Proceedings Volume Cover
SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS OF AThIE  
6200 North Central Expressway  
Dallas, Texas 75206  
PAPER  
NUMBER  
SPE 2087  
THIS IS  
A PREPRINT --- SUBJECT TO CORRECTION  
A
Local Control Element to Reduce Automation  
Costs of Injection Wells  
By  
D. W. Crowley, Member AThIE, Fisher Governor Co., Marshalltown, Iowa  
© Copyright 1968  
American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and Petroleum Engineers, Inc.  
ABSTRACT  
diagrams of the three basic systems. In these  
systems, point  
often geographically established, containing  
data processing functions. Point represents  
field operations at the injection pattern  
location.  
X is a centralized location,  
The cost-saving potential of  
a local  
control element, the automatic flow controller,  
is established by examining typical automated  
injection systems. This local control element  
accurately and automatically regulates the set  
injection rate. A new rate may be "dialed"  
easily without systems downtime or extra parts.  
The reliability of this kind of device reduces  
the need for constant remote supervisory con•  
trol and many metering functions. The local  
control element promotes design simplicity and  
reduces the need for instrument level training  
for operating personnel.  
Y
In general, the systems have certain  
unique characteristics. System  
A has maximum  
operational flexibility from the data processing  
center, utilizes relatively complex instrumen•  
tation, and requires maximum capital investment.  
System  
B
has direct telemetered data input to  
the data processing center, has centralized  
monitoring functions, and has local control  
element that automatically regulates injection  
rate. System incorporates maximum design  
a
INTRODUCTION  
C
simplicity and economy, has the lowest basic  
equipment cost, and has manual input to the  
data processing center.  
The reservoir engineer's recommendation  
for the most efficient flooding of the zone  
determines the choice of the systems design for  
automatically controlling  
tion. The primary method of varying the prog•  
ress of flood front is to adjust the injection  
rate and control this rate accurately.  
able method providing this capability then  
becomes the primary concern in automating the  
injection well.  
a waterflood injec•  
Systems Band  
C are becoming more and more  
attractive because of their estimated lower  
cost. This cost difference depends on the sub•  
local control element for the  
supervisory automatic control capability. The  
local control element of System replaces 50  
a
A
reli•  
stitution of  
a
B
percent of the basic diagram of System A.  
Equipment costs must be evaluated in  
designing any automation system. In today's  
market, the engineer may literally 'buy as much  
automation as he has money to spend." The  
equipment is evaluated by the amount of automa•  
tion necessary and its required degress of  
sophistication.  
In actuality, the local control device is  
substituted for an electro-mechanical or  
electro-pneumatic control valve.  
established by direct reduction in valve  
costs and reduction in the requirement for  
A savings is  
a
a
telemetering equipment, receiver controllers,  
and other accessories; thus, investment and  
operational costs decrease.  
Basic Systems  
The investment dollar savings of Systems  
B
Generally, there are three basic systems  
designs used in automating an injection well.  
Actual systems may incorporate specific  
and  
C
revert to  
The operations justification of Systems  
calls for considerable thought and  
examination. The supervisory automatic control  
function generally is justified because of the  
a
rather simple evaluation.  
B
or  
C
over System  
A
features of all three designs, but the basic  
distinctions still remain. Fig.  
Illustrations at end of paper.  
l represents