SPECIAL FOCUS: PIPELINES

AND TRANSPORTATION

Flow assurance study of gathering

pipeline system at a gas condensate field
E. RABEEA, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt;
and A. ABDEL-WALY, Gas Production Engineering Department, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt

Increasing demand for energy, along 8. Slugging liver the hydrocarbon from the wells to
with fluctuations in oil and natural gas 9. Materials-related issues. the processing facility with minimum
prices, require a review of existing pro- The obstacles of flow may differ ac- pressure drop. Pressure drop in a multi-
duction, transportation and storage tech- cording to whether the hydrocarbon be- phase flow is a function of the flow pat-
nologies for oil and gas. New technologies ing produced is oil or gas, but they coin- tern and liquid holdup. Determining the
have been introduced for oil and gas well cide in some aspects. For example, wax flow pattern and the liquid holdup in
development that enhance production and asphaltene deposits are obstacles pipelines is essential to accurately predict
economics and efficiency. These tech- encountered in oil production, while hy- pressure drop.
nologies are showing success for drilling drates formation is a key obstacle found in Slug flow occasionally occurs in mul-
and production operations. However, a gas production. tiphase flow, especially in offshore pro-
major obstacle has arisen as companies As Egypt enters the world of deepwa- duction facilities, which include a seabed
dig deeper underwater and underground: ter gas production, flow obstacles must be pipeline and a riser to the processing
How to economically deliver valuable hy- avoided. The Zohr and Atol discoveries platform. Accurate prediction of slug fre-
drocarbon resources from the reservoir to are considered the future of gas produc- quency is essential for proper processing
the end user. To this end, oil and gas pro- tion in Egypt, and much of Egypt’s gas facility design, including the sizing of slug
ducers and scientists have coined a new output will come from them. Any distur- catchers and separators.
term: flow assurance. bances in the production of these fields The presence of free water in gas pro-
Flow assurance refers to the success- will not only affect the oil and gas sector, duction pipelines aids the formation of
ful and economical flow of hydrocarbon but also the power and industrial sectors. hydrates under certain pressure and tem-
streams from the reservoir to the point of perature conditions. Hydrates formation
sale. By definition, flow assurance focus- Obstacles to flow assurance and how will partially or fully block the fluid flow
es on the entire engineering and produc- to mitigate them. During production in pipes, which results in backpressure on
tion lifecycle, from the reservoir through from a gas condensate reservoir, the first the wellhead and reduced well produc-
processing and refining, to ensure that obstacle that may be faced is how to de- tion. In the worst-case scenario, hydrates
hydrocarbons can be moved from the
reservoir to the refinery smoothly and
without interruption.
Flow assurance is a diverse field, en-
compassing many discrete and special-
ized subjects, and bridging the full series
of engineering disciplines. Financial loss-
es from production interruption or asset
damage due to flow assurance mishaps
can be astronomical.
According to the American Petroleum
Institute (API), the term flow assurance
can be used to cover a wide range of flow-
related issues,1 including:
1. Hydrates formation
2. Wax formation
3. Asphaltene formation
4. Emulsions
5. Foaming
6. Scale formation
FIG. 1. WASCO field pipeline gathering system.
7. Sand production
Gas Processing & LNG | MAY/JUNE 2018 21
SPECIAL FOCUS: PIPELINES AND TRANSPORTATION
formation will kill the well. The predic-
tion of hydrates formation in pipelines
helps evaluate the problem and select the
proper solution for solving it.
Producing a solids-free fluid may cause
erosion to the pipeline if the fluid flow ve-
locity exceeds a specific value. The deter-
mination of this value is important for the
proper sizing of flow lines and the correct
selection of an erosion rate for the pipes.
The change in network parameters,
such as pressure, holdup or rates with
time, is referred to as the transient state.
Considering time as a parameter itself is
important, as it affects the design of the
pipeline in the network and/or the pro-
cessing facilities. Ramping up the exist-
ing wells or introducing new wells to the
network requires design consideration
of the expected amount of liquid holdup
P LNG
GAS PROCESSING LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS
Existing gas pipelines (solid lines) and proposed gas pipelines (dotted lines) in Egypt. Map courtesy of Energy Web Atlas, www.energywebatlas.com
22 MAY/JUNE 2018 | GasProcessingNews.com
in pipelines and the ability of processing
facilities to handle the anticipated slugs.
These slugs cannot be estimated without
considering the time factor.
The design engineer must consider
the maximum allowable working pres-
sure (MAWP) of the pipelines while
designing the network. The network
MAWP can be reached and exceeded
in case of the emergency closure of net-
work delivery points to the downstream
processing facility. Considering this case
in design is crucial, as it may cause pipe
blowing that leads to fire and explosions.
Pipeline pigging. Accumulated liquid
in pipelines will cause an increase in pres-
sure drop. This drop can be translated as a
loss in energy. This loss must be compen-
sated, resulting in higher cost. Moreover,
Energy Web Atlas
accumulated water in pipes will increase
the corrosion rate of the pipes. This liq-
uid accumulation should be regularly re-
moved from the pipe, using a pig.
A solid sphere with a diameter slightly
less than the pipe diameter is inserted
into the pipe and pushed, by some pres-
sure source, to sweep the liquid ahead of
it. The swept liquid should be accurately
estimated to decide whether the existing
facilities can handle the slug flow from the
pig, or if an external handling facility is re-
quired to process and store the slug.
The timing of a pigging operation is
a crucial parameter in the process, and
is used to anticipate the pig reaching the
end of the pipeline. If the predetermined
time is exceeded, then the pig is expected
to be stuck in the pipeline, and other pro-
cedures must be taken to retrieve it.
 SPECIAL FOCUS: PIPELINES AND TRANSPORTATION

WASCO field production modeling.
El-Wastani Petroleum Co. (WASCO) is a
JV between Egyptian Natural Gas Hold-
ing Co. (EGAS) and Dana Gas Co. It was
established in 2002 to produce sales gas
and raw condensate from the El-Wastani
field. The company was then expanded
to produce from several other fields. The
production is then gathered to the central
processing facility (CPF) for gas treatment
and NGL recovery and stabilization.
The producing fields extend more
than 40 mi through three concessions:
Menzala, West Menzala and West Qa-
ntara. The producing fields include El-
Wastani, Dabayya, Bassant, Sharabas,
Faraskur, Abu El-Naga, Salma and Bal-
sam. Each field contains between one and
seven producing wells. At present, there
are 32 live, producing wells. The wellhead
pressure range is 240 psi (16.5 barg)–
4,750 psi (327.5 barg). The gas flowrate
range is 0.5 MMsft3d–28 MMsft3d, with a
condensate-to-gas ratio (CGR) of 4 bbl/
MMsft3–90 bbl/MMsft3 and a water cut
range of 0%–90%.
company used a commercial software from the actual data (up to 40% error).
program with a transient, multiphase This deflection came from the fact that
flow simulator. The model collects data the model used the PVT data as a cal-
from day-to-day activities, production culation base. The PVT samples were
logs, company archives and manufac- taken during the early production phase
turer manuals. The collected data is then of the wells (2006–2010), while the test
sorted and filtered to eliminate irrel- data was gathered in September 2016. To
evant data. The data used for the study overcome this issue, the model was tuned
are pipeline length and inside diameter using the actual CGR and water cut. A
(ID), well depth and flowrate, CGR, and rerun was performed, giving an error of
pressure–volume–temperature (PVT) less than 10% from the actual production
analysis. The source nodes of the net- data. This means that the model was reli-
work are assumed to be downstream of able and ready for further study.
the nodal compression stations and the The flow assurance study was per-
separation packages for the high-water- formed on the network for the present
cut wells. flowing conditions. The parameters stud-
Model results. The first run showed ied were pressure drop, flow regimes, liq-
a great deflection of the model results uid holdup, slug flow, erosion velocity and
950
900
850
Pressure, psig

The pipe network connects the fields’

wells and transfers the production to the
CPF shown in FIG. 1. Each field’s wells are 800
grouped together and gathered to one
manifold. The fields’ manifolds are then
connected through main trunklines. The 750
network consists of carbon steel pipes S-Far-1 MFD Sharabas MFD Azhar MFD Azhar VR CPF MFD
with nominal diameters ranging from 6
in.–12 in. For pipes connecting wells with 700
manifolds, 6-in. pipes are used, while 12- 0 15,953 30,172 50,577 62,468 64,791 90,383
Distance, ft
in. pipes are used for the main trunklines.
For the main production header that con- FIG. 2. Pressure profile across trunklines in the system, calculated from the model.
nects the main manifold to the CPF, a 16-
in. pipeline is used. 80
The well production is limited by the
CPF design capacity of 200 MMsft3d and 70
the inlet pressure of 782 psig. Fixed and
adjustable chokes are used to reduce the 60
flowing wellhead pressure to a suitable
value; meanwhile, two nodal compres- 50
sion stations, each with a capacity of 20
Liquid holdup, %

MMsft3d, are used to raise the pressure 40

of the low-pressure wells. The system has
three high-water-cut wells that produce 30
more than 80%. The high-water-cut wells
are diverted to a two-phase separator at 20
the wellsite to separate the water from the
gas and condensate to protect the pipe- 10
lines from corrosion.
0
A mathematical model is required to 3.50 4.10 6.56 6.73 7.22 7.89 9.46 11.34 13.91 14.98 15.67 24.58
simulate the WASCO pipeline network Gas velocity, ft/sec
at different conditions and scenarios. To
FIG. 3. Liquid holdup, percentage vs. gas velocity, ft/sec.
construct and simulate the model, the
Gas Processing & LNG | MAY/JUNE 2018 23
SPECIAL FOCUS: PIPELINES AND TRANSPORTATION

TABLE 1. Summary of the simulation results for the existing flow condition

Length, Diameter, DP, Pressure drop gradient, Flow Maximum liquid Max surge Hydrate difference
Flowline EVR
ft in. psi psi/1,000 ft regime holdup, % volume, bbl temperature, °F

FL_1 33 12 0 0 Stratified 4 0.043 0.067 –39

FL_2 5,840 6 1.476 0.253 Stratified/slug 34 0.158 0.076 –51

FL_3 328 6 0.032 0.097 Stratified 4 0.003 0.061 –38

FL_4 328 6 0.141 0.429 Stratified 3 0.001 0.13 –43
FL_5 8,202 6 4.86 0.593 Stratified/slug 25 0.101 0.131 –43
FL_6 1,4764 6 8.605 0.583 Stratified/slug 25 0.117 0.131 –43
FL_7 328 6 0.149 0.455 Stratified 4 0.001 0.132 –51
FL_8 2,297 6 1.447 0.63 Stratified/slug 26 0.217 0.123 –44
FL_9 328 6 0.159 0.486 Stratified 5 0.002 0.136 –44
FL_10 7,448 6 2.464 0.331 Stratified/slug 34 0.269 0.09 –24
FL_11 3,937 6 6.535 1.66 Stratified/slug 17 0.022 0.221 –19
FL_12 4,101 6 1.334 0.325 Stratified/slug 38 0.364 0.08 –6
FL_13 2,2310 6 6.774 0.304 Stratified/slug 35 0.22 0.091 –10
FL_14 328 6 0.425 1.296 Stratified 10 0.022 0.222 –41
FL_15 328 6 0.215 0.654 Stratified 7 0.005 0.158 –30
FL_16 1,181 6 0.651 0.551 Stratified/slug 35 0.182 0.093 –7
FL_17 6,890 6 2.946 0.428 Stratified/slug 32 0.216 0.105 –35
FL_18 1,7717 6 42.117 2.377 Stratified 10 0.018 0.27 –31
FL_19 328 4 0.048 0.146 Stratified 5 0.004 0.076 –28
FL_20 6,890 4 1.365 0.198 Stratified/slug 45 0.143 0.048 –42
FL_21 11,155 4/6 11.076 0.993 Stratified 36 0.036 0.189 –18
FL_23 19,685 6 1.839 0.093 Stratified/slug 70 0.066 0.025 –12
FL_24 328 6 0.2 0.61 Stratified 11 0.014 0.152 –26
FL_25 10,663 6 28.447 2.668 Stratified 13 0.009 0.283 –27
FL_26 10,860 6 22.39 2.062 Stratified/slug 17 0.011 0.248 –26
FL_27 8,202 12 64.873 7.909 Stratified 7 0.044 0.492 –41
FL_28 4,921 6 1.025 0.208 Stratified/slug 55 0 0.041 –25
FL_29 3,937 8 1.085 0.276 Stratified/slug 69 0.38 0.024 –25
TL_0 131 16 0.284 2.17 Stratified 5 3.481 0.602 –29
TL_1 24,934 12 3.382 0.136 Stratified/slug 41 2.378 0.087 –41
TL_2 55,774 6 55.909 1.002 Stratified/slug 20 0.082 0.172 –37
TL_3 21,326 6 75.81 3.555 Stratified 5 0.024 0.334 –17
TL_4 21,326 6 75.896 3.559 Stratified 5 0.024 0.334 –17
TL_5 62,336 12 22.677 0.364 Stratified/slug 32 1.311 0.153 –30
TL_6 36,089 12 30.621 0.848 Stratified/slug 21 0.585 0.236 –26
TL_7 75,459 12 6.582 0.087 Stratified/slug 51 0.023 0.068 –19
TL_8 77,100 12 6.744 0.087 Stratified/slug 50 3.138 0.068 –19
TL_9 55,774 12 84.11 1.508 Stratified/slug 16 0.07 0.32 –30
TL-10 41,010 12 29.047 0.708 Stratified/slug 20 0.243 0.217 –28
TL_11 41,010 12 29.047 0.708 Stratified/slug 20 0.243 0.217 –28
TL_12 41,010 6 29.082 0.709 Stratified/slug 24 0.106 0.145 –28
TL_13 2,526 12 2.367 0.937 Stratified/slug 20 0.826 0.235 –28
TL_14 2,526 12 2.367 0.937 Stratified/slug 20 0.826 0.235 –28
TL_15 39,370 12 34.351 0.873 Stratified/slug 19 0.667 0.241 –27
TL_16 39,370 12 34.351 0.873 Stratified/slug 19 0.667 0.241 –27

24 MAY/JUNE 2018 | GasProcessingNews.com
 SPECIAL FOCUS: PIPELINES AND TRANSPORTATION

hydrates formation. The results are sum-
marized in TABLE 1.
From the data in TABLE 1, Flowline 27
(“FL_27”) has the highest pressure drop
gradient. Flowline 27 transports gas with
a high flowrate (27 MMsft3d) and with
a high CGR (51 bbl/MMsft3), which
causes a high pressure drop. Trunkline
3 (“TL_3”) and Trunkline 4 (“TL_4”)
have the highest pressure drop among the
trunklines, due to the small pipe diam-
eter (6 in.), compared to the flowrate (40
MMsft3d). The pressure profile across
the main trunkline starting from the S-
Faraskur-1 manifold to the CPF manifold
is shown in FIG. 2.
The results show that slug flow is ex-
pected at the end of some branches. This
is due to the hilly terrain effect of the
ture. Hydrates formation is more likely the excess production.
to occur in marine fields, where the tem- Several boundaries must not be ig-
perature falls below the hydrates-forming nored when selecting the maximum flow-
temperature at operating pressure, as the rate for the network:
operating pressure is usually high. 1. The pressure in the pipeline must
Scenario simulation. The model can not exceed the MAWP of the pipe
be used to simulate hypothetical scenarios. material (in this case, 1440 psig).
One scenario is to calculate the maximum 2. The pressure of the network must
capacity of the existing network to deter- not exceed the lowest shut-in
mine whether the network is capable of wellhead pressure (SIWHP) of
handling an increase in production, or if the producing well; otherwise, the
looping the pipelines is required to handle WHP of the wells will equalize
800 25,000
Gas production rate
700 Condensate production rate
Water production rate 20,000
600
500 15,000
Gas rate, MMsft3d

Liquid rate, bpd

pipelines. The pipelines are buried under-
ground, while the connecting manifolds 400
are aboveground. The elevation differ- 300 10,000
ence is approximately 10 ft, which causes
the slug flow. 200
TABLE 1 suggests a direct relationship 5,000
between the gas velocity and the liquid 100
holdup in a pipeline. As the gas velocity 0 0
increases, liquid holdup decreases (FIG. 3). Individual fields The whole network Flow assurance
The results indicate that a maximum hy-
FIG. 4. Comparison between production rates for maximum network capacity at each simulation
drodynamic surge volume of 3.4 bbl of liq- case.
uid is expected at the inlet of the plant. The
processing facility should be designed to
handle such a volume. The surge volume is TABLE 2. Summary of pigging operation for the main trunkline
small and can be handled by any process- Nominal Pig average Pigging Recovered
ing facility, but in the case of a large surge Trunkline Length, ft
diameter, in. speed, ft/sec. time, min. liquid, bbl
volume, the condition is critical.
TL_1 24,934 12 4.9 83.1 116
The erosion velocity ratio (EVR) is
the ratio between the flow velocity and TL_2 55,774 6 9.2 100.3 67
the erosion velocity of the pipe. If the TL_3 21,325 6 16.7 21.5 26
EVR > 1, then erosion is expected. If the
EVR < 1, then there is no erosion in the TL_4 21,325 6 16.7 21.5 26
pipeline. TABLE 1 shows that the erosion TL_5 62,336 12 7.2 143.5 500
of pipes due to fluid flow is not expected
under the present conditions. TL_6 36,089 12 11.5 52.7 269
The hydrates formation prediction is TL_7 75,459 12 3.3 374 896
calculated by the difference between the
hydrates formation temperature and the TL_8 77,100 12 3.3 381.3 782
fluid flow temperature for the specific TL_9 55,774 12 15.1 61.4 441
pressure. If the difference is positive, then
hydrates formation is expected. If the dif- TL_10 41,011 12 10.8 63.5 248
ference is negative, then hydrates are not TL_11 41,011 12 10.8 63.4 249
expected to form. The results show that
TL_12 41,011 6 6.9 98 69
no hydrates are expected for the present
flowing condition at the assumed ambient TL_13 2,526 12 11.8 3.6 16
temperature. These results are expected,
TL_14 2,526 12 11.8 3.6 16
as the ambient temperature in the fields
region is quite moderate and does not TL_15 39,370 12 12.1 53.7 224
fall to the hydrates-forming temperature
TL_16 39,370 12 12.1 53.7 224
for the operating pressure and tempera-
Gas Processing & LNG | MAY/JUNE 2018 25
SPECIAL FOCUS: PIPELINES AND TRANSPORTATION

with the network pressure, and the

Time (s)7 ,609.4
wells will cease to flow.
1,400 3. The flow speed in the network
PI (psig) (TL O pipe-1.1) Pressure 1,440.43
must not exceed the design
1,300 EVR. Erosion in the pipeline is
expected if the flow speed exceeds
1,200 that value, thereby reducing the
Pressure, psig

lifetime of the network.

1,100 4. The flow temperature should be
high enough to avoid hydrates
1,000 formation.
To simulate the selection of the maxi-
900 mum flowrate, taking into account these
boundaries, the network is divided ac-
800 cording to the six producing fields: El-
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 Wastani, Bassant, Balsam, Faraskur, South
Time, sec
Abu El-Naga (SAEN) and Salma. The
FIG. 5. CPF pressure with time. production of each field is gathered and
sent through a main trunkline. The maxi-
mum capacity for each trunkline is calcu-
1,100 lated separately and used to determine the
22,000 maximum capacity of the network. A flow
20,000 1,000 assurance study is then performed for the
18,000 900 new flowrates.
FIG. 4 shows a comparison of the maxi-

Total liquid content in branch, bbl

16,000
Pig total distance traveled, ft

800 mum capacity of the network while consid-

14,000 ering single fields, the entirety of the fields
700
12,000 and the flow assurance study to the net-
10,000 600 work. The dramatic drop in the calculated
8,000
maximum capacity is due to the expected
500
erosion in the main 16-in. trunkline due to
6,000
400 high gas velocity. Looping that trunkline
4,000 with another 16-in. trunkline will prevent
2,000 300 erosion and increase the maximum capac-
0 200 ity of the network.
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 Another scenario is the emergency
Time, sec
shutdown (ESD) case, which assumes
FIG. 6. Pigging operation example for trunklines. that an emergency has occurred in the
CPF that requires an ESD. This shutdown
will cause the CPF inlet feed to cease.
1,100 The wells will continue to produce un-
912
Saima-4 til they reach their SIWHP. Some of the
910 1,000 wells have an SIWHP that is less than the
908 Saima-3
900 MAWP of the network pipelines. Other
wells have an SIWHP greater than the
Total liquid content in branch, bbl

906 Saima-5 N-Saima-1

800 MAWP of the pipelines.
904 During an ESD, the high-pressure
Pressure, psig

Saima-2 700
902 wells will continue flowing and cause the
600 network pressure to reach the MAWP.
900
This can result in pipeline explosion and
898 500 severe damage to assets, the environment
896 400 and people. The time frame for the net-
work pressure to reach the MAWP must
894
300 be determined to avoid such a scenario.
892 The previous scenario can be modeled
200
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 to determine when the network pressure
Time, sec reaches the MAWP. It is assumed that the
model will run normally for 120 sec, and
FIG. 7. Effect of pigging operation for trunklines on source node pressure.
then the ESD valve will close in 60 sec.
26 MAY/JUNE 2018 | GasProcessingNews.com

FIG. 5 shows the CPF pressure with time.
The MAWP of the network pipeline will
be reached after 7,429 sec (124 min).
Another scenario that requires the
transient simulation is the pigging opera-
tion. Pigs are used for the internal clean-
ing of the pipelines to remove rust, sand,
scale and any solid deposits. Pigs are also
used to sweep out the excess liquid that
has settled at the bottom section of the
pipes to minimize the pressure drop re-
sults from the multiphase flow.
In this scenario, pigging opera-
tions must be performed for the main
trunklines to remove settled liquid in
pipes, along with any other solid deposits,
to minimize the pressure drop. After the
pigging operation is completed, liquid
slug is expected. This slug should be cal-
culated so that the proper separation and
storage facilities are in place to handle this
slug at the pig receiving point.
FIG. 6 shows an example of pig perfor-
mance, including the position of the pig
and the liquid content in the trunkline
with time. The liquid content in the branch
(red line) starts at the original value and
then declines rapidly as the pig reaches
the end of the line. After the pig reaches
the trap at the end of the line, the liquid
(water and condensate) starts to build up
again in the pipeline. FIG. 6 also shows the
position of the pig in the pipeline (black
line) with time. The effect of pigging op-
erations on pressure drop can be seen in
FIG. 7 from the relationship between the
liquid content and the upstream pressure.
As the CPF pressure is constant, the drop
in upstream pressure is due to the drop in
liquid content in the pipeline. TABLE 2 sum-
marizes the pigging operation of the main
trunklines, including the pig speed, pigging
time and recovered liquid.
Takeaway. The results show that the
highest pressure drop occurred in the
pipeline with the highest gas flowrate and
liquid content. The hilly terrain was also
found to have affected the flow regime of
most of the pipelines, while the gas veloc-
ity in the pipelines directly affected the
liquid holdup.
Results also indicated that the expect-
ed surge volumes from the network at the
existing flowrates are relatively small, and
that the processing facilities can handle
them. No hydrates formation is expected
in the network under the existing flowrate
conditions and the ambient temperature.
SPECIAL FOCUS: PIPELINES AND TRANSPORTATION
Also, the network flow velocity is ade- The presented model is reliable and
quate, and no erosion is expected. ready for use in further flow assurance stud-
Furthermore, the maximum capacity ies, such as ramp-up scenarios, pipeline de-
of the network is dramatically reduced, pressurizing scenarios and others. GP
due to expected erosion velocity in the
main trunkline. During ESD, the time for EMAD EL-DIN M. RABEEA is a
Senior Process Engineer at WASCO
the network pipelines to reach MAWP is and a Flow Assurance Researcher at
124 min, for the existing flow conditions. the Department of Engineering at
Using this model, the surge volume ex- Cairo University, where he is
pected from each trunkline during pig- pursuing his master’s degree. He
has 9 yr of experience in the oil and
ging operations can be calculated, along gas industry, with seven of them spent in gas
with the pigging time and the pig speed. processing engineering at WASCO. Mr. Rabeea has
participated in several projects at WASCO, including
major shutdowns and commissioning of new projects.
Recommendations. Following the study
He has also helped increase company production by
performed, it is recommended to carry out participating in projects to revive old wells. He holds a
regular flow assurance studies with up-to- BSc degree in petroleum engineering from Suez
date data to assess the existing gathering University and is a NEBOSH IGC-certified engineer.
system and forecast future drawbacks. DR. A. ABDEL-WALY is a
The PVT analysis should be updated Professor of Oil and Gas Engineering
regularly to stay current with the changes at Cairo University in the Petroleum
in composition of the produced fluid and Department. Previously, he worked
as a consultant for OSOCO Co., and
its effect on the gathering system. Pig- as an Associate Professor at KSU
ging operations should be performed on a in Saudi Arabia. He holds an MSc
regular basis to increase the integrity and degree and a PhD in petroleum engineering, both from
Cairo University. Dr. Abdel-Waly has supervised many
readability of the pipeline. Also, network MSc and PhD theses, as well as published several
looping is an option to increase the capac- papers in the field of oil and gas reservoir and
ity of the existing gathering system. production engineering.
SUBSCRIBE TODAY AND STAY AHEAD OF THE GAME
Through print, online, e-newsletters and associated
events, Gas Processing & LNG covers the latest
advances in processing technology and equipment
developments, market insights and trends in the
global gas processing industry.
Sign Up for a Free Trial!
Visit GasProcessingNews.com
Gas Processing & LNG | MAY/JUNE 2018 27