Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 15

Tanzania gas development – flow assurance challenges

H Holm
Statoil ASA, Norway

ABSTRACT

The subsea gas development in Block 2 offshore Tanzania described in this paper is
characterized by water depths of up to 2600 meters and tie-back distance to shore of
around 100 km. The seabed outside East Africa consists of deep, large scale canyons
and steep inclinations towards shore. The reservoir fluids contain very little condensate
and the pipeline flow is typically low liquid loading conditions at high water fractions.

The key focus of the work presented at the previous BHR conference in 2015 was related
to liquid accumulation. However, this work also revealed that

 frictional pressure drop increases significantly with high water fractions,


 existing flow models severely under predicts frictional pressure drop at high water
fractions, and they are not able to predict the effect of water fraction on the frictional
pressure drop
 little experimental data exist for such conditions (low liquid loading, three-phase
flow at high superficial gas velocities).

The key focus of these presentations is hence related to frictional pressure drop in low
liquid loading at high water fractions.

To support model development and model verification experiments were conducted in a


4-inch ID 50m-high riser at the Tiller test facility in Norway. The data revealed
interesting and unexpected phenomena with respect to frictional pressure drop for high
water fractions.

Also, as part of value improvement process the Tanzania project has evaluated
replacement of the subsea Wet Gas Meters with a Virtual Metering System only. A study
was conducted to evaluate the expected accuracy and uncertainties of a model based
Virtual Flow Metering system (VFM) for Tanzania specific operating conditions.
Reliable prediction of pressure drop is crucial for such a system.

This paper gives an overview of the Tanzania deep water gas development with focus on
the flow assurance challenges relating to a potential subsea to beach concept and the
background, motivation and high level results from the conducted work, while the
“three-phase vertical flow experiments (SINTEF)”, the model development and
verification (Schlumberger) and the Virtual Metering study (FMC) are presented in detail
in separate papers.

© BHR Group 18 MPT 2017 439


1 INTRODUCTION

The Tanzania Gas Project (TGP) is located in Block 2 approximately 100km offshore
Tanzania in East Africa. Locations of the Block 2 discoveries are shown in Figure 1.

Statoil Tanzania AS is the operator in Block 2 with 65% interest, with ExxonMobil as a
partner with 35% interest. Shell is the operator of blocks 1, 3 and 4.

As of 1Q 2017, eight reservoirs have been discovered in Block 2: Zafarani, Lavani Main,
Lavani Deep, Tangawizi, Mronge, Mdalasini, Giligiliani and Piri.

Block 4

Block 3

Block 1

Statoil 65% (operator), ExxonMobil 35% (Co -venturer)


Figure 1 Field location

2 FIELD DEVELOPMENT

The seabed outside East Africa is characterized by deep water and large scale canyons
and channels (see Figure 2) that challenge pipeline technology and canyons crossings.
Water depth at the field is ranging from 2,200 to 2,600 metres.

The field consists of several reservoirs with different reservoir conditions and different
reservoir fluids.

The selected development concept for Tanzania Block 2 is a subsea production system
tied back to an onshore LNG facility via a multiphase phase flow pipeline system.

The field layout and large scale seabed topography is illustrated in Figure 2.

440 © BHR Group 18 MPT 2017


Production capacity is still being evaluated, but will be typically in the range of 1-2 LNG
trains depending on the train size.

Figure 2 Field location and large scale seabed topography

3 FLOW ASSURANCE CHALLENGES

The long distance subsea tie-back to shore development of Tanzania Block 2 introduces
some new challenges compared to previous subsea tie-backs such as Ormen Lange (ref
/1/) and Snøhvit (ref /2/) in the North Sea:

• Water depth (~2,500 metres), but «significant» local differences in water depth at
the field;
• Large scale topography – smooth, but steep inclinations (+4 to +5 degrees) due to
water depth;
• Steep escarpment in near shore area (20-30 degrees);
• High surface sea water temperature (+30 oC);
• Commingled production from in-homogenous reservoirs (P, T, CGR);
• Low liquid loading;
• Risk of formation water.

Water depth and seabed topography

Although the seabed in between the large scale canyons is quite benign, the pipeline is
quite steep due to the water depth. Typical pipeline inclinations are +4 to +5 degrees.
Locally and at the steep escarpment next to shore it may be even steeper. However, the
uncertainties often introduced to the multiphase modelling due to large uncertainties in
the pipeline profile are negligible in our case.

© BHR Group 18 MPT 2017 441


“Significant» local differences in water depth at the field may introduce significant static
head in the infield flow lines if liquid accumulation should occur due to low flow in the
individual flow lines. In addition, accumulation of MEG may introduce a hydrate risk
further downstream as there may not be sufficient MEG to inhibit the water condensing
further downstream of the location of MEG accumulation. Hence also operation within
the operational envelope of the infield flow lines is important, and proper operating
procedures for turndown/ramp-down of production in individual infield flow lines may
be as important as for the multiphase pipeline to shore. The “significant» local
differences in water depth at the field also important to consider when it comes to
hydraulic analysis of the MEG injection system and design pressures, as the differences
in static head in the MEG system may be up to 30 bar locally at the field.

The water depth also contributes to challenge hydrate remediation by depressurization


over a 100 km distance, as the static head of potential liquid remaining in the pipeline
and/or infield flow lines may be significant depending of the location of the liquid,
which again may be amplified by increased static head of the gas column.

High surface sea water temperature

The sea water surface temperature is approximately 30 oC while the sea water
temperature in deep water is down to +3 to +4 oC. Hence the gas temperature will first
cool down to approximately +3 oC and then start to increase when approaching shore,
depending on the pipeline configuration (coating, trenched w/wo backfill, burial etc.).
The onshore arrival temperature may hence be as high as +20 to +30 oC.

Commingled production from in-homogenous reservoirs

The individual flowing wellhead pressures depend on initial reservoir pressure, in-place
gas volumes, reservoir properties, timing of starting production and the depletion of each
reservoir/gas offtake from each reservoir. In addition, aquifer with corresponding
pressure support may influence the pressure development differently in the individual
reservoirs. The challenge is to establish a production strategy that ensures that all wells
maintain the minimum flowing wellhead pressure required to flow to shore without
offshore pressure support (compression) as long as possible, and at the same time
maintain production within the operational envelope of all infield flow lines and the
pipeline to shore.

Large differences in reservoir temperatures lead to large variation in gas water saturation
and MEG injection requirements, which again leads to large variations in the water cut /
aqueous phase volumetric flow rate in the infield flow lines and multiphase pipeline to
shore as a function of production rate from each reservoir.

Large differences in flowing wellhead pressures also impose some challenges on the
MEG injection system. All wells are served from the same MEG injection system and a
common MEG injection pressure, and hence the MEG injection pressure need to be high
enough to serve the strongest wells, leading to high differential pressures across the
MEG dosage valves (up to approximately 350 bara) which may introduce challenges
with respect to controllability of the MEG injection rates depending on the final type of
dosage valves.

Potential variations in condensate to gas ratio (CGR) between the reservoirs will,
together with the variations in water/MEG flow rates, influence the liquid loading of the

442 © BHR Group 18 MPT 2017


infield flow lines and the pipeline to shore which again will affect the liquid holdup in
the system, the time it takes to accumulate liquid and the operational envelope of the
system.

The selected subsea system architecture has limited operational flexibility to handle
these aspects, and hence a more stringent production strategy combined with robust
operational procedures is required.

Low liquid loading + steep inclination

As a consequence of the very dry reservoir fluids and the steep inclinations the flow in
the in-field flow lines and the pipeline to shore will operate at conditions where multiple
holdup solutions may exist. This phenomenon introduces challenges when it comes to
multiphase flow modelling and the reliability of the flow models to predict liquid
accumulation, which was the main topic of the presentations at the 17th International
Conference on Multiphase Production Technology, 2015 ( ref /14/, /15/, /16/, /17/ and
/18/.

Low liquid loading – high water cut

The combined effect of very low content of condensate combined with relatively high
reservoir temperature / high water saturation of the gas results in high water cuts at
typical pipeline operating conditions. Experiments carried out both in 8’’ near horizontal
pipe and in a 4-inch ID 50m-high riser at the SINTEF Large Scale Multiphase Flow
Laboratory in Norway revealed interesting and unexpected phenomena with respect to
frictional pressure drop for high water fractions. This is the key topic of this paper and is
further discussed in chapter 5, and in ref /18/ and /20/.

Typical operational conditions along Tanzania pipelines at friction dominated flow rates
in terms of local water cut and superficial liquid velocities are shown in Figure 8.

Maximum condensate dropout for the different reservoirs fluid occurs at low pressures,
typically 50-60 bara (ref Figure 3) i.e very little condensate exists at the inlet of the
pipeline. This, in combination with high reservoir temperature / high water saturation
and MEG injection, results in high water cuts at the pipeline inlet decreasing along the
pipeline as condensate condenses from the gas. The actual production may be any
combination of the different reservoir fluids. Hence the three-phase effects needed to be
investigated in a systematically manner, as will be further discussed in chapter 5.

Risk of formation water

Some of the reservoirs seem have a strong aquifer and a potential risk of water
breakthrough. Potential production of formation water is a challenge with respect MEG
injection capacity, MEG recovery, liquid accumulation in the pipeline / operational
envelope of total production system and reduced gas production. The formation water
handling strategy is summarized in chapter 4.4.

© BHR Group 18 MPT 2017 443


250
Zafarani Zafarani-1
Tangawizi
Lavani Main
Lavani
200 Lavani Deep Lavani Deep & Piri
Pipeline Tangawizi

Condensate dropout (g/kg)


Pressure (bara)

150

100
NOTES:
1) Temperature: +5 C
50

0
-100 -50 0 50 100 150 0 50 100 150 200 250
Temperature (C) Pressure (bara)

Figure 3 Typical phase envelopes and range of condensate dropout versus


pressure at seabed temperature for the different reservoir fluids

0,010 1,0
Watercut 0,9

0,008 0,8
Superficial velocity (m/s)

0,7
Superficial velocity Liquid

Watercut (%)
0,006 0,6

0,5

0,004 0,4
Superficial velocity water+MEG
0,3

0,002 Superficial velocity oil 0,2

0,1

0,000 0,0
0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000
Distance (m)

Figure 4 Typical superficial liquid velocities and local water cut along the pipeline
at 100% flow. (At reduced flowrates and/or other combinations of reservoir fluids,
the superficial liquid velocities may be significantly lower or higher)

4 FLOW ASSURANCE STRATEGIES

As the key focus are of this paper is related to flow modelling and verification of the
flow modelling, the key flow assurance strategies are only briefly described in the
following. In general, the flow assurance strategies are quite similar to other
gas/condensate tie-backs.

444 © BHR Group 18 MPT 2017


4.1 Hydrate management
The primary hydrate prevention strategy is continuous MEG injection. The MEG will be
injected at each individual well.

The primary hydrate remediation strategy is by depressurization.

The overall hydrate management strategy is to prioritize hydrate prevention, rather than
remediation as hydrate remediation in this kind of water depth may be challenging.

4.2 Corrosion management


The corrosion protection strategy is by pH stabilization. The pH stabilizer will be
blended and injected together with the MEG.

Operational pigging of the infield flow lines may be eliminated by utilizing Corrosion
Resistant Alloy (CRA) line pipe for all infield flow lines, which is being considered.

4.3 Liquid holdup management


The in-field flow lines and the multiphase pipeline(s) to shore have been sized to provide
approximately 50% turndown. The onshore slug catcher upstream the LNG facilities is
sized to handle liquid transients during ramp up and startup after shutdown from any
condition within the operational envelope of the system.

The primary liquid holdup management strategy is to operate within the operational
envelope(s) of the in-field flow lines and the multiphase pipeline(s) to shore.

Minimum turndown of the subsea production system is affected by the pipeline operating
pressure. Onshore pre-compression will be installed late life primarily for plateau
extension, but it will also improve the turndown flexibility during tail-end production.

4.4 Formation water handling strategy


The water handling strategy is based on choking back and/or shut down wells that start
producing formation water.

The MEG injection and recovery system design with respect to formation water handling
capacity is based on expected formation water detection accuracy including a certain
design margin.

5 MULTIPHASE FLOW MODELLING AND MODEL VERIFICATION

5.1.1 General
Reliable multiphase flow simulations are crucial for development as the Tanzania Gas
Development Project.

Experience and results from the flow model verification work carried out by the
Tanzania Gas Development Project ( /14/,/15/,/16/,/17/,/18/,/19/,/20/,/22/) revealed the
following key challenges related to multiphase flow and multiphase flow modelling in
the low liquid loading domain:

1) Multiple holdup conditions and liquid accumulation;


2) Three-phase flow effects on the frictional pressure drop at high superficial gas
velocities.

© BHR Group 18 MPT 2017 445


Low liquid loading in this context can be defined as flow at conditions where multiple
holdup conditions exist in upwardly inclined pipes (ref Figure 6), and where the liquid
holdup jumps from a low liquid holdup to a high holdup solution at a critical superficial
gas velocity, i.e. at the accumulation point.

5.1.2 Multiple holdup conditions and liquid accumulation


The key focus of the initial work was related to liquid accumulation in two- and three-
phase flow with low liquid loading, and diameter scaling effects. The key results of this
work can be found in /14/,/15/,/16/,/17/,/18/,/19/,/20/and /22/ and is not further discussed
in this paper.

However, one of the key conclusions from this work was that the OLGAHD was proven
to be the most suitable flow model compared to the “standard OLGA”, and hence
selected as the preferred flow model for the Tanzania Gas Project. The “standard
OLGA” was shown to have several weaknesses for low liquid loading and steep
inclinations compared to the OLGAHD model, while the OLGAHD after tuning of the
model showed excellent results with respect to liquid accumulation, both for two-phase
flow and three-phase flow conditions (ref Figure 7).

Based on this work, the uncertainties in predictions of the liquid accumulation in the
pipelines to shore for the Tanzania Gas Project (ref Figure 5) were significantly reduced.

250 10000
240 NOTES:
1) Mchinga route, 26" nom 9000
230 2) Zafarani + Lavani mixture
220 4) OLGA 7.2 OLGAHD 8000
210
200 Operational envelope 7000

Liquid holdup (m3)


190 6000
Pressure (bara)

180
5000
170
160 Gravity Friction 4000
150
3000
140
130 2000
120 Liquid holdup
(condensate + water + MEG) 1000
110
100 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Gas (MSm3/sd)

Figure 5 Typical pipeline hydraulic characteristics

446 © BHR Group 18 MPT 2017


Holdup
• Ormen Lange
• Snøhvit
High • Other «typical» gas condensate fields

Multiple
holdup
region Middle

Low

Accumulation point USG

Figure 6 Multiple holdup region and liquid accumulation point in flow with low
liquid loading

Figure 7 Liquid accumulation point as function of liquid loading, pipe diameter


and pipe inclination

5.1.3 Three-phase flow effects on the frictional pressure drop at high superficial
gas velocities
However, during the low liquid loading liquid accumulation experimental campaign
some experiments were also extended to include high superficial gas velocities in order
to obtain some pressure drop measurements (ref Figure 8). These experiments showed
some unexpected three-phase flow effects. The experiments showed that the frictional
pressure drop were significantly higher in three-phase flow than for both two-phase
gas/oil and two-phase gas/water flows. However, these three-phase effects were not
captured by any of the existing OLGA models. The OLGA models, including OLGAHD

© BHR Group 18 MPT 2017 447


significantly under-predicted the measured frictional pressure drop at high water cuts,
while the frictional pressure drop in two-phase flow were predicted very well.

To support further model development and model verification, experiments were


conducted in a 4-inch ID 50m-high vertical riser at the Tiller test facility in Norway to
investigate the three-phase flow effects on frictional pressure drop. The vertical riser
was the only test facility available at the time. Similar experiments will be conducted in
the 8’’ near horizontal test facility this year.

Three different kind of trends where defined for the experimental campaign:

1) Sensitivity of water cut at fixed superficial liquid and gas velocities;


2) Sensitivity of superficial liquid velocity at fixed water cut and superficial gas
velocity;
3) Sensitivity of superficial gas velocity at fixed water cut and superficial liquid
velocity.

The results are summarized in Figure 9, and explained in detail in ref /19/ and /20/.

However, the key findings are:

• Experiments show that frictional pressure drop increases significantly with high
water fractions, compared to two-phase flow;
• the OLGA models were not able to capture the three-phase effects on frictional
pressure drop;
• The OLGAHD model under predicts the frictional pressure drop in horizontal three-
phase flow at high water cut;
• The OLGA model over predicts the frictional pressure drop in vertical three-phase
flow at high water cut;
• Little experimental data exist for such conditions (low liquid loading three-phase
flow at high superficial gas velocities).

One can then ask the following question: Why has nobody seen this before?

Possible explanations may be:

 Fluid composition – three-phase flow effect is most significant for low liquid
loading and high water cut. The reservoir fluids in existing gas/condensate fields
like Ormen Lange and Snøhvit contains much more condensate and hence the
water cut is low (ref Figure 11), while the Tanzania reservoir fluids contains very
little condensate combined with high reservoir temperatures/ water saturation
plus continuous MEG injection give high water cuts.
 Limited relevant laboratory data available. (Most existing experimental data is
two-phase flow data).
 Oil companies have «tuned» the hydraulic roughness to match the measured
pressure drop prior to releasing the field data to OVIP / Schlumberger. i.e. the
discrepancy has been «hidden».

448 © BHR Group 18 MPT 2017


Figure 8 Frictional pressure drop versus superficial gas velocity at different water
cuts (8’’ nom, near horizontal flow). OLGAHD does not capture the three-phase
effects and under predicts the pressure drop at high water cuts

Figure 9 SINTEF three-phase flow experiments 2016 – 4’’ vertical flow

© BHR Group 18 MPT 2017 449


Figure 10 Frictional pressure drop as a function of water cut (WC). USG=12 m/s
and USL=0.01 m/s. The blue dashed line is the single-phase simulation for the
nominal gas rate. The OLGA 2015.3 annular flow model OLGA 2015.3 over-
predicts the pressure drop for all experiments and does not capture the
"double hump"

MEG

Water

Condensate
Liquid fraction (g/kg)

Ormen Lange Snøhvit Troll Shtokman J0 Shtokman J1 Zafarani Lavani Lavani Deep Piri Tangawizi

Figure 11 Liquid fractions at typical pipeline operating conditions

450 © BHR Group 18 MPT 2017


6 SUMMARY

The multiphase flow is characterized by low liquid loading and steep inclinations at
conditions where multiple liquid holdup solutions may exist.

One of the key flow assurance challenges is reliable prediction of liquid accumulation
and three-phase flow effects on the frictional pressure drop.

A large experimental campaign has been carried out at the SINTEF Multiphase Flow
Laboratory focusing on the transition from low to high holdup at large diameter, low
liquid loading flow at conditions where multiple holdup solutions exist.

The OLGAHD has been proven to be the most suitable flow model, and hence has been
selected as the preferred flow model for the Tanzania Gas Project. However,

• Experiments show that frictional pressure drop increases significantly with high
water fractions, compared to two-phase flow;
• The OLGA models were not able to capture the three-phase effects on frictional
pressure drop;
• The OLGAHD model under predicts the frictional pressure drop in horizontal three-
phase flow at high water cut;
• The OLGA model over predicts the frictional pressure drop in vertical three-phase
flow at high water cut.

Both the experimental campaign by SINTEF and the theoretical verification work carried
out by Schlumberger have contributed to a significant improvement of the general
understanding of multiphase flow at low liquid loading conditions, and have also
contributed to improved reliability of flow modelling at these conditions. Work is
ongoing to improve the weaknesses observed in flow models.

The details from the experimental campaign and the theoretical work are presented in
separate papers.

The data has been released to the OVIP Project.

7 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank Statoil Tanzania Gas Project for funding this work and
for the permission to publish the results. I would also like to thank Jørn Kjølaas and
Marita Wolden and the rest of the team at the SINTEF Multiphase Flow Laboratory, and
Gunnar Staff, Chris Lawrence and Dag Biberg at Schlumberger for their hard work and
enthusiasm during the work.

8 REFERENCES

/1/ Wilsson A., Overaa. S and Holm, H, “Ormen Lange Flow Assurance Challenges”,
OTC 16555, 2004.
/2/ G S Landsverk, G Flaten, M Svenning, D Pedersen, B H Pettersen, «Multiphase
flow behaviour at Snøhvit”, BHR Group, 14th International Conference on
Multiphase Technology, Cannes, France 2009.

© BHR Group 18 MPT 2017 451


/3/ Langsholt, M. and Holm, H., “Oil-water-gas flow in steeply inclined pipes”, BHR
Group, 10th International Conference on Multiphase Technology, Cannes, France,
2001.
/4/ Kvandal, H., Munaweera, S., Elseth, G. and Holm, H., “Two-Phase Gas-
Condensate Flow in Inclined Pipes at High Pressure”, Paper SPE 77505, SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29
September–2 October 2002.
/5/ H. Holm and P. S Johansson, “Method for evaluating flow assurance risks”, Deep
Offshore Technology Conference, Stavanger, Norway, 2007.
/6/ H. Holm, P. Saha, V. Suleymanov, T. Vanvik and N. Hoyer, “Shtokman flow
assurance challenges - a systematic approach to analyse uncertainties – Part 1”,
BHR, Group, 15th International Conference on Multiphase Technology, Cannes,
France, 2011.
/7/ H. Holm, P. Saha, V. Suleymanov, T. Vanvik and N. Hoyer, “Shtokman flow
assurance challenges - a systematic approach to analyse uncertainties – Part 2”,
BHR, Group, 15th International Conference on Multiphase Technology, Cannes,
France, 2011.
/8/ Zakarian E., Holm H. and Larrey D. “Discretization Methods for Multiphase Flow
Simulation of Ultra-Long Gas-Condensate Pipelines”, BHR Group, 14th
International Conference on Multiphase Technology, Cannes, France, 2009.
/9/ D. Barnea and Y. Taitel, "Structural and interfacial stability of multiple solutions
for stratified," International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 1992.
/10/ M. J. Landemann, “Non-Unique Holdup And Pressure Drop In Two-Phase
Stratified Inclined Pipe Flow”, International Journal of Multiphase Flow, 1991.
/11/ Bendiksen, K.H., Malnes, D., Moe, R. and Nuland, S. “The Dynamic Two-Fluid
Model OLGA: Theory and Application”, SPEPE, 171, May, 1991.
/12/ D. Biberg, H. Holmås, G. Staff, T. Sira, J. Nossen, P. Andersson, C. Lawrence,
D. Hu and K. Holmås, "Basic flow modelling for long distance transport of
wellstream fluids," 14th International Conference on Multiphase Production
Technology, Cannes, France, 2009.
/13/ Jan Nossen (2011): IFE/KR/F-2011/112: “Modelling of multiple holdup solutions in
gas condensate pipelines” (confidential).
/14/ Henning Holm: “Tanzania Gas Development - Flow Assurance Challenges”,
17th International Conference on Multiphase Production Technology, 2015.
/15/ Jørn Kjølaas, Tor Erling Unander, Marit Wolden, Peter S. Johansson and Henning
Holm, “Experiments for low liquid loading with liquid holdup discontinuities in
two- and three-phase flows”, 17th International Conference on Multiphase
Production Technology, 2015.
/16/ Jan Nossen, Terje Sira, Torgeir Vanvik, Henning Thode Holm, “Analysis of
Hydraulic Gradients in Transient Large Scale Experiments” 17th International
Conference on Multiphase Production Technology, 2015.
/17/ Gunnar Staff, Dag Biberg, Torgeir Vanvik, Norbert Hoyer, Jan Nossen, Henning
Holm, Peter Sassan Johansson: “Validation of OLGA HD against transient and
pseudo transient experiments from Sintef large diameter high pressure flow-loop”
17th International Conference on Multiphase Production Technology, 2015.
/18/ D. Biberg, G. Staff, N. Hoyer and H. Holm, "Accounting for flow model
uncertainties in gas-condensate field design using the OLGA High Definition
Stratified Flow Model", 17th International Conference on Multiphase Production
Technology, 2015.
/19/ J Kjølaas, T E Unander, M Wolden, SINTEF Petroleum AS, Norway: “Pressure
drop measurements in low liquid loading three-phase flows”, 18th International
Conference on Multiphase Production Technology, 2017.

452 © BHR Group 18 MPT 2017


/20/ D Biberg, C Lawrence, G Staff, Schlumberger Norway Technology Center;
H Holm, Statoil; Norway: “Pressure drop in low liquid loading flows – the effect of
a thin liquid film on the pipe wall”, 18th International Conference on Multiphase
Production Technology, 2017.
/21/ H Ausen, M Stinessen, D Fonnes, TechnipFMC, H Holm, Statoil, Norway: “New
Uncertainty analysis method applied to a model-based flow metering system”, 18th
International Conference on Multiphase Production Technology, 2017.
/22/ D Biberg, C Lawrence, G Staff, T. Vanvik Schlumberger Norway Technology
Center; J. Kjølaas, SINTEF; H Holm, Statoil; Norway: “Collaborative research
reduces uncertainty for the Tanzania Gas Project”, OTC-27810-MS, Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas 2017.

© BHR Group 18 MPT 2017 453