A Nodal Analysis Based Monitoring of an Electric Submersible Pump Operation in Multiphase Flow

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been improved according to the last reviews

Author Response

We want to thank the Reviewer for the intensive reading of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The main idea behind the paper is interesting: studying the behaviour of electrical submersible pumps as a result of free gas in order to predict abnormal operation of such machines and diminish the effects caused by this factor. The advancement of this paper consists in defining threshold values for abnormal operation, as well as the ability to provide foresight into probable ESP surge situations.

The title and the intentions declared in the abstract correspond to the contents of the paper. Some of the references could be more related to the subject of the paper.

The authors have serious contributions in the last years in this field:

1. Kim, J.; Han, S.; Seo, Y.; Moon, B.; Lee, Y. The development of an AI-based model to predict the location and amount of wax in oil pipelines. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 2022, 209, doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2021.109813.
2. Chae, M.J.; Kim, J.H.; Moon, B.; Park, S.; Lee, Y.S. The present condition and outlook for hydrogen-natural gas blending technology. Korean J. Chem. Eng. 2022, 39, 251-262, doi:10.1007/s11814-021-0960-8.
3. Weijermars, R.; Wang, J.; Pham, T. Borehole Failure Mechanisms in Naturally Fractured Formations. Rock Mech. Rock Eng. 2021, 10.1007/s00603-021-02678-7, doi:10.1007/s00603-021-02678-7.
4. Weijermars, R.; Wang, J. Microseismicity and Dry Shear-Slip in the Stimulated Rock Volume during Fracture Treatment in Shale Wells: Analyzing Data from the Hydraulic Fracture Test Site (Permian Basin) with the Linear Superposition Method (LSM).
5. Weijermars, R.; Wang, J. Stress reversals near hydraulically fractured wells explained with linear superposition method (LSM). Energies 2021, 14, doi:10.3390/en14113256.
6. Son, H.A.; Lee, T. Enhanced oil recovery with size-dependent interactions of nanoparticles surface-modified by zwitterionic surfactants. Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 2021, 11, doi:10.3390/app11167184.
7. Son, H.A.; Ahn, T. Effect of capillary number on the residual saturation of colloidal dispersions stabilized by a Zwitterionic surfactant. Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 2021, 11, 1-10, doi:10.3390/app11020524.
8. Seo, Y.; Kim, B.; Lee, J.; Lee, Y. Development of ai-based diagnostic model for the prediction of hydrate in gas pipeline. Energies 2021, 14, doi:10.3390/en14082313.
9. Park, H.; Sung, W.; Wang, J. Analysis of hydraulic fracturing efficiency considering the principal stress in brushy canyon formation of the permian basin. Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 2021, 11, 1-16, doi:10.3390/app11031069.
10. Lee, T.; Lee, J.Y.; Ahn, T.; Son, H.A. Numerical simulation of gas hydrate production using the cyclic depressurization method in the ulleung basin of the korea east sea. Applied Sciences (Switzerland) 2021, 11, doi:10.3390/app11209748.
11. Kim, J.; Chae, M.; Han, J.; Park, S.; Lee, Y. The development of leak detection model in subsea gas pipeline using machine learning. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2021, 94, doi:10.1016/j.jngse.2021.104134.
12. Chu, T.; Nguyen, T.C.; Wang, J.; Vuong, D. New correlations for predicting two-phase electrical submersible pump performance under downhole conditions using field data. J. Pet. Explor. Prod. Technol. 2021, 10.1007/s13202-021-01392-y, doi:10.1007/s13202-021-01392-y.
13. Weijermars, R.; Wang, J.; Pham, T. Borehole failure mechanisms in naturally and hydraulically fractured formations investigated with a fast time-stepped linear superposition method (TLSM).
14. Weijermars, R.; Wang, J.; Nelson, R. Stress concentrations and failure modes in horizontal wells accounting for elastic anisotropy of shale formations. Earth Sci. Rev. 2020, 200, doi:10.1016/j.earscirev.2019.102957.
15. Son, H.A. Review of the CO2 geological storage using nanoparticle-stabilized CO2 foam. Economic and Environmental Geology 2020, 53, 213-220, doi:10.9719/EEG.2020.53.2.213.
16. Yoo, H.; Park, J.; Lee, Y.; Lee, J. An experimental investigation into the effect of pore size distribution on the acid-rock reaction in carbonate acidizing. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 2019, 180, 504-517, doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2019.05.061.
17. Wang, J.; Weijermars, R. Expansion of horizontal wellbore stability model for elastically anisotropic shale formations with anisotropic failure criteria: Permian Basin case study.
18. Wang, J.; Weijermars, R. New interface for assessing wellbore stability at critical mud pressures and various failure criteria: Including stress trajectories and deviatoric stress distributions. Energies 2019, 12, doi:10.3390/en12204019.
19. Wang, J.; Valkó, P.P.; Ghassemi, A. Laboratory scale characterisation of brittleness and permeability enhancement due to rock failure. International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Technology 2019, 22, 64-91, doi:10.1504/IJOGCT.2019.102278.
20. Kim, J.; Seo, Y.; Wang, J.; Lee, Y. History matching and forecast of shale gas production considering hydraulic fracture closure. Energies 2019, 12, doi:10.3390/en12091634.
21. Kim, D.; Seo, Y.; Kim, J.; Han, J.; Lee, Y. Experimental and simulation studies on adsorption and diffusion characteristics of coalbed methane. Energies 2019, 12, doi:10.3390/en12183445.
22. El-Dalatony, M.M.; Jeon, B.H.; Salama, E.S.; Eraky, M.; Kim, W.B.; Wang, J.; Ahn, T. Occurrence and characterization of paraffin wax formed in developing wells and pipelines. Energies 2019, 12, doi:10.3390/en12060967.
23. Kwak, D.; Han, S.; Han, J.; Wang, J.; Lee, J.; Lee, Y. An experimental study on the pore characteristics alteration of carbonate during waterflooding. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 2018, 161, 349-358, doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2017.11.051.
24. Kim, J.; Lee, M.; Lee, Y.; Lee, Y.; Sung, W. The effect of capillary-trapped CO2 on oil recovery and CO2 sequestration during the WAG process. Energy Sources, Part A: Recovery, Utilization and Environmental Effects 2018, 40, 2137-2143, doi:10.1080/15567036.2018.1495776.
25. Han, J.; Seo, Y.; Kim, J.; Han, S.; Lee, Y. Comparison of oil recovery and carbonate rock's properties alterations by CO2 miscible flooding.
26. Han, J.; Han, S.; Sung, W.; Lee, Y. Effects of CO2 miscible flooding on oil recovery and the alteration of rock properties in a carbonate reservoir. J. CO2 Util. 2018, 28, 26-40, doi:10.1016/j.jcou.2018.09.006.
27. Kim, J.; Kim, D.; Lee, W.; Lee, Y.; Kim, H. Impact of total organic carbon and specific surface area on the adsorption capacity in Horn River shale. Journal of Petroleum Science and Engineering 2017, 149, 331-339, doi:10.1016/j.petrol.2016.10.053.
28. Han, Y.; Kwak, D.; Choi, S.Q.; Shin, C.; Lee, Y.; Kim, H. Pore structure characterization of shale using gas physisorption: Effect of chemical compositions. Minerals 2017, 7, doi:10.3390/min7050066.
29. Han, S.; Kwak, D.; Lee, Y.; Jang, Y.; Sung, W. Relative permeability prediction considering complex pore geometry and wetting characteristics in carbonate reservoirs. International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Technology 2017, 15, 331-346, doi:10.1504/IJOGCT.2017.084836.
30. Choi, S.K.; Son, H.A.; Kim, H.T.; Kim, J.W. Nanofluid Enhanced Oil Recovery Using Hydrophobically Associative Zwitterionic Polymer-Coated Silica Nanoparticles. Energy Fuels 2017, 31, 7777-7782, doi:10.1021/acs.energyfuels.7b00455.

 

A few remarks & questions to the authors:

1. The paper contains an abstract and an introduction which is, in fact, a critical review of the state of the art – a comparison of the most commonly-used models for predicting the onset of ESP abnormal operation.
2. At lines 153-154, the authors state that “We monitor the PIP, Pd, and production rate; we compare these values (at all times) to normal reference values. Any difference predicts abnormal ESP operation”. I understand that they are referring to a reference range for normal operation, not to a precise value.
3. The authors mention that they used data from an oil well in the Delaware Basin. I have a few concerns related to the reproducibility of the study, as the general applicability of the model is not obvious since it was not calibrated and validated under field conditions.
4. At lines 355-358, please close the parentheses in the caption of Figure 9.
5. The discussion regarding the phases of operation of the ESP, as they result from the present study, is well-structured and -presented, but I would like to know whether the variance of these values with different field datasets (and, possibly, different models to the horizontal well which was considered for this study) could be enough to impact the applicability of model proposed in the present paper. I understand that, however, the availability of such datasets is somewhat limited.
6. At line 388, please mind the little formatting inconsistency (red font colour).
7. The authors mentioned at line 293 that, regarding the model validation and interpretation process which was run using Schlumberger PIPESIM 2017.01, “A horizontal oil well is considered as a test example”. How would the validation procedure be influenced, accuracy- and compute efficiency-wise, when using a different model for the oil well than the horizontal one? Are there any significant differences?
8. As described in the paper, “The deviations are greater when an ESP operates under multiphase conditions; performance degradation is then high”. How would the authors explain the narrower normal operation range for multi-phase conditions?
9. Could the authors elaborate on the reason for the linear decrease of the critical gas fractions which can be observed in Figure 11 with the increase of the PIP, as compared to the previously published models, which show little variation of the CGF with the oil production rate?
10. Some limitations of the study are being pointed out in the Conclusions section. However, the main problem of the study is that the number of the experimental tests to validate the proposed model is low. It is also unclear whether the field examples presented in the subsection 3.4. have been considered in order to validate the applicability and utility of the model. As it is, the study might not be statistically relevant.
11. The references are a little bit outdated, with 11 out of 34 entries older than 5 years, amongst whom 7 are older than 20 years.

I consider the present paper to be relevant, but I will provide the opportunity to the authors to answer the questions stated above.

Author Response

We want to thank the Reviewer for the intensive reading of the manuscript and constructive comments. The following minor change was applied to the manuscript based on the remarks and questions provided by the Reviewer.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

My comments are detailed in the.pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We want to thank the Reviewer for the intensive reading of the manuscript and constructive comments. The following minor change was applied to the manuscript based on the remarks and questions provided by the Reviewer.  Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The quality of the paper has been significantly improved. I consider that the paper can be published in the present form.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors investigate the “A Nodal Analysis Based Monitoring of an Electric Submersible Pump Operation in Multiphase Flow”. This is an excellent article that used the nodal point to analyze the performance of the ESP. The manuscript is well organized. The manuscript can be accepted after incorporating minor revisions and suggestions.

Based on my knowledge, the paper presented by the authors has shown another way to use nodal analysis to predict and prevent untimely failure of the ESP. The authors back their work with field data from Delaware basin oil well. Therefore, I believe this work is valuable to the petroleum industry.

1. The authors have addressed the efficiency operation of ESP through the use of nodal anaylysis. Therefore, the author were able to identified the maximum GLR for the operation of the pump and a field case is applied. 
2. Several approaches have been presented for the eficient operation of the ESP but this work present a systemic approach using the field data to predict and prevent the failure of ESP. It is highly needed for petroleum engineer during field production. This paper has presented a new approach for petroleum to predict and prevent the failure of the ESP. 
3. The authors have presented a model which combined the IPR and VLP for the prediction of the nodal analysis. All the parameters used for this designed is based on the field data. Can the author used the machine learning and data analytic to design, predict and prevent the untimely failure of the ESP?
4. The GLR in the tubing depends on the bottomhole pressure. How will the ESP control the GLR as most industry never recommend shutdown?
5. What is the advantage of the presented approach over the previous techniques?

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the intensive reading of the manuscript and constructive comments. The change was applied to the manuscript with attached file as a response the comments of reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The current manuscript deals with the application of Nodal Analysis in ESP operation. Nodal analysis is a well-known method in O&G Engineering. The manuscript is more a technical paper than a research paper. There is a total absence of field or/and lab experiments. A validation on the field or/and in the lab is necessary, in order the calculation of the model’s tolerance and AARD to prove model’s utilization. Moreover, the use of an unknown software for the Nodal analysis is a negative approach of the paper. Additional efforts must be done in order the manuscript to be reconsidered for a potential publication.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the intensive reading of the manuscript and constructive comments. The change was applied to the manuscript with attached file as a response the comments of reviewer.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors revised their manuscripts with few modifications, but they are not enough for publishing the manuscript in the Journal. It is important to pay attention in the following points:

1. The current manuscript mainly based upon technical conference proceedings and theses. As a research article, authors ought to enrich and extend their literature review with additional scientific research articles and comment on them.
2. The total absence of field or/and lab experiments make authors’ work harder to prove their findings to the readers. The examining model has been compared and verified with old data before 2000. It is important to test their model with contemporary and up to date data.
3. The validity of the model cannot be based only in standard error comparison. It is crucial indeed the authors to use more statistical tests for this reason as well as to check the prerequisites of their data (normality, homogeneity etc.).
4. The version of the simulation software is also needed.
5. Figure 7: The horizontal line in node YES must be deleted. The words YES and NO are not the appropriate terms. Authors have to reveal the implemented condition regarding the rate. Use “field condition” in plural tense.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer again for the constructive comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript. The following changes were applied to the manuscript based on the reviewer's comments and suggestions as much as possible. We would like to sincerely ask you to consider for publication in Energies. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Further to the last revised manuscript, authors’ answer in the first comment is inadequate and forces to the initial judgment of the reviewer that the current paper is a technical paper rather than a research paper. It is necessary, authors to include research articles and keep them in balance with the technical conference proceedings and theses. The rest of the criteria have been fulfilled and upgraded the quality of the paper.

 

Author Response

We appreciate the constrictive comments and suggestion for this Reviewer. To address the mentioned suggestion and comments. We revised the the literature review (Introduction section). To improve the manuscript content, we added the new research articles. We also replaced the some conference papers with a research articles that have similar contents. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx