Post on 13-Apr-2017
1
Analysis of Coalinga Farr Plunger Data
Presented by Katie KruplaAugust 4, 2015
2
My project was to analyze and present the Farr plunger performance.
The purpose was to analyze data from the Coalinga field to compare the performance of the Farr plunger to other plungers used in the same wells.
Based on field observations, the Farr was suspected to provide longer runtimes on average and require fewer well pulls than other plungers used in the same wells.
We needed to determine if the observations could be supported by quantitative analysis, and if so, see how much longer Farr runtimes were on average.
Problem Statement & Hypothesis
3
Coalinga Field Over 100 years old Layered
unconsolidated sandstone reservoir
Heavy oil Over 700 producing
wells Many wells produce
sand
Photo Credit: "CoalingaWell" by Antandrus via Wikipedia
4
Photo Credit: www.muthpump.com
Conventional vs. Farr
Main Design Modifications Top plunger connector Farr Leading Edge
Conventional vs. Farr
Connector
5Photo Credits: www.muthpump.com and Muth Pump LLC
Conventional Farr
US Patent # 6,543,543 B2 Connector
Leading Edge
Scarring
Excluded or corrected inaccurate runs
Filled in missing plunger types using pump run tickets
Removed duplicate lines of data using additional well data sources
Included 2 pump pulls prior to Farr and any pulls after Farr**
Excluded wells that had never had a Farr plunger in them*
Only looked at Coalinga Data
Data Processing/Cleaning Steps
* If the well had only had Farr plungers in it, it was included in the study. **Study goes back to 2010 when the first Farr plunger was installed in Coalinga Field. 6
-609.56 -302.79 3.99 310.76 617.53 924.30 1231.07 More0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
NON FARR RUNTIME Histogram
Non-Farr Bin
Freq
uenc
y
Right Skewness
Leptokurtic Distribution
-555.06 -254.30 46.46 347.22 647.98 948.74 1249.50 More0
20
40
60
80
100
120
FARR RUNTIME Histogram
Farr Bin
Freq
uenc
y
7
Histograms
Right Skewness
Leptokurtic Distribution
8
Descriptive Statistics
FARR RUN_DAYS NON FARR RUN_DAYSMean 347.22 310.76
Standard Error 21.94 21.43Median 238.99 205.00
Mode 163 138Standard Deviation 300.76 306.77
Sample Variance 90456.22 94108.70Kurtosis* 2.33 1.49
Skewness 1.45 1.47Range 1614.21 1365.29
Minimum 1 2Maximum 1616 1367
Sum 65277 63705Count 188 205
Mean Confidence Level(95.0%) 43.27 42.24
*Kurtosis was calculated in Excel. The normal distribution has a kurtosis value of zero in Excel.
9
Plunger Count Failed % Still RunningFarr 188 94 50.00%
Non Farr 205 182 11.22%
Significance: 50% of all Farr plungers are still running. Only 11.22% of all Non-Farr plungers are still running. The large percent of Farr plungers still running requires
that we rely on the projected median runtime in the next slide to explain the data.
Data Overview
10
Non-FarrFarrCombined
Non-FarrFarrCombined
--- Non-Farr--- Farr
The projected median runtime for Farr is 470 days. The projected median runtime for Non-Farr is 217 days.
Thus, the Farr has a 216% longer projected median runtime than the Non-Farr.
This is a 116% improvement.
Survival Plot: Farr vs. Non-Farr
Two manufacturers were used for the study.
They were given different geographical areas to test.
Results: No statistical difference. Assembly bias is not an
issue. Farr’s performance was
identical in both geographical areas.
Survival Plot: Different Manufacturers and Areas
Plunger CountFailed
Plungers % RunningHF 78 36 54%
John Crane 110 58 47%11
12
Survival Plot: Farr vs. Non-Farr Pump Bore Sizes
13
Survival Plot: Farr Pump Bore Sizes The survival plot shows
that there is no statistical difference between the two pump bore sizes based on the overlapping curves and additional statistical analysis.
We conclude that the Farr runtime data is not biased based on pump bore size.
14
Scenario:If 100 Farr plungers are installed in one year, then there would be a total yearly
savings of more than $874,368.
Economic Analysis
Savings/well/year $8,744
Cost/pull Projected median runtime Cost/well/day Cost/well/year
Farr $10,400 470 days $22 $8,077Non-Farr $10,000 217 days $46 $16,820
15
Significance of our Findings:◦ Proves that Farr plunger runs longer than Non-Farr
plungers.◦ Farr Plunger provides 216% longer runtimes.
Greatest Application:◦ The Farr plunger is a solution to sand production
problems that will cut costs. Further Research:
◦ As the percent of Farr plungers still running decreases, it will be interesting to see how much greater the percent improvement gets.
Conclusions
16
Muth Pump LLCRod Kane - CoachMarc Obenshain
Matt Grimm – Statistical AdviceBen Krupla
Thank You!
Acknowledgements:
17
Non-FarrFarrCombined
Non-FarrFarrCombined
--- Non-Farr--- FarrQuestions