Paper presented at 10th.

GPA-GCC Chapter Technical Conference, May 2002 at Doha, Qatar

Evaluation of Transportation Capacity of Sub-Sea Natural Gas Pipelines Under Changed Operating Conditions: Some Design Aspects A. Bhattacharya Qatar Petroleum
Abstract Dynamic operating conditions in offshore fields have potential impact on the operation of subsea pipelines carrying hydrocarbon from these fields to the downstream terminals. The changes in the operating conditions could be as a result of reservoir management policies, changes in downstream processing requirements or for meeting operational exigencies. Proper evaluation of the transportation capacity of an existing pipeline under the changed circumstances assumes paramount importance for establishing the feasibility of such changes and could dictate the viability of such changes. The present paper discusses the critical parameters required to be assessed for evaluating the transportation capacity of a long distance sub-sea pipeline carrying natural gas from a offshore field to a downstream processing terminal. The various operating modes of the pipeline are elaborated. The issues of selecting proper thermodynamic and hydrodynamic models under changed operating conditions have been discussed. Equipment sizing criteria for down stream processing facilities under changed operating conditions are also presented. Key Words: Capacity Estimation of Sub-sea Gas Pipeline; Gas Pipeline Operating Modes.

Introduction Natural Gas transportation from offshore fields through sub-sea pipelines to the shore terminal represents an important segment of offshore Oil & Gas Industry. Natural gas from offshore wells normally contains impurities like water, solids (sands) and liquid hydrocarbons (natural gas liquids and crude oil), all of which are usually removed or processed to some extent at the offshore complex to make the gas suitable for transportation by pipeline. Offshore gas is usually termed as "rich gas" because of its high content of natural gas liquids (NGL). The extent to which the gas has to be treated depends on several factors like gas composition and its phase boundary, pipeline operating pressure and temperature etc. The operating pressure and temperature of the pipeline determine its operating mode i.e. if the transported gas will be in vapor phase, two phase or dense phase. Facilities at the shore terminal are designed based on the operating mode of the pipeline. During the operating life of an offshore field, production levels as well as fluid characteristics usually vary considerably. The downstream gas requirement may vary with time. The rating of the pipeline may be downgraded also. Any or all of these changes will necessitate re-evaluation of sub-sea pipeline capacity. Parameters and techniques used during such re-evaluation play a critical role, in terms of technical viability, safe operability and commercial feasibility. Operating Modes in a Sub-sea Gas Pipeline For a sub-sea gas pipeline to operate in vapor phase, natural gas stream from well heads have to be treated to have a dew point (cricondentherm) below the lowest expected operating temperature to minimize condensate dropout during transportation. In a sub-sea pipeline, operating temperature below minimum seawater temperature can occur owing to J-T effect due to gas expansion and gas pressure drops.

Views presented in this paper are of the author only and may NOT represent official views.

To operate in this mode of transportation, elaborate gas treatment at offshore is required. This is not only expensive but can lead to problems of disposal of gas liquids and oil products. Consequently the tendency is for operating both in-field and export pipelines in two-phase mode and to keep the offshore processing to an absolute minimum and sufficient for effective transportation over a long distance. However operation in two-phase mode has some undesirable elements. It is difficult to predict two-phase flow behavior (particularly with large diameter pipelines and changing sea-bed terrains), which can lead to improperly sized equipment and high construction or operating costs. The erratic arrival and size of liquid slugs are also major problems and pigging costs can be substantial. The amount of liquid in two-phase pipe flow is dictated by both hydro-dynamics and phase behavior of the fluids in the pipeline. Coupling of hydrodynamic and phase behavior models are critical for estimating the pipeline capacity. As a result of interfacial interactions between the co-existing phases (rather than intra-phase and wall-fluid interaction) this mode of operation generally causes significant higher-pressure drop than the equivalent single-phase flow even when the total mass flow rates are same. Also this mode of operation results in inter-phase forces and mass-generation -induced forces that are totally absent in single phase flows. Asante et al [1] has concluded that: - The gas transmission factor could be reduced by 1-1.5% for each barrel of liquid introduced into 1 MMSCFD of gas. - The drag factor or efficiency used in partially turbulent single phase models is reduced by about 1% for each barrel of liquid introduced into 1 MMSCFD of gas. - The effective roughness factor used in fully turbulent single phase models is increased by 15-20% for each barrel of liquid introduced in 1 MMSCFD of gas. Operating in the dense-phase region to avoid liquid dropout during transportation over long distance transportation minimizes the treatment of gas at offshore. Dense phase or super-critical conditions can be described by a typical phase envelop for natural gas and gas mixtures. Dense phase conditions, which are neither liquid nor gas, exist in a region confined by the critical point and cricondenbar (Figure-1)[34]. Owing to high operating pressure (the minimum operating pressure above cricondenbar, typically 110170 bar), operation in this mode is considered to be more suitable for multifield gas gathering system where gas characteristics vary. Dense phase gas pipelines are much less sensitive to operational variations over the field life, compared to two-phase pipelines. However a distinct disadvantage for dense phase transportation exists should there be a need for depressurization of the pipeline occurs. As the pipeline pressure drops, liquid is formed and the operating mode will become two-phase. This aspect must be studied and considered for evaluating the best operating procedure and for sizing of the downstream slug catcher and other liquid handling facilities. often

complicated operational procedures are employed for start-up and blow-down of the system in this mode of operation.
Offshore platform Terminal Critical Point Depressurization Two Phase region Gas phase region

Liquid phase region

Dense phase Region

T Figure-1: Sub-sea Pipeline Operating Modes

In a typical depressurization process, three distinct stages can be identified: - Pressure drop without liquid formation - Pressure drop with liquid formation - Pressure drop with liquid evaporation An analysis should be performed to determine when and how much liquid would arrive at the terminal as a result of this process, which will require application of two-phase transient models. Changed Operating Conditions: Likely Scenarios There could be many operating scenarios under which the transportation capacity of an existing sub-sea pipeline may require a re-evaluation. We will consider the following primary scenarios: a) Increase/Decrease in Gas Production rates: In an offshore field, during reappraisal phase of wells or due to implementation of horizontal drilling techniques, gas production rates may increase. Subject to availability of downstream demand, generally possibility of transporting additional amount of gas is evaluated first. Similarly, in case of lower than existing well head gas pressure and nonavailability/ limitation of compression capacity may require transportation of low pressure gas. This is likely to cause increased liquid dropout rate in the pipeline. In order to estimate the adequacy of the downstream processing equipment (e.g. slug catchers), pipeline capacity estimation will be required. b) Increase in Well head Pressure: As a part of reservoir management, a different reservoir zone with higher than the existing reservoir zone pressure may be required to be exploited. This eventually requires letting down of high-pressure gas to the existing pressure levels (which may generate condensates) or to transport the higher-pressure gas to the shore terminal. In both cases, feasibility study requires evaluation of pipeline capacity. c) Increase in downstream gas demand. d) De-rating of an existing pipeline.

As a result of any one or combination of these scenarios, the operating mode of an existing sub-sea pipeline may change. Following critical parameters should be considered for re-evaluation of pipeline capacity. Phase Behavior Modeling Normally the heavier fractions in a natural gas stream are denoted as C6+ or C7+. The fraction normally contains a mixture of compounds and frequently is the determining factor in fixing the dew point of the gas. Liquid formation in a natural gas pipeline changes the line pressure drop and flow characteristics. A seemingly inconsequential amount of liquid can cause significant changes in line pressure drop and capacity. Moreover detailed information on the fraction is required for predicting gas dew point and trace liquid formation. Moshfeghian[11] described a case study for Mismahshah pipeline where considering the heaviest of C6+ fraction as C6, C7 and C8 resulted in showing the gas stream to be well above the dew point all along the pipeline; gas above the dew point at pipeline inlet but liquid formation down the pipeline; and presence of liquid at inlet and throughout the pipeline respectively. Mucharam et al [3] described another case study for PazananGachsaram gas condensate pipeline where gas compositions contained 19 components (extending up to C15). To expedite the computation, these components were lumped into four pseudo-groups and representative group properties were determined through a series of systematic comparisons with their properly tuned individual properties. The Equation-of-State (EOS) approach has been widely accepted as the preferred mode for modeling of phase behavior in gas pipelines. One of the great advantages offered by this approach is the estimation of liquid formation at any point in the gas pipeline, whether operating in single-phase, dense phase or two-phase mode. However for employing a suitable EOS, physical parameters like critical pressure/temperature and accentric factors are required. Maddox et al [11] described the ways to calculate these parameters for C6+ components. The next step is to employ a suitable EOS. Modisetti [6] described the applicability of various EOS particularly for pipeline applications. Three widely used EOS that work reasonably well near the dew point and for both liquid and gases are: SRK, PR and BWRS. In addition to covering a wide range of conditions, these EOS can also be expressed in generalized form with mixing rules that permit the calculation of coefficients for different compositions. SRK and PR are called cubic EOS while BWRS adds even higher order (fifth and sixth) for density calculations. The common problems of SRK and PR are that they are not adequate at high densities, either for liquids or for supercritical fluids. These EOS become complex and a large number of coefficients are to be evaluated to get the strong dependence. BWRS avoids this problem by adding exponential terms in addition to higher order density terms. Probably because of its ability to cover both liquid and gases and the availability of coefficients and mixing rules for hydrocarbons in one place, BWRS is possibly the most widely used EOS for pipeline simulation with high density hydrocarbons or with

condensation. Modisetti [6] reported that BWRS even works very well for gases far from condensation. However simplicity is not among good qualities of BWRS- eleven coefficients must be determined empirically. Also since BWRS is implicit in density, an iterative density calculation is required which consumes most of the calculation time with this EOS. It is therefore imperative that proper characterization of gases being transported and choice of suitable EOS play a crucial role in determining pipeline capacity. The phase-behavior model is used for determining the following data for subsequent usage in the hydrodynamic model:
1-Density 5-Specific heat 2-Viscosity 6-Mass generation 3-Compressibility 7-J-T heat coefficient 4-Enthalpy

The choice is however limited by the computing resources available and the schedule. However any degree of compromise must be evaluated keeping in view the ultimate objective- an over-compromised selection may defeat the very purpose of such an analysis. Hydrodynamic Behavior Modeling The operation of a two-phase pipeline necessarily involves the checking of adequacy of downstream facilities (e.g. slug catchers, filter separators etc.). This requires an estimation of the liquid hold-up, pressure drop and flow regime profile taking place along the pipeline, which in turn require hydrodynamic modeling of the pipeline. Techniques most prevalently used in the design of pipelines carrying twophase gas condensates can be classified broadly into two categories (Adewumi et al [2]). Within these groups, there exist other sub-groups.
1-Single phase safety factor (SPSF) 2-Steady empirical two phase (SETP)

SPSF approach was used in the early years of wet gas pipeline design and generally resulted in inaccurate pipeline design. SETP approach is based on flow regimes to estimate two-phase friction factors which are then used for estimating the pressure drops. The Lockhart-Martinelli, Eaton, Beggs-Brill and Taitel-Duckler are some of the most popular SETP correlations. While some of these correlations can adequately handle non-condensing two-phase flow, they give erroneous results for gas condensate flows. The selection of the proper correlation is not an easy job. When the application for a correlation is known, the best general advice is to use a correlation with a database similar to the application. Griffith [10] suggested the following order (from most to least important) when there are a number of differences between the database and the proposed application:
1- Quality & Velocity level 4-diameter 2-Density ratio 3-Geometry (up, down, inclined) 5-Other properties e.g. viscosity, surface tension etc

Integrated Hydrodynamic / Compositional Hydrodynamic Modeling In practice, a single phase gas stream in a pipeline often changes to twophase system and may again re-enter single phase as it traverses along the pipeline. Commonly used two-phase models do not have phase-transition capability and cannot integrate single and two-phase flows in one model.

Integrated models with phase-transition capability have been proposed by Boriyantoro et al [4], Adewumi et al [2]. Both these models are based on gascondensate pipelines. The former model considered three principal type of flow regimes that are most likely to occur e.g. smooth-stratified, wavystratified and mist (dispersed liquid droplets); the later model considered dispersed flow regime only. Both these models used PR as the EOS. Some Interesting Modeling Results Some interesting results obtained from these models for the effect of changing flow rate in a gas/gas-condensate pipeline are as follows: a) On Pressure drop: The pressure drop increases monotonically with gas flow rate (as generally expected). b) On the location of Phase Transition [4]: Flow rate affects the pressure and temperature changes; it also affects the location where the phase transition begins. The location where the first liquid drops appear in a transmission pipeline is a function of flow rate. However a higher flow rate may not have a shorter single-phase flow pattern distance along the pipe than the lower flow rate, because of distance of single-phase flow pattern in pipe is affected by both pressure and temperature changes. c) On Liquid hold-up [2]: In a gas pipeline, the liquid hold-up systematically increases from the inlet value until it reaches maximum values at some points in the pipeline. For higher flow rates, the corresponding pressure at which the maximum amount of liquid is formed occurs at a relatively short distance from the inlet. On the effect of the inlet gas velocity on outlet liquid holdup, it was found that at low gas velocity liquid hold up decreases rapidly as gas velocity is increased. When a minimum value is reached, the outlet liquid holdup rises with gas velocity, reaching maximum at some point. d) On Temperature Profile [4]: The temperature profile in a gas pipeline is affected by combination of two factors e.g. due to heat transfer to the surrounding medium through the pipe wall and due to the Joule-Thomson (J-T) effect. The temperature change due to heat transfer effect is inversely proportional to the flow rate- the lower the flow rate, the longer the residence time of the fluid element in the pipe and hence the greater the temperature change. However as the fluid temperature approaches the surrounding media temperature, the rate of heat transfer decreases. On the Other hand, the rate of temperature change due to J-T effect depends on pressure drop- the greater the pressure drop, the greater the temperature change. Thus at a higher flow rate, greater will be the temperature change due to J-T effect. Therefore the heat transfer effect is predominant at a relatively low flow rate and the J-T effect is predominant at a relatively higher flow rate. In a pipeline with high gas flow rate, somewhere down the pipeline, the fluid temperature may approach the surrounding temperature (resulting in diminished heat transfer effect) but the J-T effect could still be significant resulting in drop of fluid temperature below the surrounding temperature. This result in reverse heat transfer from surroundings to the fluid and counteracts the J-T effect, until an equilibrium temperature is reached.

Alves et al [20] proposed a general and unified equation for flowing temperature prediction in pipelines under single- or two-phase flow, over the entire inclination angle ranging from horizontal to vertical and with compositional and black-oil fluid models, which demonstrated good performance over a broader range of flow conditions. Incorporating Transients in Pipeline Analysis Safe and cost-effective operations of a gas transportation pipeline require accounting for its response under transient loads. Actual operations invariably encounter transient states. The loss of a compressor, the addition or loss of supply or sale points, pipe leak/rupture and variable demand are a few indicators of the initiators of line transients. To correctly account for these transients in a gas pipeline, dynamic simulation models are required. When modeling systems, depending upon the pipeline operating conditions, steady-state assumptions sometimes yield adequate engineering results. However in some cases, where loads and supplies are functions of time, dynamics cannot be ignored without gross error and a dynamic model must be used. As a general guideline [27], in low-pressure gas networks, the dynamics are very rapid and can be ignored for most practical purposes. In high pressure networks the dynamics are much slower because of the large amount of gas stored in the pipeline and cannot be neglected. The dynamic effects in such pipelines are particularly important when calculating short-term emergencies like a temporary reduction in supply due to equipment failure. Various approaches to simulate the dynamic flow behavior in a gas pipeline have been discussed by Osiadacz [27]. The main models developed by employing different numerical analysis techniques for the pipeline have been classified in the following main categories; the most physically complete model being at the start with progressively simplifying models (with more terms dropped) towards the lower end.
1-Finite element 3-Finite differences/Implicit-I 2-Method of Characteristics 4-Finite differences/Implicit-II

Zhou et al [28] presented eight field examples of behavior of gas pipeline transients under various operational scenarios including emergency scenarios. Another very relevant scenario of gas pipelines feeding the Power plants has been elaborated by Alvarez et al [30]. Growingly the gas load curve is more of a function of the electrical dispatching rules than a consequence of the residential consumption behavior. Gas pipeline operations are growingly getting interlinked with power plant operating requirements. In case of pipeline networks without gas storage facilities, the design requirements and the operational parameters are strongly linked with a right understanding of the transient analysis tools and an efficient line pack management. Understanding of the load curves for the gas turbines along with the relevant response timesboth during start-up/shut down and during normal/peak operations are essentially required to perform such a transient analysis.

Analysis of Slug Catcher The effects of changed operating conditions greatly affect the downstream processing facilities of the gas pipeline. While the methods for analyzing equipment capacity for steady-state flows (which normally come after the slug catcher) are well documented and fairly standardized, the performance of the slug catcher (which essentially handles transient loads) is still considered to be empirical in nature. A slug catcher consists essentially of two parts: - A separator part, separating liquid from the mixed stream arriving under the normal steady-state flow condition; - A storage part, receiving and storing the incoming liquid slugs. When a more or less continuous slug of liquid arrives, the liquid displaces the gas present in the slug catcher, ensuring an uninterrupted supply of gas the downstream facilities. However large slugs can take only a matter of minutes to arrive and the holding capacity of the slug catcher must therefore be essentially capable of holding the volume of the largest slug expected. Liquid carry over must be limited, although the slug catcher is not meant to replace a high-efficiency separator. Numerous studies have been carried out for estimating the mean volume of liquid slugs and their statistical volume distribution. To name a few, the most comprehensive field data on slug flow in large diameter lines, collected at Alaskas Prudhoe Bay field, showed steady-state slug lengths follow a lognormal distribution over the pipe ID [19]. Bernicot et al [24] presented a probabilistic analysis of slug formation; however the model was not fieldtested. Fairhurst [8] provided details of the field measurements carried out for determining slug characteristics by BP on the Magnus platform in the North Sea. Rene [21] outlined various approaches undertaken for calculating the mean liquid slug length, minimum stable slug length and maximum slug length. Seather et al [32] applied fractal statistics for analyzing stochastic fluctuating nature of slugs and estimated distribution of slug lengths using R/S analysis. For Engineering analysis, Barru [5] proposed a Profile indicator(PI) to characterize pipelines quantitatively based on the propensity of their profiles to induce liquid holdup and suggested that PI constitutes an additional tool to be used from conceptual design to operational studies of multiphase pipelines. With PIs, multiphase pipelines can be compared with one another or placed on an empirical scale to evaluate possible operating difficulties at low flow rates. In the simulation of transient flow in gas-condensate pipelines, accurately modeling profile is particularly important because of the major influence of slopes on liquid inventory held-up in the pipeline and therefore on the slug-catcher design and pipeline operating philosophy. PI has been used for developing a means to quantify the pipeline influence of the pipeline profile on the liquid holdup. PI values less than 20 are very seldom encountered in reality and are often signs of an oversimplified profile. Very high PI values mean that pipeline liquid holdup at low flow rates is drastically higher than at

higher flow rates. Typically a 32, 80 km offshore pipeline in Middle-East displayed a PI value of 26.8, while a 36, 67 km offshore pipeline in North sea displayed a PI value of 52 and a 36, 57 km pipeline in onshore Indonesia displayed a value of 88. The criteria for sizing a slug catcher, as used by some of the commercially available software packages, are based on determining the following three design criteria and choosing the largest of them. - The requirement to handle the largest slugs envisaged (chosen to be statistically the 1/1000 population slug size). - The requirement to handle liquid swept in front of a pig or sphere. - The requirement to handle the liquid slug generated when the flow is ramped up. It is however emphasized that as in case of all engineering designs, experienced engineering judgment play a crucial role in interpreting the results of the hydrodynamic model and phase behavior analysis and actions taken thereafter. Conclusions It has been demonstrated in the past that inadequate and sometimes oversimplified approaches undertaken for analyzing sub-se gas/ gas-condensate pipeline failed to predict real life behavior. These may affect the cost-effective operations and may have some serious commercial implications. The present paper attempted to present a systematic approach for such analysis, which is likely to be beneficial to the offshore Operating companies. Acknowledgement The author wishes to express his sincere gratitude to the Management of Qatar Petroleum and to Engineering Manager (Offshore) in particular, for the permission to prepare, publish and present this paper to the 10th. GPA Technical conference. References A lot of reference materials used in this paper were collected through Internet. Proper sources for some of such references (marked by *) could not be traced / retrieved. The author expresses his sincere regrets for such omissions. 1*. "Multiphase Transport of Gas and Low Loads of Liquid in Pipelines",; B.Asante, J.F.Stanislav, Lei Pan; Dept. of Chem & Pet Engg, Univ of Calgary. 2. "Compositional Multiphase Hydrodynamic Modeling of Gas/GasCondensate Dispersed Flow in Gas Pipelines"; M.A.Adewumi, L.Mucharam; SPE Production Engineering, Feb 1990. 3. "Study of Gas Condensation in Transmission Pipelines with a Hydrodynamic Model"; L.Mucharam, M.A.Adewumi, R.W.Watson; SPE Production Engineering, August 1990. 4*. "An Integrated Single-Phase/Two-Phase Hydrodynamic Model for Predicting the Fluid Flow Behavior of Gas Condensates in Pipelines"; N.H.Boriyantoro, M.A.Adewumi; Pennsylvania State University.

5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13.

14. 15. 16.

17.

18.

19. 20.

21*. 22. 23.

24. 25.

"Profile Indicator helps predict pipeline holdup, slugging"; B.Barru; Oil & Gas (O&G) J; Feb21, 2000. "Equation of State Tutorial"; J.L.Modisette; Pipeline Simulation Interest Group (PSIG); 14 Sept 2000. "How Required Compression Depends On the Thermodynamics of Rich Gas Flow"; Dr.T.F.Dupont, Dr.H.H.Rachford.Jr; PSIG 1992. "Slug-flow behavior clarified in large diameter pipeline study"; C.P.Fairhurst; O&G J; Oct 3;1988. "Improved calculations aid design of wet gas pipelines"; P.M.Hope, R.G.Nelson; O&G J; Oct 31,1977. "Multiphase Flow in Pipes"; P.Griffith; J of Pet. Tech; March 1984. "Thermodynamic Properties are important in predicting pipeline Operations accurately"; M.Moshfeghian ; O&G J; Feb4,2002. "Distance remains the key factor in phase design for gas line from offshore facilities"; R.E.Ingham, A.J.Carrico; O&G J; Mar 31, 1986. "Gas Purification In The Dense Phase At The CATS Terminal"; P.J.Openshaw, E.F.Rhodes; Proc, XIV Gas International Conference; Caracas (Venezuela); May 2000. "Controlling Effects in Countercurrent Two-Phase Flow"; A.J.Johnston; SPE Production Engineering; August 1988. "An Investigation Into Stratified Co- and Countercurrent Two-Phase Flows"; A.J.Johnston; SPE Production Engineering; Aug 1988. "How to calculate two-phase flow of gas and oil in pipelines"; G.Ferschneider, M.Lagiere, T.Bourgeois, J,M.Fitremann; PIPELINE Industry, Aug 1985. "Simulation of Gas-Liquid Flow in Slug Catchers"; A.Bos, J.G.du Chatinier; SPE 1985 Middle East Oil Technical Conference, Mar 1985, Bahrain. "Simulation of a Major Oilfield Gas-Gathering Pipeline System"; J.P.Brill, T.R.Sifferman; SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference, Mar 1983, Bahrain. "Transporting multiphase flow requires modeling procedure"; J.G.McNulty, C.P.Fairhurst; Offshore, Aug 1988. "A Unified Model for Predicting Flowing Temperature Distribution in Well bores and Pipelines"; I.N.Alves, F.J.S.Alhanati, O.Shoham; SPE Production Engineering, Nov 1992. "Investigation of the Hydrodynamic and Kinetic Parameters in Gas-Liquid Underdeveloped Slug Flow"; Ph.D. Thesis of Rene van Hout, Jan 1988. "Model predicts liquid accumulation, severe terrain-induced slugging for two-phase lines"; V.Goldzbeg, F.McKee; O&G j, Aug19, 1985. "Slug-Catcher Design for Dynamic Slugging in an Offshore Production Facility"; M.Miyoshi, D.R.Doty, Z.Schmidt; SPE Production Engineering, Nov 1988. "A Slug-Length Distribution Law for Multiphase Transportation Systems", M.F.Bernicot, J.M.Drouffe; SPE Production Engineering, May 1991. "Study of Severe Slugging in Real offshore Pipeline Riser-Pipe System"; M.A.Farghaly; SPE Middle East Oil Technical Conference, Mar 1987, Bahrain.

26. "Steady-State Modeling and Simulation of pipeline Networks for Compressible Fluids"; A.L.H.Costa,J.L.de Medeiros, F.L.P.Pessoa; Brazilian J. Chem. Engg., Dec 1998. 27*. "Different Transient Models-limitations, Advantages and Disadvantages"; A.J.Osiadacz; Warsaw Univ of Technology. 28*. "Simulation of Transient Flow In Natural Gas pipelines"; J.Zhou, M.A.Adewumi; Dept of Chemical & Natural gas Engg, Pennsylvania State University. 29. "Transient Analysis A Must In Gas Pipeline Design"; S.P dos Santos; Petrobras S.A. (Brazil); PSIG Oct 1997. 30. "Natural Gas Power Generation Basic Pipeline Design Requirements"; O.G.Alvarez, H.A.Carranza, J.A. Casanova, C.A.M.Casares; PSIG Annual Meeting, Utah, Oct 2001. 31. "Flow Experiments With High Pressure Natural Gas In Coated and Plain Pipes: Comparison of Transport Capacities"; E.S.erding, J.Gudmundsson, K. Sjoen; PSIG Annual Meeting, Colorado, Oct 1998. 32. "The Fractal Statistics of Liquid Slug Lengths"; G.Saether, K.Bendiksen, J.Muller, E.Froland; Int. J. Multiphase Flow, Vol 16, No 6, 1990. 33. "Handling of Liquid holdup in Duyong Two-Phase Flow Pipeline System"; M.R.Saad, B.Singh; Proc. 7 th. Offshore South East Asia Conference; Singapore, Feb1988. 34. "Terminal slug Catchers For Two Phase Flow and Dense Phase Flow Gas pipelines", L.Oranje; ASME Pipeline Engg Symposium, Dallas, 1987. 35. "Operational Aspects of Offshore Multiphase Gas-Condensate Pipelines"; M.N.Lingelem, H.Holm, E.Klide; Annual Offshore Technical Conference, Houston, May 1989. 36. Workshop Sessions on Offshore Pipelines; 16th. World Gas Conference, Munich, 1985.