Evaluation of

Virtual Flow Meters

A.Amin

25 – 26 February 2015 Houston, TX

 Flow Modeling – Virtual Flow Meters
Model and Calculation Methods

Well Model
• Well Geometry/Hardware 𝐂𝐡𝐨𝐤𝐞 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥 Q′4 = Q 4 ∗ (∆𝑃45
′
∆𝑃45 )
• Choke Cv 𝐖𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥𝟐 Q′3 = Q 3 ∗ (∆𝑃34
′
∆𝑃34 )
• PVT Model
• IPR/PI (optional) 𝐖𝐞𝐥𝐥 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥𝟏 Q′2 = Q 2 ∗ (∆𝑃24
′
∆𝑃24 )

𝐈𝐏𝐑 𝐌𝐨𝐝𝐞𝐥 Q′1 = Q1 ∗ (∆𝑃12

′
∆𝑃12 )
Measurements:
• P5 – Downstream Choke
• P4 – Wellhead Pressure
• P3 – Downhole Gauge2
• P2 – Downhole Gauge1
• P1 – Reservoir Pressure

Modified from SPT

Calculation Method is any calculation using one or more flow model estimation
2
 Typical VFM Systems Features
– Tune model to measured flow quantities
– Perform model calibration to known parameters (GOR, WC, IPR,
P&T, Roughness, Fluid properties, Choke Cv and Heat Flux)
– Embed thermodynamic and fluids dynamics laws
– Account for data/model uncertainty (Validation)
– Exploit data redundancy (reconciliation)
– Weight flowrates from different calculation methods to estimate
best flowrate
Q 𝑉𝐹𝑀 = 𝑛𝑖=0 W𝑖 Q′𝑖

3
 Study Method and Objectives
– Evaluate multiple VFM systems driven by their vendors
– Measure performance in different production scenarios against
simulated and field data
– Assess VFM’s incremental performance – Blind Test
– Assess VFM’s sensitivity to instrumentation and input parameters
uncertainties
– Obtain independent “vote of confidence” from multiple systems to
validate VFM’s flow metering role (subsea)
– Examine VFM’s association with MPFM

4
 Multi-System Studies
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3
VFM Systems Seven systems Three systems Five systems
(vendor driven)
Data used Simulated data Simulated data of actual well Field data – subsea well with
MPFM
Flow conditions Three phases - above & Oil and Water (above Three phases with increasing
below saturation saturation pressure) GOR)
Models / IPR/PI, Wellbore, Choke IPR/PI, Wellbore Wellbore, Choke
Measurements (multiple DH gauges) (No choke, one DH gauge) (one DH gauge)
System tuning Without and with tuning Evaluation with tuned Without and with tuning
(progressive tuning) systems (progressive tuning)
Tuning parameters Volumetric flowrates Oil rate, Water Cut, Res. Total mass flowrate, GVF,
Pressure / Mass rate WLR at meter conditions
Fluids properties N/A Impact of EOS with different Impact of fluids densities
parameters (phases and mixture)
Measurements N/A Measurement Error N/A
uncertainty Propagation
Measurements N/A Evaluate sensitivity to input Investigate error detection
/parameters errors measurements and and effect of additional
parameters errors. tuning to improve results in
presence of errors.
5
Some slides are not included in the circulated
presentation. Content is found in the
manuscripts referenced in the paper.

6
 Conclusions
– VFM systems are robust and cost effective – Use “smart features” with multiple
BUT accuracy hinges on: models/calculation methods:
• two plus models as a minimum • for two or more models
• tuning is a must • know devices’ uncertainties
– Consider tuning with elemental parameters: • watch for “smart features” in presence of errors
Total Mass Rate, GVF, and WLR • embedded thermodynamics and fluids dynamics
laws
– Systematic errors will compromise VFM flow
estimates – detection is not obvious – Include VFM in subsea measurement strategy
– Redundant devices – Plan VFM in combination with MPFM:
• for measurement cross-validation • for complementary and backup considerations
• emphasis on wellhead pressure • for measurement recovery with partially working
MPFM
• to ensure availability of two models
• to substitute subsea MPFM, where it makes
• beware of choke model consistency: opening sense!
errors/erosion
– More devices (optional)
• to create over-determined systems for data
reconciliation
• more coverage of well behavior (regimes) and
tuning parameters (e.g. water fraction,
7 densitometer)