OLGA2000 TransientSimulation

Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology
Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics
Diploma Thesis
Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase

Simulation Tool OLGA2000
Karl Ludvig Heskestad

Stavanger/Trondheim, June 2005
NTNU
Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet
Fakultet for ingenirvitenskap og teknologi

Faculty of Engineering and Technology
Studieprogram i Geofag og petroleumsteknologi

Study Programme in Earth Sciences and Petroleum Engineering
Institutt for petroleumsteknologi og anvendt geofysikk

HOVEDOPPGAVE/DIPLOMA THESIS
Kandidatens navn/ The candidates name:
Karl Ludvig Heskestad
Oppgavens tittel, norsk/Title of Thesis, Norwegian:
Felt Data Analyse ved bruk av Flerfase

Simuleringsverktyet OLGA2000
Oppgavens tittel, engelsk/Title of Thesis, English:
Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase

Simulation Tool OLGA2000
Utfyllende tekst/Extended text:

1. Gather operational data for selected pipelines
2. Verify and update OLGA models with respect to pressure and temperature
3. Analyze and discuss results of comparison
Studieretning/Area of specialization:
Fagomrde/Combination of subjects:
Tidsrom/Time interval:
Petroleumsteknologi/ Petroleum technology

Petroleumsproduksjon / Petroleum production
Januar Juni 2005 / January June 2005
NTNU
Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet
Fakultet for ingenirvitenskap og teknologi

Faculty of Engineering and Technology
Studieprogram i Geofag og petroleumsteknologi

Study Programme in Earth Sciences and Petroleum Engineering
Institutt for petroleumsteknologi og anvendt geofysikk

Declaration
I, Karl Ludvig Heskestad, hereby declare that this Diploma thesis for the degree of
Master of Science in Petroleum Engineering is completed in accordance with all the
rules and regulations of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Karl Ludvig Heskestad, Trondheim 20th of June 2005
Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase Simulation Tool OLGA2000
Abstract
This thesis presents a comprehensive analysis of field data using OLGA2000
(OLGA). The field data was gathered from two different fields in the North Sea that
produce gas and condensate. The objective with this study was to verify and evaluate
the obtained field data by basic calculations to make sure it was applicable for tuning
and further to test and tune the OLGA model with the field data. The multiphase
pipelines investigated stand out from each other by one being an insulated and buried
pipeline transporting gas and condensate from a subsea development to a platform,
and the other being an uninsulated pipeline transporting rich gas from platform to
shore. In the pipeline where the pressure drop is mainly determined by friction a close
match between OLGA and field data has been obtained by changing the roughness of
the pipeline wall. OLGA has shown its vulnerability in cases where the pressure loss
is dominated by gravity forces. The simulation tool has been partly successful when
simulating an unsteady state incident. As an overall conclusion from this work OLGA
appears as a convincing simulation tool. However, it stands out that the tool needs
significant improvement for calculations where the pressure drop is dominated by
gravity forces.
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
iv
Preface
This thesis has been carried out at the Department of Multiphase Systems and Flow
Assurance, Statoil Stavanger. Professor Jn Steinar Gudmundsson has been my
teaching supervisor. The thesis has been professionally demanding and the
connection with large and active surroundings has given me technical insight and a
few extra challenges. For this there are a few people I would like to thank.
First of all I want to thank professor Gudumundsson who by his teaching has
supplied me with the technical knowledge which has been the foundation when
executing this work. I also appreciate his effort in trying to teach me the ability to
write in a technical and professional manner.
I want to express my appreciation to the Department in Statoil. Anne Synnve
Hebnes the leader of the department (now in a leave of absence) has always been
cooperative and helpful both technical and practical. I would also like to thank the
discipline leader Torbjrg Klara Fossum, who by her expertise and well meaning
attitude has been invaluable.
In general I would like to thank NTNU and the Department of Petroleum Engineering
and Applied Geophysics for giving me an education within an area of expertise that is
both exiting and innovative.
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ iv
Preface........................................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents......................................................................................................... vi
Table list......................................................................................................................vii
Figure list ....................................................................................................................vii
Nomenclature............................................................................................................... ix
1
Introduction........................................................................................................... 1
2
Literature Review.................................................................................................. 2
2.1
Experience from previous work.................................................................... 2
3
Multiphase simulation tool OLGA ....................................................................... 4
3.1
The two-fluid model ..................................................................................... 4
3.2
Flow regimes................................................................................................. 7
3.3
Applications .................................................................................................. 9
4
Field A ................................................................................................................ 10
4.1
General........................................................................................................ 10
4.2
System overview......................................................................................... 11
4.3
Design Basis................................................................................................ 11
4.4
Field data analysis....................................................................................... 13
4.4.1
Steady state data.................................................................................. 13
4.4.2
Unsteady state data ............................................................................. 14
4.5
Simulations and results ............................................................................... 16
4.5.1
Steady state simulations...................................................................... 16
4.5.2
Unsteady state simulations.................................................................. 18
4.6
Discussion ................................................................................................... 19
4.7
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 22
5
Field B................................................................................................................. 23
5.1
General........................................................................................................ 23
5.2
System overview......................................................................................... 23
5.3
Design Basis................................................................................................ 23
5.4
Field Data Analysis..................................................................................... 24
5.5
Simulations and Results.............................................................................. 25
5.6
Discussion ................................................................................................... 27
5.7
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 29
6
References........................................................................................................... 30
7
Tables.................................................................................................................. 32
8
Figures................................................................................................................. 38
A. Calculations............................................................................................................I
a. Field B................................................................................................................I
vi
Table list
Table 1 Expected Production ...................................................................................... 32
Table 2 Fluid composition 1 for Field A .................................................................... 32
Table 3 Fluid composition 2 for Field A .................................................................... 33
Table 4 Detailed wall construction Field As pipeline ............................................... 33
Table 5 Material properties used in the OLGA simulations at Field A ...................... 34
Table 6 Selected steady state data............................................................................... 34
Table 7 Steady state data used in the extensive testing of the models........................ 34
Table 8 Evaluation of base case.................................................................................. 35
Table 9 Gas production from Field B ......................................................................... 35
Table 10 Material properties used in the pipeline on Field B..................................... 36
Table 11 Gas composition for Field B, ....................................................................... 36
Table 12 Results from the tuning based on OLGA simulations. ................................ 37
Figure list
Figure 1 Schematic drawing of horizontal flow regimes............................................ 38
Figure 2 GUI OLGA .................................................................................................. 38
Figure 3 The phase Envelope for Field A................................................................... 39
Figure 4 System Overview for Field A....................................................................... 40
Figure 5 Figure profile for one of the wells at Field A .............................................. 41
Figure 6 Overview for one of the wells at Field A. .................................................... 42
Figure 7 The pipeline profile for the pipe at Field A.................................................. 43
Figure 8 Field As buried pipeline .............................................................................. 43
Figure 9 Hydrate equilibrium curve for Field A......................................................... 44
Figure 10 Production profile for Field A .................................................................... 45
Figure 11 Pressure losses on Field A.......................................................................... 46
Figure 12 Temperature drop on Field A ..................................................................... 47
Figure 13 Calculated pressure drops........................................................................... 48
Figure 14 Calculated temperature function................................................................. 49
Figure 15 Shutdown sequence for Field A ................................................................. 50
Figure 16 Injection of MEG at Field A....................................................................... 51
Figure 17 Hydrate area................................................................................................ 52
Figure 18 Topside temperature during restart............................................................. 53
Figure 19 Flow regimes during stable production at Field A ..................................... 54
Figure 20 Pressure drop versus massflow 0.001 mm ................................................. 55
Figure 21 Pressure drop versus massflow 0.01 mm ................................................... 56
Figure 22 Pressure drop as a function of time ............................................................ 57
Figure 23 Temperature drop versus massflow............................................................ 58
Figure 24 Deviation in the temperature drop.............................................................. 59
Figure 25 Restart Field A............................................................................................ 60
Figure 26 Restart Field A after 21 hours .................................................................... 61
Figure 27 Restart Field A with modified wall model ................................................. 62
Figure 28 Restart Field A with modified soil properties ............................................ 63
Figure 29 Restart Field A with modified soil properties 2 ......................................... 64
vii
Figure 30 Restart Field A with modified soil properties 3 ......................................... 65

Figure 31 How to create the soil grid in OLGA 2000 ................................................ 66
Figure 32 Restart Field A with the soil model............................................................ 67
Figure 33 Restart Field A with the soil model 2......................................................... 68
Figure 34 The liquid surge.......................................................................................... 69
Figure 35 Restart Field A Comparison of the cases ................................................... 70
Figure 36 Restart Field A Comparison of the cases ................................................... 71
Figure 37 Phase envelope for the Gas on Field B....................................................... 72
Figure 38 Field Bs pipeline profile............................................................................ 73
Figure 39 System overview for the pipeline on the platform, . ................................... 73
Figure 40 Overall heat transfer coefficient for Field B............................................... 74
Figure 41 Production profile for Field B .................................................................... 75
Figure 42 Total liquid and pressure drop.................................................................... 76
Figure 43 Flow regime and hold-up for Field Bs pipeline. ....................................... 77
Figure 44 Pressure and flow regime for Field B......................................................... 78
viii
Nomenclature
Latin letters
A
Cp
d
E
f
G
H
h
k
L
NRe
p
Re
S
Sm3
T
U
u
V
v
area
specific heat capacity
diameter
internal energy per unit of mass
friction factor
mass source
enthalpy
height
surface roughness
length
Reynolds number
pressure
Reynolds number
wetted perimeter
Standard cubic meter
temperature
overall heat transfer coefficient
velocity
volume
velocity
Greek letters
pb
pS
g
e
d
inclination from vertical

change
frictional pressure drop across the slug bubble
frictional pressure drop in the liquid slug
surface roughness
friction factor
density
mass transfer rate between the phases
entrainment rate
deposition rate
ix
Subscripts and superscripts

ac
D
g
i
L
Lb
LS
w
acceleration
droplets
gas
interphase
liquid
slug bubble
liquid slug
water
Abbreviations
DHP
GUI
GOR
HET
HPHT
LNG
LPG
MEG
MSL
NGL
PVT
SCSSV
down hole pressure gauge

graphical user interphase
gas oil ratio
hydrate equilibrium curve
high pressure high temperature
liquefied natural gas
liquefied petroleums gas
methyl ethylene glycol
mean sea level
natural gas liquids
pressure volume temperature
surface controlled sub sea safety valve
1 Introduction
More and more fields are developed with subsea solutions and this often results in
multiphase transport in long pipelines. OLGA is widely used in the international oil
business as the premium multiphase simulation tool. Since the companies become more
dependent on tools such as OLGA, continuous testing and evaluation of these tools are
necessary. This thesis has evaluated field data from two different fields, both fields
produce gas and condensate.
Chapter 2 in the thesis is a brief literature review and a description of previous work that
is relevant for this thesis has been included.
In chapter 3 the theory behind OLGA is presented. All the basic equations are included
and the different flow regimes are discussed. Typical systems that OLGA is applicable on
are also mentioned.
The first field is presented in chapter 4. A general overview of the field appears. The
obtained data is presented and evaluated. Attempts to tune the model against the
mentioned data are performed. A shut-in/restart incident is also simulated. At the end of
the chapter there is an extensive discussion followed by the conclusion.
Chapter 5 is built up as the previous one with a general introduction of the field. The field
data obtained for this field is limited but the evaluation of it has been crucial for the
simulations and tuning performed later on. The chapter is brought to an close during the
discussion and finalized by the conclusion.
The following chapters show all the references, tables and figures which are referred to in
the text.
2 Literature Review
In the 70s Oil and gas companies used to apply empirical correlated multiphase flow
simulation tools to design new pipelines. The empirical correlations were also used to
determine the future behaviour of existing pipelines with changing production rates. The
software performed well as long as the pipelines were designed for or operated in
conditions that the empirical correlations were derived from. Later more reliable
mechanistic flow simulators emerged: these were based on equations of mass momentum
or energy of oil and gas phases. They were used to simulate steady state flow for any
conditions. However this was not sufficient enough to design confidently new pipelines
or to anticipate unsteady behaviours of existing pipelines. The oil industrys solution to
this problem was the introduction of transient multiphase flow simulators. These
simulators can simulate unsteady flows of oil, gas and water. The next step is likely to be
a four phase simulator, where the fourth phase could be hydrates. Before the introduction
of such a simulator there is great demand for evaluating of already existing multiphase
flow simulation tools1. One of these tools is OLGA.
2.1 Experience from previous work

Irfansyah et al, at TOTAL E&P Indonesia proposed that OLGA predicted satisfactory
results on steady state simulations. During transient simulations the conclusions were that
OLGA could reproduce the variations of water flow rate at the pipeline outlet. The inlet
pressure was however not calculated with the same accuracy. The authors think that this
could be because the amount of gas trapped in the high points of the pipeline is not very
well determined. OLGA and TACITE, another multiphase simulation tool, were tested
towards field data obtained from a 41 kilometres long 12 inch Indonesian pipeline. The
field data includes steady state data from stable production and transient data from slug
catchers. The steady state data are quite interesting because it behaves like a typical gas
pipeline with superficial gas velocity at 5 m/s and superficial liquid velocity of 0.07 m/s.
From steady state simulations the deviation in OLGA from field data was 7.4 % and 15.7
% for TACITE, with regards to the pressure drop. The pressure drop was however as low
as 4.2 bars. The transient data are taken from the pipeline when operating slug catchers1.
Eidsmoen and Roberts at Scandpower Petroleum Technology performed work on a 77
kilometres long 20 inch pipeline. With an inlet temperature of 50 C, slug catcher
pressure of 50 bars and production rates ranging from 1.4 to 8.5 MSm3/d. The authors
looked at several aspects connected to simulations using OLGA. They concluded that due
to very slow water build-up rates some gas condensate pipeline are rarely at steady state.
To achieve steady state in the simulations the OLGA models has to be run for a long
time. Through dynamic simulation examples it was shown that special attention has to be
paid to the boundary conditions when performing transient simulations. Simplifications
will usually result in discrepancies from what will be observed in reality2.
3 Multiphase simulation tool OLGA

OLGA can simulate three-phase transient flow. The features of OLGA were first
described by Bendiksen et al. The simulation tool is a two-fluid model, with a slip ratio
(ratio between two phase velocities) correlation to separate oil and water. OLGA is based
on the following equations of mass, momentum and energy conservation3.
3.1 The two-fluid model

Separate continuity equations are applied for gas, liquid bulk and liquid droplets, which
may be coupled through interphasial mass transfer. Conservation of mass for:
the gas phase:
1
Vg g ) =
(
( AVg g vg ) + g + Gg
A t
t
the liquid phase at the wall:
1
(VL L ) =
( AVL L vL ) g L e + D + GL
A z
VL + VD
t
Equation 3.1
Equation 3.2
the liquid droplets:
1
(VD L ) =
( AVD L vD ) g D + e D + GD
A z
VL + VD
t
Equation 3.3
In the equations above (and further on in section 3.1) Vg, VL, VD denotes volume
fractions of gas, liquid-film and liquid-droplets respectively. A is the pipe cross-section
area, g is the mass transfer rate between the phases, the e and d is the entrainment and
deposition rates. A possible mass source of phase f is given as Gf. Subscripts g, L, D and i
denote gas, liquid, droplets and interphase3.
Conservation of momentum is expressed for the gas, possible liquid droplets and liquid
bulk or film.
the gas phase:
1
p 1
Vg g vg ) = Vg
AVg g vg2 ) g g vg vg
(
(
t
2
z A z
S
S
1
g + i g vr vr i + Vg g g cos + g va FD
4A
2
4A
Equation 3.4
for liquid droplets:
p
1
AVD L vD2 ) +
(VD L vD ) = VD
(
t
z A z
VD
VD L g cos g
va + e vi d vD + FD
VL + VD
Equation 3.5
Equation 3.4 and Equation 3.5 can be combined to cancel out the gas/droplet drag, FD:
p
Vg g vg + VD L vD ) = (Vg + VD )
(
t
z
S
1
1
AVg g vg2 + AVD L vD2 ) g g vg vg g
(
2
4A
A z
S
1
i g vr vr i + (Vg g + VD L ) g cos
2
4A
VD
va + e vi d vD
+ g
VD + VL
Equation 3.6
for the liquid at the wall:
p
1
AVL L vL2 )
(VL L vL ) = VL
(
t
z A z
S
S
1
1
L L vL vL L + i g vr vr i + VL L g cos
2
4A
2
4A
VL
V
g
va e vi + d vd VL d ( L g ) g L sin
VL + VD
z
Equation 3.7
From Equation 3.4 through Equation 3.7, p is the pressure, is the pipe inclination from
the vertical, the Sf is the wetted perimeters of the given phase f. The internal source Gf is
assumed to enter a 90 angle to the pipe wall thus carrying no net momentum. When >
0 the evaporation from the liquid film gives va = vL, and evaporation from the liquid
droplets gives va = vD. For < 0 the condensation gives va = vg. The conservation
equations can be applied to all possible flow regimes. The following slip equation defines
the relative velocity, vr:
vg = RD ( vL + vr )
Equation 3.8
The RD is a distribution slip ratio caused by an uneven distribution of phases and

velocities across the pipe cross section. A similar definition for the droplet velocity is
defined by v0D, which is the fall velocity of the droplets.
vD = vg v0 D
Equation 3.9
OLGA reformulates the problem before discretisizing the differential equations to obtain
a pressure equation. The conservation of mass equations (Equation 3.1-Equation 3.3) may
be expanded with regards to pressure, temperature and composition. This assumes that
the densities are given as:
f = ( p, T , RS )
Equation 3.10
Rs is the gas mass fraction. After inserting the conservation of mass equations and
applying Equation 3.11:
Vg + VL + VD = 1
Equation 3.11
Then a single equation for the pressure and phase fluxes appears:
Vg g
1 Vg L p

+
L p T , RS t
g p T , RS
1 ( AVg g vg )
1 ( AVL L vL )
A g
A L
z
z
1
1 ( AVD L vD )
1
+ g
A L
z
g L
1
1
1
+ Gg
+ GL
+ GD
Equation 3.12
The energy conservation of the mixture is expressed by Equation 3.13:
1
1
[mg Eg + vg2 + gh + mL EL + vL2 + gh

t
2
2
1
1
+ mD ED + vD2 + gh ] = [mg vg H g + vg2 + gh

z
2
2
1
1
+ mL vL H L + vL2 + gh + mD vD H D + vD2 + gh ]
2
2
+HS +U
Equation 3.13
Where mf is a product of Vff, E is the internal energy per unit mass, the elevation is
given with h, HS is the enthalpy from the mass sources and U is the heat transfer from the
pipe walls3.
OLGA can simulate pipelines with any kind of wall constructions with several different
layers, heat capacities and conductivities which may change along its profile. The
program computes the heat transfer coefficient from the flowing fluid to the internal pipe
wall; the outside heat transfer coefficient is user specified. Special phenomena are
included, for instance the Joule-Thompson effect, given that the PVT package that
generates the fluid properties is capable of describing such phenomena3.
All fluid properties used in OLGA are calculated and given as tables in pressure and
temperature. The actual values at a given point in time and space are found by
interpolating in these tables. The tables are generated before OLGA is run. It is assumed
that the total mixture composition is constant in time along the pipeline, while the gas and
liquid compositions change with pressure and temperature as a result of interphasial mass
transfer. The reality is that the difference between oil and gas may change the total
composition of the mixture3.
3.2 Flow regimes

In OLGA the friction factor and wetted perimeters depend on the flow regime. There are
two basic flow regimes in this flow simulator. Distributed that contains bubble and slug
flow and separated, which contains stratified and annular mist flow. Due to the fact that
OLGA is a unified model, separate user specified correlations are not needed. Thus a
dynamic flow regime prediction is required, yielding the correct flow regime as a
function of average flow parameters3.
Separated flow is characterized by the two phases moving separately4, Figure 1. The
phase distributions across the respective phase areas are assumed constant. The
distributions slip ratio, RD then becomes 1.0. The wetted perimeters of the liquid film
define the transition between stratified and annular flow. When this perimeter becomes
equal to the film inner circumference this results in annular flow. Stratified flow may be
either wavy or smooth and an expression for the wave height, hw, is as follows:
g ( v g vL )
1
hw = {
2 2( L g ) g sin
2
Equation 3.14
( v v )2
4
g
g
L
}
+
2( L g ) g sin ( L g ) g sin
The applied friction factors for gas and liquid are those of either turbulent or laminar
flow. In practice the largest one is chosen. The friction coefficient, t, for turbulent flow
is given by:
t = 0.0055 1 + 3
2 104 106
+
dh
N Re
Equation 3.15
For laminar flow the friction coefficient, l, is expressed as:
l =
64
N Re
Equation 3.16
Where is the absolute pipe roughness and dh is the hydraulic diameter. In annular
vertical flow the interfacial friction factor, i,is given by Wallis equation:
i = 0.02 1 + 75 (1 Vg )
Equation 3.17
For inclined annular mist flow Equation 3.18 is applied (where the K is an empirically
determined constant):
i = 0.02 (1 + KVL )
Equation 3.18
In stratified smooth flow, Figure 1, the standard friction factors with zero pipe roughness
is applied. The interphasial friction factor for wavy flow is determined from Equation
3.18 and Equation 3.19:
i = hw d
Equation 3.19
hi
In distributed flow the total pressure drop is given by:

z 1
= ( pS + pb + pac )
p L
Equation 3.20
is the frictional pressure drop in the liquid slug and pb denotes the frictional pressure
drop across the slug bubble. pac is the pressure drop required to accelerate the liquid
under the slug bubble with velocity vLb up to the liquid velocity in the slug, vLS. L is the
total length of the slug and bubble. For slug flow the wall friction terms will be more
complicated since the liquid friction depend on vg and the gas friction on the vl, see
Malnes5 for full description3.
3.3 Applications
An example of the graphical user interface (GUI) in OLGA is shown in Figure 2. Typical
systems that OLGA may be applied to are6:
Oil and natural gas flowlines or transportation lines
Wet gas or condensate pipelines
Well stream from a reservoir
LNG/ LPG/ NGL pipelines
Dense phase pipelines
Network of merging and diverging pipelines
Artificial lift and other mass source injections
Pipelines with process equipment
Single phase gas or liquid
Small diameter pipelines with various fluids
Laboratory experiments
Topside process systems
4 Field A
In this section Field A will be generally described, field data will be analyzed and
evaluated. The OLGA model will be tested and an effort to improve it will also be
initiated.
4.1 General
Field A is a saturated gas field located in the North Sea. Condensate forms at pressure
reduction meaning during production. The field started production in the 3rd quarter of
2004 and is expected to recover 13 billions Sm3 of gas and 32 millions barrels of
condensate7.
Formation X is the main reservoir which contains gas and minor amounts of proven oil.
The total depth of the reservoir varies from 3400 to 3700 meters below mean sea level
(MSL). The thickness of Formation X varies between a maximum of about 70 meters to a
minimum of 40 meters. The sand quality is quite good and has a porosity of
approximately 18% and a permeability of 400 to 500 milliDarcy (mD). The initial
reservoir pressure is 445 bars at 3640 meters, and the reservoir temperature is 120
degrees Celsius (C). The dew point is at 420 bars and the gas condensate ratio (GCR) is
1984 Sm3/Sm3. Typical pressures at wellhead upstream choke are 270-290 bars, Figure 3
shows the phase envelope for the gas and typical inlet/outlet pressures and temperatures
are plotted8.
The field will be producing at max capacity the first two years, until it start decreasing.
Table 1 gives the: production profile, reservoir, wellhead, arrival and required pressures
and water production for Field A. Wellhead and arrival temperatures are also included.
The water production is given as a range between a minimum and a maximum value9.
10
4.2 System overview

The field is a subsea development with a tie-back to a gas-process platform7, Figure 4
gives an overview.
The subsea development consists of four wells (where the production tubing has an inner
diameter of 151 millimetres8) tied together to a template. In Figure 5 the profile of one of
the wells is shown. Each well has a downhole pressure gauge (DHPG), a surface
controlled subsea safety valve (SCSSV), pressure and temperature measurement up- and
downstream the wellhead and up- and downstream the production choke. A wet gas
meter is placed downstream the wellhead but upstream the production choke see Figure
6. The four wells merge into a subsea template which is located 111 meters below MSL9.
An 18 kilometres long pipeline, Figure 7 shows its profile, connects the template to the
process platform. The production is brought to the platform by a 12 riser. On the
platform there is pressure and temperature measurements up- and down stream the
productions choke. As shown in Figure 4, a wet gas meter is placed upstream the
production choke9. The wet gas meters subsea shows ~5% difference from the topside
meter, the topside meter is considered more accurate than those located subsea10.
Wet gas meters are delivered by Roxar. They measure two flows; hydrocarbon and water.
The split between condensate and gas are calculated from PVT properties10.
The pipeline is buried, covered by sand on top and placed approximately 0.5 meters
below the sea bed, see Figure 8. There is also a service umbilical going from the template
to a production platform, located close to the process platform9.
4.3 Design Basis

The simulation tool used in this study is OLGA 2000 v4.13 (OLGA). Further PVTSim
v11/14 (PVTSim) has been used to generate fluid properties tables which are input to the
OLGA simulations.
11
The fluids from the four wells are represented by two different compositions which are
given in Table 2 and Table 39. In the first eight months of the fields production the
majority of the production has come from two wells with the same composition11. Mixing
of fluid compositions has been performed.
The flowline has an inner diameter of 350 millimetres, while the riser has an inner
diameter of 287.3 millimetres. As a base case a roughness of 0.04 millimetres is used in
the simulations9.
The selected material for the pipeline is 13% Chrome. The pipeline is insulated with
Polypropylene and buried (see 4.2). These pipeline layers are included in the OLGA
model; see Table 4 and Table 5. The selected materials12 and the layer of sand gives the
flowline an overall heat transfer coefficient (U-value) of 3 W/(m2C)9.
The hydrate control for the pipeline is based on insulation, inhibition and
depressurisation. During normal production, no hydrate control measures are required.
The insulation of the pipeline will keep the temperature above hydrate equilibrium
temperature (HET). For planned shut-ins, the pipeline will be inhibited with MEG prior
to shut-in9. MEG will be injected from the production platform to the template. Figure 9
is obtained from PVTSim and shows the hydrate equilibrium curve for year 2004 2006,
and the effect provided by adding MEG to the fluid. Figure 9 also illustrates that
sufficient MEG injection into the wellstream will move the hydrate equilibrium curve to
the left, and assure that even if the fluid is cooled down to seabed temperature (~5 C) no
hydrates will be formed during shut-in. For unplanned shut-in (i.e. the pipeline is not
inhibited and will enter the hydrate region if no measures are taken), the pipeline will be
depressurised to reduce the pressure in the pipeline below hydrate equilibrium pressure
(HEP) at seabed temperature9.
12
The ambient temperature changes from month to month in the North Sea. The warmest
months are from November to January, and correct temperatures have been applied in the
simulations13.
4.4 Field data analysis

The data obtained for use on Field A have been closely evaluated. The data has been
gathered from January to March this year, and includes steady and unsteady state data.
4.4.1 Steady state data

A production profile from 15th to 31st of January is shown in Figure 10. In the figure the
steady state data that have been used are highlighted in yellow. The data that was selected
as possible data for testing of the model are given in Table 6. The data are also shown
graphically in Figure 11 and Figure 12, which shows the pressure loss versus mass flow
and the temperature drop versus massflow respectively.
To evaluate the pressure loss during stable production, simplified hand calculations were
performed. The pressure drop in the pipeline is mostly frictional and the Darcy-Weisbach
equation has been applied:
f L
p f = u 2
2 d
Equation 4.1
Where pf denotes the frictional pressure drop, f (-) is the friction factor, L (m) the length
of the pipeline, d (m) is the diameter of the pipe, is the density of the fluid and finally u
is the velocity of the fluid. The friction factor has been calculated using Haalands
equation:
1
f =
2
n
1.11n
6.9 k
0.6 log
+

Re 3.75d
Equation 4.2
13
Where Re (-) denotes the Reynolds number, k is the surface roughness of the pipe wall
and n is constant that either has the value 1 for oil/liquid or 3 for gas. Since the flow in
the pipeline is dominated by gas the calculations have been done with an average in
vapour density and viscosity. The fluid properties have been calculated with PVTSim. In
Figure 13 the results from the calculations are plotted versus massflow and compared
with the field data. The calculated pressure drops comes close to field data, but have a
different slope. The deviation in pressure drop from field measurements compared to
calculated pressure drop increase as the production rate is reduced. This can be explained
by the simplifications in fluid properties which is less valid as more liquid will drop out
at low production rates.
In Figure 12 at least one data point from the field data deviates and stands out from what
is expected, marked in the graph. This gives reason to evaluate the measured
temperatures using the following equation:
dUL
T2 = Ts + (T1 Ts ) exp
C m
p
Equation 4.3
Where Ts (C) is the surrounding temperature, T1 (C) is the inlet temperature, T2 (C) is
the outlet temperature, U (W/(m2C)) is the overall heat transfer coefficient, m (kg/s) is
the massflow and Cp (J/(molC)) is the specific heat capacity of the fluid. Solving this
equation with regards to the temperatures gives Figure 14. The slope of the graph is equal
to 1/m when assuming that the other variables are constant. In Figure 14 the same data
point as in Figure 12 has been marked. This point stands out in both graphs and appears
to be a measurement error thus being removed from the data set. The new data which will
be used to evaluate the multiphase flow program is given in Table 7.
4.4.2 Unsteady state data

The 10th of March this year Field A had a shutdown, Figure 15 shows the shutdown
sequence. Prior to the shut-in, injection of MEG into the wellstream was started.
However, the circumstances concerning the shutdown did not allow for full inhibition of
the pipeline. Only a small part of the pipeline was inhibited when the production was
14
fully stopped, Figure 16 shows the MEG content in the water phase along the pipeline
profile according to estimations using OLGA. The field was shutdown for 65 hours thus
staying in the hydrate region for a long time. According to OLGA simulations, parts of
the pipeline will enter the hydrate region after 21 hours, Figure 17. If the hydrate control
procedures were to be followed in this shut-in case, the pipeline should have been
depressurized. However, the risk for hydrate plugging was considered very low for the
pipeline. This risk assessment was based on factors like gas oil ratio (GOR), water
production, pipeline topography and pipeline diameter, all indicating low probability for
hydrate plugging. Further, it was decided to quickly pressurize the pipeline during restart,
so that the compression heat developed during the pressurization would melt possible
hydrate seeds. This quick pressurization of the pipeline during restart will even more
reduce the risk for hydrate plugging. The pressurization was carried out by keeping the
topside choke closed and quickly opening the well chokes.
The data obtained for this incident are somewhat questionable, especially the massflow
metering. It states that there is a ~2 % opening on the choke when other measurements
make it clear that it the choke is fully closed. The data set that comes from the
temperature measurement topside is regarded as accurate and has been used extensively
in the simulations14. Figure 18 shows the field data from the restart, the graph shows
topside temperature versus time. In the graph it is evident that after approximately 78
hours (4700 minutes) there is an increase in the temperature. The temperature increase
can be explained by warm liquid arriving at the platform, due to the fact that liquid cools
down slower than gas. During the shutdown a relatively large liquid accumulation can be
expected at the beginning of the pipeline (wellhead), see pipeline profile Figure 7. The
temperature increase at time 78 hours can be explained by this liquid surge arriving at the
platform. If there is a liquid plug arriving at the platform at that time the velocity of the
plug should be approximately 1.5 m/s (based on simple calculations, distance = velocity
time). Calculations performed by OLGA shows that the liquid velocity at the platform at
78 hours is 1.7 m/s, which is quite close. This indicates that there might be a liquid surge
moving through the system.
15
4.5 Simulations and results

OLGA has been applied to see if the simulation tool can achieve a closer match to field
data than calculations performed in 4.4. The OLGA model has also been tuned against
steady state field data and the tuned model has been applied to simulate the unsteady state
incident.
4.5.1 Steady state simulations

Table 7 shows the data used for the tuning for the model. The production rates are
ranging from 94 kg/s to 135 kg/s.
The model was first tested with respect to the pressure drop in the pipeline. In order to
eliminate the uncertainties connected to the pressure drop in the subsea choke and the
topside chokei, the pressure drop in between the chokes was used for testing. The
pressure drop ranges from 15 to 22 bars for the selected production rates. The base case
model (described in 4.3) gives 7 15 % deviation in the pressure drop, see Table 8.
In order to improve the model, the pipelines geometry was first investigated to verify
that the deviation in pressure drop was not caused by any simplifications of the pipeline.
The pipeline geometry was in accordance with as laid data15. The pipeline topography
is quite flat and gas dominates the flow in the pipeline, therefore the pressure drop is
mostly frictional. According to simulations the flow in the pipe is stratified, see Figure
19, and from Equation 3.15 we see that the friction coefficient is dependent on the
roughness. Thus the roughness of the pipeline wall is a key parameter when tuning the
model.
A parameter study in OLGA was carried out to determine the value of the roughness
which gave best match to field data. At the highest rates (135 kg/s) a roughness as low as
0.001 millimetres was required to match the model against field data, Figure 20. This low
roughness did not match the operating data for rates in the range 105 115 kg/s (which
i
The CV curves for the chokes were not available, i.e. data for pressure drop as a function of opening of the
choke were not available.
16
are the normal production range for the pipeline). A roughness of 0.01 millimetres gave
good match with field data for the production rates between 105 and 115 kg/s see Figure
21 and Figure 22.
In OLGA a command called Steady State pre-processor exists. This is an option that is
mainly intended as a generator of initial values for dynamical simulations6. This option
has been tested to see if it can be used instead of running the model until it reaches steady
state. This option calculates the pressure drop quite good when the production rates are
low, but the error increases as the production rate increase, reference Figure 20 and
Figure 21.
When Field As OLGA model had been tuned against pressure drop, the temperature
drop prediction was also investigated (for same field data as above). The temperature
drop in the pipeline is in the range 15 22 C. The pipelines base case model was
constructed with a 0.5 meter concentric sand layer as part of the wall, 0.5 meters being
the actual burial depth. This sand layer is a simplification for the soil around the pipe.
This way of constructing a wall will be referred to as the wall model. However this
base case model gave a deviation, from the field data, up to 13 %. When applying the
sand layers in the pipe wall, the sand layer should be doubled of what the buried depth,
chapter 2.3.66. The model was therefore modified by increasing the sand layer to 1 meter
thickness. Figure 23 and Figure 24 shows that the modification of the sand layer gives
good agreement of temperature drop when comparing the simulations with the field data.
The deviation in temperature drop is maximum 8.6 %. Based on this, a sand layer
thickness of 1 m is used as a starting point for the tuning carried out in next section
(section 4.5.2). In accordance with the theorem in the OLGA user manual the specific
heat capacity for the sand was reduced from 1100 to 955 J/(kgK).The Cp does not have
any affect on steady state simulations. Because the heat transfer at steady state depends
on the outer soil layer radius, but for transient simulations it will affect the result.
17
4.5.2 Unsteady state simulations

The previously mentioned shutdown and the following restart (described in 4.4.2) have
been simulated using the OLGA model.
The simulations carried out by OLGA are in accordance with the course of events during
the fields shut-in and restart (described in 4.4.2). The focus when comparing the OLGA
simulations with the field data has been to evaluate the temperature development in the
pipeline. Both the temperature cooling of the fluid in the buried pipeline during shut-in
and the temperature increase due to pressurization of the pipeline during restart is
discussed. Also the possible liquid surge discussed in section 4.4.2 has been paid special
attention.
First approach when simulating the fields shut-in and restart was to use the steady state
tuned OLGA model (i.e. a roughness of 0.01 mm and a sand layer thickness equal to 1 m,
see section 4.5.1). Figure 25 shows the fluid temperature topside during the restart from
the OLGA simulations and from the field data. The figure shows that OLGA predicts too
low temperature topside during the restart.
It should be noted that when simulating the restart of the pipeline after 21 hours shut-in
instead of 65 hours (using the same OLGA model as above), the OLGA prediction of
topside temperature gives good match to the field data, see Figure 26. A quite similar
result was obtained when the steady state tuned model was run with 2 meters of sand
around the pipe, Figure 27. This model is of course unrealistic and not applicable because
it will make the model mismatch in steady state. However this gave reason to investigate
how much the properties of the sand influenced the steady state tuned model. In one case
the Cp was changed to 1800 J/(kgK), Figure 28. The density was changed to 2300 kg/m3
in another, Figure 29. And in one case the changes were combined, Figure 30.
The approach to model the buried pipeline by assuming a concentrically sand layer equal
to 1 m is a simplified method which gives good agreement with field data for steady state
production (reference section 4.5.1). However, a more precise way to model the buried
18
pipeline is to use the soil model in OLGA, chapter 2.3.8 in6. When using the soil model
the pipe wall consists only of steel and insulation. The soil, using the base case material
properties, is created so that the pipe is buried 0.5 meters down. In the soil model, a grid
is made to represent the soil around the pipeline. Apart from the 0.5 meters of soil above
the pipe the model has now up to 8 meters of soil all around the pipe in the other three
directions, Figure 3116. The shut-in and restart was simulated using the new OLGA
model with the soil grid implemented. Figure 32 shows the topside temperature during
restart. The temperature gives a better match to the field data than the simplified wall
model. In an effort to achieve a better match, the Cp of the soil was changed to 1800
J/(kgK), Figure 33.
4.6 Discussion
Extensive testing of the model has been performed towards steady state and unsteady
state field data.
Tuning of the model with respect to the pressure drop, the main focus has been on the
pipes wall roughness. Several approaches to the problem have been investigated. When
tuning the model at the highest rates the roughness was reduced to 0.001 millimeters.
This is however a too low value for an uncoated pipe and the model matches poorly
against lower rates. A parameter study was executed with roughness ranging from 0.001
0.04 millimeters. From this study it became clear that the best match was obtained
when using a roughness of 0.01 millimeters. It can be discussed how correct it is to tune
the model by changing the roughness. The roughness gives an indication on how uneven
and irregular the wall surface is. A value that is usually given from the manufacturer of
pipelines is 0.02 millimeters, however this usually change when it is exposed to the harsh
fluids that flow through these types of pipes17. The value of 0.01 millimeters may be
considered as a bit low, but it is not unreasonable for a relatively new pipeline18.
The base case model gave results with an error margin up to 13 % with respect to the
temperature drop. The pipelines base case model was constructed with a 0.5 meter
19
concentric sand layer as part of the wall. Applying the theorem in the OLGA users
manual gave the model a better match when considering stable production. However
when simulating the dynamic shut-in/restart of the field it mismatched considerably.
Investigating Figure 32 shows that the previously mentioned increase in temperature (at
time 78 hours, see section 4.4.2, Figure 18) does not appear in the OLGA simulations.
Reason for this could be that OLGA does not predict the liquid plug very well, indicating
that no liquid surge moves through the system. However when plotting the gas and liquid
massflow versus time, see Figure 34, the liquid plug appears at approximately 4700
minutes. This is also almost at the same time as the discussed increase in temperature
appears. A possible explanation could be that OLGA over predicts the pressurization and
heats up the gas too quick. Hence the gas reaching the liquid temperature faster in the
simulations than what is the reality.
The case with the short shut-in indicated that the cooling time of the pipeline is
significantly longer than what is expected from the first approach model. This gave
reason to investigate the affect the properties of the sand had on the model. Simulations
showed that increasing the Cp had more effect than increasing the density. Use of the soil
model is the closest match to unsteady state field data reached in this study, Figure 35. It
has also been verified that the soil model which produce the best match field data
regarding the shut-in/restart, also gives good agreement with the steady state field data in
section 4.5.1 (see Figure 23 and Figure 24). Even if the soil model is the closest match to
this dynamic restart it does not match in a satisfactory way. The Cp of the sand, in the soil
model, was increased and gave a better result. However part of the temperature
development does not follow the field data, Figure 36.
It is difficult to know for sure if the mismatch between OLGA predictions and field data
is mainly explained by deviation in cooling time during shut-in or by deviation in heat
development during compression restart, or by a combination of these.
20
In order to get a better understanding of why OLGA underestimates more field data is
needed. The data should preferable be from a shut-in/restart situation where no
pressurization of pipeline is carried out during restart. In this way it can be identified if
the mismatch is caused by deviation in the cooling time or by deviation in the heat
developed during pressurization restart.
21
4.7 Conclusion
Several conclusions can be drawn from the work that has been conducted on this field.
The reduction of the pipe wall roughness to 0.01 millimeters was very successful and
gave the model a good match when considering the pressure drop in the pipeline.
The wall model with one meter of sand around the pipeline complied with the
temperature drop from stable production and gave satisfactory results. When looking at
the shut-in/restart incident the more complicated soil model gave a better result. However
due to the relatively large deviations it can not be concluded that this model is correct.
Nor can it be defined as completely wrong. It has been show that the effect is minimal
when changing the density of the soil. However the effect of changing the Cp has a larger
impact.
Whether the mismatch in OLGA is caused mainly by deviation in the cooling time,
during shut-in or by deviation in the heat developed during pressurization restart has not
been determined in this study. To conclude in either way more field data is needed.
22
5 Field B
In this section Field B will be generally described, field data will be analyzed and
evaluated. The OLGA model will be tested and an effort to improve it will also be
initiated.
5.1 General
Field B is located in the North Sea and contains hydrocarbons characterised as gas
condensate. The production started in September 2004. The Reservoir is located 4000
meters below MSL. This field is defined as a high pressure high temperature (HPHT)
field. Initial reservoir pressure is 780 bars and the initial temperature is 150 C. The field
is expected to recover approximately 55 billions Sm3 of gas and 190 million barrels of
condensate. It is planned that the production will reach plateau rate in year 2006 and that
it will produce until 202419, Table 9 shows the production for each year. Figure 3722
shows the phase envelope for the gas, different curves for condensate content in the gas
have been plotted.
5.2 System overview

The field has been built with a fully integrated steel platform. From the platform to land
there are two pipelines, each ending up at different processing plants. The first pipeline
transports light oil and the other one transports rich gas. The rich gas pipeline, Figure 38,
is 146.5 kilometres long and is the pipeline that has been investigated in this study. The
rich gas comes from a separator on the platform and moves down the riser and further
through in the pipeline on its way to the process plant, Figure 39.
5.3 Design Basis

The simulation tool used in this study is OLGA 2000 v4.13. Further PVTSim v11/14 has
been used to generate fluid properties tables which are input to the OLGA simulations.
23
The gas comes directly from a separator and the fluid composition is represented in Table
1119, 22.The flowline has an inner diameter of 710 millimetres, while the riser has an inner
diameter of 650 millimetres. The riser is coated with an epoxy layer of 0.005 metres.
However the pipeline is uncoated and as a base case a roughness of 0.03 millimetres is
used in the simulations20.
The selected material for the pipeline is carbon steel. The pipeline has no insulation exept
from a 0.006 metres thin layer of Asphalt enamel and 0.05 metres of concrete layer. The
pipe is not buried and combined with the selected materials12 this give the pipeline a
overall heat transfer coefficient of 32 W/(m2-C), Figure 40. This is implemented in the
OLGA model and the material properties are shown in Table 11.
The hydrate control for the pipeline is based on continuous injection of MEG. At a
production of 20.7 MSm3/d the injection is supposed to be 12.7 m3/d in a 90 / 10 MEG /
Water ratio. The relationship between injection and production is linear. At 13.5 MSm3/d
(circa 135 kg/s) the production rate that has been simulated, the injection rate is 8.3
m3/d22.
The ambient temperature changes from month to month in the North Sea. The warmest
months are from October to January, and correct temperatures have been applied in the
simulations13.
5.4 Field Data Analysis

The field data obtained for this field is limited. This is due to new operating procedures
that commenced in February 2005.
A production profile from 15th to the 26th of February this year is show in Figure 4121. As
shown in the figure the production rates are quite stable and remain fairly constant at
approximately 135 kg/s. The temperature drops to ambient temperature quite fast due to
the fact that the pipeline is neither buried nor considerably insulated. The temperature is
24
measured at the inlet of the pipeline and at the outlet (process plant). The inlet
temperature is 32 C and at ambient temperature at the outlet (around 4-7 C at this time
period).
The pressure drop for this period is quite low for such a long pipeline, circa 14 bars. To
evaluate the pressure drop the problem has been approached in the same manner as
described in section 4.4.1. The fluid properties have been calculated in PVTSim. The
pressure drop was calculated using the same equations as mentioned earlier (Equation 4.1
and Equation 4.2). As previously an average of the fluid properties were used. The fluid
properties do not change too much over the pipeline. This due to the low pressure drop
and that the temperature falls quickly and stays in the area of the ambient temperature.
Calculation was first done by treating the fluid as one phase gas, hence n equal to 3, gas
viscosity and density was applied in Equation 4.1 and Equation 4.2. The other variables
are defined in 5.2 and 5.3. This gave a pressure drop of 10 bars, which is almost a 30 %
miscalculation compared to field measurements. To compare, the pressure drop was also
calculated using the liquid properties from PVTSim. This gave as expected a too high
pressure drop, 17 bars. This can indicate that there is a change in the flow regime
somewhere in the pipeline, and this will affect the pressure drop calculations. It was thus
aimed to use OLGA to investigate the flow regime in the pipeline and to investigate if
OLGA would give a closer approach to the pressure drop calculations.
5.5 Simulations and Results

OLGA has, as in section 4.5, been applied to see if the simulation tool can achieve a
closer match to field data than the calculations performed in 5.4. Attempts to tune the
model against field data have also been investigated.
The model was tested with respect to the pressure drop in the pipeline. In order to
eliminate the uncertainties connected to the pressure drop in the choke located on the
25
platform before the riser and the onshore chokeii, the pressure drop in between the chokes
was used for testing. The model has only been tested for massflow equal to 135 kg/s
which mentioned earlier gives approximately 14 bars pressure drop (according to field
data). The base case model described in section 5.3 gives a pressure drop of 20 bars
which is further away than the simplified calculations described above.
In order to improve the model, the pipelines geometry was investigated to verify that the
deviation in pressure drop was not caused by any simplifications in the geometry. The
profile used in the OLGA model is quite detailed, shown in Figure 38 (the green line).
From this it is possible to conclude that it can not explain the large deviation22. According
to Frode Nygrd, who has worked with the model in Statoil, tuning of the roughness has
no considerable effect thus this has not been performed.
The discussed deviation can be related to the liquid transport in the pipeline. In order to
verify that this could be the case, a parameter study was performed in OLGA where the
base case model was used and the mass flow was changed from 80-280 kg/s. Plotted in
Figure 42 is the pressure drop and the liquid accumulation in pipeline depending on the
mass flow. The production rate for the field data is also indicated in the figure. Based on
this plot it was decided to tune the friction factor between the phases, the OLGA keyword
is called LAM_LGI. LAM_LGI is a coefficient that will be multiplied to the gas-liquid
interfacial friction factor calculated by OLGA. The standard value is 1.0 for this
coefficient6. Several simulations were run with different values for the interfacial friction
factor, ranging from 0.01 2.1, the results are shown in Table 12. The tuning did not
reach the desired results. A case was run where OLGA used a fluid properties file where
the gas density was reduced with 5 %, the results from this simulation are also shown in
Table 12.
ii
The CV curves for the chokes were not available, i.e. data for pressure drop as a function of opening of
the choke were not available.
26
5.6 Discussion
The base case model in OLGA mismatches considerably. In Figure 42 the total liquid
content and pressure drop is plotted versus massflow. The Figure shows that at
production rates below approximately 180 kg/s, the pressure drop of the pipeline start to
increase as the production rate is reduced. At production rate to the left of the break point
of the curves (~180 kg/s) considerable volumes of water/condensate will start to
accumulate in the pipeline. At these low rates the gas velocity is too low to transport the
liquid. The water drops will no longer be carried as suspended drops in the condensate,
but will instead accumulate at the bottom of the pipe. The pressure drop will be
dominated by gravity instead of being dominated by friction at these low flow rates. In
the Figure the normal production rate (135 kg/s) for Field B is indicated, and it can be
seen that the pipeline is operated in this gravity dominated area. It should be noted that it
is known that the predictions from the model are uncertain when the gas condensate flow
becomes dominated by gravity. Eidsmoen and Roberts2 concluded from similar
simulations that when the flow is in this particular area, OLGA deviated up to 30 % with
respect to the pressure drop.
The flow regime from the base case is shown in Figure 43, along the pipeline profile. The
flow is stratified in the pipeline until the pipe starts to rise up from the sea bottom to
shore. Then the flow is changed to slug flow. Figure 44 shows the mentioned flow regime
together with the pressure along the pipeline profile. In the figure the pressure is divided
(and highlighted) into two sections. One for when the flow is stratified and one for when
the flow is slug flow. Since the calculations in section 5.4 did not achieve the desired
results new calculations were performed (applying Equation 4.1 and Equation 4.2). The
average properties for gas were applied in the section with stratified flow (n equal to 3).
For the slug flow dominated area, the gas/fluid was treated as liquid (n equal to 1) and
homogenous mix properties were used. This gave a pressure drop almost identical to the
field data (14 bars) see chapter A, section a.
Attempts to tune the model were done by changing the interfacial friction coefficient.
Simulations are in general very sensitive to the value of the gas-liquid interfacial friction
27
(in particular the liquid hold-up) so changing this value should be used with great care. If
the case is a straight horizontal pipe with stratified flow of gas and liquid increasing the
tuning factor (LAM_LGI > 1.0) would increase the drag of the gas on the liquid and
therefore reduce the liquid hold-up. The opposite will happen if the factor is reduced
(LAM_LGI < 1.0) for this particular case. OLGA is based on mechanistic principles and
backed up by experimentation. Thus the friction factors implemented are controlled by
physical laws and by changing these OLGA deviates from the physical principles it is
built on23. Table 12 shows that tuning of LAM_LGI gave no clear indication of whether
the tuning factor should be reduced (<1) or increased (>1) in order to get at better match
with field data pressure drop. The Table show that the best match to field data is obtained
when the LAM_LGI is reduced to 0.5 and increased to 1.1, thus the liquid hold-up is
reduced in the first case and increased in the last case. Both cases gave a deviation in
pressure drop equal to 22%.
Too see if any miscalculation of gas density (calculated by PVTSim) would affect the
results, a simulation was carried out where the gas density was reduced by 5%. This did
not have any considerable effect on the pressure drop.
The field data obtained for this field does not allow for extensive testing due to the fact
that data for only one mass flow was available. It should be noted that the experience
from these simulations appends to the already existing experiences with poor OLGA
predictions for gravity dominated flow. It stands out that the tool needs significant
improvement for calculations where the pressure drop is dominated by gravity forces.
28
5.7 Conclusion
Field data for Field Bs pipeline has been evaluated with respect to the drop in pressure
and an effort has been made to match the OLGA model with the field data without
satisfactory success.
Simple hand calculations were performed which were partly successful. From flow
regime charts, provided by OLGA, two flow regimes were distinguished. Calculating the
pressure drop for each one, an almost perfect result was reached.
The base case model miscalculated the pressure drop by almost 43%. Attempts to
improve the model by tuning on the interfacial friction factor should be carried out
showing great care. Tuning on this factor will contradict physical principles. The best
match to field data is obtained when the tuning factor is reduced to 0.5 and increased to
1.1, thus the liquid hold-up in the pipeline is reduced in the first case and increased in the
last case. Both cases gave a deviation in pressure drop equal to 22%.
The field data obtained for this field does not allow for extensive testing due to the fact
that data for only one mass flow was available. It should be noted that the experience
from these simulations appends to the already existing experiences with poor OLGA
predictions for gravity dominated flow. It stands out that the tool needs significant
improvement for calculations where the pressure drop is dominated by gravity forces.
29
6 References
1
T.M. Irfansyah, K.M. Bansal, G. Gunarwan, D. Lopez, TOTAL E&P Indonesia.

Simulation of multiphase flows in Indonesian Pipelines: Comparison of TACITE and OLGA results 2005
2
Hvard Eidsmoen and Ian Roberts, Scandpower Petroleum Techonology

Issues relating to proper modelling of the profile of long gas condensate pipelines, 2005
3
K.H. Bendiksen et al., Institute for Energy Technology
The Dynamic Two-Fluid Model OLGA: Theory and Application, SPE 19451, 1991
4
Mark Reed et al., SINTEF

Technical Documentation for the Pipeline Oil Spill Volume Computer Model, 2003
5
Dag Malnes, Institue for Energy Technology

Slug Flow in Vertical, Horizontal and Inclined Pipes, 1983
6
Scandpower Petroleum Technology

OLGA 2000 Users manual version 4.13, 2003
7
Statoil internal web pages

http://intranet.statoil.no/inf/svg00976.nsf/unid/4125680700363BD3C1256F2B00497C38
8
Stig Ludvig Selberg, Ingrid Hnsi, Statoil ASA

Field A PETEK design Basis Document no: 2708-2001, 2003
9
Jan Hundseid, Sverre Espedal, Statoil ASA

Field A Flow assurance, design and operating philosophy Document no: 01S96*11914, 2002
10
Bodil F. Strmme, Statoil ASA

Private communication, June 2005
11
Statoil registration tool, Prosty v6.5

Prosty Field A, January May, 2005
12
Adrian Bejan, Duke University

Heat Transfer (Appendix B), 1993
13
Met Offices webpages, United Kingdom

http://www.met-office.gov.uk/research/ncof/shelf/browser.html
14
Knut Lunde, Statoil ASA

Private communication, January May 2005
15
Gisle Haaland, Statoil ASA

Private communication, February 2005
16
Kenneth Bruer, The Institution Polytech, 2005

Introduction to the use of the Soil/Grid function in OLGA, presentation at Statoil Forus, 2005.
17
Yves Charon and Claude Mabile, Institut Franais du Ptrole (IFP)

Ways to Fight Internal Pressure Losses in Gas Lines , Paris 2005
30
18
Torbjrg Klara Fossum, Statoil ASA

Private Communication, January May 2005.
19
R.M. Monsen, E.S. Pedersen, K.A. Brresen, L.S. Lien, Statoil ASA
Field B Annual Reservoir Development Plan, 2004
20
N.N, Statoil ASA

Field B Rich gas transfer to Process Plant System Design report Doc. no.: D-194-SA-P192-F-RD-002
21
Ola J. Rinde, Gassco

Private Communication, March 2005
22
Frode Nygrd, Statoil ASA

Private Communication, March April 2005
23
Gael Chupin, Scandpower Petroleum Technology

Private Communication, April 2005
31
7 Tables
Table 1 Expected Production9
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Gas Rate
[MSm3/d]
11
11
8,5
6,79
5,42
5
4
3,2
2,7
2,2
1,7
Water Rate
[Sm3/d]
100-200
100-200
100-200
300-500
300-500
300-500
300-500
300-500
300-500
300-500
300-500
Reservoir Wellhead Arrival Required Wellhead Arrival

Pressure
Pressure Pressure Pressure
Temp
Temp
[bar]
[bar]
[bar]
[bar]
[C]
[C]
430
290
254
60
98
85
330
180
134
60
90
72
245
112
53
60
86
60
200
96
57
60
81
56
170
83
55
53
80
53
145
75
46
48
77
49
130
65
43
43
75
45
110
60
45
38
73
41
100
55
43
35
71
38
90
50
40
35
70
33
85
47
40
35
68
27
The table shows how gas and water rates, reservoir, wellhead, arrival and required pressures, wellhead and
arrival temperatures change with time.
Table 2 Fluid composition 1 for Field A9
Component Mol % Mol wt Liquid Density g/cm
Critical T C Critical P bars
0,29
28,01
-146,95
33,94
N2
8,45
44,01
31,05
73,76
CO2
77,58
16,04
-82,55
46,00
C1
6,74
30,07
32,25
48,84
C2
2,71
44,10
96,65
42,46
C3
0,39
58,12
134,95
36,48
iC4
0,69
58,12
152,05
38,00
nC4
0,21
72,15
187,25
33,84
iC5
0,24
72,15
196,45
33,74
nC5
0,28
86,18
0,66
234,25
29,69
C6
0,46
86,60
0,76
251,19
39,00
C7
0,52
101,40
0,78
278,28
33,49
C8
0,32
115,00
0,80
300,38
29,78
C9
0,23
134,00
0,81
328,68
25,67
C10
0,18
147,00
0,82
345,68
23,84
C11
0,26
167,22
0,83
369,96
21,68
C12-C13
0,22
203,63
0,85
408,72
19,10
C14-C16
0,14
253,00
0,87
453,89
17,12
C17-C20
0,07
316,26
0,90
503,75
15,81
C21-C26
0,02
407,34
0,92
566,22
14,85
C27-C34
0,00
527,39
0,95
638,28
14,32
C35-C45
0,00
689,29
0,98
724,53
14,12
C46-C61
32
Table 3 Fluid composition 2 for Field A9

Component Mol % Mol wt Liquid Density g/cm
Critical T C Critical P bars
0,44
28,01
-146,95
33,94
N2
5,08
44,01
31,05
73,76
CO2
77,45
16,04
-82,55
46,00
C1
7,67
30,07
32,25
48,84
C2
3,60
44,10
96,65
42,46
C3
0,51
58,12
134,95
36,48
iC4
0,95
58,12
152,05
38,00
nC4
0,31
72,15
187,25
33,84
iC5
0,34
72,15
196,45
33,74
nC5
0,39
86,18
0,66
234,25
29,69
C6
0,62
89,07
0,76
255,28
37,56
C7
0,70
101,48
0,78
278,14
33,55
C8
0,42
114,37
0,80
299,55
30,52
C9
0,26
134,00
0,81
326,82
25,94
C10
0,39
153,35
0,82
351,56
23,11
C11-C12
0,15
175,00
0,83
376,24
20,84
C13
0,12
190,00
0,84
392,33
19,64
C14
0,19
213,25
0,84
415,96
18,20
C15-C16
0,13
243,35
0,85
444,17
16,87
C17-C18
0,12
274,61
0,86
471,94
15,94
C19-C21
0,09
321,68
0,87
510,72
14,95
C22-C25
0,08
427,77
0,89
596,55
13,75
C26-C71
Table 4 Detailed wall construction Field As pipeline9

Spool
Measured Length [m]
Wall
Material in wall [mm]
13 Chrome
FBE
PP-adh
PP-Solid
PP-Foam
PP-Solid Outer
Water Solid
Sand
Wall thickness [mm]
Spool_Zone2
WholeRiser
Topside Pipe
Main Pipe
80
17167
590
138
304
Template Spool Wall Pipe sone1 wall Riser Spool wall Riser Jtube wall Topside pipe wall
19,0
0,3
0,3
6,4
54
4
0
0
84,0
16,8
0,3
0,3
6,4
30
4
0
500
557,8
19
0,3
0,3
6,4
54
4
0
0
84,0
35,3
0,3
0,3
9,4
0
0
72,1
0
117,4
19
0,3
0
0
0
0
0
0
19,3
33
Table 5 Material properties used in the OLGA simulations at Field A12

Material properties
Type
13% Chrome
Solid
Capacity [J/(kg*K)]
FBE
Solid
PP-adh
PP-Solid
Solid
Solid
PP-Foam
PP-Solid Outer
Solid
Solid
Water Solid
Solid
Sand
Solid
450 1500
2461
2366
2262
1911
4200
Conductivity [W/(m*k)]
18,1
0,3
0,22
0,22
0,167
0,22
0,58
2,1
Density [kg/m3]
7835 1300
900
900
720
900
1000
2000
Table 6 Selected steady state data11

Date
15/1/2005
17/1/2005
17/1/2005
18/1/2005
18/1/2005
19/1/2005
19/1/2005
19/1/2005
20/1/2005
21/1/2005
23/1/2005
25/1/2005
27/1/2005
29/1/2005
30/1/2005
pressure subsea
temperature topside
pressure topside subsea temp massflow
bars
Celsius
bars
Celsius
kg/s
260.30
73.5
238.94
95.36
109.19
259.00
78.3
234.55
96.52
117.96
259.40
75.7
231.30
92.10
133.85
260.00
77.4
231.25
93.33
134.26
261.30
78.0
233.97
93.53
130.96
260.00
78.0
230.76
94.30
135.72
247.50
77.2
221.07
95.79
125.87
244.90
76.5
221.05
95.37
115.27
237.50
74.1
220.02
93.31
93.77
255.50
76.5
234.11
95.86
109.41
255.00
76.1
233.51
95.82
109.35
254.20
77.3
232.85
95.83
109.01
251.20
76.3
230.28
95.67
107.57
251.80
77.1
230.04
95.81
109.17
251.70
77.7
229.70
95.79
108.40
Table 7 Steady state data used in the extensive testing of the models11
Date
17/1/2005
17/1/2005
18/1/2005
18/1/2005
19/1/2005
19/1/2005
19/1/2005
20/1/2005
21/1/2005
23/1/2005
25/1/2005
27/1/2005
29/1/2005
30/1/2005
pressure subsea
temperature topside
pressure topside subsea temp massflow
bars
Celsius
bars
Celsius
kg/s
259.00
78.3
234.55
96.52
117.96
259.40
75.7
231.30
92.10
133.85
260.00
77.4
231.25
93.33
134.26
261.30
78.0
233.97
93.53
130.96
260.00
78.0
230.76
94.30
135.72
247.50
77.2
221.07
95.79
125.87
244.90
76.5
221.05
95.37
115.27
237.50
74.1
220.02
93.31
93.77
255.50
76.5
234.11
95.86
109.41
255.00
76.1
233.51
95.82
109.35
254.20
77.3
232.85
95.83
109.01
251.20
76.3
230.28
95.67
107.57
251.80
77.1
230.04
95.81
109.17
251.70
77.7
229.70
95.79
108.40
34
1100
Table 8 Evaluation of base case

Date
massflow [kg/s] dp field data [bars] dp base case [bars]
dp deviation [%]
17. January
117,96
24,45
26,29
7,5 %
17. January
133,85
28,10
32,30
14,9 %
18. January
134,26
28,75
32,59
13,3 %
18. January
130,96
27,33
31,09
13,8 %
19. January
135,72
29,24
33,29
13,9 %
19. January
125,87
26,43
30,15
14,1 %
19. January
115,27
23,85
26,06
9,3 %
20. January
93,77
17,48
18,87
7,9 %
21. January
109,41
21,39
23,32
9,0 %
23. January
109,35
21,49
23,39
8,8 %
25. January
109,01
21,35
23,24
8,9 %
27. January
107,57
20,92
22,87
9,3 %
29. January
109,17
21,76
23,40
7,5 %
Table 9 Gas production from Field B20
Gas
Gas
Field B
Field B
3
contract [MSm /d] contract [MSm3/d]
year
year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
13,9
20,7
20,7
20,7
20,7
20,3
16,8
12,7
9,5
7,2
5,4
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
4,4
3,5
2,9
2,4
2,1
1,9
1,7
1,5
1,3
1,1
0
35
Table 10 Material properties used in the pipeline on Field B22

Material properties
Carbon steel Asphalt enamel Concrete
Type
Solid
Solid
Solid
Capacity [J/(kg*K)]
500
1465
880
Conductivity [W/(m*k)]
43,25
0,95
2,20
Density [kg/m3]
7850
1300
2600
Table 11 Gas composition for Field B19, 22

Component Mol % Mol wt Liquid Density g/cm Crit T C Crit P bara
H2O
0,08
18,02
1,00
374,15
220,89
N2
0,18
28,01
-146,95
33,94
CO2
3,69
44,01
31,05
73,76
C1
82,93
16,04
-82,55
46,00
C2
7,32
30,07
32,25
48,84
C3
3,21
44,10
96,65
42,46
iC4
0,46
58,12
134,95
36,48
nC4
0,94
58,12
152,05
38,00
iC5
0,26
72,15
187,25
33,84
nC5
0,27
72,15
196,45
33,74
C6
0,23
86,18
0,66
234,25
29,69
C7
0,23
96,00
0,75
C8
0,15 107,00
0,77
C9
0,05 121,00
0,79
C10-C11
0,02 137,28
0,79
C12-C13
0,00 163,70
0,80
C14
0,00 183,70
0,82
C15-C16
0,00 202,30
0,83
C17-C18
0,00 234,30
0,83
C19-C22
0,00 278,40
0,85
36
Table 12 Results from the tuning based on OLGA simulations.

Type of
tuning
riser pressure plant pressure delta pressure deviation

barg
barg
bara
%
0.01 Tuning
111,56
90,90
20,66
48 %
0.5 Tuning
107,94
90,90
17,04
22 %
1.1 Tuning
107,94
90,90
17,04
22 %
1.5 Tuning
109,13
90,90
18,23
30 %
1.9 Tuning
109,13
90,90
18,23
30 %
2.1 Tuning
112,58
90,90
21,68
55 %
No tuning (1.0)
110,95
90,90
20,05
43 %
No tuning w/reduced gasdensity
110,82
90,90
19,92
42 %
37
8 Figures
1
Figure 1 Schematic drawing of horizontal flow regimes4

Image 1 shows Bubbly flow, Image 2 shows plug flow, Image 3 shows smooth stratified flow, Image 4
shows wavy flow, Image 5 show slug flow and Image 6 shows annular flow.
Figure 2 GUI OLGA 6

This figure shows the graphical user interface in OLGA.
38
Phase envelope Field A
450
400
350
temperature [C]
300
250
200
150
Typical inlet p & T
100
50
Typical outlet p & T
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
pressure [bara]
Figure 3 The phase Envelope for Field A8

This figure shows the phase envelope for Field A, which was created using PVTSim v14. In the phase
envelope typical pressure (p) and temperature (T) values are plotted.
39
Figure 4 System Overview for Field A9.

PT denotes pressure- and TT denotes temperature measurements.
40
Figure 5 Figure profile for one of the wells at Field A 9

This figure shows the elevation versus horizontal length in meters for one of the wells at Field A.
41
Figure 6 Overview for one of the wells at Field A9.

This figure shows an overview over the main valves and measurement tools placed in the well and at the
wellhead. PT and TT denote pressure- and temperature measurements respectively.
42
Figure 7 The pipeline profile for the pipe at Field A9

This figure shows the elevation versus horizontal length in meters for the pipeline from Field A.
Sea bottom
0.5 meters
SAND/SOIL
Figure 8 Field As buried pipeline9

The figure shows the pipe buried 0.5 meters beneath the sea bottom (in sand).
43
Hydrate curve - Year 2004-2006

350
300
Pressure, bar
250
200
150
100
50
0
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Temperature, C
No MEG
10% MEG
20% MEG
30% MEG
40% MEG
50% MEG
Figure 9 Hydrate equilibrium curve for Field A

9
The graph shows the effect of MEG injection, calculated in PVTSim 11 . The curves are plotted for
pressure (bars) versus temperature (C)
44
Massflow in flow line
160
140
Massflow [kg/s]
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
jan. 05
jan. 05
jan. 05
jan. 05
jan. 05
jan. 05
jan. 05
jan. 05
jan. 05
feb. 05
feb. 05
Date
Figure 10 Production profile for Field A11

The figure shows the massflow [kg/s] versus time starting on the 15th of January.
45
31
29
27
dp bara
25
23
21
19
17
15
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
massflow kg/s
Figure 11 Pressure losses on Field A11

This figure shows the pressure loss for the field data plotted versus massflow, the line is generated by
excel.
46
dT vs q
25
20
dT [C]
15
10
0
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
q [kg/s]
Figure 12 Temperature drop on Field A11

In this figure the drop in temperature is illustrated as a function of massflow.
47
50
45
40
pressure loss [bara]
35
30
field data
25
calc k=0.04 mm
calc k=0.03 mm
20
15
10
5
0
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
massflow [kg/s]
Figure 13 Calculated pressure drops

The graph shows the result from the simplified with respect to the pressure drop on Field A. The pressure
drop is plotted versus massflow.
48
0.3500
0.3000
ln((T2-Ts/(T1-Ts))
0.2500
0.2000
0.1500
0.1000
0.0500
0.0000
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
110.00
120.00
130.00
140.00
m assflow [kg/s]
Figure 14 Calculated temperature function

The figure shows the function for temperature drop which was solved with respeec to the ln expression and
plotted versus massflow.
49
Shutdown
100
70
90
60
80
massflow kg/s
60
40
choke %
50
70
total rate
50
choke
30
40
30
20
20
10
0
-5500
10
10th of
-5000
12th of March
-4500
-4000
-3500
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
minutes
Figure 15 Shutdown sequence for Field A11

The figure shows how total rate changes with the choke opening in % versus time. The time scale starts on
negative for simplicity reasons (easier to match with previous OLGA simulations)
50
Figure 16 Injection of MEG at Field A

Shows the MEG injection along the pipelines profile at the moment the pipe is shutdown. The y-axis
denotes amount of MEG in the water phase. The graph is taken from OLGA simulations.
51
Hydrate Area
250
200
65 hrs Shutdown
150
bara
HYDRATE
21 hrs Shutdown
100
pressure buildup
50
0
0,000
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
Figure 17 Hydrate area

Shows Field As pipeline profile as it enters the hydrate area for 21 and 65 hours shutdown and during the
pressure build-up. The curves are taken from calculations performed by PVTSim.
52
Topside temperature
80
70
60
celsius
50
40
30
20
10
13 March 15:00
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
Figure 18 Topside temperature during restart11

The figure shows the temperature measured topside plotted versus time. The discussed area is marked.
53
4 Bubble
Liquid velocity
Gas velocity
water film velocity
Flowregime
3 Slug
m/s
4
2 Annular
3
1 Stratifie
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
profile [m]
Figure 19 Flow regimes during stable production at Field A

The graphs taken from OLGA simulations show the flow regime during stable production. The velocities of
the different phases are also shown.
54
dp vs q
33
31
29
dp [bara]
27
dp measured [bara]
25
dp OLGA ss [bara]
dp OLGA stable run[bara]
23
Expon. (dp measured [bara])
21
19
17
15
90,00
100,00
110,00
120,00
130,00
140,00
q[kg/s]
Figure 20 Pressure drop versus massflow 0.001 mm

Shows the pressure drop as a function of massflow, the purple is for the steady state pre-processor, the
orange is for stable run until steady state and the blue is field data. In this case a roughness of 0.001 mm
was applied. The plot is based on OLGA simulations.
55
dp vs q
33
31
29
dp [bara]
27
dp measured [bara]
25
dp OLGA ss [bara]
dp OLGA stable run[bara]
23
Expon. (dp measured [bara])
21
19
17
15
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
q[kg/s]
Figure 21 Pressure drop versus massflow 0.01 mm

Shows the pressure drop as a function of massflow, the purple is for the steady state pre-processor, the
orange is for stable run until steady state and the blue is field data. In this case a roughness of 0.01 mm was
applied. The plot is based on OLGA simulations.
56
Pressure
270
265
260
pressure
255
250
245
240
235
230
16. jan.
18. jan.
20. jan.
22. jan.
24. jan.
26. jan.
28. jan.
30. jan.
1. feb.
date
Figure 22 Pressure drop as a function of time

The purple graph is for the steady state pre-processor, the orange is for stable run until steady state and blue
is for field data. In this case a roughness of 0.01 mm was applied. The plot is based on OLGA simulations.
57
dT vs q
25
20
15
dT measured data [C]
dT [C]
dT OLGA stable run [C]

dT OLGA ss [C]
With Soil
Log. (dT measured data [C])
10
0
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
q [kg/s]
Figure 23 Temperature drop versus massflow.

The purple is for the steady state pre-processor, the orange is for stable run until steady state, blue is for
field data, and the green represent the soil model. The plot is based on OLGA simulations.
58
15 %
10 %
5%
Wall
0%
Soil
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
Base Case
-5 %
-10 %
-15 %
Figure 24 Deviation in the temperature drop.

The blue representing the wall model, yellow is the base case and purple is the soil model. The deviation in
percent is plotted versus massflow. The plot is based on OLGA simulations.
59
80
70
60
50
celsius
Field data temp toside

OLGA Topside
40
30
20
10
13 March 15:00
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
Figure 25 Restart Field A

This figure shows how the temperature topside changes during the restart. The red dotted line indicates
when the topside choke begins to open. The plot is based on OLGA simulations.
60
80
70
60
50
celsius
Field data temp topside

40
OLGA Topside
i
30
20
10
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
Figure 26 Restart Field A after 21 hours

This figure shows how the temperature topside changes during the restart. This restart takes place after only
21 hours shut down. The red dotted line indicates when the topside choke begins to open. The plot is based
on OLGA simulations.
61
80
70
60
50
celsius

OLGA Topside
40
30
20
10
13 March 15:00
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
Figure 27 Restart Field A with modified wall model

This figure shows how the temperature topside changes during the restart. This restart is simulated with the
modified wall model consisting of 2 metres of sand. The red dotted line indicates when the topside choke
begins to open. The plot is based on OLGA simulations.
62
80
70
60
celsius
50
40
OLGA topside
30
20
10
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
Figure 28 Restart Field A with modified soil properties

This figure shows how the temperature topside changes during the restart. This restart is simulated with
modified soil properties, the Cp of the sand has been changed to 1800 J/(kgK). The plot is based on OLGA
simulations.
63
80
70
60
celsius
50
Field data topside temp
40
OLGA topside
30
20
10
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
Figure 29 Restart Field A with modified soil properties 2

modified soil properties; the density of the sand has been changed to 2300 kg/m3. The plot is based on
OLGA simulations.
64
80
70
60
celsius
50
40
OLGA topside
30
20
10
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
Figure 30 Restart Field A with modified soil properties 3

modified soil properties; the density of the sand has been changed to 2300 kg/m3 and the Cp of the sand
has been changed to 1800 J/(kgK). The plot is based on OLGA simulations.
65
Soil grid structure
Define grid coordinates (x and y)

The Y-line starts at sea bottom while the
x-line starts in the center of the pipe
Y-grid
start (0)
Seabottom
Use at least 3 or 4 coordinates for each

radius in both directions.
Outer pipe radius (pipe + wall) must lay
on a coordinate line i both x and y
direction.
Pipeline
X-grid
start (0)
X-coordinates
The coordinate lines should be more

rapid when approaching the outer wall.
Y-coordinates
Figure 31 How to create the soil grid in OLGA 200016
66
80
70
60
celsius
50
40
OLGA Topside
30
20
10
13 March 15:00
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
Figure 32 Restart Field A with the soil model

soil model (instead of wall model). The red dotted line indicates when the topside choke begins to open.
The plot is based on OLGA simulations.
67
80
70
60
celsius
50
40
OLGA topside
30
20
10
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
Figure 33 Restart Field A with the soil model 2

soil model (instead of wall model) and the Cp has been increased to 1800 J/(kgK). The red dotted line
indicates when the topside choke begins to open. The plot is based on OLGA simulations.
68
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
OLGA Topside temperature 40

Field data Topside temperature
40
30
OLGA Gas massflow topside30

OLGA Liquid massflow topside
20
20
10
0
4400
10
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
0
5400
minutes
Figure 34 The liquid surge

The graph shows the liquid surge taken from OLGA simulations. The graph shows how the gas and liquid
massflow changes accordingly to each other. For indication the field data and the simulated temperature
also appear. Every one of the curves are measured/simulated topside.
69
kg/s
centigrades
80
70
60
50
Celcius
Steady state tuned wall

Soil w Cp = 1100
40
Steady state tuned w/1m extra sand

Field data
30
20
10
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
Figure 35 Restart Field A Comparison of the cases

The figure shows a summary of the different cases that has been tested and presented for Field A.
70
80
70
60
celsius
50
Field data
Soil Cp =1100
40
Soil Cp=1800
30
20
10
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
Figure 36 Restart Field A Comparison of the cases

The figure shows a summary of the two soil models that has been tested and presented for Field A.
71
Phase Envelope
200
180
Export fluid, 133.8 bar and

35 C in the scrubber (Design)
Pressure [bar]
160
140
94.8 bar and 10 C
120
100
Process plant
operational area
80
60
40
77.8 bar and - 0.3 C
20
0
-30
-20
-10
10
20
30
Temperature [C]
100 % condensate in vapor

40
50
60
70
80
Water dew point line
Figure 37 Phase envelope for the Gas on Field B22

The graph shows the phase envelopes for different content of condensate in the gas in % and the water dew
point line. The curves have been calculated in PVTSim.
72
Figure 38 Field Bs pipeline profile

22
Shows the real and the profile used in OLGA simulations
PT
TT
gas
liqu
Wet gas meter
Riser
Figure 39 System overview for the pipeline on the platform20, 22.
73
U-value
60
50
W/(m2*C)
40
30
20
10
0
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
metres
Figure 40 Overall heat transfer coefficient for Field B20

The figure shows how the overall heat transfer coefficient changes along the profile of the pipeline.
74
140
135
massflow [kg/s]
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
13.2.
15.2.
17.2.
19.2.
21.2.
23.2.
25.2.
27.2.
1.3.
date
Figure 41 Production profile for Field B21

This figure shows the production for Field B from 15th of February to the end of the month. The production
is given in kg/s.
75
8000
35
7000
30
Normal production Field B
6000
25
5000
tot liq
m3
20
production rate
delta p
4000
15
3000
10
2000
1000
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
300
q [kg/s]
Figure 42 Total liquid and pressure drop

The figure shows how the total liquid content [m3] and the pressure drop [bars] changes with the production
rate, calculated by OLGA.
76
0,5
4 Bubble
holdup
Flowregime
indicator
0,4
3 Slug
Holdup
0,3
2 Annular
0,2
1 Stratified
0,1
0
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
0
160000
profile
Figure 43 Flow regime and hold-up for Field Bs pipeline.

The yellow graph shows the flow regime, the blue is the liquid hold-up plotted versus the pipeline profile.
The red dashed line indicates the flow regime transition.
77
120
Bubble
Slug
Annular
Stratified
110
inlet
pressure
100
90
80
p [barg]
70
60
50
40
30
20
pressure
temperature
10
p inlet
Flowregime
0
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
profile [m]
Figure 44 Pressure and flow regime for Field B

In the graph the pressure, temperature and flow regime is plotted along the pipeline profile. The flow has
been divided into two areas on the graph, distinguishing the flow regimes.
78
A. Calculations
a. Field B
L
m
ID
density
viskosity
n
k
u
Re
f
delta p
Tinn
Tslutt
139618,6 m
135 kg/s
0,71 m
136,1 kg/m3
0,0169 cP
3
0,00003 m
2,505354 m/s
14325139
0,010233
8,595038 bara
31,384 C
6,2318 C
L
m
ID
density
viskosity
n
k
u
Re
f
delta p
Tinn
Tslutt
7745,906 m
135 kg/s
0,71 m
115,1266 kg/m3
0,014909 cP
1
0,00003 m
2,96177 m/s
16238646
0,093913
5,173519
total dp
13,76856
6,1033 C
2,8173 C

OLGA2000 TransientSimulation

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

OLGA2000 TransientSimulation

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology

Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics

Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase

Karl Ludvig Heskestad

Fakultet for ingenirvitenskap og teknologi

Studieprogram i Geofag og petroleumsteknologi

Institutt for petroleumsteknologi og anvendt geofysikk

Karl Ludvig Heskestad

Oppgavens tittel, norsk/Title of Thesis, Norwegian:

Felt Data Analyse ved bruk av Flerfase

Oppgavens tittel, engelsk/Title of Thesis, English:

Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase

Utfyllende tekst/Extended text:

Petroleumsteknologi/ Petroleum technology

Fakultet for ingenirvitenskap og teknologi

Studieprogram i Geofag og petroleumsteknologi

Institutt for petroleumsteknologi og anvendt geofysikk

Karl Ludvig Heskestad, Trondheim 20th of June 2005

Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase Simulation Tool OLGA2000

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase Simulation Tool OLGA2000

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase Simulation Tool OLGA2000

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase Simulation Tool OLGA2000

Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase Simulation Tool OLGA2000

Figure 30 Restart Field A with modified soil properties 3 ......................................... 65

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase Simulation Tool OLGA2000

inclination from vertical

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase Simulation Tool OLGA2000

Subscripts and superscripts

down hole pressure gauge

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase Simulation Tool OLGA2000

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase Simulation Tool OLGA2000

2.1 Experience from previous work

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase Simulation Tool OLGA2000

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase Simulation Tool OLGA2000

3 Multiphase simulation tool OLGA

3.1 The two-fluid model

the gas phase:

the liquid phase at the wall:

the liquid droplets:

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase Simulation Tool OLGA2000

the gas phase:

for liquid droplets:

for the liquid at the wall:

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase Simulation Tool OLGA2000

The RD is a distribution slip ratio caused by an uneven distribution of phases and

Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Field Data Analysis using the Multiphase Simulation Tool OLGA2000

The energy conservation of the mixture is expressed by Equation 3.13:

[mg Eg + vg2 + gh + mL EL + vL2 + gh

+ mD ED + vD2 + gh ] = [mg vg H g + vg2 + gh

3.2 Flow regimes

Norwegian University of Science and Technology