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