Title

Advanced Production Management

Multi-Phase Flow Metering

On its way from nursing to mature technology

lex.scheers@shell.com

Lex Scheers

Prepared for Hydrocarbon Production Accounting workshop Moscow, 16-17 Dec 2008
LS, Nov 2008

Who am I ?

Lex Scheers Lex Scheers

Tel :: +31 --70 --447 2969 Tel +31 70 447 2969 E-mail :: lex.scheers@shell.com E-mail lex.scheers@shell.com 1981-1986, Shell Research 1981-1986, Shell Research --Production technologist/Investigation Leader Production technologist/Investigation Leader Prod. Tech Research //Field trials //Audits //Reviews in various OUs Prod. Tech Research Field trials Audits Reviews in various OUs 1987-1991, NAM, Assen 1987-1991, NAM, Assen --Sr. Fiscalisation Engineer Sr. Fiscalisation Engineer Responsible for all aspects of production measurements, reconciliation, HC Responsible for all aspects of production measurements, reconciliation, HC oil and gas accounting, contracts and sales allocation oil and gas accounting, contracts and sales allocation 1991 - now, Shell Research / SIEP / Shell GS 1991 - now, Shell Research / SIEP / Shell GS --Sr. Research Physicist/Sr. Production Measurement Consultant Sr. Research Physicist/Sr. Production Measurement Consultant --Shells Principal Technical Expert (PTE) on Metering and Allocation Shells Principal Technical Expert (PTE) on Metering and Allocation Production measurement research and developments, service and advice to Production measurement research and developments, service and advice to Shell Operating Units, standardization activities, chairman ISO TC193 Shell Operating Units, standardization activities, chairman ISO TC193

LS, Nov 2008

Objectives / Expectations and Presentation Rules Objective / Expectations Present an overview of the various MPFMs currently in use Technology Applications Installation, operation and maintenance issues Uncertainty Presentation Rrules Workshop format rather than a presentation format Everybody to contribute rather than just a few There are no stupid questions, if unclear or vague, please ask If things cant be solved or answered we will park them
LS, Nov 2008

1. Introduction 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Stripping the Facilities Multiphase Flow Metering Performance Maps MPM Technology Conclusions

LS, Nov 2008

Introduction - The product balance FLARE GAS, OWN USE SALES GAS

$ $

$
PRODUCTION FACILITY for each phase in = out
WATER

SALES OIL

GAS

OIL

RESERVOIR
LS, Nov 2008

WATER

$
GAS

WATER DISPOSAL
5

Introduction - Flowrate measurements (1) Fiscal allocation Taxation / royalty / sales Production allocation to partners in joint pipelines Mutually agreed accuracy Control by contract and/or legislation Reputation management Environmental measurement Forecasting

$ $ $
B2

B3

A1

$
B

A
Concession A

B1 C1

Concession B

Offs hore

Onshore treating plant

Fiscal Metering
Concession C

C2

Onsh ore

Gas - MJ ($) - m3 Condensate - kg ($) - m3

9

Some upstream metering might also be categorized as fiscal metering !!!

Well allocation Allocate bulk measurements to individual wells or reservoir

LS, Nov 2008

Introduction - Flowrate measurements (2) Reservoir management Maximise hydrocarbon recovery at prevailing economic and technical conditions, e.g. Planning primary, secondary and tertiary development Depletion policy Injection/production balance Production forecast Future project ranking High accuracy
Ultimate Recovery (UR) Uncertainty band measurements Time Poor accuracy measurement

Operational control Well surveillance Artificial lift optimisation Process and equipment performance Production targets and constraints

LS, Nov 2008

Data acquisition - Accuracy vs. Costs (specification per project)

Cost Effectiveness of Measuring Cost Effectiveness of Measuring Equipment Equipment

250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Acceptable uncertainty (%) Acceptableuncertainty (percent)
8

Losses and risks (wrong decisions) increase Losses uncertainty with increasing and risks (wrong decisions) increase
with increasing uncertainty

Cost (U.S. dollars)

Costs (AU)

Optimum cost per measurement Optimum cost

per measurement Measurement costs decrease Measurement costs decrease with increasing uncertainty with increasing uncertainty

LS, Nov 2008

DTI approach to marginal field developments

When reviewing measurement proposals for a marginal field, the DTI is fully prepared to relax measurement requirements in the interest of encouraging the development of remaining North Sea oil and gas potential.

Justification should include the following: Relevant field economics Measurement options considered Costs of various project options
LS, Nov 2008

What are Critical Measurements

For oil wells 1) Net oil flow rate 2) Gross liquid flow rate 3) Watercut 4) GOR - Gas/Oil Ratio 5) FGOR - Formation GOR For gas wells 1) Gas flow rate 2) CGR - Condensate/Gas Ratio 3) WGR - Water/Gas Ratio 4) Water content

In contrast with the 1985 requirements, which presented the requirements in terms of oil, water and gas flow rates, it now becomes clear that often watercut and GOR are also prominent parameters

Uncertainty vs Repeatability

?
10

LS, Nov 2008

Production Measurement - Who is involved Operations Operations Petroleum and Petroleum and Reservoir Engineers Projects Reservoir Engineers Projects
Moderate accuracy Moderate accuracy Trending Trending

Maintenance free Maintenance free Calibration free Calibration free Moderate Moderate accuracy accuracy Trending Trending

Options Options development development Project execution Project execution

Third Parties Third Parties

Fiscal standards Fiscal standards Accuracy negotiable Accuracy negotiable

Custodian ? Auditable ?

Contract and Finance Contract and Finance

Fiscal standards Fiscal standards High accuracy High accuracy Reliable Reliable

Instrument Engineers Instrument Engineers

What the customer wants What the customer wants Standards,procedures, etc. Government Bodies Standards,procedures, etc. Government Bodies Fiscal standards Fiscal standards High accuracy High accuracy Reliable Reliable
LS, Nov 2008

Sales parties Sales parties

Fiscal standards Fiscal standards High accuracy High accuracy Reliable Reliable Traceable Traceable Contracts Contracts
11

1. Introduction 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Stripping the Facilities Multiphase Flow Metering Performance Maps MPM Technology Conclusions

LS, Nov 2008

12

Production facility configuration - Conventional facilities

Bulk header Test header Wells

Test separator Test line Bulk line

LS, Nov 2008

To Bulk separator

13

Multi-Phase Flow Meters are around already for years

Input: MultiPhase Flow Output: Oil, Water and Gas Production Figures

MPFM mainstream development started around 1990 Laboratory trials 1991 - 1995 Field trials 1993 - 1996 Commercially available from 1996
LS, Nov 2008

14

Production facility configuration - Manifolded Multiphase Flowmeter

Bulk header

Wells

Test header

Multiphase Flow Meter

MPFM

upto 20 km

To Bulk separator
LS, Nov 2008

15

Production facility configuration - Manifolded Multiphase Flowmeter

Bulk header

Wells

Test header

Multiphase Flow Meter

MPFM

To Bulk separator

upto 20 km
LS, Nov 2008

16

Production facility configuration - MSV and Multiphase Flowmeter

Wells

Multi-Selector Valve (MSV) Multiphase Flow Meter

MPFM

Test line

To Bulk separator
Bulk line

upto 20 km
17

LS, Nov 2008

Well test skid with MSV and Coriolis meter

LS, Nov 2008

18

Production facility configuration - Wellhead multiphase flow meters

MPFM

Wells
MPFM

MPFM

MPFM

The ultim ate aim !!!! surface MPFM or sub-surf ace MPF M per indiv idual wel l

MPFM

Multiphase Flow Meters

LS, Nov 2008

To Bulk separator
19

Production facility configuration - Increased well test frequency

Bulk header Test header

Wells

Test separator

Brow n deve field lopme nt

MPFM

Multiphase Flow Meter To Bulk separator

LS, Nov 2008

20

Production facility configuration - Increased production capacity

Bulk header

Wells

Test header

Brow n deve field lopme nt

Multiphase Flow Meter

MPFM

Test separator

Bulk separator
LS, Nov 2008

21

Generic Two-Phase Flow Map

Superficial Liquid Velocity (m/s)

10

1.0

0.1

1.0

10 Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

100
22

LS, Nov 2008

Concepts and definitions Multi-phase flow regimes

Superficial Liquid Velocity (m/s)
5 F= GV
10

0%

91 F= GV

=9 VF G
1.0

9%

0.1

1. Multi-phase (GVF < 80 85%)

1.0

10

100

Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

2. High-GVF multi-phase (80 -85% < GVF < 90 95%) 3. Wet-gas (GVF > 90%)
LS, Nov 2008

23

Multiphase Flow - DONAU testloop

RUN VIDEO
LS, Nov 2008

24

1. Introduction 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Stripping the Facilities Multiphase Flow Metering Performance Maps MPM Technology Conclusions

LS, Nov 2008

25

Multiphase and Wet gas Flowmeter - Issues Price

Limitations

50k to 400k US$, different performance specifications In-line MPFMs >> deteriorated performance at hi-GVF and hi-watercut Partial separation MPFMs >> space and weight Wet Gas meters >> calibration issues

HSE&S

Lack of confidence (create awareness)

Radioactive sources (licensees, dedicated staff, barriers, etc) Performance testing/ Calibration / FATs Flow models often manufacturers IP (no clearity) Complicated equipment and not yet fit and forget technology Field verification tools/processes Standardisation, best practise guidelines Training Nursing technology rather than mature technology
26

High intervention
LS, Nov 2008

Multiphase Flow Metering - Building Blocks

1. Conditioning
Separation Mixer No conditioning (in-line, models)

2. Flowrate/Velocity
Positive displacement meter Venturi/Orifice measurement
X X

Cross correlation

3. Composition Water + Oil + Gas = 1

Capacitance

4. Algorithms MPF Models

Microwave Conductive / Inductance Dual venturi Gamma or x-ray absorption

1
LS, Nov 2008

3+

27

Schlumberger MultiPhase Flow Meter

Building Blocks

LS, Nov 2008

28

Roxar MultiPhase Flow Meter

Building Blocks

(Optional)

LS, Nov 2008

29

Agar MultiPhase Flow Meter

Building Blocks

LS, Nov 2008

30

Haimo MultiPhase Flow Meter

Building Blocks

LS, Nov 2008

31

PietroFiorentini (ex-FlowSys) MultiPhase Flow Meter - IP now sits with Shell

Building Blocks

Capacitance and Conductance Fraction Models WC GVF

Venturi (dp)

Capacitance and Conductance electrodes

Flow Models Oil

X-correlation (Velocity) Venturi (diff. pressure)

Water

Gas

LS, Nov 2008

Flow direction

32

AccuFlow MultiPhase Flow Meter

Building Blocks

Single Phase Liquid

Single Phase Gas

LS, Nov 2008

33

MPM MultiPhase Flow Meter

Building Blocks

Compact design Simple field configuration Redundancy

3D Broadband tomography

WetGas / MultiPhase Mode Water salinity measurement Design press. up to 15,000 psi Design temp up to 250 degC Topside (and SubSea)

Sponsors

RUN VIDEO
34

LS, Nov 2008

Venturi-Tracer Wet Gas Meter

Tracer supply bottle Co Metering pump Wet gas flow
Loss

Building Blocks

Tracer mass balance: Co Liquid flow rate = x Injection flow rate Cs DP DP

Venturi

Cs Mixing distance Liquid sample

Tracers
1.6

1.5 1.4 Venturi over1.3 reading 1.2 1.1 1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 Lockhart-Martinelli parameter

LS, Nov 2008

35

Roxar Wet Gas Meter

Building Blocks

or

pVT

LS, Nov 2008

36

Solartron ISA Wet Gas Meter

Building Blocks

Loss

Wedge

Gas/Liquid calibration
LS, Nov 2008

37

Mera well test unit

Building Blocks
GAS

SEPARATING VESSEL

Single Phase Liquid

LIQUID GAS MPF in

Single Phase Gas

METERING VESSEL

MPF in

MPF in

LIQUID

MPF out

LS, Nov 2008

38

Mera well test unit

GAS

LIQUID GAS MPF in

LIQUID

MPF out

LS, Nov 2008

39

Mera well test unit

Mode of operation: Big separator vessel >> Gas/Liquid separation Subsequently measures Gas, Liquid, Gas, Liquid, ........... Gas flowrate with gas meter Liquid flowrate with Tfilling Watercut from p and oil and water Issues: Low GVF >> low driving force for liquid Leaking valves Base density (oil and water) variations Foaming High failure rate, control and mechanical problems Dead volumes
LS, Nov 2008

40

Neftemer MultiPhase Flow Meter

Building Blocks

LS, Nov 2008

41

Neftemer MultiPhase Flow Meter - Mode of operation

Mode of operation: Bubbles below a critical size are entrained in the liquid, will give the liquid velocity Average velocity of all bubbles, will give the gas velocity Phase fractions either with single or dual energy gamma ray absorption. Fast signal processing Suitable for: Lower GVFs Viscous/Heavy oil

LS, Nov 2008

42

Manufacturers - Based on sales

Front Runners

Kvaerner DUET Jiskoot MixMeter WellComp Kvaerner CCM ISA ESMER Daniel Pietro Fiorentini Abbon epSolutions Neftemer Mera

Roxar (Fluenta) Schlumberger/Framo Haimo MPM Agar AccuFlow

Others

Apply radioactive sources

LS, Nov 2008

43

Possible issues with MPFMs

Issues can be: In-line calibration / verification Sensitivity for physical parameters Operational envelope Water flow rate measurement (WGM) Water-cut in high WC oil wells Reliability Erosion/Corrosion Wax deposition Scale deposition Sand tolerance Sensors in contact with well fluids
LS, Nov 2008

44

MPFM Diversity

Large diversity in available technology which results 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 accuracy Limitations

!!!
LS, Nov 2008

It is too early for standards on the technology itself but it is possible to produce guidelines and/or standards on how to test, implement and use the technology
45

1. Introduction 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Stripping the Facilities Multiphase Flow Metering Performance Maps MPM Technology Conclusions

LS, Nov 2008

46

Standardization / Guidelines

Current activities regarding best practices and/or guidelines for the design and operation of MultiPhase Flow Meters 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 1995 2nd version issued 2005 Large number of publications
LS, Nov 2008

47

NFOGM Multiphase Flow Metering Handbook

Produced for: The Norwegian Society for Oil and Gas Measurement and The Norwegian Society of Chartered Technical and Scientific Professionals by Shell BP Total ConocoPhillips Norsk Hydro CMR

ION VERS D 2 HE UBLIS 005 P h2 Marc

nd

http://www.nfogm.no/
LS, Nov 2008

Roxar Framo/Schlumberger
48

Presentation of performance [3] - Liquid Flowrate and Watercut as function of GVF

50% 40%

Water continuous Oil-continuous

Deviation in Liquid Flow Rate (%)

Liquid Flowrate Liquid Flowrate

30% 20% 10% 0% -10%

50% -20% 40% -30%

Water continuous Oil-continuous

Gas Flowrate Gas Flowrate

Deviation in Gas Flow Rate (%)

30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% -50% 0% 10%

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

GVF (%)
50% 40% 30%

Water continuous Oil-continuous.

Watercut Watercut

Deviation in watercut (%)

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

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

GVF (%)

GVF (%)
LS, Nov 2008

49

Presentation of performance [4] - Based on Generic Two-Phase Flow Map

Superficial Liquid Velocity (m/s)

10

1.0

0.1

1.0

10 Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s)

100
50

LS, Nov 2008

Presentation of performance [4] - Based on Two-Phase Flow Map and a Diameter

7,005 Actual Liquid Flow rate (m3/d)

700

70.0

4 line 4 line

700

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

70,045
51

LS, Nov 2008

Well Trajectory in Two-Phase Flow Map

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

10,000

L iquid F lowra te (m 3 /d)

In-line Multi-Phase Flow Meter problem area

1,000

GVF=99.0%

Uncertainty in prediction
100

as G t ea e W Ar
GVF=99.9%

Typical position of boundary between slug and mist flow

10 100 1,000 10,000 100,000

Gas Flowrate (m3/d) at actual conditions

LS, Nov 2008

52

Well trajectory in Composition Map

GAS

100%

Wet Gas Area

G V F (% ) a t a ctua l conditions

80%

60%

Uncertainty in prediction

In-line Multi-Phase Flow Meter net-oil uncertainty deterioration

40%

20%

Gassy Liquid
OIL 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% WATER

Watercut (%)
LS, Nov 2008

53

MultiPhase Flow Meter test results in 2-phase flowmap

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

10,000
Uncertainty 5% Liquid 5% Gas

Reference MPFM
GVF=99.0%

L iquid F lowra te (m 3 /d)

1,000

100

Uncertainty 10% Liquid 10% Gas

GVF=99.9%

10 100
LS, Nov 2008

1,000

10,000

100,000
54

Gas Flowrate (m3/d) at actual conditions

MultiPhase Flow Meter test results in composition map

GAS
Uncertainty >10% watercut

100%

Wet Gas Area

Uncertainty 7.5% watercut Uncertainty 5.0% watercut

G V F (% ) a t a ctua l conditions

80%

Reference MPFM

60%

40%
Uncertainty 2.5% watercut

Uncertainty 5.0% watercut

20%

Gassy Liquid
OIL 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% WATER

Watercut (%)
LS, Nov 2008

55

Liquid, Gas and Water Cumulative Deviation Plots Meter E

Liquid, Gas and Watercut Cumulative Deviation Plots Meter E
100% 90% 80%

(% of test points)

70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Cumulative

Liquid Gas Watercut

Deviation (%)
Lex.Scheers@Shell.com
LS, Nov 2008

56

1. Introduction 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Stripping the Facilities Multiphase Flow Metering Performance Maps MPM Technology Conclusions

LS, Nov 2008

57

MPM High Performance Meter Challenges to Reach High Performance Eliminating measurement errors due to annular gas concentration (in vertical flow) Provide fast measurements to capture correctly the fast fluctuations in the flow (slugs, etc) Ensure more accurate watercut measurements at high watercuts and at high GVFs to measure flow rates of oil more precisely Combine Multi-phase and Wet Gas Flow Measurement in one single meter. Measure water conductivity, rather than require input from user; simplify field configuration and reduce errors
LS, Nov 2008

58

MPM High Performance Meter Planning Based on new patented technology, and resulting from 3 years comprehensive development program Topside (available Dec 2006) SubSea Meter available summer 2007
Full qualification as per ISO standards and DNV RP203. 1 Meter delivered, 5 Meters sold 5 Patents

Sponsors

LS, Nov 2008

59

MPM High Performance Meter Measurements

3D BroadBand
Measurement of dielectric constant in 3D Measurement of annular gas concentration Measurement of water conductivity, salinity and density

Venturi
Flow rate measurement Flow conditioning

Gamma Ray Absorption

Composition

Temperature and Pressure RUN VIDEO

LS, Nov 2008

60

Integrated Configuration - Combined MultiPhase or Wet Gas Flowmeter High performance in

GAS
100
GVF at actual conditions (%) Gas continuous flow
GVF 90 - 95%

WetGas Mode

both modes WetGas Mode

Stable flow conditions

80 60 40 20

Oil continuous flow

B
Water continuous flow

MultiPhase Mode

Small liquid fractions Software configured for maximum measurement resolution & sensitivity

OIL 0
0 20 40 60 WaterCut (%)

WATER
100

80

MultiPhase Mode
Large and fast flow variations Software configured for maximum measurement speed
61

LS, Nov 2008

Field Qualification Program - Timing

MPM Lab
Sept 06

K-Lab
Oct 06

Gullfaks A
Dec 06

Gullfaks A
Jan 07

Gullfaks A - operation
Feb 07 - now

All tests performed using the same unit

3 MPM Meter Made as per Gullfaks Specifications

Field test program conducted by Statoil

LS, Nov 2008

62

Field Qualification Program - Test conditions, Sep 2006 - Jan 2007

MPM Flow Lab FAT Sept '06 No of test points GVF WLR Pressure Oil 220 0 - 92 % 0 - 95 % < 10 bar Exxol D 140
830 kg/m3

K-Lab Test Oct '06 46 25 - 99,9 % 0 - 70 % 120 bar Condensate

620 kg/m3

(1) Gullfaks A Dec '06 13 40 - 96 % 2 - 78 % 60 bar Crude

780 - 840 kg/m3

(1) Gullfaks A Jan '07 10 20 - 95 % 2 - 85 % 60 bar Crude

780 - 840 kg/m3

Note: (1)

Reference system improvements from Dec 06 to Jan 07 Meter taken into permanent use in Feb 07 for well testing

LS, Nov 2008

63

Field Qualification Program, MPM flowloop - Overview

The MPM Laboratory is made to enable developing and testing of Flow meters at Field alike conditions. It offers a large variety in flow rates and flow regimes, and has highly accurate reference instrumentation.
Sep 2006

LS, Nov 2008

64

Field Qualification Program, MPM flowloop - Testing of 15 Gullfaks wells in 2 hours

Sep 2006

LS, Nov 2008

65

Field Qualification Program, MPM flowloop - Two Phase Flow Map (zoomed)
100 Liquid Flowrate (m3/h)

Sep 2006
GVF=50.0%

Two-Phase Flowmap

Reference m easurem ent MPFM m easurem ent

10 10 Gas Flowrate (m /h) at actual conditions

3

100

LS, Nov 2008

66

Field Qualification Program, MPM flowloop - Two Phase Composition Map

100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Reference m easurem ent M PFM m easurem ent

Sep 2006

GAS

Composition Plot

GVF at actual conditions (%)

OIL
LS, Nov 2008

WATER
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Watercut (%)

67

Field Qualification Program, MPM flowloop - Cumulative Deviation Plot

Sep 2006

MPM Multiphase Flowmeter

100% (% of test points) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% Deviation (%) 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%
Used liquid test point = 97 s Average = 0.60 % St Dev = 1.87 % Used gas test point = 75 s Average = 1.02 % St Dev = 3.65

Cumulative

Liquid Gas W atercut

Used wat ercut t point = 97 est s Average = -0.24 abs% St Dev = 1.27 abs%

LS, Nov 2008

68

Sensitivity to oil and gas density changes

Sep 2006

MPM Flow Laboratory, March 27th 2007

Test of sensitivity to Oil and Gas Density Changes
250 70

Oil Density: Gas Density:

200

838 10

828 10

813 10

788 10

738 10

838 10 Base

838 5

838 20
60

Base
Gas Flow Rate [Am3/h]

50 Liquid Flow Rate [Am3/h]

150 40

30 100

Gas Reference Gas MPM Oil Reference Water Reference Oil MPM Water MPM

20 50 10 Oil Density : 838 kg/m3 Gas Density : 10 kg/m3 0 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Time (Minutes)

LS, Nov 2008

GVF : 84 % WLR : 10 %

69

Field Qualification Program, K-Lab - Installation and Commissioning

Nov 2006

Gamma Tomograph

MPM Meter

LS, Nov 2008

70

Field Qualification Program, K-Lab - Cumulative Deviation Plot

Nov 2006

MPM Multiphase Flowmeter

100% (% of test points) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% Deviation (%) 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%
Used liquid t point = 39 est s Average = -0.43 StDev = 4.96 Used gas t point = 46 est s Average = 1.24 % StDev = 1.94 %

Cumulative

Liquid Gas W atercut

Used watercut t estpoints = 39 Average = -0.52 abs% StDev = 2.20 abs%

LS, Nov 2008

71

Field Qualification Program, K-Lab - Sensitivity to water in Wet Gas

Nov 2006

Water Fraction Sensitivity Test

Test at K-Lab - October 2006 0.035 % 0.030 % 0.025 % 0.020 % 0.015 % 0.010 % 0.005 % 0.000 % 0 2 4 6 8 Tme [Minutes] 10 12 14 16 MPM Reference

Water Fraction [%]

A constant gas flow rate of 300 m3/h was used, with water injections of m3/h water% 0.008 0.0026% 0.043 0.0143% 0.086 0.0287%

MPM meters can detect water fraction changes less than 0.0025%
72

LS, Nov 2008

Field Qualification Program, Gullfaks A, Statoil - Cumulative Deviation Plot

Jan 2007

MPM Multiphase Flowmeter

100% (% of test points) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% Deviation (%) 12% 14% 16% 18% 20%
Used liquid t estpoint = 10 s Average = 2.74 % St Dev = 3.40 Used gas t estpoint = 10 s Average = -0.33 St Dev = 3.12 %

Cumulative

Liquid Gas W atercut

Used wat ercut test point = 10 s Average = 1.12 abs% St Dev = 2.07 abs%

LS, Nov 2008

73

Field Qualification Program - Summary, Sep 2006 - Jan 2007 Assuming MPM Meter is used for well testing reservor management
Measurement uncertainty on each well / test point is of interest Table below shows difference between MPM Meter and Reference system
Individual wells / test points

MPM Lab Oil Flow rate Gas Flow rate 5 to 10 % 6%

K-Lab 4 to 10 % 5%

Gullfaks Dec 8% 8%

Gullfaks Jan 6% 3%

Notes: - Accross full range of GVF and WLR - Difference includes measurement uncertainty of reference and MPM meter, as well as other potential errors - 90 % confidence level
LS, Nov 2008

74

MPM Multiphase Flowmeter Test - SouthWest Research, San Antonio

Nov 2007

LS, Nov 2008

75

MPM Multiphase Flowmeter Test - SouthWest Research, San Antonio

Cumulative
(% of test points) 100%
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
Liquid testpoints = 50 Average = -0.01 % StDev = 3.92 % Gas testpoints = 52 Average = 1.75 % StDev = 1.06 % WLR testpoints = 50 Average = -0.03 abs% StDev = 1.84 abs% WVF testpoints = 50 Average = -0.004 StDev = 0.027 abs%

Nov 2007

MPM Multiphase Flowmeter

Liquid Gas WLR WVF

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

LS, Nov 2007

Deviation (%)

LS, Nov 2008

76

MPM Multiphase Flowmeter Test - SouthWest Research, San Antonio

Cumulative
(% of testpoints) 100%
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0.00% 0.02% 0.04% 0.06% 0.08% 0.10%
Liquid testpoints = 50 Average = -0.01 % StDev = 3.92 % Gas testpoints = 52 Average = 1.75 % StDev = 1.06 % WLR testpoints = 50 Average = -0.03 StDev = 1.84 abs% WVF testpoints = 50 Average = -0.004 StDev = 0.027 abs%

Nov 2007

MPM Multiphase Flowmeter

Liquid Gas WLR WVF

LS, Nov 2007

Deviation (%)

LS, Nov 2008

77

Field Qualification Verification of major user benefits MPM meter bridges the gap between wetgas and multiphase flow conditions

Dual mode functionality verified Unique results obtained for both modes; repeatability, sensitivity and accuracy. Over full range of GVFs Over full range of WLRs both oil and water continuous emulsions Automatic detection of water salinity - (self calibration modus) Water density and water conductivity measured by MPM Meter Densities of oil and gas entered by the user (not sensitive)

Oil flow rates can be measured precisely (within 8%)

Simple field configuration

The self diagnostics functionality was demonstrated and proved its capabilities and advantages for the user.

LS, Nov 2008

78

Field Qualification Very good operational experiences Installation and Commissioing done in few hours Meter start-up and signal interfacing quickly in place Superb Operational Stability
100 % uptime since commissioning The repeatability of the MPM Meter was demonstrated to be extremely good, by testing the same wells at several times.

Meter performance within specifications

The self calibration modus is imperative at high WLRs and changing water properties Flexibility demonstrated
Can go directly from MPM lab to field whilst maintaining performance

LS, Nov 2008

79

1. Introduction 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Stripping the Facilities Multiphase Flow Metering Performance Maps MPM Technology Conclusions

LS, Nov 2008

80

Conclusions - MultiPhase and Wet Gas Flow Metering Multiphase Flow Metering (MPFM) is on its way from nursing to mature technology, however proper attention is required in the implementation and operational phases. Wet Gas Flow Metering (WGFM) capabilities in MPFM are improved (ref MPM and Schlumberger) MPFM and WGM issues that require further attention

Limited number of manufacturers Use of radioactive sources High GVF and high watercut performance Pricing (accuracy vs CAPEX/OPEX) Specification and performance formats Standardisation / Guidelines Improved accuracy (for fiscal/allocation service) Achievable today; Liquid 5%, Gas 5%, WLR 2% (ok for WRM) Need for Fiscal/Sales allocation; Oil 2%, Gas 2% Testloop and Field verification procedures
81

LS, Nov 2008