Talk:Pumpjack

These are commonly known as "pump jacks". Compare the number of search results in google for pump jack and nodding horse. Pump jack is more prevelant in literature. Pump jack also describes what these devices do. They are a jack (lifting device) that pump. The title should be changed to pump jack. --129.173.105.28 03:25, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think "pumpjack" is more common than "pump jack" in an oilfield context. Gene Nygaard 03:37, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with either, of course, is that unlike the "nodding donkey" name, a pumpjack/pump jack is not specific to the oil industry. Gene Nygaard 03:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked in the oil industry for years and can attest that almost everyone uses the term pumpjack.--129.173.105.28 00:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another random person here who works in the oil industry and who has never heard the term 'nodding donkey'. I grew up in West Texas, where (in some places) pumpjacks are more dense than trees, and I've been calling them 'pumpjacks' since I was a kid. Pumpjack, pump jack -- that's what it's called. Not sure whether one word or two is the preferred spelling.

Some of the terms are probably regional. I think that "nodding donkey/horse" is more common in the northern prairies/Canada. heqs 07:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im from Alberta and everyone i know calls it a pumpjack, except some guys way way up north, they called them "grasshoppers"

A 'Rocking-horse derrick'

Has anyone else heard of these being called that? A "Rocking-horse derrick"? CaribDigita 02:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No... not really... In all honesty, I'd never heard anything but "nodding donkey". 68.39.174.238 18:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here in England i grow up with them being known as "nodding donkeys".

In Wyoming and Nevada, USA, my dad, an old oil hand always called them "Jenson Jacks" or "Jensen Jacks". 70.243.166.44 04:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the Netherlands they're called jaknikkers = "yes nodders". 82.139.86.216 (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article seems to totally blow off Wikipedia's requirements for citations. Much of this reads like it was made up or based on anecdotal accounts. 150.131.131.70 (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Curious

I have zero experience in the oil industry. Just curious. Does each pumpjack have a local reservoir or are they connected by underground pipes to some main storage facility?

I mean, where does the oil go when it is pumped on each stroke?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weengineer (talk • contribs) 18:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends, usually it goes to a tank battery where it is picked up every so often by a truck. TastyCakes (talk) 19:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Rod Pumping"?

Shouldn't this entry be renamed to "Rod Pumping" or some such? ("Pumpjack" and "Pump jack" can redirect to it). The discussion covers more than just the pumpjack, and the corollary entries Gas Lift, Progressive cavity pump and Submersible pump already draw upon the generic name for each particular production technique. Indeed the applicable section under Artificial lift is called "Rod Pumps" but it covers only the downhole pump itself -- but not the elastic rod string including design and analysis methods -- whereas "Rod Pumping" should cover all. Alternatively, but not my recommendation, this article can be restricted to just the above-ground equipment the current title would suggest. The downhole stuff would be moved to and consolidated with the already more complete discussion of the pump on the cited Artificial Lift page. Irv (talk) 00:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "derrick"

The term "oil derrick" has been removed from the list of "also known as" terms, since these are two different things. An oil derrick is a steel framework tower used in drilling and servicing oil wells; it is removed when the well is being pumped. A derrick and pumpjack do not look even vaguely similar, nor do they have the same function. While an occasional layman who doesn't know any better might get the two terms confused, there is imho no good reason to offer incorrect and potentially confusing terminology to those who come to an encyclopedia looking for accurate information. Piperh (talk) 12:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"more power", but not in "rods"

> deeper extraction requiring more power to move the heavier lengths of sucker rods

In theory the rod motion consumes "no" energy. What comes up will go back down.

There is friction, for sure. But most of this is in the pump and piston, not the rods, and not strongly related to weight. (Rod weight is supported; drag against the side is incidental.)

To even-out the load on the motor, the rods are counter-balanced on the beam or crank. Large weights are mounted and adjusted for the weight of the rod. In one photo you can see rack-teeth used to shift the (very heavy!) weights along the crank arm.

Lifting the oil does consume power. The "more power" is proportional to the amount of oil lifted and the height lifted.

Once oil begins to lift, the "rod weight" (including oil) is higher going up than down. So the final balance will be the average of the up and down weights.

The quick-estimate of motor-power is lift times flow, plus a round-up factor. A precise calculation would include oil density, viscosity, rod drag, gear losses, etc... but pump-jacks come in standard sizes so lift times flow plus round-up will get the big-enough jack to the site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.139.38 (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC) Clarification: "...proportional to the amount of oil lifted and the height lifted." -- "height lifted" here has to mean the length of the pumping stroke, as the static weight of the column of oil will be supported by the counterweight. The portion of the main page "...with deeper extraction requiring more power to move the increased weight of the discharge column (discharge head)" is incorrect and should be changed. Dbeierl (talk) 21:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading caption

the caption for the picture with two pumps "Double pumpjacks pumping from the same oil well" is misleading. There is no way they could be working the same rod, or two different rods in the same borehole. I honestly haven't ever seen this before (10+ years in energy) and the picture is a little fuzzy so I can't tell if there are two wellheads that are just right next to each other. The author's name is redlinked but it looks like it was taken when driving down the highway so I doubt he'd be much help. I suggest removing the image from this page unless someone can clarify what is going on here. Alphachimera (talk) 20:30, 3 February 2012 (UTC) I work for a pumpjack company in northern Alberta and have seen two jacks running head to head...literally inches apart....each pulling their own rod but on the same bore. it is rare but they're out there — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.211.236 (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barrels per day (BPD)

Right now the article says, "Depending on the size of the pump, it generally produces 5 to 40 litres of liquid at each stroke." This is fine but it doesn't state how many strokes occur over the course of day, nor how many barrels of oil one of these produces in a day/year (roughly). Somedifferentstuff (talk) 11:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oil storage

A request from someone not at all familiar with oil extraction: could someone knowledgeable explain where the oil that is pumped by pumpjacks typically goes? Does each pumpjack have its own storage unit, or are they typically connected to a network of pipelines or some other mechanism?144.211.101.117 (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a "popping johnny"

I've removed the name "popping johnny" from the list of alternate names for this device. A "popping johnny" is a John Deere tractor or stationary engine, particularly the old two-cylinder units that would skip-fire under light load, producing a characteristic clack-clack-clack-pop-clack sound. If such John Deere engines were or still are used to power pump jacks where electric power isn't available, it refers to the engine, not the pump assembly. — Quicksilver^{T @} 00:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate names for pumpjack: too many, no cites

We really need to limit these to uses that actually have a reliable source -- people just seem to be adding whatever they might have heard, and the list is getting out of hand. --Pete Tillman (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

edit on electric motor size

I tried to make changes which were listed below, it didn't work, then I went back and it did.

Why no "history" section?

It's incomprehensible that there would be no "history" section to describe the invention of the pumpjack. Can someone more knowledgeable than I (read: "almost anyone") add this? Thank you.
Bricology (talk) 20:29, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]