the prime, mover. PCT Application No. WO 03/048578 teaches the application of finite changes to the speed of the prime mover within one stroke, to limit the load acting on the polished rod within pre-established safe limits. U.S. Pat. No. 6,890,156 teaches finite changes to the speed of the prime mover so the speed of the polished rod reciprocated by the beam pumping unit remains constant for an extended period during upstroke and down-stroke periods. Speed changes are dictated by the geometry of the beam pumping unit and are resulting in shorter stroke time for the same maximum speed of the polished rod. No relation or effect on the effective stroke of the pump or impact on maximum or minimum force acting in the rod string is taken into consideration or intentionally changed.
For over a decade, various suppliers of variable frequency drives (VFD) for beam pumping provided an opportunity to change the speed of the crank and polished rod within a single stroke of the pump. Some of the drives, such as the ePAC Vector Flux Drive from eProduction Solutions or the Sucker-Rod Pump Drive from Unico, Inc., allow a user to incorporate variable speed of the crank and rod throughout a single stroke by means of an incorporated Programmable Logic Controller and industry standard ladder programming language.
In the prior art, the speed of the polished rod was altered in order to improve, but not optimize, certain aspects of pump operations, such as reducing loads in the rod string, and their teachings had focused on the kinematics of the pumping system by prescribing certain movements of the polished rod without analyzing the dynamics of the entire system, including the surface unit, rod string and downhole pump. The optimization process was limited to the design phase, where, based on the system requirements and the dynamic analysis of the entire pumping system, the physical parameters of the system (such as motor power, rod string materials and dimensions, etc.) were determined to meet the required production target and satisfy the limits on the loads on the system. However, the optimization of the design assumed a constant speed of the prime mover.
While trying to improve the design of a new pumping system or improve the operation of an existing system, there was no attempt to optimize its performance by optimizing the stroke period and the variation of the prime mover speed within a stroke. Implementing such an approach creates an opportunity to develop a method and a system that can address the highly nonlinear nature of the problem of oil production optimization, while at the same time reducing operating costs and providing for operation with safe loading factors.
The present invention seeks to provide a method and system for optimizing the sucker-rod pump prime mover speed in order to maximize oil production while at the same time reducing operating costs and providing for operation with safe loading factors. The optimization can be performed for existing pumping systems as well as during the design phase of a new system. The presented optimization process and system focuses on finding and applying the optimal variable speed of the prime mover; however, the resulting optimal prime mover angular speed determines the optimal polished rod linear velocity, therefore—after minor modifications within the competence of a person skilled in the relevant art—the present method can also be applied to optimization of the polished rod velocity instead of the prime mover angular speed.
The present invention also seeks to provide the ability to automatically monitor, analyze, test, optimize, control, and manage a given well from a remote central location. The proposed system performs kinetic and dynamic analysis of the oil well equipment, and using various experimental data and Mathematical modeling is able to optimize the well performance. Additional benefits include monitoring the pumping conditions and detecting unusual, deteriorating or detrimental operating conditions, and changing the pumping parameters in response to the detected changes.
According to a first aspect of the present invention, there is provided a method for controlling prime mover angular velocity and polished rod motion in a pumping system, the method comprising the steps of:
According to a second aspect of the present invention, there is provided a system for controlling polished rod motion in a pumping system, the polished rod motion determined by actuation of a prime mover, the system comprising:
In preferred embodiments of a method according to the present invention, the optimal variable speed of the prime mover is determined such that pump stroke length is maximized, stroke time is minimized, forces acting on components of the pumping system are minimized and energy consumption is minimized. Preferably, calculating new operating parameters comprises analysis of pumping system geometry and mechanical properties, the prime mover actuates the polished rod motion (wherein the new operating parameters are applied to the prime mover to achieve optimal polished rod motion), and the new operating parameters are applied to the prime mover by means of controlling velocity, acceleration and torque of the prime mover. Where the pumping system is an hydraulically actuated pumping system, the new operating parameters are preferably applied to the pumping system by means of controlling pressure and flow rate within an actuation system of the pumping system. The optimal variable speed of the prime mover may be achieved by an optimization method selected from the group consisting of theoretical techniques, experimental techniques, and a combination of theoretical and experimental techniques, which techniques would be known to one skilled in the art, and calculating the optimal variable speed of the prime mover may be performed as part of initial pumping system design using a predictive analysis method (without measuring physical conditions of the pumping system).
In preferred embodiments of a system according to the present invention, the measuring means are for measuring polished rod load, walking beam position, tubing pressure, and casing pressure, and the measuring means preferably comprise a transducer for measuring polished rod load, an optical encoder for measuring walking beam position, and pressure transducers for measuring tubing pressure and casing pressure. The controller may comprise one of a dynamic braking resistor and a regenerative module, but neither need be present. The system preferably comprises a remote computing station in communication with the local control unit. The local control unit preferably comprises programming incorporating mathematical modelling and numerical solution techniques capability, for analyzing the signals, determining the optimal prime mover speed, and determining the required prime mover new operating parameters.
In some preferred embodiments of the present invention, the pumping system has the ability to control the polished rod linear velocity according to a pre-programmed or self-adapting function of one of the following variables: time, polished rod position or crank rotation angle. A preferred embodiment of this invention uses a VFD for controlling the prime mover angular speed that produces the optimal polished rod linear variable velocity.
It is most efficient to assume that the angular velocity profile of the prime mover is controlled by a function Ω(s) of the polished rod position, although it can also be defined as a function Ω(t) of time or a function Ω(α) of crank angle. The position of the polished rod s ε(0,s0) is defined for the full cycle, including the upstroke and down-stroke movement, and therefore s0 corresponds to the double length of the polished rod stroke. The present invention seeks to provide a method and system for optimizing the angular velocity profile Ω of the prime mover for the entire stroke cycle in order to achieve one of the following goals:
Because of an inherent time delay in the response of the motor angular velocity to the provided VFD input, the realized motor speed is not the same as the input design speed, therefore it is more efficient to optimize directly the input speed than to find first the optimal motor speed, and subsequently try to determine the input function that actually produces the required motor velocity. Therefore, the function Ω(s) describes rather the optimal design input speed for the VFD controller than the actual optimal motor speed. It needs to be noted that the effect of optimization of VFD input speed is equivalent to controlling the polished rod velocity in order to optimize the pump production and operation.
It has been observed that the optimal solution that maximizes the production usually has the following properties that are of additional benefit:
Once the optimal VFD input velocity is determined then a further reduction of the motor torque and energy use is achieved by re-adjusting the crank weights to the new operating conditions.
When the optimization is performed not on the existing pumping system, but during the design phase, then the design can be further improved based on the power and load requirements resulting from the prime mover speed determined from the optimization process. Making the design changes to improve the performance of the system powered by the prime mover optimal variable speed, e.g. increasing the diameter of the weakest segments of the rod string, will allow for further improvement of the system performance by applying the pumping system design and prime mover speed optimization processes iteratively.
It should be noted that the optimal prime mover speed and the resulting polished rod velocity determined by the present invention are different than those prescribed in the prior art. For example, U.S. Pat. No. 6,890,156 teaches adjusting the prime mover speed to obtain a constant speed of the polished rod during most of the stroke length (which doesn't necessary optimize the production and reduce loads), while the optimal movement of the polished rod obtained by the present method is not constant in general.
To overcome the limitations of the prior art, the present invention seeks to analyze current performance and calculate and apply the most advantageous variable speed of the prime mover to maximize fluid production for an existing sucker rod pumping system. Some prior art systems would require system components to be changed to achieve any increase in production volume, or otherwise would have to compromise safety conditions if higher fixed speed of the prime mover were to be attempted. Operating costs would also increase since larger components and higher energy consumption would be necessary.
As in the prior art, the measurements of the surface card provide the displacement and force in the polished rod that allow for calculation of the following values that are of importance from the perspective of optimization:
The motor torque measurements provide means for controlling condition (B) of the optimization process. The angular velocity measurements can be used for modelling the delay between the VFD input and the actual motor velocity profile if mathematical modelling is used instead of the physical measurements for finding the response of the pump/well system to a given VFD input velocity. The calculations of the plunger stroke length and the stresses in the rod string based on the surface card measurements are performed using the methods described in literature that employ either the finite difference method or Fourier transformations (e.g. U.S. Pat. No. 3,343,409). The plunger stroke length and the stresses in the rod string, as well as the loads on the surface unit, including the motor torque, can alternatively be calculated without relying on the surface card measurements, by simulating the response of the rod string to the imposed movement of the polished rod using the improved predictive analysis based on original work of Gibbs as presented in the Journal of Petroleum Technology in July 1963. This approach might produce less accurate results, but it is necessary if the physical tests cannot be performed or the measurements cannot be collected, e.g. during the design phase, or the number of test must be limited In order to minimize the disruption of the well production.
The present invention is directed to controlling prime mover speed and, in doing so, polished rod motion so that the downhole pump is reciprocated with any stroke length required to maximize production within the fatigue load limits of the sucker rod. In addition, any desired speed of the downhole pump and behaviour pattern can be controlled to overcome excessive friction, gas lock, or other detrimental downhole conditions.
A detailed description of an exemplary embodiment of the present invention is given in the following. It is to be understood, however, that the invention is not to be construed as limited to this embodiment.
In the accompanying drawings, which illustrate an exemplary embodiment of the present invention:
a and 2b present a flowchart illustrating a preferred process for use in software development for an embodiment according to the present invention;
Referring now to the summary, of the present invention set out above, the optimization problem (I) is defined as finding the VFD input angular speed profile Ω(s) that maximizes the average fluid volume pumped per unit time. The volume pumped during one stroke as a result of the imposed VFD input speed Ω(s) is equal to:
Vol(Ω)=ApηUP(Ω)
where Ap—plunger cross-sectional area
Therefore, the optimization goal of maximizing the production per unit time can be mathematically defined as finding the VFD input speed profile Ω(s) that maximizes the following functional V(Ω), while satisfying the constraints (A-C):
Similarly, the optimization problem (II) can be defined as finding the VFD input speed profile Ω(s) that minimizes the motor power use P(Ω), while satisfying the conditions (A-C) together with the following additional constraint:
where V0 is a prescribed production target.
The power use P(Ω) can be measured directly by VFD or can be calculated as the work done by the motor per unit time, therefore the following functional needs to be minimized:
where W(Ω) is the work done by the positive motor torque during one stoke
where W(Ω) is the work done by the positive motor torque during one stoke
where: ω(Ω,t) is the motor angular rate described as a function of time.
M+(Ω,t) is the positive motor torque defined as:
In order to solve the above optimization problems, i.e. problem (I) with constraints (A-C) or problem (II) with constraints (A-D), we need the ability to obtain the following information in response to any input velocity Ω(s):
The above information for a given input velocity Ω(s) can be obtained in a variety of ways, ranging from totally experimental to purely theoretical. In general, the experimental methods are more accurate, but at the same time require more effort in installing the instrumentation, performing tests and collecting data for each input function Ω(s). Usually, the most efficient approach is to combine both of these methods.
Following is a brief description of some possible approaches:
The optimization problems (I) and (II) are very similar from the mathematical point of view and can be solved using the same methods; therefore, a possible solution will be presented for case (I) only. The solution of problem (I) can be achieved by, but is not limited to, the following iterative approach that was chosen to address the highly nonlinear nature of this problem.
The function Ω[p](s) describing any allowable VFD input speed that meets the condition (C) can be presented in the following form of Fourier series:
where
The purpose of optimization is to find the vector of parameters p for which the function Ω[p](s) maximizes the production V(Ω) defined by (1), while meeting the conditions (A) and (B). Due to the nonlinear nature of this problem, the optimal solution will be found using an iterative approach, starting from some initial set of parameters usually selected based on experience. The closer the initial values are to the optimum the faster the convergence to the optimal point will be achieved. Typically those initial parameters are assumed as follows:
Now any operational parameters of the pumping system controlled directly or indirectly by the VFD input velocity Ω[p](s), such as the production V(Ω[p], prime mover torque M(Ω[p], s) and stresses in the rod string σ (Ω[p], x,t) can be treated as functions of the parameter vector p:
V[p]=V(Ω[p]))
M[p](s)=(M(Ω[p],s)sε(0,s0)
σ[p](x,t)=σ(Ω[p],x,t)xε(0,L);tε(0,T) (4)
Using one of the methods described earlier, we can determine the values of all the above functions at the starting point p=p0. Then we will search for such a vector δp=[δp1, . . . , δp2N+1] for which the functions σ [p0+δp] and M[p0+δp] satisfy the constraints (A) and (B), and for which the maximum of the function V[p0+δp] is reached in the vicinity of point p0
V[p0+δp]=Maximum(δp) (5)
The functions V, M and Γ of parameters p are not available in analytical font and depend on those parameters in a highly nonlinear way; their determination can even involve physical tests. However, these functions can be approximated at point p0 by linear functions of δp using the first order Taylor series;
where the partial derivatives of functions V, M and σ are calculated from the finite differences for each i (i=1, . . . , 2N+1) using the following formulas:
Different input parameters p=p0+Δpi (i=1, . . . , 2N+1) produce variations of the motor speed that can result in a slightly different stroke period T [p0+Δpi] than for p=p0. In order to be able to superimpose stresses σ (Ω[p], x,t) along the rod string for the same moment during the cycles with different periods the time t can be scaled to a constant reference period T [p0] e.g. time t defined for the period T [p0+Δpi] was converted to time t′+ defined for the period T [p0].
When calculating the partial derivatives using the finite difference method the values Δpi should be selected in a way that ensures a quick convergence to the optimal solution of the nonlinear problem. In order to keep under control the error resulting from the approximation of a nonlinear problem, the following additional constraints are imposed on the values δpi
|δpi|<θΔp1(i=1, . . . ,2N+1) (E)
where θ is initially set to 1, but needs to be reduced if convergence problems are encountered.
As can be see from Eqs. (6a-c) the highly nonlinear optimization problem (I) has been reduced to finding the minimum of a linear function V[p0+δp] of vector δp subject to linear constraints (A), (B) and (E). The solution of this problem can be obtained by those skilled in an using any of the known methods of linear programming.
Having calculated the optimal vector δp0 for the approximate optimization problem we can repeat the entire process starting from a new point p1=p0+δp0 that should be closer to the optimal solution of the original nonlinear problem man point p0. This process can be repeated until there is no change in the optimal vector p from the previous iteration, i.e.
where ε is a selected threshold for the convergence criterion.
The most efficient method is to perform the optimization process in two stages. In the first stage we would find the theoretical optimal solution based only on the predictive analysis without performing tests on the real pump/well system to determine its response to different input velocities (only the basic tests to determine the system parameters would be performed initially). In the second stage we would find the actual optimal solution starting from that theoretical solution by utilizing the responses of the real system to different input velocities required by the optimization algorithm. The transition between those two stages requires changing the optimization parameters from the motor speed to the VFD input velocity. This requires transforming the Fourier series parameters to reflect the time delay between the VFD input velocity and the motor response, which however is fairly straightforward. Adopting this two stage approach may limit the physical tests of the system to only one iteration.
Application Method
As one skilled in the art would appreciate, to calculate optimized prime mover spew, evaluation of current pumping system performance must be based an accurate feedback of the system behaviour. Accurate position of the polished to rod is preferably determined by utilization of an optical encoder, non-contact magneto-resistive rotary position sensor or similar high precision rotary position transducer mounted on the centre bearing of the beam pumping unit or crank. The present invention preferably continuously monitors and transfers all well operating conditions to a centrally-based computer that calculates optimal prime mover speed and corresponding prime mover operating parameters. New parameters are then transferred to a local well controller via wired or wireless means of data transfer. A closed feedback loop between a local controller and the centrally-based computer allows the mathematical model to correct and adjust its parameters to achieve the most accurate representation of the physical state of the downhole and surface components, and it also allows for detecting trends and changes in operating conditions. The controller also allows far detection of any detrimental condition outside of the preset range of loading factors on every component of the pumping system. The amount of rpm, acceleration and torque for every portion of the cycle is accordingly based on following optimal prime mover speed to maximize total volume production while maintaining safe working parameters.
Surface Equipment and Prime Mover
The surface equipment is used to provide the oscillating motion to the sucker rod and the pump at the bottom of the well. The pumping unit usually comprises:
By optimizing speed of the prime mover to properly apply motion of the polished rod to rod string and pump, efficiency of the pumping unit can be improved, power costs can be reduced, stresses in the rod string can be reduced and pumping unit balance can be improved.
Under the condition of variable motor speed, all of these elements rotate and move with variable velocity and acceleration. The effects of acceleration result in dynamic forces and moments that affect the performance of the pumping unit as a whole. For example, acceleration affects gearbox torque, motor power consumption, the strength of the walking beam and wearing of the gearbox, etc. Proper loading of the gearbox is of extreme importance, as an under-loaded unit operates at low mechanical efficiency. The overloaded unit can be easily damaged and then requires excessive maintenance. The calculation of the dynamic torque values and prediction/optimization of the performance of the pumping unit is possible only if the correct data about the weights and moments of the inertia of the moving and rotating elements of the pumping unit is known. This data is required for evaluation of the performance before any optimization can be performed. In accordance with the preferred embodiment, most of the information that is necessary to calculate torques, counterbalance loads, etc., is obtained automatically.
Sucker Rod and Pump Performance
A sucker rod is a long elastic rod consisting of several lengths of different cross-sections. The rod is attached at one end to the walking beam of the pumping unit by means of the horsehead and polished rod, and to the downhole pump at the other end. It is necessary to keep the stresses and safety factors of the rod within the recommended guidelines corresponding to the fatigue strength of the material of the rod. The estimation of the stresses in the rod is performed using a mathematical model of the rod string, based on one of the following:
The calculation of the stresses in the rod string creates complex mechanical and mathematical problems due to the fact that:
The mathematical model of the rod string requires detailed and precise information on many parameters to be able to precisely define the sucker rod loads and stresses. It is accordingly necessary to first establish an appropriate mathematical model of the rod string dynamics with correct values of the parameters, and then solve using available and effective mathematical methods. The additional information necessary for the optimization process is the available measured data obtained at the well. Instantaneous measurements of the flow from the well and the production rate, with pattern recognition tools being used for the identification of the bottom-hole diagrams, provide a large amount of the information that can be used. The system software replicates the dynamic behaviour of the system using the measured surface dynamometer card and the measured production rate. The software can automatically select best pumping conditions to reduce the rod loads and determine the profile of the motor speed within the pumping cycle as required for desirable pump motion. It can select the optimal value of the pumping speed, and determine the optimal prime mover speed. All of these changes can be made with minimum expenditure, and operating cost reduction can be achieved since no physical changes to the configuration of the surface unit, rod string or pump are necessary (as long as the unit contains all the required components of the present invention).
Applications
While numerous applications of the within techniques and methods for controlling the prime mover speed and, consequently, the polished rod motion will now be obvious to one skilled in the art, certain applications are seen as being of particular utility within the field of downhole fluid production.
Using the techniques and methods taught herein, for example, the performance and optimum operating parameters of the reciprocating pump located below the fluid level of the well and connected to a reciprocating mechanism on the surface with an elastic sucker rod system can be determined by:
The methods and techniques taught herein can also provide the means for improving pumping performance of a sucker rod pumping system by controlling pumping system behaviour which comprise:
This system is discussed in further detail below.
The techniques and methods taught herein can also enable automatically changing operating parameters of the sucker rod pumping unit in response to changing conditions in the well or in surface components by:
As a final example of the utility of the present invention, the within techniques and methods can be employed to automatically prevent or remove gas lock condition at the pump, by:
These are only a few examples of how the present invention can be applied to address a number of practical operational situations experienced in the field of downhole fluid production, employing the methods and system taught herein.
System
Referring now in detail to the accompanying drawings, there is illustrated an exemplary embodiment of a system according to the present invention.
Referring to
The rod system 9 and pump 10 are subjected to mechanical friction (due to interaction of the pump 10 with the barrel and the rod 9 with tubing), fluid friction (due to the rod 9 moving in the viscous fluid and viscous fluid moving in the tubing and through the valves of the pump 1), and force clue to hydrostatic pressure and inertia of the fluid. The rod system 9 is an elastic connection between surface components and the downhole pump 10. The elastic behaviour is greatly influenced by the dimensions and material properties of each rod section and by the depth of the well. Due to the elasticity of the rod 9 and cyclic changes in the polished rod force, velocity, and acceleration, the sucker rod 9 is vibrating in longitudinal and transverse directions in the well.
Four measuring means or transducers are mounted on the pumping unit. Load measuring means or a transducer 11, which may be a strain gauge load cell, is connected to the polished rod and provides an output signal that is proportional to the load. A high accuracy, position measuring means, which may be an optical encoder 8, is mounted on the centre bearing and is anchored to the Samson post; it provides accurate position measurement of the walking beam 2 regardless of rotational speed or acceleration. Two pressure transducers are mounted on the wellhead, namely a tubing pressure transducer 12 and a casing pressure transducer 13; they provide an accurate pressure signal to properly evaluate pump behaviour during every cycle.
The beam pumping unit is driven by the prime mover 7, which may be a high efficiency Nema B motor, to reciprocate the polished rod in any required motion pattern. The polished rod is connected through various tapers of the sucker rod 9 with the downhole pump 10. The present invention is directed to controlling the polished rod motion so that the downhole pump 10 is reciprocated with any required stroke length to maximize production within the fatigue load limits of the sucker rod 9. In addition, any desired speed of the downhole pump 10 and behaviour pattern can be controlled to overcome excessive friction, gas lock and other detrimental downhole conditions.
As illustrated in
The optimal speed, acceleration, and torque of the prime mover, and the safe operating limits, are calculated and transferred together to the local control unit 21. The response of the unit after minimum one full cycle is then transferred via communication unit back and analyzed in the remote computing station 23. If the optimized parameters are satisfied (such as calculated pump stroke length, stroke time, power consumption, loads and stress level in the rod system and surface components, fluid velocity at the standing valve, maximum and minimum motor torque or any other), calculations are not performed anymore unless deterioration of the well performance is detected in the future. Periodically, for every predetermined time interval, the remote unit 23 or local unit 21 will initiate communication to check the status of the pumping unit. The local control unit 21 will provide the variable frequency drive 14 with the calculated rpm, and acceleration for a minimum 24 steps within each cycle, and will monitor behaviour of the pumping unit during each step according to safe operating parameters such as maximum and minimum load on polished rod, motor torque, gearbox torque, polished rod displacement, tubing pressure, casing pressure and stroke time.
If any of the safe operating parameters are outside of the prescribed values, the local unit 21 will initiate corrective action such as slow down or shut down of the unit and an alarm message will be generated and sent to the remote computing station 23 via the closed loop feedback system. Last operating conditions will be transferred to the remote computing station 23 and new optimized operating parameters will be computed and transferred to the local unit 21.
While a particular embodiment of the present invention has been described in the foregoing, it is to be understood that other embodiments are possible within the scope of the invention and are intended to be included herein. It will be clear to any person skilled in the art that modifications of and adjustments to this invention, not shown, are possible without departing from the spirit of the invention as demonstrated through the exemplary embodiment. The invention is therefore to be considered limited solely by the scope of the appended claims.
This is a continuation of U.S. patent application Ser. No. 12/090,250, filed Jun. 4, 2008, which is a U.S. National Stage Application of PCT/CA2005/001570, filed Oct. 13, 2005, both of which applications are hereby incorporated by reference.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3075466 | Agnew et al. | Jan 1963 | A |
3343409 | Gibbs | Sep 1967 | A |
3851995 | Mills et al. | Dec 1974 | A |
3854846 | Douglas | Dec 1974 | A |
3915225 | Swink | Oct 1975 | A |
3918843 | Douglas et al. | Nov 1975 | A |
3930752 | Douglas | Jan 1976 | A |
3936231 | Douglas | Feb 1976 | A |
3938910 | Douglas | Feb 1976 | A |
3951209 | Gibbs | Apr 1976 | A |
3963374 | Sullivan | Jun 1976 | A |
3965983 | Watson | Jun 1976 | A |
3998568 | Hynd | Dec 1976 | A |
4058757 | Welton et al. | Nov 1977 | A |
4090405 | McKee | May 1978 | A |
4102394 | Botts | Jul 1978 | A |
4118148 | Allen | Oct 1978 | A |
4145161 | Skinner | Mar 1979 | A |
4171185 | Duke et al. | Oct 1979 | A |
4194393 | Boley | Mar 1980 | A |
4220440 | Taylor et al. | Sep 1980 | A |
4286925 | Standish | Sep 1981 | A |
4363605 | Mills | Dec 1982 | A |
4390321 | Langlois et al. | Jun 1983 | A |
4406122 | McDuffie | Sep 1983 | A |
4438628 | Creamer | Mar 1984 | A |
4474002 | Perry | Oct 1984 | A |
4476418 | Werner | Oct 1984 | A |
4480960 | Streib | Nov 1984 | A |
4483188 | McTamaney et al. | Nov 1984 | A |
4487061 | McTamaney et al. | Dec 1984 | A |
4490094 | Gibbs | Dec 1984 | A |
4507055 | Fair et al. | Mar 1985 | A |
4508487 | Taylor et al. | Apr 1985 | A |
4508488 | Pikna | Apr 1985 | A |
4509901 | McTamaney et al. | Apr 1985 | A |
4534168 | Brantly | Aug 1985 | A |
4534706 | Palm et al. | Aug 1985 | A |
4541274 | Purcupile | Sep 1985 | A |
4583915 | Montgomery et al. | Apr 1986 | A |
4594665 | Chandra et al. | Jun 1986 | A |
4599046 | James | Jul 1986 | A |
4631954 | Mills | Dec 1986 | A |
4661751 | Werner | Apr 1987 | A |
4681167 | Soderberg | Jul 1987 | A |
4691511 | Dollison | Sep 1987 | A |
4695779 | Yates | Sep 1987 | A |
4741397 | Weeks | May 1988 | A |
4747451 | Adams, Jr. et al. | May 1988 | A |
4830112 | Erickson | May 1989 | A |
4854164 | Rhoads | Aug 1989 | A |
4859151 | Reed | Aug 1989 | A |
4873635 | Mills | Oct 1989 | A |
4935685 | Justus et al. | Jun 1990 | A |
4971522 | Butlin | Nov 1990 | A |
4973226 | McKee | Nov 1990 | A |
5006044 | Walker, Sr. et al. | Apr 1991 | A |
5044888 | Hester, II | Sep 1991 | A |
5064349 | Turner et al. | Nov 1991 | A |
5129264 | Lorenc | Jul 1992 | A |
5129267 | Nicholls | Jul 1992 | A |
5167490 | McKee et al. | Dec 1992 | A |
5180289 | Wenholz et al. | Jan 1993 | A |
5182946 | Boughner et al. | Feb 1993 | A |
5204595 | Opal et al. | Apr 1993 | A |
5222867 | Walker, Sr. et al. | Jun 1993 | A |
5224834 | Westerman et al. | Jul 1993 | A |
5230607 | Mann | Jul 1993 | A |
5237863 | Dunham | Aug 1993 | A |
5246076 | Watson | Sep 1993 | A |
5251696 | Boone et al. | Oct 1993 | A |
5252031 | Gibbs | Oct 1993 | A |
5281100 | Diederich | Jan 1994 | A |
5284422 | Turner et al. | Feb 1994 | A |
5316085 | Dawson | May 1994 | A |
5318409 | London et al. | Jun 1994 | A |
5362206 | Westerman et al. | Nov 1994 | A |
5372482 | London et al. | Dec 1994 | A |
5425623 | London et al. | Jun 1995 | A |
5441389 | Wolcott et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5444609 | Swamy et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5458466 | Mills | Oct 1995 | A |
5589633 | McCoy et al. | Dec 1996 | A |
5634522 | Hershberger | Jun 1997 | A |
5782608 | McKee | Jul 1998 | A |
5819849 | Booth | Oct 1998 | A |
5820350 | Mantey et al. | Oct 1998 | A |
5823262 | Dutton | Oct 1998 | A |
5829530 | Nolen | Nov 1998 | A |
5868029 | Paine | Feb 1999 | A |
5941305 | Thrasher et al. | Aug 1999 | A |
5996691 | Norris et al. | Dec 1999 | A |
6041856 | Thrasher et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6043569 | Ferguson | Mar 2000 | A |
6079491 | Stuebinger et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6092600 | McKinzie et al. | Jul 2000 | A |
6127743 | Levin et al. | Oct 2000 | A |
6129110 | Kolb | Oct 2000 | A |
6155347 | Mills | Dec 2000 | A |
6176682 | Mills | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6213722 | Raos | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6285014 | Beck et al. | Sep 2001 | B1 |
6315523 | Mills | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6343656 | Vazquez et al. | Feb 2002 | B1 |
6464464 | Sabini et al. | Oct 2002 | B2 |
6585041 | Crossley | Jul 2003 | B2 |
6629570 | Head | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6857474 | Bramlett et al. | Feb 2005 | B2 |
6890156 | Watson et al. | May 2005 | B2 |
7117120 | Beck et al. | Oct 2006 | B2 |
7168924 | Beck et al. | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7275025 | Chan et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
20020123870 | Chan et al. | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20040062657 | Beck et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040062658 | Beck et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040064292 | Beck et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20040084179 | Watson et al. | May 2004 | A1 |
20050095140 | Boren et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
1164271 | Mar 1984 | CA |
2018119 | Dec 1991 | CA |
2271525 | Nov 1999 | CA |
2332228 | Oct 2001 | CA |
2469059 | Jun 2003 | CA |
2443175 | Mar 2004 | CA |
2614817 | Mar 2004 | CA |
2644149 | Mar 2004 | CA |
2414646 | May 2004 | CA |
2551257 | Dec 2006 | CA |
2443010 | Feb 2008 | CA |
2442973 | Jan 2009 | CA |
WO 9302289 | Feb 1993 | WO |
WO 03048578 | Jun 2003 | WO |
Entry |
---|
Power Savings and Load Reductions on Sucker Rod Pumping Wells, by Neely et al., published 1989. |
Sucker Rod Pumping Manual, by Gabor Takacs, published 2003, PenWell Corporation. |
“ABB Introduces First Complete Line of Standard Controllers for Artificial Lifts,” ABB Inc. (Jan. 15, 2003). |
Archived Unico webpages, web.archive.org/web/20001102062836/www.unicous.com/html/oil.html (13 pages), web.archive.org/web/20011220124901/www.unicous.com/html/oilproduction.html (3 pages), web.archive.org/web/20021103040140/unicous.com/html/oilproduction.html (3 pages), Unico Inc. (2001-2002). |
“Artificial Lift Control” ABB Inc. Brochure (2002). |
Campbell, “Lift Technology Stays Ahead of Game,” The American Oil & Gas Reporter (Jun. 2003). |
Carroll, “Multivariate Production Systems Optimization,” Stanford University, Report in Partial Fulfillment of Masters of Science, (Dec. 1990). |
Czyz and Lukasiewicz, “Multimodal Optimization of Structures with Frequency Constraints,” AlAA Journal, 33(8):1496-1502, (Aug. 1995). |
Denney, “Technology Applications,” JPT (Mar. 2003). |
Firu, et al., SPE 84139, “A Modern Approach to the Optimum Design of Sucker-Rod Pumping System,” Society of Petroleum Engineers, presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Denver, Colorado, Oct. 5-8, 2003, pp. 1-9. |
Gladd, “ABB Brakes Ground in Artificial Lifts with New Generation of Rod Pump Control Technology; Controller Achieves Dramatic Increases in Well Efficiency, Production and Rod-Stress Reduction,” ABB Inc. (2003). |
Guffey et al., “Field testing of Variable-Speed Beam-Pump Computer Control,” SPE Production Engineering, pp. 155-160, (May 1991). |
Han, et al., SPE 29535, “An Approach to the Optimum Design of Sucker-Rod Pumping Systems,” Society of Petroleum Engineers, presented at the Production Operations Symposium, Oklahoma City, Apr. 2-4, 1995, pp. 855-865. |
Lea et al,.“What's New in Artificial Lift: Part 1: Fourteen New Systems for Beam, Progressing-cavity, Plunger-lift Pumping and Gas Lift,” World Oil (Apr. 2002). |
David G. Luenberger, Optimization by Vector Space Methods, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1969, cover pages and pages vii-viii, ix-xiii, and 290-293 (13 pages). |
Lukasiewicz and Hojjati, “A New Hybrid Method for Solving Linear Non-Linear Systems of Equations,” Int. J. for Num. Methods in Eng,. 63:231-240, (Feb. 21, 2005). |
Lukasiewicz and Hojjati, “Adaptive matrix filter,” Proceedings of Canadian Congress of Applied Mechanics, University of Calgary, pp. 394-395, (Jun. 1-5, 2003). |
Lukasiewicz et al., “On Adaptive Modeling and Filtering in Computer Simulation and Experimental Mechanics,” Bulletin of the Polish Academy of Sciences Technical Sciences, 55(1):99-106, (2007). |
Lukasiewicz, “A New Algorithm for Adaptive Modeling of Mechanical Systems,” Fourth International ICSC Symposium on Engineering of Intelligent Systems EIS 2004, University of Madeira, Funchal, Portugal, Feb. 29th-Mar. 2nd, 2004. The publication date is confirmed in the MME MORANDA, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering University of Calgary, vol. 3, No. 8, (Nov. 2004). |
Nocedal and Wright, Numerical Optimization, Springer Series in Operations Research, 1999, cover pages, table of contents, Chapter 1, and Chapter 15 (49 total pages). |
“Oil & Gas Automation Solutions,” Newsletter, Issue No. 1 (Oct. 2002). |
Andrezj Osyczka, Multicriterion Optimization in Engineering with FORTRAN Programs, Ellis Horwood Series in Mechanical Engineering, 1984, cover pages, table of contents, preface, and pp. 1-21 (14 total pages). |
Palka, Krysztof, Advisor: Lukasiewicz, S.A., University of Calgary Library Collection Listing for “Detection of Cracks and Corroded Members in Structures From Dynamic Response,” (Issue Date 1996). |
Ralph W. Pike, Optimization for Engineering Systems, Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1986, cover pages, preface, table of contents, and pages 1-5 (9 total pages). |
Singiresu S. Rao, Engineering Optimization, Theory and Practice, Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996, cover pages, preface, table of contents, and pp. 1-9 (14 total pages). |
Ravindran and Home, “Multivariate Optimization of Production Systems—The Time Dimension,” Stanford University Petroleum Research Institute, (Apr. 1993). |
A. Ravindran & G. V. Reklaitis, Chapter 17, Design Optimization—An Overview in Mechanical Engineers' Handbook, 2nd Ed. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1998, pp. 353-375. |
Reklaitis et al., Engineering Optimization, Methods and Applications, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1983, cover pages, preface, table of contents, and pp. 1-23 and 562-563, (21 total pages). |
SR Pump User Manual, S.A.L. Engineering and Software Ltd. (1989/1995). |
Svinos, “Exact Kinematic Analysis of Pumping Units,” Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE 12201), 58th Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, CA, (Oct. 5-8, 1983). |
Takacs, “Modern Sucker-Rod Pumping,” Petroleum Engineering Dept., Univ. of Miskolc, Hungary (Tulsa, OK: Pennwell Books) (Oct. 5, 1980). |
Tackacs, “Sucker Rod Pumping Manual,” Penwell Publishing; ISBN 0-87814-899-2, pp. 227-230, (2003). |
“Technical Guide No. 4—Guide to Variable Speed Drives,” ABB Inc. (Feb. 8, 2002). |
“Sucker-Rod Pump Drive,” Unico, www.unicous.com/en/literature.html (Oil and Gas—SRP Control), Oct. 2003, 4 pages. |
Torseke, Eric, “ABB Breaks Ground in Artificial Lifts With New Generation of Rod Pump Control Technology; Controller Achieves Dramatic Increases in Well Efficiency, Production and Rod-stress Reduction,” ABB Inc. (Mar. 6, 2003). |
“Technical Note, Artificial Lift Drives,” Unico, www.unicous.com/literature.html (Oil and Gas—Artificial Life Drives Brochure), Jul. 2005, 16 pages. |
Wilkes, “Differential Equations of Fluid Mechanics,” Fluid Mechanics for Chemical Engineers, Chapter 5, pp. 231-264 (1999). |
Xu, “Design and Analysis of Deviated Rod-Pumped Wells,” Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE 64523), presentation at the SPW Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Brisbane AU, (Oct. 16-18, 2000). |
International Search Report of the International Searching Authority, mailed Jul. 12, 2006, for corresponding International Application No. PCT/CA2005/001570. |
International Preliminary Report on Patentability and Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority, mailed Jul. 12, 2006, for corresponding International Application No. PCT/CA2005/001570. |
Office Action from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, for corresponding Canadian Patent Application No. 2,526,345, dated Oct. 26, 2009. |
Office Action from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, for corresponding Canadian Patent Application No. 2,526,345, dated Mar. 17, 2010. |
S. 341 Protest filed with Canadian Intellectual Property Office by Goodwin McKay, against Canadian Patent Application No. 2,526,345, dated Oct. 6, 2008, 28 pages. |
S. 341 Protest filed with Canadian Intellectual Property Office by Finlayson & Singlehurtst, against Canadian Patent Application No. 2,526,345, dated Dec. 19, 2008, 49 pages. |
S. 341 Protest filed with Canadian Intellectual Property Office by Goodwin McKay, against Canadian Patent Application No. 2,526,345, dated Oct. 6, 2010, 37 pages. |
Affidavit of Yau Shu Wong in support of S. 341 Protest filed by Goodwin McKay against Canadian Patent Application No. 2,526,345, dated Oct. 6, 2010, 16 pages. |
Affidavit of Stevan Dubljevic in support of S. 341 Protest filed by Goodwin McKay against Canadian Patent Application No. 2,526,345, dated Oct. 6, 2010, 16 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20130151216 A1 | Jun 2013 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
Parent | 12090250 | US | |
Child | 13757622 | US |