OPTIMIZATION OF PIPE CONNECTION IN THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY
Prepared by: Ademi Islyam
Lunara Kublasheva
Daulet Zhumat
Supervisor: Batyr K. Naurushev
Almaty, 2024
2
AGENDA
3.1 tubing type selection
4. Proposed solution
7.1 fusion 3d modeling of the tubing
7.2 ansys flow simulation
8. Results:
8.1 Simulation results
8.2 Manual calculations results
8.3 Validation of manual results
9. Economical calculations
10. Comparison of the proposed tubing and basic design
3
Purpose of the study: to find the type of pipe connection for
which optimization is most necessary in modern reality.
Objectives:
4
After analyzing pipe connections, tubing was found to be the most in need of optimization due to reasons mentioned below in the Table 1.
Pipeline | Casing column | Tubing pipe |
|
|
|
Table 1 – Pipe connection optimization reasoning
5
TUBING TYPES
| Tubing with coupling connections | Tubing with integral connections | |
| With external upset end | With a non-upset end | Integral joint |
| | | |
Description | Long tubing with a joint installed in a wellbore to facilitate the extraction of oil and gas. | Refers to the pipe end without the extra thick and straight thread and collar. | These tubing have a male and female connection obtained from the upset of the ends. |
Table 2 – comparison evaluation
6
Causes | Consequences |
|
|
Gas leakage is one of the significant problems for tubing connections as show the accidents over the recent years.
Accidents on field:
As international crude oil prices continued to go down over the past two years and the exploitation difficulty of remaining oil and gas blocks continues to increase, oil companies urgently need to reduce the cost of casing. Seal ledge is usually adopted for sealing, so the cost cannot be significantly reduced.
API round thread is currently the thread type with the lowest relative cost. Therefore, great economic benefit will be made if a kind of low-cost gas-tight thread can be developed to replace the existing premium thread. It will also be a revolutionary innovation.
CONSIDERED PROBLEM
Table 3 - Causes and consequences of gas leakage
7
Diameter | 73,02 mm |
Thickness | 5,51 mm |
Material | Alloy steel |
Thread | API Spec 5B standard round thread |
Strength group | J55 |
Gap | 0,0125 mm |
Because of the structural design, after the API tubing thread is engaged, there is a spiral leakage channel between the tooth crest and the tooth bottom, which connects the inner space and the outer space of the casing. Due to the existence of the leakage channel, the API round thread theoretically does not have fluid sealing capability, so it is generally not used as gas-tight thread.
Great economic benefit will be made if a kind of low-cost gas-tight thread can be developed on the basis of API round thread with a relatively lowest cost to replace the existing premium thread
Table 4 –Tubing properties
THE PROPOSED SOLUTION
8
Fig.1 - Initial drawing of a pipe connection
By incorporating an elastic sealing ring within the collar, the seal is achieved through the precise fit between the sealing ring and the casing thread.
Fig.2 - Seal connection and detailed view
DESIGN OF THE TUBING WITH API THREAD AND ELASTIC RING
9
USED SOFTWARE PROGRAM
Autodesk Fusion software developed by Autodesk and includes computer-aided design (CAD), computer-aided manufacturing (CAM), computer-aided engineering (CAE) and printed circuit board (PCB) design systems.
Was used for designing and modeling the pipe and collar.
Tests conducted in Fusion:
ANSYS
Finite element analysis software
developed by "Ansys inc" which provides an information of how given product will work or not work in real conditions.
Was used to make simulation of gas flow in the tubing.
10
Fig. 3 – Internal pressure test
TESTS AND ANALYSES
Using the Fusion 360 program, a test was performed to determine the safety factor of tubing by the action of internal flow pressure. This allowed us to determine whether the pipe will withstand the load. Our pipe can withstand a load of 50 MPa, which corresponds to the required result
Fig. 4 – Hydrostatic pressure test
11
TESTS AND ANALYSES
Fig. 6 – Gas flow simulation in the tubing without a sealing ring
12
Fig. 5 – Gas flow simulation in the tubing with a sealing ring
To simulate gas flow and check for the risk of gas release Ansys software was used. In the test, the gas sealing performance of the tubing thread connector under the conditions of tension, compression and temperature was mainly evaluated, the load condition of the downhole tubing was simulated.
TESTS AND ANALYSES
13
TESTS AND ANALYSES
Fig. 7 – Location of tubing in Ansys coordinates
14
TESTS AND ANALYSES
Fig. 8 - Velocity of flow in tubing without sealing ring
The x-axis shows the coordinates that were mentioned earlier. To build a graph, you need to draw a line inside the pipe indicating the coordinates. Interval of x-line values is very low, hence the pipe graph with a curved ring. If the interval of the x-axis were significant, then the graph would be smooth. Therefore, in the fig.10 the line deviates very strongly, which means a leakage.
Fig. 9 - Velocity of flow in tubing with sealing ring
15
TESTS AND ANALYSES
Fig. 10 - Gas loss in tubing without sealing ring
Fig. 11 - Velocity of flow in tubing with sealing ring
16
TESTS AND ANALYSES
Fig. 12 - Mass flow calculation in Ansys
17
CALCULATIONS
(Eq.1)
(Eq.2)
(Eq.3)
(Eq.4)
(Eq.5)
(Eq.6)
(Eq.8)
For hydrostatic pressure test:
For internal pressure test:
(Eq.7)
(Eq.9)
(Eq.11)
(Eq.10)
18
CALCULATIONS
Table 6 – Well Data
(Eq.12)
(Eq.13)
(Eq.15)
(Eq.16)
(Eq.17)
Well Data | ||
Total Depth | 1965,96 | m |
Monthly Gas Production | 2275 | mcf |
Reservoir Pressure | 19286067,6 | Pa |
Gas Temperature | 126 | F |
Tubing set at | 1752,6 | m |
P at tubing depth | 17045788 | Pa |
Length of 1 tubing | 6 | m |
Compressibility factor, z | 0,85977601 |
𝜸g | 0,55229548 |
Ppc | 677,174314 |
Tpc | 340,235701 |
Ppr | 4,13039884 |
Tpr | 1,72136551 |
D | 1,01765412 |
C | 0,05652061 |
B | 1,60204373 |
A | 0,5246228 |
𝛖 | 23,8936502 |
Qmax | 0,31698511 |
S | 0,0132665 |
Gas leakage data | |
k | 1,26 |
𝛖 comp | 14,1616745 |
T comp | 52,1601311 |
𝝆 comp | 627,339967 |
М comp | 0,07667898 |
𝝻 | 0,62920148 |
Qm | 3,7186189 |
R | 519 |
P | 16982788 |
Table 5 – Calculation results
(Eq.14)
(Eq.18)
(Eq.19)
(Eq.20)
(Eq.21)
(Eq.22)
(Eq.24)
(Eq.23)
(Eq.25)
(Eq.26)
(Eq.27)
(Eq.28)
19
ECONOMICAL PART
Date | Monthly gas production, mcf | Gas production in m3/h | Price of the gas/m3 | The money lost | Total |
2014.01 | 2275 | 89,4733694 | 67,229 | 109997,459 | 1661749,5 |
2014.02 | 2167 | 85,2258425 | 103144,091 | ||
2014.03 | 3052 | 120,031966 | 159303,633 | ||
2014.04 | 2242 | 88,175514 | 107903,374 | ||
2014.05 | 2366 | 93,0523042 | 115772,056 | ||
2014.06 | 2194 | 86,2877242 | 104857,433 | ||
2014.07 | 2527 | 99,3842657 | 125988,65 | ||
2014.08 | 2736 | 107,604017 | 139251,186 | ||
2014.09 | 2763 | 108,665899 | 140964,528 | ||
2014.10 | 2855 | 112,284163 | 146802,582 | ||
2014.11 | 3268 | 128,52702 | 173010,368 | ||
2014.12 | 4241 | 166,794092 | 234754,136 | ||
2015.01 | 2950 | 116,020413 | 43,3993 | 98659,191 | 835508,263 |
2015.02 | 2257 | 88,7654483 | 70270,8775 | ||
2015.03 | 2581 | 101,508029 | 83543,3358 | ||
2015.04 | 2871 | 112,913426 | 95423,0052 | ||
2015.05 | 1496 | 58,8361146 | 39096,9863 | ||
2015.06 | 4032 | 158,574341 | 142982,647 | ||
2015.07 | 3404 | 133,875758 | 117257,018 | ||
2015.08 | 1498 | 58,9147725 | 39178,9151 | ||
2015.09 | 1096 | 43,1045331 | 22711,2354 | ||
2015.10 | 1124 | 44,2057438 | 23858,238 | ||
2015.11 | 1180 | 46,4081652 | 26152,2431 | ||
2015.12 | 2406 | 94,6254624 | 76374,5697 | ||
2016.01 | 3031 | 119,206058 | 59,7753 | 140456,736 | 1398407,73 |
2016.02 | 2334 | 91,7937777 | 101130,881 | ||
2016.03 | 2309 | 90,8105539 | 99720,341 | ||
2016.04 | 2093 | 82,3154999 | 87533,2754 | ||
2016.05 | 2115 | 83,1807369 | 88774,5506 | ||
2016.06 | 2203 | 86,6416848 | 93739,6514 | ||
2016.07 | 2149 | 84,5179213 | 90692,885 | ||
2016.08 | 3029 | 119,1274 | 140343,893 | ||
2016.09 | 2164 | 85,1078556 | 91539,209 | ||
2016.10 | 3255 | 128,015744 | 153095,175 | ||
2016.11 | 3263 | 128,330376 | 153546,547 | ||
2016.12 | 3339 | 131,319376 | 157834,589 |
2017.01 | 3224 | 126,796546 | 58,66175 | 148526,689 | 1090742,4 |
2017.02 | 2935 | 115,430479 | 132524,607 | ||
2017.03 | 1989 | 78,2252887 | 80144,0893 | ||
2017.04 | 2240 | 88,0968561 | 94042,0913 | ||
2017.05 | 3307 | 130,06085 | 153122,442 | ||
2017.06 | 2659 | 104,575688 | 117242,342 | ||
2017.07 | 2285 | 89,866659 | 96533,765 | ||
2017.08 | 2025 | 79,641131 | 82137,4283 | ||
2017.09 | 1888 | 74,2530644 | 74551,6662 | ||
2017.10 | 775 | 30,479939 | 12924,2709 | ||
2017.11 | 1790 | 70,3988269 | 69125,3547 | ||
2017.12 | 1081 | 42,5145988 | 29867,6518 | ||
2018.01 | 1311 | 51,5602582 | 24,5 | 17793,0318 | 148325,809 |
2018.02 | 1121 | 44,087757 | 13399,2011 | ||
2018.03 | 852 | 33,5082685 | 7178,46186 | ||
2018.04 | 807 | 31,7384656 | 6137,81775 | ||
2018.05 | 1267 | 49,8297842 | 16775,5131 | ||
2018.06 | 944 | 37,1265322 | 9306,00093 | ||
2018.07 | 1145 | 45,0316519 | 13954,2113 | ||
2018.08 | 1049 | 41,2560723 | 11734,1705 | ||
2018.09 | 849 | 33,3902816 | 7109,08558 | ||
2018.10 | 1754 | 68,9829846 | 28037,595 | ||
2018.11 | 972 | 38,2277429 | 9953,51282 | ||
2018.12 | 842 | 33,1149789 | 6947,20761 |
Table 7 – Total money loss
20
ECONOMICAL PART
Price of non-upset tubing | Price of polymer material | The work of the employee, tenge/min | Total |
1233057 | 29200 | 12 | 1265737 |
Table 8 – Total for tubing with sealing ring
During the entire time of gas production, there was a gas leak with a flow rate of 21.3 cubic meters per hour. More than 5 million tenge was lost, to be more precise 5 134 738 tenge.
Using a polymer sealing ring, it would be possible to avoid gas leakage and save more than 5 million tenge.
In the table below you can see the price for tubing, a sealing ring and for the work of an employee at the field. This tubing with a sealing ring will be cheaper than other tubing connections. For example, the most common tubing with an integral joint costs 463,422 tenge more.
21
CONCLUSION
The cost of the gas-tight thread developed on the basis of the API round thread is about 1.3 times that of the API round thread. Therefore, at least 27% of the casing cost can be saved and considerable economic benefits can be made if this gas-tight thread is used to replace the current widely-used premium thread.
The analysis shows that the thread structure has a good sealing performance and stability. In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in CO2 storage and flooding projects at home and abroad, where cost is a key issue restricting such projects. The proposed thread structure can effectively prevent the leakage of the wellbore in the CO2 storage and flooding projects and can reduce the casing cost. If high-grade steel pipes are used, the sealing capacity of such thread sealing structure will be further improved to meet higher-pressure working conditions.
Great economic benefit will be made if a kind of low-cost gas-tight thread can be developed on the basis of API round thread with a relatively lowest cost to replace the existing premium thread.
22
References
23