<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<record
    xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
    xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim http://www.loc.gov/standards/marcxml/schema/MARC21slim.xsd"
    xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim">

  <leader>01555nab a2200205   4500</leader>
  <controlfield tag="005">20260520002021.0</controlfield>
  <controlfield tag="008">260224s2011    xxu                      </controlfield>
  <datafield tag="245" ind1="0" ind2="0">
    <subfield code="a">Pump intake pressure determined from fluid levels, dynamometers, and valve-test measurements</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="260" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a"></subfield>
    <subfield code="b"></subfield>
    <subfield code="c">abr. 2011</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="270" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">07/09/2011 ; 07/09/2011</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">8 p. ; 59-66</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Transcripci&#xF3;n del resumen del autor. Three pump-intake-pressure (PIP) calculation methods available for wells artificially lifted with sucker rods are discussed in detail in this paper. The values of PIP obtained from acoustic fluid-level measurements in wells with moderate pump submergence can yield PIP estimates that agree with those of pump fluid-load analysis. If PIPs determined using these methods do not agree, then the operator must review the data quality and may reduce the deviation by adjusting certain parameters affecting the calculations. Field data for a significant group of wells are used to compare the PIP results of the three methods. The results show that the PIP computed using the maximum and minimum pump dynamometer loads usually calculates a PIP that is too low, while the PIPs computed using the valve test loads are usually too high. Recommendations are presented for quality control of the computed values.</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="581" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">4</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="t">Journal of Canadian Petroleum Technology</subfield>
    <subfield code="g">50</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="942" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">ARTICULO</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Lynn Rowlan, O.</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">51482</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">McCoy, James N.</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">51483</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="a">Podio, Augusto L.</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">51484</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="999" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="c">185447</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">185447</subfield>
  </datafield>
  <datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" ">
    <subfield code="0">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="1">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="4">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="7">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="9">253266</subfield>
    <subfield code="a">BAAB</subfield>
    <subfield code="b">BAAB</subfield>
    <subfield code="d">2026-03-06</subfield>
    <subfield code="j">200057523</subfield>
    <subfield code="l">0</subfield>
    <subfield code="p">200057523</subfield>
    <subfield code="r">2026-03-06 00:10:46</subfield>
    <subfield code="w">2026-03-06</subfield>
    <subfield code="y">ARTICULO</subfield>
  </datafield>
</record>
