Lex Scheers - Shell Global Solutions

8/12/2019 Lex Scheers - Shell Global Solutions

1/8

MultiPhase Flow MeteringMultiPhase Flow Meteringon its way from nursing to mature technologyon its way from nursing to mature technology

Lex Scheers, 19-11-2009E-mail : [email protected] 1

1LS, Feb 2009

ProductionMeasurementTeamTitle

MultiMulti--Phase Flow MeteringPhase Flow Metering

On its way from nursing to mature technologyOn its way from nursing to mature technology

Lex ScheersLex [email protected]@shell.com

Advanced ProductionManagement

VSL, Delft16 Nov 2009 2

LS, Feb 2009

ProductionMeasurementTeam

1. Introduction2. Stripping the Facilities

3. Multiphase Flow Metering

4. Performance Maps

5. MPM Technology

6. Conclusions

3LS, Feb 2009


Introduction

- The product balance

GAS

GAS

OIL

OIL

WATER

WATER

RESERVOIR

GAS

GAS

WATER

WATER

WATER

WATER

DISPOSAL

DISPOSAL

SALES GASSALES GAS

SALES OILSALES OIL

FLARE GAS,FLARE GAS,OWN USEOWN USE $

$$

$

$

$

$ $ $

PRODUCTION FACILITYfor each phase

in = out

4LS, Feb 2009


Introduction

- Flowrate measurements

Fiscal/Sales Allocation Taxation / royalty / sales Production allocation to partners in joint p ipelines

Reservoir Management Maximise hydrocarbon recovery at prevailing economic and

technical conditions, e.g.Planning primary, secondary and tertiary developmentDepletion policy, Injection/production balanceProduction forecast and future project ranking

Operational Control Well surveillance Artificial lift optimisation Process and equipment performance

Production targets and constraints Allocate bulk measurements to individual wells or reservoir

5LS, Feb 2009


Costs vs Value of Information

TheTheValueValueLoopLoop

Interpretation&

Modeling

DataGathering

Decisions

&

Actions

HydrocarbonAssets

For any production measurement device (incl. MPFMs)we have to compare Costs, Value of Information and Accuracyand we need to select the optimum.

Production Measurement costs

are known

Challenge is to determine theValue of Information

Accuracy for MPFMis not yet fully defined

Youcantmanage

what

youcantmeasure

6LS, Feb 2009


Cost Effectiveness of Meas uring Equipment

Acceptable unce rtainty (percent)

Cost(U.S.

dollars)

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Measurement cos ts decrease

Losses and risks (wrong decisions) increase

Optimum cost

with increasing uncertainty

with increasing uncertainty

per measurement

Acceptable uncertainty (%)

Costs(AU)

Measurement costs decreasewith increasing uncertainty

Losses and risks (wrong decisions) increasewith increasing uncertainty

Cost Effectiveness of MeasuringEquipment

Optimum costper measurement

Economic considerations

- Accuracy vs. Costs


2/8



7LS, Feb 2009




4. Performance Maps

5. MPM Technology

6. Conclusions

8LS, Feb 2009


Production facility configuration

- Conventional facilities

To Bulk separator

Wells

Testseparator

Test header

Bulk header

Test line

Bulk line

9LS, Feb 2009


Multi-Phase Flow Meters are around

already for years

Input:MultiPhase Flow

Output:Oil, Water and GasProduction Figures

MPFM mainstream development started around 1990

Laboratory trials 1991 - 1995Field trials 1993 - 1996Commercially available from 1996

10LS, Feb 2009



Manifolded Multiphase Flowmeter

ToBulk separator

Wells Test header

Bulk header

upto 20 km

MPFM

Multiphase Flow Meter

11LS, Feb 2009



Wellhead multiphase flow meters

ToBulk separator

Wells

MPFM

MultiphaseFlow Meters

MPFM

MPFM

MPFM

MPFM

Theultimateaim!!!!surfaceMPFMorsub-surfaceMPFMperindividualwell

12LS, Feb 2009


Great White Prospect Setting

8000-9000 WDRemote

200 mi. S Freeport,60-90 mi. from nearest host

Rugged Seafloor Terrain & HazardsNo Producing AnaloguesLack Reservoir EnergyStructurally Complex

Applications for Sales Allocation are embarking .....

(Courtesy of Shell EPW)

Perdido Regional Host (PRH) is owned by Shell, Chevron, and BP.

Currently there are three (3) fields that will be producing to the PRHwhich are the Great White field, the Silvertip field, and the Tobago field.

The Great White field is owned by:Shell, Chevron, BP

The Silvertip field is owned by:Shell, Chevron

Tobago field is owned by:Shell, Chevron, Nexen

HoustonHouston BeaumontBeaumont

TxCityTxCity

New OrlNew Orl

SS 3 3 2SS 3 3 2

Mad DogMad Dog

AtlaAtlaHolsteinHolstein

Port ArthurPort Arthur HoumaHouma

ST301ST301

FouFour

TahitiTahiti

GC 19GC 19

AugerAuger

GreatWhiteGreatWhite

Diana HooverDiana Hoover

Jones CreekJones Creek

To CushingTo Cushing

Boomvang

Nansen

Boomvang

Nansen

GunnisonGunnison

18,88mbd

20,170+mbd

30,500mbd

GB72GB72

EnchEnch

HoustonHouston BeaumontBeaumont

TxCityTxCity

New OrlNew Orl

SS 3 3 2SS 3 3 2

Mad DogMad Dog

AtlaAtlaHolsteinHolstein

Port ArthurPort Arthur HoumaHouma

ST301ST301

FouFour

TahitiTahiti

GC 19GC 19

AugerAuger

GreatWhiteGreatWhite

Diana HooverDiana Hoover

Jones CreekJones Creek

To CushingTo Cushing

Boomvang

Nansen

Boomvang

Nansen

GunnisonGunnison

18,88mbd

20,170+mbd

30,500mbd

GB72GB72

EnchEnch

Great White


3/8



13LS, Feb 2009


Train 1

Train 2

1

Rumuji

Manifold

72

GTS1Slugcatcher

36 5

9

NLNG Site

Ubeta

Obiafu

Soku

Obite

BelemaNembe

Creek

Ebocha

Oshie

Gas Supply to LNG plant

Base Project (simple)

GTS 1

Base ProjectExpansion ProjectPlus Project

SPDC

NAOC

EPNLTrain 6 14LS, Feb 2009


Train 1

Train 2

Train 3

Train 4

Train 5

Train 6

1

4

RumujiManifold

12

72

8

GTS1Slugcatcher

GTS3Slugcatcher

GTS2&4Slugcatcher

24

21

2623

17

1618

14

15

22OGGS RP-A

Manifold

36 5

19

25

13

10

11

9

20

NLNG Site

Kolo Creek

Ubeta

Otumara

Odidi

ForcadosYokri

Bonga

SouthernSwampForcardos

EA

H K

Amenam

UtapateConnect may be moved

to GTS2due CO2

Gbaran

NunRiver

Obite

Oshie

Akri

Ebocha

Kwale

Irri

IduOgainbiri

BelemaNembeCreek Soku

BonnyNAG

20bTebida

20a

Obama

underconsideration

Gas Supply to Nigeria LNG

Extensions (it is getting a bit complex ....)

GTS 1(owned by NLNG)

GTS 2 (EGGS, owned by SPDC))

GTS 3 (OGGS, owned by SPDC)

Connecting Spool removedto allow fully independentoperation of GTS1 and GTS4

GTS 4 (proposed to be owned by NAOC)

CawthorneChannel

Base ProjectExpansion ProjectPlus Project

SPDC

NAOC

EPNLTrain 6

Obiafu

15LS, Feb 2009


Generic Two-Phase Flow Map

SuperficialLiquidVelocity(m/s)

10

1.0

0.1

1.0 10 100Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

16LS, Feb 2009


1. Introduction

2. Stripping the Facilities


4. Performance Maps

5. MPM Technology

6. Conclusions

17LS, Feb 2009


Multiphase Flow Metering

- Building Blocks

No conditioning

(in-line, models)

Mixer

Separation

1. Conditioning

Positive displacement meter

Venturi/Orifice measurement

Cross correlationX X

2. Flowrate/Velocity

21 3+ Gamma or x-ray absorption

Capacitance

Microwave

Dual venturi

Conductive / Inductance

3. Composition 1=++ GasOilWater

I

4. AlgorithmsMPFModels

18LS, Feb 2009


Schlumberger MultiPhase Flow Meter

Building Blocks

2


4/8



19LS, Feb 2009


Roxar MultiPhase Flow Meter

Building Blocks

1

I

I I

(Optional)

20LS, Feb 2009


Agar MultiPhase Flow Meter

Building Blocks

21LS, Feb 2009


Haimo MultiPhase Flow Meter

Building Blocks

2

1 1

22LS, Feb 2009


FlowSys/PietroFiorentini MultiPhase Flow Meter

Flow

Models

Capacitanceand

Conductance

Venturi (dp)

WC

GVF

Oil

Water

Gas

X-correlation(Velocity)

Fraction

Models

Capacitance andConductanceelectrodes

Venturi

(diff. pressure)

Flow direction

Building Blocks

I I

I

23LS, Feb 2009


AccuFlow MultiPhase Flow Meter

Building Blocks

SinglePhaseLiquid

SinglePhaseGas

24LS, Feb 2009


MPM MultiPhase Flow Meter

Compact design

Simple field configuration

Redundancy

WetGas / MultiPhase Mode

Water salinity measurement

Non-radioactive version

Design press. up to 15.000 PSI

Design temp up to 250 degC

Topside (and SubSea)

Building Blocks

1

3D Broadbandtomography

RUNVIDEORUN

VIDEO


5/8



25LS, Feb 2009




4. Performance Maps

5. MPM Technology

6. Conclusions

26LS, Feb 2009


MPFM Diversity

Large diversity in available technology whichresults in a large diversity in:

Uncertainty specification

Performance specifications Influence of fluid parameters Operating Envelopes Presentation of test results

hence need for : Guidance on which technology should be used How to determine operating envelopes How to test meters What is accuaracy Limitations

It is too early for standards on the technology itselfbut it ispossible to produce guidelines and/or standardson how to test, implement and use the technology

!!!!!!

27LS, Feb 2009


Standardization / Guidelines

DTI (UK)- Guidance notes for Petroleum Measurement,

Module 7 (Dec 2003)

API- Multiphase Flow - White paper- RP86, Well rate determination

NFOGM- Handbook for Multiphase Flow Measurement

1st version issued 19952nd version issued 2005

Large number of publications

Current activities regarding best practices and/or guidelinesfor the design and operation of MultiPhase Flow Meters

FOR FREEFOR FREEFOR FREEFOR FREE

FOR FREEFOR FREEFOR FREEFOR FREE28

LS, Feb 2009


Presentation of performance [1]

- Liquid Flowrate and Watercut as 45 line

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Reference Watercut (%)

Flow

Sy

sWatercu

t(%)

Water-continuousemulsion

Oil-continuousemulsion

Reference Watercut (%)

W

atercut(%)

WatercutWatercut0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Reference Liquid FlowRate (m3/h)

Flow

Sy

sLiqu

idFlow

Rate(m

3/h)

10%

Reference Liquid Flow (m3/d)

LiquidFlow(m3/d) 10%

Liquid FlowrateLiquid Flowrate

28

29LS, Feb 2009



- Liquid Flowrate and Watercut as function of GVF

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0 % 1 0% 2 0% 30 % 4 0% 5 0% 6 0% 7 0% 8 0% 9 0% 1 00 %

GVF (%)

DeviationinLiquidFlowRate(%

Water continuous

Oil-continuous

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0 % 1 0% 2 0% 3 0% 4 0% 5 0% 6 0% 7 0% 8 0% 9 0% 1 00 %

GVF (%)

Deviationinwatercut(%

Water continuous

Oil-continuous.

-50%

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

0 % 1 0% 2 0% 30 % 4 0% 5 0% 6 0% 7 0% 80 % 9 0% 1 00 %

GVF (%)

DeviationinGasFlowRate

(%)

Water continuous

Oil-continuous

WatercutWatercut

Liquid FlowrateLiquid Flowrate

Gas FlowrateGas Flowrate

30LS, Feb 2009



- Based on Two-Phase Flow Map and a Diameter

4 line4 line

7,005

700

70.0

700 7,005 70,045Actual Gas Flow rate (m3/d)

ActualLiquidFlowrate(m3/d)


6/8



31LS, Feb 2009


Well Trajectory in Two-Phase Flow Map

10

100

1,000

10,000

100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Gas Flowrate (m3/d) at actual conditions

Liquid

Flowrate

(m3/

d)

GVF=50%GVF=9.1% GVF=90.9%

GVF=99.0%

GVF=99.9%

Wet

Gas

Area

In-lineMulti-PhaseFlow Meter

problem area

Typical position ofboundary betweenslug and mist flow

Uncertaintyin prediction

32LS, Feb 2009


Well trajectory in Composition Map

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Watercut (%)

GVF

(%)at

actualcondit

ions

OIL WATER

GAS

In-lineMulti-PhaseFlow Meter

net-oil

uncertaintydeterioration

Wet Gas Area

Gassy Liquid

Uncertaintyin prediction

33LS, Feb 2009


MultiPhase Flow Meter test results

in 2-phase flowmap

10

100

1,000

10,000

100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Gas Flowrate (m3/d) at actual conditions

Liquid

Flowrate

(m3/d)

GVF=50%GVF=9.1% GVF=90.9%

GVF=99.0%

GVF=99.9%

Uncertainty5% Liquid5% Gas

Uncertainty10% Liquid10% Gas

Reference

MPFM

34LS, Feb 2009


MultiPhase Flow Meter test results

in composition map

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Watercut (%)

GVF

(%)at

actualconditions

OIL WATER

GAS

Uncertainty7.5% watercut

Uncertainty5.0% watercutUncertainty

2.5% watercut

Uncertainty>10% watercut

Gassy Liquid

Wet Gas Area

Uncertainty5.0% watercut

Reference

MPFM

35LS, Feb 2009


Liquid, Gas and Watercut Cumulative Deviation Plots

Meter E

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Deviation (%)

Cumulative

(%oftestpoints)

Liquid

Gas

Watercut

[email protected]

Liquid, Gas and Water Cumulative Deviation Plots

Meter E

36LS, Feb 2009


Liquid, Gas and Watercut Cumulative Deviation Plots

Meter B

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Deviation (%)

Cumulative

(%oftestpoin

ts)

Liquid

Gas

Watercut

[email protected]

Liquid, Gas and Water Cumulative Deviation Plots

Meter B


7/8



37LS, Feb 2009




4. Performance Maps

5. MPM Technology

6. Conclusions

38LS, Feb 2009


Field Qualification Program

- Timing

All tests performed using the

same unit

3 MPM Meter

Made as per Gullfaks

Specifications

K-Lab

Oct 06

Gullfaks A

Dec 06

MPM Lab

Sept 06 Jan 07

Gullfaks A

Feb 07 - now

Gullfaks A - operation

Sponsors

39LS, Feb 2009


Field Qualification Program

- Test conditions, Sep 2006 - Jan 2007

Note: (1) Reference system improvements from Dec 06 to Jan 07

Meter takeninto permanent use in Feb 07 for well testing

MPM Flow Lab K-Lab Test Gullfaks A Gullfaks A

FAT Sept '06 Oct '06 Dec '06 Jan '07

No of test points 220 46 13 10

GVF 0 - 92 % 25 - 99,9 % 40 - 96 % 20 - 95 %

WLR 0 - 95 % 0 - 70 % 2 - 78 % 2 - 85 %

Pressure < 10 bar 120 bar 60 bar 60 bar

Oil Exxol D 140 Condensate Crude Crude

830 kg/m3 620 kg/m3 780 - 840 kg/m3 780 - 840 kg/m3

(1) (1)

40LS, Feb 2009


Field Qualification Program, MPM flowloop

- Cumulative Deviation Plot

MPM Multiphase Flowmeter

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Deviation (%)

Cumulative

(% of test points)

Liquid

Gas

Watercut

Av erage = 0 .60 % StD ev = 1 .87 %

Used liquid testpoints = 97

Av erage = 1.02 % StD ev = 3 .65

Used gas testpoints = 75

Used watercuttestpoints = 97

Average = -0.24 abs% StDev = 1.27 abs%

Sep2006

41LS, Feb 2009


Field Qualification Program, K-Lab



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Deviation (%)

Cumulative

(% of test points)

Liquid

Gas

Watercut

Average = -0.43 StDev = 4.96


Average = 1.24 % StD ev = 1 .94 %


Used watercuttestpoints= 39

Average = -0.52 abs% StDev = 2.20 abs%

Nov2006

42LS, Feb 2009


Field Qualification Program, Gullfaks A, Statoil



0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%

Deviation (%)

Cumulative

(% of test points)

Liquid

Gas

Watercut

Average = 2.74 % StDev = 3.40


Average = -0.33 StDev = 3.12 %


Used watercuttestpoints = 10

Average = 1.12 abs% StDev = 2.07 abs%

Jan2007


8/8



43LS, Feb 2009




4. Performance Maps

5. MPM Technology

6. Conclusions

44LS, Feb 2009


Multiphase Flow Metering (MPFM) is on its way from nursing to

mature technology, however proper attention is required in the

implementation and operational phases.

MPFM and WGM issues that require further attention Limited number of manufacturers Use of radioactive sources WGM for 2 or 3 phases (liq/gas or water/oil/gas High GVF and high watercut performance Close the gap between MPFM and WGM Pricing (accuracy vs CAPEX/OPEX) Specification and performance formats Standardisation / Guidelines Improved accuracy (for fiscal and sales allocation service) Testloop and Field verification procedures

Conclusions

- MultiPhase and Wet Gas Flow Metering

Lex Scheers - Shell Global Solutions

Documents

Transcript of Lex Scheers - Shell Global Solutions