Title: Use of Multiphase Analysis to Enhance Production Operations in the Lobo Gas Gathering System Authors: Thomas J.

Danielson and Quynhthy T. Bui, ConocoPhillips Co. USA Abstract The Lobo Gas Gathering System, owned and operated by ConocoPhillips, gathers gas in Webb and Zapata counties (Texas) then feeds into central gathering/dehydration points which enter Lobo Pipeline system. Lobo Pipeline System terminates at a central processing facility at King Ranch and interstate pipelines at Agua Dulce. Many of the lines are multiphase (gascondensate-water/glycol or gas-condensate) due to operation upsets or low velocity due to field depletion. As a result, system prediction and optimization is difficult. Further, significant backpressure is placed on the system by liquid drop out and collection in uphill sections of the pipelines. ConocoPhillips has developed a multiphase model for these lines, tunable to SCADA data, which respects the complexities of multiphase flow. This model has allowed ConocoPhillips to alter operations to reduce the liquid accumulation, resulting in lower overall operating pressure and increased production. System Description The Lobo Pipeline Gas Gathering system gathers natural gas from Webb and Zapata Counties and delivers to the processing plant in Jim Wells. There are about 47 miles of 20-inch pipeline from Laredo to Hebbronville, 10 miles of 16-inch pipeline from BMT to Vaquillas, 6 miles of 12inch pipeline from BMT to the 20 inch, 9 miles of 16-inch from Vaquillas to the 20-inch pipe and 47 miles of 30-inch pipeline from Vaquillas to the processing plant at King Ranch. Figure 1 gives a diagram of this system. A 30-inch pipeline (Vaquillas pipeline) connects Vaquillas to Hebbronville, and on to the King Ranch gas plant. A 20-inch pipeline (Laredo pipeline) connects Laredo to Hebbronville there, production between Vaquillas and Laredo are co-mingled, and flow through the Vaquillas pipeline to King Ranch. Two 16-inch lines also connect the Laredo pipeline to Vaquillas. The so-called wet 16-inch line tees off of the Laredo pipeline at 74,000 ft, passes through BMT station, and on to Vaquillas (55,000 ft). A second dry 16-inch pipeline tees off of the Laredo line at 127,000 ft, and on to Vaquillas (47,500 ft). Figure 2 gives a histogram line fraction as a function of pipeline angle for the four pipelines making up the pipeline network; the elevation profile for the 30-inch Vaquillas line is given in Figure 3. Note from Figure 2 that the Vaquillas pipeline has, by far, the most acute angles present in the pipeline system. These angles, combined with the low gas velocities in the 30-inch line, lead to the largest liquid accumulations and highest pressure drops of any pipeline in the system. Thus, the Vaquillas pipeline was the key focus of the Lobo system optimization. Pipeline operation This Lobo gas gathering system was designed for a much larger throughput, and therefore as production declines, the pipeline becomes more and more inefficient for the service. The low velocity, particularly in the 30-inch line from Vaquillas to Hebbronville, is unable to keep the line swept clean of liquid condensate. Though the liquid loading is very low (<0.1 bbl/MMscf), condensate, and perhaps also glycol carry-over from the dehydration unit at Vaquillas, have built up over time, especially in the uphill section of the pipe from Vaquillas to Hebbronville. Liquid hold-up in this section of pipeline has exerted considerable back-pressure on the system due to liquid head. At the same time, the liquid in the line also reduces the effective diameter, causing an increase in pressure drop due to friction. Because of this increased back-pressure, the pipeline has, at times, spiked near the maximum allowable operating pressure limit of 945 psig.

From 1998 to 1999, the flow rate in the 30-inch pipeline from Vaquillas to Hebbronville dropped from about 220 MMscfd to about 140 MMscfd, and as a result the pipeline loaded up with liquids. At that time, the line experienced an 80 psi pressure drop (880 to 800 psi) between Vaquillas and Hebbronville for a wet gas rate of 130 MMscfd, bringing it quite close to the maximum allowable operating pressure for that pipeline. At these low gas flow rates, nearly the entire pressure drop was estimated to be due to pressure head of the in situ liquid. There are a very large number of wells (> 500) flowing into the Vaquillas-Laredo pipeline system and these wells are sensitive to pipeline pressure. As a rule of thumb (formed from production historical data of this area), for normal healthy wells, every psi of pressure decrease results in 0.2 Mscf of increase production per well. For wells operating at line pressure and near critical rate (rate at which the wells load up), the relationship is 1.94 Mscf/psi/well. Thus, new incremental production due to system optimization can be significant. Thus, for both economic and safety reasons, it became necessary to remove the excess liquid from the Vaquillas to Hebbronville line. Two multiphase flow studies were conducted in 20001,2 to find a way to blow down the Vaquillas pipeline without either over-pressuring it, or flooding the King Ranch gas plant. An OLGA2000 commercial multiphase pipeline model was built initially, but it could not be tuned to match field data (the commercial model predicts a much lower pressure drop than actual field data at all rates). Therefore, a field model was built to allow tuning to field data, allowing adequate prediction of system hold-up and pressure drop over the entire range of operating conditions. Problem Mitigation Under normal conditions, all valves in the system are open, and gas from Laredo and BMT follows the path of least resistance to Vaquillas or Hebbronville and eventually ends up at King Ranch processing plant. The current volume throughput of this system is approximately 250 MMscfd. When the system is allowed to free flow, flow rate through Vaquillas is 100 MMscfd, with an additional 150 MMscfd added at Hebbronville through the 20-inch Laredo pipeline. Figures 4 and 5 give the model-predicted liquid hold-ups for the Vaquillas and Laredo pipelines for these rates. Note that while the hold-up in the Laredo pipeline is extremely small and a very weak function of pipeline inclination angle, there is a significant liquid hold-up in the Vaquillas pipeline, concentrated between Vaquillas and Hebbronville, and occurring only at inclined sections of the pipe. The larger hold-up in the Vaquillas pipeline is due to a smaller gas rate, a larger diameter and higher inclination angles than the Laredo pipeline. The liquid hold-up in the Vaquillas pipeline contributes significantly to the overall pressure drop in the pipeline. Figures 6 and 7 give the inlet pressure vs. flow rate relationship for both the Vaquillas and Laredo pipelines, again calculated by the model, using a common outlet pressure of 670 psia at Hebbronville where flow rate from both Vaquillas and Laredo are co-mingled and flow onto King Ranch at a combined 250 MMscfd. Note that, for the Vaquillas pipeline, as the flow rate increases, the inlet pressure at Vaquillas actually decreases. This somewhat counter-intuitive result is due to the fact that the pressure drop in this pipeline is due to both frictional and gravitational losses. As the gas rate increases, reduction in head due to the removal of liquids decreases more than frictional forces increase. According to the model, this effect persists all the way up to 250 MMscfd for the Vaquillas pipeline. Above this rate, frictional forces begin to dominate, and the pressure begins to increase with flow rate. These results are consistent with field data. Figures 8 and 9 show the SCADA data over the past 8 years. Pressure at Vaquillas (Figure 11) was high (850 psig and above at times) prior to 2001 when volume through Vaquillas was low. Based on internal studies1,2, this flow rate was increased to 250 MMscfd in June 2001 for a few weeks; a significant amount of liquid was swept to King Ranch (Figure 9), resulting in the pressure dropping gradually to 750 psig. However, as volume was allowed to return to normal production, pressure slowly crept back up. The Figure 8 SCADA data clearly shows an inverse relationship between the flow rate and the pressure at

Vaquillas, as indicated in the model (Figure 6). Note also from Figure 8 that as the pressure at Vaquillas drops, so does the pressure at Laredo. This is because Laredo and Vaquillas are linked to each other through the two 16-inch connectors. The sweeping cycle was repeated yearly for the next few years, with the exception of 2002 and 2003 where volume was held near 200 MMscfd until April 2003, resulting in stable pressure at around 800 psia. After that, as volume dropped, pressure slowly crept up again and the sweep cycle was repeated in 2004, 2005 and 2006. After the 2006 sweeping process was completed, Vaquillas volume was held at 220 MMscfd, resulting in a stable Vaquillas pressure around 700 psig since. Theory For wet gas lines with small liquid accumulations (< 1%), the frictional pressure drop dominates gravity losses, and the pipelines in the system behave like gas pipelines. However, even for relatively flat lines such as those in the Lobo Gas Gathering System, under conditions where liquid accumulates in the pipeline, a large fraction of pressure drop is due to head loss; gravity losses will completely dominate frictional losses. Figure 10 gives the dependence of hold-up on angle predicted by the commercial multiphase model OLGA2000 over a range of flow rates for the Vaquillas 30-inch pipeline, at inlet conditions of 80 F, 700 psia. Note that, for a given gas rate, there is a region of very low hold-up, running from all negative angles, through horizontal, and some distance into the positive inclination angles. Then, above a critical angle (a function of gas rate), here is an abrupt increase in hold-up (also a function of gas rate) which then seems to remain more or less constant as angle increases still further. The purpose of what follows is to determine: For a given inclination angle, at what velocity does the pipeline switch from the low-holdup, friction-dominated, gas-like behavior to the high hold-up, gravity-dominated, liquidlike behavior? What is the hold-up in the pipeline when the gravity forces dominates? High Hold-up Prediction Figure 11 gives a plot of the gas velocity UG vs the mixture velocity UM derived from commercial model runs at 50 through 300 MMscfd), where, UG = USG/(1 HL) (1)

It can be seen from the plot that there are two separate lines formed by the commercial model one which trends very near the UG = UM (i.e., no-slip) line, and another one which trends somewhat above this line. Let us focus on the higher of the two lines the high hold-up line. It is known that slug or bubble flow will fall on a line with a characteristic slope and intercept when plotted in this manner. Thus, the value of the gas velocity UG is related to the mixture velocity UM by: UG = CUM + Uo (2)

This is the so-called drift flux model, where Uo is the drift portion of gas velocity (bubble motion due to pressure gradient), and C UM is the flux part (bubble motion due to flow). A curve fit to this upper line gives values of C and Uo of: C = 0.95 Uo = 1.6 m/s The hold-up can obtained from this expression as

HL = 1 USG/(CUM + Uo) where Uo could potentially be a function of angle. Low Hold-up Prediction

(3)

In order to formulate a model for the low hold-ups, let us begin with a model for the slip between the oil and gas phases for horizontal pipe. We assume a model of the form: US = UG UL = AUM + B (4)

Indeed, as can be seen from a plot of the slip between the phases and the mixture velocity (Figure 12), over the range of expected mixture velocities (corresponding to 50 to 300 MMscfd), there is a nearly perfect linear relationship, with the values of A and B given by: A = 0.9214 B = 0.0165 m/s With US in hand, the hold-up can be derived from: US = UG UL = USG/(1-HL) USL/HL or US HL2 + (UM US)HL USL = 0 (6) (5)

The above quadratic equation can be easily solved for HL (taken as the largest positive root). Figure 13 gives a plot of the model hold-up, using the values of A and B above, compared to the OLGA-predicted hold-up. Actually, the predicted hold-up is vanishingly small in any case; most of the liquid hold-up in the pipeline is on the inclines. Pressure Gradient Criterion In order to determine the switch over from the low-hold-up solution to the high hold-up solution outlined above, we need a criterion. A reasonable first step towards such a criterion lies in the comparison of the frictional and gravity pressure gradients in the flow as a function of angle. Let us start with a model for pressure drop for Lobo, based on averaged or mixture properties3: M = LHL + G(1-HL) M = LHLG(1-HL) UM = USL + USG D=D (7a) (7b) (7c) (7d)

where the hold-up used in the calculation is that calculated from Equation 6. Here, the expression for mixture viscosity is that of Hagedorn and Brown.4 Then a mixture Reynolds number can be formulated as follows: ReM = M UM D / M Let us use an explicit correlation for friction factor, based on these mixture properties: f(Re) = 0.0055( 1 + (2x104/D + 106/ReM)1/3)5 The frictional pressure gradient is then given by: (9) (8)

dp/dzFRICTION = fMUM2/(2D) The gravitational pressure gradient is given by: dp/dzGRAVITY = M gsin()

(10)

(12)

where, again, the hold-up is calculated from Equation 6 rather than Equation 3. It seems reasonable that when the frictional pressure gradient dominates the gravity pressure gradient, then the liquid hold-up will remain low. However, when the gravity pressure gradient begins to dominate the frictional pressure gradient, this force imbalance should give rise to a rapid increase in hold-up, culminating in the drift-flux hold-up given by Equation 3. By comparison to the commercial model, it is found that the critical ratio of frictional to gravitational forces occurs when the gravity force is approximately 3 times the frictional force, or: dpGRAVITY/dpFRICTION = gsin() / fUM2/(2D) ~ 3 This implies that: UM-CRITICAL = (2/3gDsin())1/2 UM > UM-CRITICAL low hold-up solution UM < UM-CRITICAL high hold-up solution A comparison to the OLGA-predicted hold-up for 50-300 MMscfd is given in Figure 14. Good agreement is obtained between the OLGA-predicted hold-ups and the model-predicted hold-ups. Pressure Drop Determination Total pressure gradient is now calculated from the hold-up determined above by the criterion in Equation 14, and is given by: dp/dzTOTAL = dp/dzFRICTION + dp/dzGRAVITY (15) (14) (13)

Comparison of the model pressure gradients with the commercial-model-predicted pressure gradients are given in Figure 19 (horizontal frictional pressure drop only) and Figure 15 (all angles, from -4 to +4 degrees). Again, reasonable good agreement is obtained between the simple model and the commercial code. The gradients at positive angles for the simple model are somewhat higher then the commercial code, due to the slightly higher liquid hold-ups predicted in the simple model. It should be emphasized that the frictional pressure drop for all pipelines in the Lobo gathering system behave as gas pipelines when the hold-ups are low (i.e., governed by Equation 6). Although the liquid loading is exceedingly low for these pipelines, even this small amount can build up in inclined sections over time (governed by Equation 3), putting significant back-pressure on the system. ConocoPhillips FIELD Pipeline Model The equations for hold-up and pressure drop developed above constitute a multiphase point model, that is, a model that given fluid properties, pipe diameter and inclination, and gas and liquid flow rates at a specific point in the line produces as output a prediction of the liquid holdup, pressure gradient, and flow pattern.

The ConocoPhillips FIELD pipeline model is constructed from a series of point model results, strung together. The FIELD pipeline model is a steady-state model written into Excel in Visual Basic, and is composed of a thermal properties sheet, and a pipeline geometry sheet. The thermal properties sheet is a look-up table of fluid properties as a function of temperature and pressure (the same look-up table is used for the FIELD model as for the commercial simulator OLGA). The pipeline geometry sheet consists of pipeline lengths, elevations, diameters, and wall roughness. Boundary conditions for the field model consist presently of a mass inlet, pressure outlet, and U-values for heat losses to ambient (with an option for isothermal calculations). The FIELD pipeline model is executed as follows: Temperatures are calculated throughout the pipe; Conditions at the outlet (T,P) are used to determine fluid properties at that point; Hold-ups, pressure gradients, and flow pattern are determined from local conditions; Pressure gradient term used to step backwards into pipe, to determine new (T,P); Model allows for condensation/evaporation; Mass conservation is enforced as a constraint. The model accounts for condensation/evaporation, but ignores Joule-Thompson cooling and heat of fusion. These effects are extremely small for Lobo, and can be left out without impacting model accuracy. However, if needed, both effects could be added into later versions of the code. Tuning to Field Data There are two excellent benchmarking points for the Vaquillas pipeline, given in Table 2, along with a comparison to OLGA for the same conditions. Clearly, the performance of the commercial model is not sufficient to capture the pressure drop. Based on a comparison to the field data, it seems likely that the commercial model is under-predicting the liquid hold-up in the Vaquillas 30-inch pipeline, particularly in the section between Vaquillas and Hebbronville. Table 2: Model predictions vs. field data for the Vaquillas pipeline
Field Data OLGA Model FIELD Model (untuned) FIELD Model (tuned) Field Data OLGA Model FIELD Model (untuned) FIELD Model (tuned) Vaquillas Rate (MMscfd) 266 266 266 266 140 140 140 140 Hebbronville Rate (MMscfd) 266 266 266 266 350 350 350 350 Vaquillas Pressure (psia) 744 709.2 714.7 744.4 880 830.6 874.9 882.3 Hebbronville Pressure (psia) 682.7 685.3 694.9 800 779.4 783.4 783.4 King Ranch Pressure (psia) 645 645 645 645 720 720 720 720

The commercial model predicts too low a pressure drop for both a high rate (266 MMscfd) and lower rate (140 MMscfd) between Vaquillas and Hebbronville. The FIELD pipeline model, tuned against OLGA, is similarly low on pressure drop prediction. However, we now have the freedom to change various parameters in the model to better fit the field data. The most obvious parameter to choose for this tuning exercise is the critical mixture velocity: UM-CRITICAL = (2/3gDsin())1/2 (16)

We found that a value of = 1.22 gave a much better fit to the field data in other words, the assumption of higher liquid accumulations led to a better fit to field pressure drops. A comparison of the commercial and FIELD models for the two field cases given in Table 2 are given in Figures 21 and 22. Note from the figures that the FIELD model indicates far more liquid in the pipeline at 266 MMscfd than the OLGA model predicts for both conditions.

System Results Both the commercial model and the FIELD model were set up to mimic the total pipeline system, given in Figure 1. Gas is forced to Vaquillas by choking the Laredo 20-inch line at Hebbronville. Inlet pressures for Laredo and Vaquillas were then charted as a function of the amount of gas routed to Vaquillas (the remainder of the Laredo gas flows on through the 20-inch line to Hebbronville, where it is added to the production there). When no gas is forced back up to Vaquillas from the Laredo pipeline, there is 100 MMscfd of production of Vaquillas, with another 150 MMscfd of production from Laredo and the BMT area. When gas is forced up through Vaquillas, the pressure at Vaquillas is reduced. Since there is also a lower flow rate through a portion of the Laredo pipeline, the pressure there also drops. As mentioned earlier, about 500 wells feed into Vaquillas and Laredo stations. System response to a drop in pressure at either location has been approximated to be roughly 0.1 MMscfd increase in flow rate for each psi pressure drop at Vaquillas or Laredo. Tables 3 and 4 give the commercial and FIELD model prediction of pressure at Laredo and Vaquillas as a function of gas routed through Vaquillas station. Table 3 Increase in production resulting from rerouting of gas from Laredo to Vaquillas based on OLGA
Rerouted volume (MMscfd) 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Laredo pressure (psia) 777.4 767.8 759.8 758.8 770.1 783.3 801.2 Vaquillas pressure (psia) 757.9 722.4 707.6 696.3 695.4 692.6 692.2 Laredo (psia) 0 9.6 17.6 18.6 7.3 -5.9 -23.8 Vaquillas (psia) 0 35.5 50.3 61.6 62.5 65.3 65.7 prod. (MMscfd) 0.00 2.77 4.05 4.87 4.59 4.39 3.89

Table 4 Increase in production resulting from rerouting of gas from Laredo to Vaquillas based on FIELD
Rerouted volume (MMscfd) 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 Laredo pressure (psia) 865 841.3 823.5 824.6 831.7 847.6 872.6 Vaquillas pressure (psia) 781 766.8 745.2 733.7 723.7 719 720.6 Laredo (psia) 0 23.7 41.5 40.4 33.3 17.4 -7.6 Vaquillas (psia) 0 14.2 35.8 47.3 57.3 62 60.4 prod. (MMscfd) 0.00 1.71 3.75 4.52 5.01 4.86 4.00

It appears that an optimum is reached by forcing approximately 100 MMscfd of the Laredo production to Vaquillas. This, in turn, leads to a drop in pressure at both Laredo and Vaquillas, resulting in an increased incremental production of approximately 5 MMscfd, or an increase in flow rate of 2.0%

Conclusions Pipelines with even a very small amount of condensing liquid in them can exhibit significant multiphase effects under the right circumstances. When the mixture velocity falls below a critical mixture velocity, there will be significant liquid accumulations. The magnitude of these liquid accumulations can be very effectively predicted using a drift-flux type model. The vast majority of pressure loss in these systems is head loss due to gravity effects of pipeline inclines. This effect completely dominates frictional losses, even in pipelines that are relatively flat, such as those in the Lobo gathering system. One of the counter-intuitive aspects of multiphase pipelines is that they can experience a decrease in pressure drop with increasing flow rate. This is due to the fact that a higher gas velocity will help to sweep the line free of liquids, thus lowering the head loss due to gravity effects. The Lobo gas gathering system can be optimized by forcing additional flow from Laredo up through Vaquillas through the 16-inch connectors between the Laredo pipeline and Vaquillas station. Optimum operation is achieved when total volume through Vaquillas is within the 200250 MMscfd range. It is estimated that optimizing the Lobo gas gathering system has resulted in an additional 5 MMscfd, or 2.0% of the total system production. Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge ConocoPhillips for permission to publish this paper. We would also like to acknowledge our colleague Brian Dyer both for helping us getting accurate profiles of the pipeline, and for his idea of routing the gas through Vaquillas on a permanent basis which was applied in late 2005 resulting in the most stable pressure at Vaquillas in 8 years. References 1. Danielson, Thomas J. and Bansal, Kris M., OLGA Simulation of Lobo Sweeping and Pigging Operations, Internal Technical Service Report, 2000. 2. Danielson, Thomas J. and Bansal, Kris M., Lobo 30-inch Pipeline Study, Internal Technical Service Report, 2000. 3. Danielson, Thomas J., Influence of Fluid Properties on Multiphase Flow Prediction, 11th International Conference on Multiphase flow, 2003, San Remo, Italy. 4. Hagedorn, A.R., and Brown, K.E., Experimental Study of Pressure Gradients Occurring During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small Diameter Vertical Conduits, J. Pet. Tech. (Apr. 1965), 475-484. 5. Hall, N.A., Thermodynamics of Fluid Flow, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1957.

Figures

Figure 1 Pipeline Diagram

Vaquillas to King Ranch Pipeline

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000 distance (ft) pipeline elevation Vaquillas Hebbronville King Ranch

elevation (ft)

Figure 2 Elevation profile for the 30-inch pipeline from Vaquillas to King Ranch.

0.5

0.45

0.4

0.35

line fraction (-)

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0 -2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 angle (degrees) Vaquillas 30-inch Laredo 20-inch dry 16-inch wet 16-inch

Figure 3 Histogram of inclination angles for the system

Vaquillas to King Ranch Pipeline
1.00 0.90 0.80 0.70 0.60 hold-up (-) 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 distance (ft) hold-up profile 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 350000

Figure 4 Model prediction of liquid hold-up for the Vaquillas pipeline with 100 MMscfd from Vaquillas with an additional 150 MMscfd added at Hebbronville.

elevation (ft)

Laredo 20-inch PIpeline

4.50E-04 800

4.00E-04

700

3.50E-04

600 elevation (ft) liquid inventory (bbl)

hold-up (-)

3.00E-04

500

2.50E-04

400

2.00E-04

300

1.50E-04 0 50000 100000 distance (ft) hold-up elevation 150000 200000

200 250000

Figure 5 Model prediction of liquid hold-up for the Laredo pipeline for 150 MMscfd wet gas rate.
Vaquillas to Hebbronville 30-inch Pipeline
840 45000

820

40000

800

35000

vaquillas pressure (psia)

780

30000

760

25000

740

20000

720

15000

700

10000

680

5000

660 0 50 100 150 wet gas rate (mmscfd) inlet pressure liquid inventory 200 250

0 300

Figure 6 Model Result of Liquid Inventory and Vaquillas Pressure

Laredo 20-inch Pipeline

1200 18000

16000 1100 14000

1000 inlet pressure (psia)

12000 liquid inventory (bbl) Pressure (psia)

10000 900 8000

800

6000

4000 700 2000

600 0 50 100 150 wet gas rate (mmscfd) inlet pressure liquid inventory 200 250

0 300

Figure 7 Model Result of Liquid Inventory and Laredo Pressure

Vaquillas volume vs. Vaquillas Pressure vs. Laredo Pressure
350,000 950

300,000

900

250,000 Vaquillas volume (mcfd)

850

200,000

800

150,000

750

100,000

700

50,000

650

600

1/1/99

5/1/99

9/1/99

1/1/00

5/1/00

9/1/00

1/1/01

5/1/01

9/1/01

1/1/02

5/1/02

9/1/02

1/1/03

5/1/03

9/1/03

1/1/04

5/1/04

9/1/04

1/1/05

5/1/05

9/1/05

1/1/06

5/1/06

9/1/06

1/1/07

5/1/07

Vaquillas Q

Vaquillas P

Laredo P

Figure 8 Lobo Gas Gathering System SCADA data

9/1/07

Vaquillas volume vs. Liquid Output to King Ranch

300,000 24,000

250,000

20,000

Vaquillas volume (mcfd)

200,000

16,000

150,000

12,000

100,000

8,000

50,000

4,000

0 1/1/1999 4/1/1999 7/1/1999 1/1/2000 4/1/2000 7/1/2000 1/1/2001 4/1/2001 7/1/2001 1/1/2002 4/1/2002 7/1/2002 1/1/2003 4/1/2003 7/1/2003 1/1/2004 4/1/2004 7/1/2004 1/1/2005 4/1/2005 7/1/2005 1/1/2006 4/1/2006 7/1/2006 1/1/2007 4/1/2007 10/1/1999 10/1/2000 10/1/2001 10/1/2002 10/1/2003 10/1/2004 10/1/2005 10/1/2006 7/1/2007 10/1/2007

Vaquillas Q

Liquid

Figure 9 Lobo Gas Gathering System SCADA data

Vaquillas 30-inch Line
0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5 hold-up (-)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 angle (degrees) 50 mmscfd 100 mmscfd 150 mmscfd 200 mmscfd 250 mmscfd 300 mmscfd 1 2 3 4

Figure 10 Commercial Model hold-up vs. angle for various flow rates

Liquid (gal per day)

7 6 5

ug (m/s)

4 3 2 1 0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

um (m/s) 100 mmscfd 266 mmscfd 150 mmscfd drift-flux line 200 mmscfd no-slip line 250 mmscfd

Figure 11 Commercial model gas velocity vs. mixture velocity

4.5 4.0 3.5

y = 0.9214x + 0.0165

slip velocity (m/s)

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

mixture velocity (m/s)

Figure 12 Commercial model slip velocity vs. mixture velocity

0.00030

0.00025

0.00020

hold-up (-)

0.00015

0.00010

0.00005

0.00000 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

wet gas rate (mmscfd) olga hl model hl

Figure 13 Comparison of FIELD model to commercial OLGA model

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5 hold-up (-)

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 angle (degrees) 50 mmscfd 50 mmscfd 100 mmscfd 100 mmscfd 150 mmscfd 150 mmscfd 200 mmscfd 200 mmscfd 250 mmscfd 250 mmscfd 1 2 3 4

Figure 14 Comparison of FIELD model (open points) to OLGA (filled points) hold-up prediction

400

350

300

pressure gradient (Pa/m)

250

200

150

100

50

-50 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 angle (degrees) 50 mmscfd 100 msmcfd 150 mmscfd 200 mmscfd 50 mmscfd 100 mmscfd 150 mmscfd 200 mmscfd 1 2 3 4

Figure 15 Comparison of FIELD model (open points) to OLGA (filled points) hold-up prediction
Vaquillas - 266 mmscfd
1.0000 1000 900 800 0.1000 700 600 hold-up (-) 0.0100 500 400 300 0.0010 200 100 0.0001 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 distance (ft) model hold-up olga hold-up elevation 0 350000

Figure 16 FIELD and OLGA results for Vaquillas pipeline for 266 MMscfd from Vaquillas to King Ranch.

elevation (ft)

Vaquillas Pipeline - 140:350 mmscfd

1 1000 900 800 0.1 700 600 hold-up (-) 0.01 500 400 300 0.001 200 100 0.0001 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 distance (ft) model hold-up olga hold-up elevation 0 350000

Figure 17 FIELD and OLGA results for Vaquillas pipeline for 140 MMscfd from Vaquillas to Hebbronville and 350 MMscfd from Hebbronville to King Ranch.

elevatio n (ft)