Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Diploma Thesis
NTNU
Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet
HOVEDOPPGAVE/DIPLOMA THESIS
Kandidatens navn/ The candidates name:
Studieretning/Area of specialization:
Fagomrde/Combination of subjects:
Tidsrom/Time interval:
NTNU
Norges teknisk-naturvitenskapelige universitet
Declaration
I, Karl Ludvig Heskestad, hereby declare that this Diploma thesis for the degree of
Master of Science in Petroleum Engineering is completed in accordance with all the
rules and regulations of the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.
Abstract
This thesis presents a comprehensive analysis of field data using OLGA2000
(OLGA). The field data was gathered from two different fields in the North Sea that
produce gas and condensate. The objective with this study was to verify and evaluate
the obtained field data by basic calculations to make sure it was applicable for tuning
and further to test and tune the OLGA model with the field data. The multiphase
pipelines investigated stand out from each other by one being an insulated and buried
pipeline transporting gas and condensate from a subsea development to a platform,
and the other being an uninsulated pipeline transporting rich gas from platform to
shore. In the pipeline where the pressure drop is mainly determined by friction a close
match between OLGA and field data has been obtained by changing the roughness of
the pipeline wall. OLGA has shown its vulnerability in cases where the pressure loss
is dominated by gravity forces. The simulation tool has been partly successful when
simulating an unsteady state incident. As an overall conclusion from this work OLGA
appears as a convincing simulation tool. However, it stands out that the tool needs
significant improvement for calculations where the pressure drop is dominated by
gravity forces.
iv
Preface
This thesis has been carried out at the Department of Multiphase Systems and Flow
Assurance, Statoil Stavanger. Professor Jn Steinar Gudmundsson has been my
teaching supervisor. The thesis has been professionally demanding and the
connection with large and active surroundings has given me technical insight and a
few extra challenges. For this there are a few people I would like to thank.
First of all I want to thank professor Gudumundsson who by his teaching has
supplied me with the technical knowledge which has been the foundation when
executing this work. I also appreciate his effort in trying to teach me the ability to
write in a technical and professional manner.
I want to express my appreciation to the Department in Statoil. Anne Synnve
Hebnes the leader of the department (now in a leave of absence) has always been
cooperative and helpful both technical and practical. I would also like to thank the
discipline leader Torbjrg Klara Fossum, who by her expertise and well meaning
attitude has been invaluable.
In general I would like to thank NTNU and the Department of Petroleum Engineering
and Applied Geophysics for giving me an education within an area of expertise that is
both exiting and innovative.
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................ iv
Preface........................................................................................................................... v
Table of Contents......................................................................................................... vi
Table list......................................................................................................................vii
Figure list ....................................................................................................................vii
Nomenclature............................................................................................................... ix
1
Introduction........................................................................................................... 1
2
Literature Review.................................................................................................. 2
2.1
Experience from previous work.................................................................... 2
3
Multiphase simulation tool OLGA ....................................................................... 4
3.1
The two-fluid model ..................................................................................... 4
3.2
Flow regimes................................................................................................. 7
3.3
Applications .................................................................................................. 9
4
Field A ................................................................................................................ 10
4.1
General........................................................................................................ 10
4.2
System overview......................................................................................... 11
4.3
Design Basis................................................................................................ 11
4.4
Field data analysis....................................................................................... 13
4.4.1
Steady state data.................................................................................. 13
4.4.2
Unsteady state data ............................................................................. 14
4.5
Simulations and results ............................................................................... 16
4.5.1
Steady state simulations...................................................................... 16
4.5.2
Unsteady state simulations.................................................................. 18
4.6
Discussion ................................................................................................... 19
4.7
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 22
5
Field B................................................................................................................. 23
5.1
General........................................................................................................ 23
5.2
System overview......................................................................................... 23
5.3
Design Basis................................................................................................ 23
5.4
Field Data Analysis..................................................................................... 24
5.5
Simulations and Results.............................................................................. 25
5.6
Discussion ................................................................................................... 27
5.7
Conclusion .................................................................................................. 29
6
References........................................................................................................... 30
7
Tables.................................................................................................................. 32
8
Figures................................................................................................................. 38
A. Calculations............................................................................................................I
a. Field B................................................................................................................I
vi
Table list
Table 1 Expected Production ...................................................................................... 32
Table 2 Fluid composition 1 for Field A .................................................................... 32
Table 3 Fluid composition 2 for Field A .................................................................... 33
Table 4 Detailed wall construction Field As pipeline ............................................... 33
Table 5 Material properties used in the OLGA simulations at Field A ...................... 34
Table 6 Selected steady state data............................................................................... 34
Table 7 Steady state data used in the extensive testing of the models........................ 34
Table 8 Evaluation of base case.................................................................................. 35
Table 9 Gas production from Field B ......................................................................... 35
Table 10 Material properties used in the pipeline on Field B..................................... 36
Table 11 Gas composition for Field B, ....................................................................... 36
Table 12 Results from the tuning based on OLGA simulations. ................................ 37
Figure list
Figure 1 Schematic drawing of horizontal flow regimes............................................ 38
Figure 2 GUI OLGA .................................................................................................. 38
Figure 3 The phase Envelope for Field A................................................................... 39
Figure 4 System Overview for Field A....................................................................... 40
Figure 5 Figure profile for one of the wells at Field A .............................................. 41
Figure 6 Overview for one of the wells at Field A. .................................................... 42
Figure 7 The pipeline profile for the pipe at Field A.................................................. 43
Figure 8 Field As buried pipeline .............................................................................. 43
Figure 9 Hydrate equilibrium curve for Field A......................................................... 44
Figure 10 Production profile for Field A .................................................................... 45
Figure 11 Pressure losses on Field A.......................................................................... 46
Figure 12 Temperature drop on Field A ..................................................................... 47
Figure 13 Calculated pressure drops........................................................................... 48
Figure 14 Calculated temperature function................................................................. 49
Figure 15 Shutdown sequence for Field A ................................................................. 50
Figure 16 Injection of MEG at Field A....................................................................... 51
Figure 17 Hydrate area................................................................................................ 52
Figure 18 Topside temperature during restart............................................................. 53
Figure 19 Flow regimes during stable production at Field A ..................................... 54
Figure 20 Pressure drop versus massflow 0.001 mm ................................................. 55
Figure 21 Pressure drop versus massflow 0.01 mm ................................................... 56
Figure 22 Pressure drop as a function of time ............................................................ 57
Figure 23 Temperature drop versus massflow............................................................ 58
Figure 24 Deviation in the temperature drop.............................................................. 59
Figure 25 Restart Field A............................................................................................ 60
Figure 26 Restart Field A after 21 hours .................................................................... 61
Figure 27 Restart Field A with modified wall model ................................................. 62
Figure 28 Restart Field A with modified soil properties ............................................ 63
Figure 29 Restart Field A with modified soil properties 2 ......................................... 64
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
vii
viii
Nomenclature
Latin letters
A
Cp
d
E
f
G
H
h
k
L
NRe
p
Re
S
Sm3
T
U
u
V
v
area
specific heat capacity
diameter
internal energy per unit of mass
friction factor
mass source
enthalpy
height
surface roughness
length
Reynolds number
pressure
Reynolds number
wetted perimeter
Standard cubic meter
temperature
overall heat transfer coefficient
velocity
volume
velocity
Greek letters
pb
pS
g
e
d
ix
acceleration
droplets
gas
interphase
liquid
slug bubble
liquid slug
water
Abbreviations
DHP
GUI
GOR
HET
HPHT
LNG
LPG
MEG
MSL
NGL
PVT
SCSSV
1 Introduction
More and more fields are developed with subsea solutions and this often results in
multiphase transport in long pipelines. OLGA is widely used in the international oil
business as the premium multiphase simulation tool. Since the companies become more
dependent on tools such as OLGA, continuous testing and evaluation of these tools are
necessary. This thesis has evaluated field data from two different fields, both fields
produce gas and condensate.
Chapter 2 in the thesis is a brief literature review and a description of previous work that
is relevant for this thesis has been included.
In chapter 3 the theory behind OLGA is presented. All the basic equations are included
and the different flow regimes are discussed. Typical systems that OLGA is applicable on
are also mentioned.
The first field is presented in chapter 4. A general overview of the field appears. The
obtained data is presented and evaluated. Attempts to tune the model against the
mentioned data are performed. A shut-in/restart incident is also simulated. At the end of
the chapter there is an extensive discussion followed by the conclusion.
Chapter 5 is built up as the previous one with a general introduction of the field. The field
data obtained for this field is limited but the evaluation of it has been crucial for the
simulations and tuning performed later on. The chapter is brought to an close during the
discussion and finalized by the conclusion.
The following chapters show all the references, tables and figures which are referred to in
the text.
2 Literature Review
In the 70s Oil and gas companies used to apply empirical correlated multiphase flow
simulation tools to design new pipelines. The empirical correlations were also used to
determine the future behaviour of existing pipelines with changing production rates. The
software performed well as long as the pipelines were designed for or operated in
conditions that the empirical correlations were derived from. Later more reliable
mechanistic flow simulators emerged: these were based on equations of mass momentum
or energy of oil and gas phases. They were used to simulate steady state flow for any
conditions. However this was not sufficient enough to design confidently new pipelines
or to anticipate unsteady behaviours of existing pipelines. The oil industrys solution to
this problem was the introduction of transient multiphase flow simulators. These
simulators can simulate unsteady flows of oil, gas and water. The next step is likely to be
a four phase simulator, where the fourth phase could be hydrates. Before the introduction
of such a simulator there is great demand for evaluating of already existing multiphase
flow simulation tools1. One of these tools is OLGA.
% for TACITE, with regards to the pressure drop. The pressure drop was however as low
as 4.2 bars. The transient data are taken from the pipeline when operating slug catchers1.
Eidsmoen and Roberts at Scandpower Petroleum Technology performed work on a 77
kilometres long 20 inch pipeline. With an inlet temperature of 50 C, slug catcher
pressure of 50 bars and production rates ranging from 1.4 to 8.5 MSm3/d. The authors
looked at several aspects connected to simulations using OLGA. They concluded that due
to very slow water build-up rates some gas condensate pipeline are rarely at steady state.
To achieve steady state in the simulations the OLGA models has to be run for a long
time. Through dynamic simulation examples it was shown that special attention has to be
paid to the boundary conditions when performing transient simulations. Simplifications
will usually result in discrepancies from what will be observed in reality2.
1
Vg g ) =
(
( AVg g vg ) + g + Gg
A t
t
1
(VL L ) =
( AVL L vL ) g L e + D + GL
A z
VL + VD
t
Equation 3.1
Equation 3.2
1
(VD L ) =
( AVD L vD ) g D + e D + GD
A z
VL + VD
t
Equation 3.3
In the equations above (and further on in section 3.1) Vg, VL, VD denotes volume
fractions of gas, liquid-film and liquid-droplets respectively. A is the pipe cross-section
area, g is the mass transfer rate between the phases, the e and d is the entrainment and
deposition rates. A possible mass source of phase f is given as Gf. Subscripts g, L, D and i
denote gas, liquid, droplets and interphase3.
Conservation of momentum is expressed for the gas, possible liquid droplets and liquid
bulk or film.
1
p 1
Vg g vg ) = Vg
AVg g vg2 ) g g vg vg
(
(
t
2
z A z
S
S
1
g + i g vr vr i + Vg g g cos + g va FD
4A
2
4A
Equation 3.4
p
1
AVD L vD2 ) +
(VD L vD ) = VD
(
t
z A z
VD
VD L g cos g
va + e vi d vD + FD
VL + VD
Equation 3.5
Equation 3.4 and Equation 3.5 can be combined to cancel out the gas/droplet drag, FD:
p
Vg g vg + VD L vD ) = (Vg + VD )
(
t
z
S
1
1
AVg g vg2 + AVD L vD2 ) g g vg vg g
(
2
4A
A z
S
1
i g vr vr i + (Vg g + VD L ) g cos
2
4A
VD
va + e vi d vD
+ g
VD + VL
Equation 3.6
p
1
AVL L vL2 )
(VL L vL ) = VL
(
t
z A z
S
S
1
1
L L vL vL L + i g vr vr i + VL L g cos
2
4A
2
4A
VL
V
g
va e vi + d vd VL d ( L g ) g L sin
VL + VD
z
Equation 3.7
From Equation 3.4 through Equation 3.7, p is the pressure, is the pipe inclination from
the vertical, the Sf is the wetted perimeters of the given phase f. The internal source Gf is
assumed to enter a 90 angle to the pipe wall thus carrying no net momentum. When >
0 the evaporation from the liquid film gives va = vL, and evaporation from the liquid
droplets gives va = vD. For < 0 the condensation gives va = vg. The conservation
equations can be applied to all possible flow regimes. The following slip equation defines
the relative velocity, vr:
vg = RD ( vL + vr )
Equation 3.8
vD = vg v0 D
Equation 3.9
OLGA reformulates the problem before discretisizing the differential equations to obtain
a pressure equation. The conservation of mass equations (Equation 3.1-Equation 3.3) may
be expanded with regards to pressure, temperature and composition. This assumes that
the densities are given as:
f = ( p, T , RS )
Equation 3.10
Rs is the gas mass fraction. After inserting the conservation of mass equations and
applying Equation 3.11:
Vg + VL + VD = 1
Equation 3.11
Then a single equation for the pressure and phase fluxes appears:
Vg g
1 Vg L p
+
L p T , RS t
g p T , RS
1 ( AVg g vg )
1 ( AVL L vL )
A g
A L
z
z
1
1 ( AVD L vD )
1
+ g
A L
z
g L
1
1
1
+ Gg
+ GL
+ GD
Equation 3.12
1
1
1
1
1
1
+ mL vL H L + vL2 + gh + mD vD H D + vD2 + gh ]
2
2
+HS +U
Equation 3.13
Where mf is a product of Vff, E is the internal energy per unit mass, the elevation is
given with h, HS is the enthalpy from the mass sources and U is the heat transfer from the
pipe walls3.
OLGA can simulate pipelines with any kind of wall constructions with several different
layers, heat capacities and conductivities which may change along its profile. The
program computes the heat transfer coefficient from the flowing fluid to the internal pipe
wall; the outside heat transfer coefficient is user specified. Special phenomena are
included, for instance the Joule-Thompson effect, given that the PVT package that
generates the fluid properties is capable of describing such phenomena3.
All fluid properties used in OLGA are calculated and given as tables in pressure and
temperature. The actual values at a given point in time and space are found by
interpolating in these tables. The tables are generated before OLGA is run. It is assumed
that the total mixture composition is constant in time along the pipeline, while the gas and
liquid compositions change with pressure and temperature as a result of interphasial mass
transfer. The reality is that the difference between oil and gas may change the total
composition of the mixture3.
OLGA is a unified model, separate user specified correlations are not needed. Thus a
dynamic flow regime prediction is required, yielding the correct flow regime as a
function of average flow parameters3.
Separated flow is characterized by the two phases moving separately4, Figure 1. The
phase distributions across the respective phase areas are assumed constant. The
distributions slip ratio, RD then becomes 1.0. The wetted perimeters of the liquid film
define the transition between stratified and annular flow. When this perimeter becomes
equal to the film inner circumference this results in annular flow. Stratified flow may be
either wavy or smooth and an expression for the wave height, hw, is as follows:
g ( v g vL )
1
hw = {
2 2( L g ) g sin
2
Equation 3.14
( v v )2
4
g
g
L
}
+
2( L g ) g sin ( L g ) g sin
The applied friction factors for gas and liquid are those of either turbulent or laminar
flow. In practice the largest one is chosen. The friction coefficient, t, for turbulent flow
is given by:
t = 0.0055 1 + 3
2 104 106
+
dh
N Re
Equation 3.15
l =
64
N Re
Equation 3.16
Where is the absolute pipe roughness and dh is the hydraulic diameter. In annular
vertical flow the interfacial friction factor, i,is given by Wallis equation:
i = 0.02 1 + 75 (1 Vg )
Equation 3.17
For inclined annular mist flow Equation 3.18 is applied (where the K is an empirically
determined constant):
i = 0.02 (1 + KVL )
Equation 3.18
In stratified smooth flow, Figure 1, the standard friction factors with zero pipe roughness
is applied. The interphasial friction factor for wavy flow is determined from Equation
3.18 and Equation 3.19:
i = hw d
Equation 3.19
hi
Equation 3.20
is the frictional pressure drop in the liquid slug and pb denotes the frictional pressure
drop across the slug bubble. pac is the pressure drop required to accelerate the liquid
under the slug bubble with velocity vLb up to the liquid velocity in the slug, vLS. L is the
total length of the slug and bubble. For slug flow the wall friction terms will be more
complicated since the liquid friction depend on vg and the gas friction on the vl, see
Malnes5 for full description3.
3.3 Applications
An example of the graphical user interface (GUI) in OLGA is shown in Figure 2. Typical
systems that OLGA may be applied to are6:
Laboratory experiments
4 Field A
In this section Field A will be generally described, field data will be analyzed and
evaluated. The OLGA model will be tested and an effort to improve it will also be
initiated.
4.1 General
Field A is a saturated gas field located in the North Sea. Condensate forms at pressure
reduction meaning during production. The field started production in the 3rd quarter of
2004 and is expected to recover 13 billions Sm3 of gas and 32 millions barrels of
condensate7.
Formation X is the main reservoir which contains gas and minor amounts of proven oil.
The total depth of the reservoir varies from 3400 to 3700 meters below mean sea level
(MSL). The thickness of Formation X varies between a maximum of about 70 meters to a
minimum of 40 meters. The sand quality is quite good and has a porosity of
approximately 18% and a permeability of 400 to 500 milliDarcy (mD). The initial
reservoir pressure is 445 bars at 3640 meters, and the reservoir temperature is 120
degrees Celsius (C). The dew point is at 420 bars and the gas condensate ratio (GCR) is
1984 Sm3/Sm3. Typical pressures at wellhead upstream choke are 270-290 bars, Figure 3
shows the phase envelope for the gas and typical inlet/outlet pressures and temperatures
are plotted8.
The field will be producing at max capacity the first two years, until it start decreasing.
Table 1 gives the: production profile, reservoir, wellhead, arrival and required pressures
and water production for Field A. Wellhead and arrival temperatures are also included.
The water production is given as a range between a minimum and a maximum value9.
10
11
The fluids from the four wells are represented by two different compositions which are
given in Table 2 and Table 39. In the first eight months of the fields production the
majority of the production has come from two wells with the same composition11. Mixing
of fluid compositions has been performed.
The flowline has an inner diameter of 350 millimetres, while the riser has an inner
diameter of 287.3 millimetres. As a base case a roughness of 0.04 millimetres is used in
the simulations9.
The selected material for the pipeline is 13% Chrome. The pipeline is insulated with
Polypropylene and buried (see 4.2). These pipeline layers are included in the OLGA
model; see Table 4 and Table 5. The selected materials12 and the layer of sand gives the
flowline an overall heat transfer coefficient (U-value) of 3 W/(m2C)9.
The hydrate control for the pipeline is based on insulation, inhibition and
depressurisation. During normal production, no hydrate control measures are required.
The insulation of the pipeline will keep the temperature above hydrate equilibrium
temperature (HET). For planned shut-ins, the pipeline will be inhibited with MEG prior
to shut-in9. MEG will be injected from the production platform to the template. Figure 9
is obtained from PVTSim and shows the hydrate equilibrium curve for year 2004 2006,
and the effect provided by adding MEG to the fluid. Figure 9 also illustrates that
sufficient MEG injection into the wellstream will move the hydrate equilibrium curve to
the left, and assure that even if the fluid is cooled down to seabed temperature (~5 C) no
hydrates will be formed during shut-in. For unplanned shut-in (i.e. the pipeline is not
inhibited and will enter the hydrate region if no measures are taken), the pipeline will be
depressurised to reduce the pressure in the pipeline below hydrate equilibrium pressure
(HEP) at seabed temperature9.
12
The ambient temperature changes from month to month in the North Sea. The warmest
months are from November to January, and correct temperatures have been applied in the
simulations13.
Equation 4.1
Where pf denotes the frictional pressure drop, f (-) is the friction factor, L (m) the length
of the pipeline, d (m) is the diameter of the pipe, is the density of the fluid and finally u
is the velocity of the fluid. The friction factor has been calculated using Haalands
equation:
1
f =
2
n
1.11n
6.9 k
0.6 log
+
Re 3.75d
Equation 4.2
13
Where Re (-) denotes the Reynolds number, k is the surface roughness of the pipe wall
and n is constant that either has the value 1 for oil/liquid or 3 for gas. Since the flow in
the pipeline is dominated by gas the calculations have been done with an average in
vapour density and viscosity. The fluid properties have been calculated with PVTSim. In
Figure 13 the results from the calculations are plotted versus massflow and compared
with the field data. The calculated pressure drops comes close to field data, but have a
different slope. The deviation in pressure drop from field measurements compared to
calculated pressure drop increase as the production rate is reduced. This can be explained
by the simplifications in fluid properties which is less valid as more liquid will drop out
at low production rates.
In Figure 12 at least one data point from the field data deviates and stands out from what
is expected, marked in the graph. This gives reason to evaluate the measured
temperatures using the following equation:
dUL
T2 = Ts + (T1 Ts ) exp
C m
p
Equation 4.3
Where Ts (C) is the surrounding temperature, T1 (C) is the inlet temperature, T2 (C) is
the outlet temperature, U (W/(m2C)) is the overall heat transfer coefficient, m (kg/s) is
the massflow and Cp (J/(molC)) is the specific heat capacity of the fluid. Solving this
equation with regards to the temperatures gives Figure 14. The slope of the graph is equal
to 1/m when assuming that the other variables are constant. In Figure 14 the same data
point as in Figure 12 has been marked. This point stands out in both graphs and appears
to be a measurement error thus being removed from the data set. The new data which will
be used to evaluate the multiphase flow program is given in Table 7.
14
fully stopped, Figure 16 shows the MEG content in the water phase along the pipeline
profile according to estimations using OLGA. The field was shutdown for 65 hours thus
staying in the hydrate region for a long time. According to OLGA simulations, parts of
the pipeline will enter the hydrate region after 21 hours, Figure 17. If the hydrate control
procedures were to be followed in this shut-in case, the pipeline should have been
depressurized. However, the risk for hydrate plugging was considered very low for the
pipeline. This risk assessment was based on factors like gas oil ratio (GOR), water
production, pipeline topography and pipeline diameter, all indicating low probability for
hydrate plugging. Further, it was decided to quickly pressurize the pipeline during restart,
so that the compression heat developed during the pressurization would melt possible
hydrate seeds. This quick pressurization of the pipeline during restart will even more
reduce the risk for hydrate plugging. The pressurization was carried out by keeping the
topside choke closed and quickly opening the well chokes.
The data obtained for this incident are somewhat questionable, especially the massflow
metering. It states that there is a ~2 % opening on the choke when other measurements
make it clear that it the choke is fully closed. The data set that comes from the
temperature measurement topside is regarded as accurate and has been used extensively
in the simulations14. Figure 18 shows the field data from the restart, the graph shows
topside temperature versus time. In the graph it is evident that after approximately 78
hours (4700 minutes) there is an increase in the temperature. The temperature increase
can be explained by warm liquid arriving at the platform, due to the fact that liquid cools
down slower than gas. During the shutdown a relatively large liquid accumulation can be
expected at the beginning of the pipeline (wellhead), see pipeline profile Figure 7. The
temperature increase at time 78 hours can be explained by this liquid surge arriving at the
platform. If there is a liquid plug arriving at the platform at that time the velocity of the
plug should be approximately 1.5 m/s (based on simple calculations, distance = velocity
time). Calculations performed by OLGA shows that the liquid velocity at the platform at
78 hours is 1.7 m/s, which is quite close. This indicates that there might be a liquid surge
moving through the system.
15
The CV curves for the chokes were not available, i.e. data for pressure drop as a function of opening of the
choke were not available.
16
are the normal production range for the pipeline). A roughness of 0.01 millimetres gave
good match with field data for the production rates between 105 and 115 kg/s see Figure
21 and Figure 22.
In OLGA a command called Steady State pre-processor exists. This is an option that is
mainly intended as a generator of initial values for dynamical simulations6. This option
has been tested to see if it can be used instead of running the model until it reaches steady
state. This option calculates the pressure drop quite good when the production rates are
low, but the error increases as the production rate increase, reference Figure 20 and
Figure 21.
When Field As OLGA model had been tuned against pressure drop, the temperature
drop prediction was also investigated (for same field data as above). The temperature
drop in the pipeline is in the range 15 22 C. The pipelines base case model was
constructed with a 0.5 meter concentric sand layer as part of the wall, 0.5 meters being
the actual burial depth. This sand layer is a simplification for the soil around the pipe.
This way of constructing a wall will be referred to as the wall model. However this
base case model gave a deviation, from the field data, up to 13 %. When applying the
sand layers in the pipe wall, the sand layer should be doubled of what the buried depth,
chapter 2.3.66. The model was therefore modified by increasing the sand layer to 1 meter
thickness. Figure 23 and Figure 24 shows that the modification of the sand layer gives
good agreement of temperature drop when comparing the simulations with the field data.
The deviation in temperature drop is maximum 8.6 %. Based on this, a sand layer
thickness of 1 m is used as a starting point for the tuning carried out in next section
(section 4.5.2). In accordance with the theorem in the OLGA user manual the specific
heat capacity for the sand was reduced from 1100 to 955 J/(kgK).The Cp does not have
any affect on steady state simulations. Because the heat transfer at steady state depends
on the outer soil layer radius, but for transient simulations it will affect the result.
17
18
pipeline is to use the soil model in OLGA, chapter 2.3.8 in6. When using the soil model
the pipe wall consists only of steel and insulation. The soil, using the base case material
properties, is created so that the pipe is buried 0.5 meters down. In the soil model, a grid
is made to represent the soil around the pipeline. Apart from the 0.5 meters of soil above
the pipe the model has now up to 8 meters of soil all around the pipe in the other three
directions, Figure 3116. The shut-in and restart was simulated using the new OLGA
model with the soil grid implemented. Figure 32 shows the topside temperature during
restart. The temperature gives a better match to the field data than the simplified wall
model. In an effort to achieve a better match, the Cp of the soil was changed to 1800
J/(kgK), Figure 33.
4.6 Discussion
Extensive testing of the model has been performed towards steady state and unsteady
state field data.
Tuning of the model with respect to the pressure drop, the main focus has been on the
pipes wall roughness. Several approaches to the problem have been investigated. When
tuning the model at the highest rates the roughness was reduced to 0.001 millimeters.
This is however a too low value for an uncoated pipe and the model matches poorly
against lower rates. A parameter study was executed with roughness ranging from 0.001
0.04 millimeters. From this study it became clear that the best match was obtained
when using a roughness of 0.01 millimeters. It can be discussed how correct it is to tune
the model by changing the roughness. The roughness gives an indication on how uneven
and irregular the wall surface is. A value that is usually given from the manufacturer of
pipelines is 0.02 millimeters, however this usually change when it is exposed to the harsh
fluids that flow through these types of pipes17. The value of 0.01 millimeters may be
considered as a bit low, but it is not unreasonable for a relatively new pipeline18.
The base case model gave results with an error margin up to 13 % with respect to the
temperature drop. The pipelines base case model was constructed with a 0.5 meter
19
concentric sand layer as part of the wall. Applying the theorem in the OLGA users
manual gave the model a better match when considering stable production. However
when simulating the dynamic shut-in/restart of the field it mismatched considerably.
Investigating Figure 32 shows that the previously mentioned increase in temperature (at
time 78 hours, see section 4.4.2, Figure 18) does not appear in the OLGA simulations.
Reason for this could be that OLGA does not predict the liquid plug very well, indicating
that no liquid surge moves through the system. However when plotting the gas and liquid
massflow versus time, see Figure 34, the liquid plug appears at approximately 4700
minutes. This is also almost at the same time as the discussed increase in temperature
appears. A possible explanation could be that OLGA over predicts the pressurization and
heats up the gas too quick. Hence the gas reaching the liquid temperature faster in the
simulations than what is the reality.
The case with the short shut-in indicated that the cooling time of the pipeline is
significantly longer than what is expected from the first approach model. This gave
reason to investigate the affect the properties of the sand had on the model. Simulations
showed that increasing the Cp had more effect than increasing the density. Use of the soil
model is the closest match to unsteady state field data reached in this study, Figure 35. It
has also been verified that the soil model which produce the best match field data
regarding the shut-in/restart, also gives good agreement with the steady state field data in
section 4.5.1 (see Figure 23 and Figure 24). Even if the soil model is the closest match to
this dynamic restart it does not match in a satisfactory way. The Cp of the sand, in the soil
model, was increased and gave a better result. However part of the temperature
development does not follow the field data, Figure 36.
It is difficult to know for sure if the mismatch between OLGA predictions and field data
is mainly explained by deviation in cooling time during shut-in or by deviation in heat
development during compression restart, or by a combination of these.
20
In order to get a better understanding of why OLGA underestimates more field data is
needed. The data should preferable be from a shut-in/restart situation where no
pressurization of pipeline is carried out during restart. In this way it can be identified if
the mismatch is caused by deviation in the cooling time or by deviation in the heat
developed during pressurization restart.
21
4.7 Conclusion
Several conclusions can be drawn from the work that has been conducted on this field.
The reduction of the pipe wall roughness to 0.01 millimeters was very successful and
gave the model a good match when considering the pressure drop in the pipeline.
The wall model with one meter of sand around the pipeline complied with the
temperature drop from stable production and gave satisfactory results. When looking at
the shut-in/restart incident the more complicated soil model gave a better result. However
due to the relatively large deviations it can not be concluded that this model is correct.
Nor can it be defined as completely wrong. It has been show that the effect is minimal
when changing the density of the soil. However the effect of changing the Cp has a larger
impact.
Whether the mismatch in OLGA is caused mainly by deviation in the cooling time,
during shut-in or by deviation in the heat developed during pressurization restart has not
been determined in this study. To conclude in either way more field data is needed.
22
5 Field B
In this section Field B will be generally described, field data will be analyzed and
evaluated. The OLGA model will be tested and an effort to improve it will also be
initiated.
5.1 General
Field B is located in the North Sea and contains hydrocarbons characterised as gas
condensate. The production started in September 2004. The Reservoir is located 4000
meters below MSL. This field is defined as a high pressure high temperature (HPHT)
field. Initial reservoir pressure is 780 bars and the initial temperature is 150 C. The field
is expected to recover approximately 55 billions Sm3 of gas and 190 million barrels of
condensate. It is planned that the production will reach plateau rate in year 2006 and that
it will produce until 202419, Table 9 shows the production for each year. Figure 3722
shows the phase envelope for the gas, different curves for condensate content in the gas
have been plotted.
23
The gas comes directly from a separator and the fluid composition is represented in Table
1119, 22.The flowline has an inner diameter of 710 millimetres, while the riser has an inner
diameter of 650 millimetres. The riser is coated with an epoxy layer of 0.005 metres.
However the pipeline is uncoated and as a base case a roughness of 0.03 millimetres is
used in the simulations20.
The selected material for the pipeline is carbon steel. The pipeline has no insulation exept
from a 0.006 metres thin layer of Asphalt enamel and 0.05 metres of concrete layer. The
pipe is not buried and combined with the selected materials12 this give the pipeline a
overall heat transfer coefficient of 32 W/(m2-C), Figure 40. This is implemented in the
OLGA model and the material properties are shown in Table 11.
The hydrate control for the pipeline is based on continuous injection of MEG. At a
production of 20.7 MSm3/d the injection is supposed to be 12.7 m3/d in a 90 / 10 MEG /
Water ratio. The relationship between injection and production is linear. At 13.5 MSm3/d
(circa 135 kg/s) the production rate that has been simulated, the injection rate is 8.3
m3/d22.
The ambient temperature changes from month to month in the North Sea. The warmest
months are from October to January, and correct temperatures have been applied in the
simulations13.
24
measured at the inlet of the pipeline and at the outlet (process plant). The inlet
temperature is 32 C and at ambient temperature at the outlet (around 4-7 C at this time
period).
The pressure drop for this period is quite low for such a long pipeline, circa 14 bars. To
evaluate the pressure drop the problem has been approached in the same manner as
described in section 4.4.1. The fluid properties have been calculated in PVTSim. The
pressure drop was calculated using the same equations as mentioned earlier (Equation 4.1
and Equation 4.2). As previously an average of the fluid properties were used. The fluid
properties do not change too much over the pipeline. This due to the low pressure drop
and that the temperature falls quickly and stays in the area of the ambient temperature.
Calculation was first done by treating the fluid as one phase gas, hence n equal to 3, gas
viscosity and density was applied in Equation 4.1 and Equation 4.2. The other variables
are defined in 5.2 and 5.3. This gave a pressure drop of 10 bars, which is almost a 30 %
miscalculation compared to field measurements. To compare, the pressure drop was also
calculated using the liquid properties from PVTSim. This gave as expected a too high
pressure drop, 17 bars. This can indicate that there is a change in the flow regime
somewhere in the pipeline, and this will affect the pressure drop calculations. It was thus
aimed to use OLGA to investigate the flow regime in the pipeline and to investigate if
OLGA would give a closer approach to the pressure drop calculations.
25
platform before the riser and the onshore chokeii, the pressure drop in between the chokes
was used for testing. The model has only been tested for massflow equal to 135 kg/s
which mentioned earlier gives approximately 14 bars pressure drop (according to field
data). The base case model described in section 5.3 gives a pressure drop of 20 bars
which is further away than the simplified calculations described above.
In order to improve the model, the pipelines geometry was investigated to verify that the
deviation in pressure drop was not caused by any simplifications in the geometry. The
profile used in the OLGA model is quite detailed, shown in Figure 38 (the green line).
From this it is possible to conclude that it can not explain the large deviation22. According
to Frode Nygrd, who has worked with the model in Statoil, tuning of the roughness has
no considerable effect thus this has not been performed.
The discussed deviation can be related to the liquid transport in the pipeline. In order to
verify that this could be the case, a parameter study was performed in OLGA where the
base case model was used and the mass flow was changed from 80-280 kg/s. Plotted in
Figure 42 is the pressure drop and the liquid accumulation in pipeline depending on the
mass flow. The production rate for the field data is also indicated in the figure. Based on
this plot it was decided to tune the friction factor between the phases, the OLGA keyword
is called LAM_LGI. LAM_LGI is a coefficient that will be multiplied to the gas-liquid
interfacial friction factor calculated by OLGA. The standard value is 1.0 for this
coefficient6. Several simulations were run with different values for the interfacial friction
factor, ranging from 0.01 2.1, the results are shown in Table 12. The tuning did not
reach the desired results. A case was run where OLGA used a fluid properties file where
the gas density was reduced with 5 %, the results from this simulation are also shown in
Table 12.
ii
The CV curves for the chokes were not available, i.e. data for pressure drop as a function of opening of
the choke were not available.
26
5.6 Discussion
The base case model in OLGA mismatches considerably. In Figure 42 the total liquid
content and pressure drop is plotted versus massflow. The Figure shows that at
production rates below approximately 180 kg/s, the pressure drop of the pipeline start to
increase as the production rate is reduced. At production rate to the left of the break point
of the curves (~180 kg/s) considerable volumes of water/condensate will start to
accumulate in the pipeline. At these low rates the gas velocity is too low to transport the
liquid. The water drops will no longer be carried as suspended drops in the condensate,
but will instead accumulate at the bottom of the pipe. The pressure drop will be
dominated by gravity instead of being dominated by friction at these low flow rates. In
the Figure the normal production rate (135 kg/s) for Field B is indicated, and it can be
seen that the pipeline is operated in this gravity dominated area. It should be noted that it
is known that the predictions from the model are uncertain when the gas condensate flow
becomes dominated by gravity. Eidsmoen and Roberts2 concluded from similar
simulations that when the flow is in this particular area, OLGA deviated up to 30 % with
respect to the pressure drop.
The flow regime from the base case is shown in Figure 43, along the pipeline profile. The
flow is stratified in the pipeline until the pipe starts to rise up from the sea bottom to
shore. Then the flow is changed to slug flow. Figure 44 shows the mentioned flow regime
together with the pressure along the pipeline profile. In the figure the pressure is divided
(and highlighted) into two sections. One for when the flow is stratified and one for when
the flow is slug flow. Since the calculations in section 5.4 did not achieve the desired
results new calculations were performed (applying Equation 4.1 and Equation 4.2). The
average properties for gas were applied in the section with stratified flow (n equal to 3).
For the slug flow dominated area, the gas/fluid was treated as liquid (n equal to 1) and
homogenous mix properties were used. This gave a pressure drop almost identical to the
field data (14 bars) see chapter A, section a.
Attempts to tune the model were done by changing the interfacial friction coefficient.
Simulations are in general very sensitive to the value of the gas-liquid interfacial friction
27
(in particular the liquid hold-up) so changing this value should be used with great care. If
the case is a straight horizontal pipe with stratified flow of gas and liquid increasing the
tuning factor (LAM_LGI > 1.0) would increase the drag of the gas on the liquid and
therefore reduce the liquid hold-up. The opposite will happen if the factor is reduced
(LAM_LGI < 1.0) for this particular case. OLGA is based on mechanistic principles and
backed up by experimentation. Thus the friction factors implemented are controlled by
physical laws and by changing these OLGA deviates from the physical principles it is
built on23. Table 12 shows that tuning of LAM_LGI gave no clear indication of whether
the tuning factor should be reduced (<1) or increased (>1) in order to get at better match
with field data pressure drop. The Table show that the best match to field data is obtained
when the LAM_LGI is reduced to 0.5 and increased to 1.1, thus the liquid hold-up is
reduced in the first case and increased in the last case. Both cases gave a deviation in
pressure drop equal to 22%.
Too see if any miscalculation of gas density (calculated by PVTSim) would affect the
results, a simulation was carried out where the gas density was reduced by 5%. This did
not have any considerable effect on the pressure drop.
The field data obtained for this field does not allow for extensive testing due to the fact
that data for only one mass flow was available. It should be noted that the experience
from these simulations appends to the already existing experiences with poor OLGA
predictions for gravity dominated flow. It stands out that the tool needs significant
improvement for calculations where the pressure drop is dominated by gravity forces.
28
5.7 Conclusion
Field data for Field Bs pipeline has been evaluated with respect to the drop in pressure
and an effort has been made to match the OLGA model with the field data without
satisfactory success.
Simple hand calculations were performed which were partly successful. From flow
regime charts, provided by OLGA, two flow regimes were distinguished. Calculating the
pressure drop for each one, an almost perfect result was reached.
The base case model miscalculated the pressure drop by almost 43%. Attempts to
improve the model by tuning on the interfacial friction factor should be carried out
showing great care. Tuning on this factor will contradict physical principles. The best
match to field data is obtained when the tuning factor is reduced to 0.5 and increased to
1.1, thus the liquid hold-up in the pipeline is reduced in the first case and increased in the
last case. Both cases gave a deviation in pressure drop equal to 22%.
The field data obtained for this field does not allow for extensive testing due to the fact
that data for only one mass flow was available. It should be noted that the experience
from these simulations appends to the already existing experiences with poor OLGA
predictions for gravity dominated flow. It stands out that the tool needs significant
improvement for calculations where the pressure drop is dominated by gravity forces.
29
6 References
1
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
30
18
19
R.M. Monsen, E.S. Pedersen, K.A. Brresen, L.S. Lien, Statoil ASA
Field B Annual Reservoir Development Plan, 2004
20
21
22
23
31
7 Tables
Table 1 Expected Production9
Year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
Gas Rate
[MSm3/d]
11
11
8,5
6,79
5,42
5
4
3,2
2,7
2,2
1,7
Water Rate
[Sm3/d]
100-200
100-200
100-200
300-500
300-500
300-500
300-500
300-500
300-500
300-500
300-500
The table shows how gas and water rates, reservoir, wellhead, arrival and required pressures, wellhead and
arrival temperatures change with time.
Table 2 Fluid composition 1 for Field A9
Component Mol % Mol wt Liquid Density g/cm
Critical T C Critical P bars
0,29
28,01
-146,95
33,94
N2
8,45
44,01
31,05
73,76
CO2
77,58
16,04
-82,55
46,00
C1
6,74
30,07
32,25
48,84
C2
2,71
44,10
96,65
42,46
C3
0,39
58,12
134,95
36,48
iC4
0,69
58,12
152,05
38,00
nC4
0,21
72,15
187,25
33,84
iC5
0,24
72,15
196,45
33,74
nC5
0,28
86,18
0,66
234,25
29,69
C6
0,46
86,60
0,76
251,19
39,00
C7
0,52
101,40
0,78
278,28
33,49
C8
0,32
115,00
0,80
300,38
29,78
C9
0,23
134,00
0,81
328,68
25,67
C10
0,18
147,00
0,82
345,68
23,84
C11
0,26
167,22
0,83
369,96
21,68
C12-C13
0,22
203,63
0,85
408,72
19,10
C14-C16
0,14
253,00
0,87
453,89
17,12
C17-C20
0,07
316,26
0,90
503,75
15,81
C21-C26
0,02
407,34
0,92
566,22
14,85
C27-C34
0,00
527,39
0,95
638,28
14,32
C35-C45
0,00
689,29
0,98
724,53
14,12
C46-C61
32
Spool_Zone2
WholeRiser
Topside Pipe
Main Pipe
80
17167
590
138
304
Template Spool Wall Pipe sone1 wall Riser Spool wall Riser Jtube wall Topside pipe wall
19,0
0,3
0,3
6,4
54
4
0
0
84,0
16,8
0,3
0,3
6,4
30
4
0
500
557,8
19
0,3
0,3
6,4
54
4
0
0
84,0
35,3
0,3
0,3
9,4
0
0
72,1
0
117,4
19
0,3
0
0
0
0
0
0
19,3
33
13% Chrome
Solid
Capacity [J/(kg*K)]
FBE
Solid
PP-adh
PP-Solid
Solid
Solid
PP-Foam
PP-Solid Outer
Solid
Solid
Water Solid
Solid
Sand
Solid
450 1500
2461
2366
2262
1911
4200
Conductivity [W/(m*k)]
18,1
0,3
0,22
0,22
0,167
0,22
0,58
2,1
Density [kg/m3]
7835 1300
900
900
720
900
1000
2000
pressure subsea
temperature topside
pressure topside subsea temp massflow
bars
Celsius
bars
Celsius
kg/s
260.30
73.5
238.94
95.36
109.19
259.00
78.3
234.55
96.52
117.96
259.40
75.7
231.30
92.10
133.85
260.00
77.4
231.25
93.33
134.26
261.30
78.0
233.97
93.53
130.96
260.00
78.0
230.76
94.30
135.72
247.50
77.2
221.07
95.79
125.87
244.90
76.5
221.05
95.37
115.27
237.50
74.1
220.02
93.31
93.77
255.50
76.5
234.11
95.86
109.41
255.00
76.1
233.51
95.82
109.35
254.20
77.3
232.85
95.83
109.01
251.20
76.3
230.28
95.67
107.57
251.80
77.1
230.04
95.81
109.17
251.70
77.7
229.70
95.79
108.40
Table 7 Steady state data used in the extensive testing of the models11
Date
17/1/2005
17/1/2005
18/1/2005
18/1/2005
19/1/2005
19/1/2005
19/1/2005
20/1/2005
21/1/2005
23/1/2005
25/1/2005
27/1/2005
29/1/2005
30/1/2005
pressure subsea
temperature topside
pressure topside subsea temp massflow
bars
Celsius
bars
Celsius
kg/s
259.00
78.3
234.55
96.52
117.96
259.40
75.7
231.30
92.10
133.85
260.00
77.4
231.25
93.33
134.26
261.30
78.0
233.97
93.53
130.96
260.00
78.0
230.76
94.30
135.72
247.50
77.2
221.07
95.79
125.87
244.90
76.5
221.05
95.37
115.27
237.50
74.1
220.02
93.31
93.77
255.50
76.5
234.11
95.86
109.41
255.00
76.1
233.51
95.82
109.35
254.20
77.3
232.85
95.83
109.01
251.20
76.3
230.28
95.67
107.57
251.80
77.1
230.04
95.81
109.17
251.70
77.7
229.70
95.79
108.40
34
1100
Gas
Gas
Field B
Field B
3
contract [MSm /d] contract [MSm3/d]
year
year
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
13,9
20,7
20,7
20,7
20,7
20,3
16,8
12,7
9,5
7,2
5,4
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
2022
2023
2024
2025
4,4
3,5
2,9
2,4
2,1
1,9
1,7
1,5
1,3
1,1
0
35
36
0.01 Tuning
111,56
90,90
20,66
48 %
0.5 Tuning
107,94
90,90
17,04
22 %
1.1 Tuning
107,94
90,90
17,04
22 %
1.5 Tuning
109,13
90,90
18,23
30 %
1.9 Tuning
109,13
90,90
18,23
30 %
2.1 Tuning
112,58
90,90
21,68
55 %
No tuning (1.0)
110,95
90,90
20,05
43 %
110,82
90,90
19,92
42 %
37
8 Figures
1
38
450
400
350
temperature [C]
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
pressure [bara]
39
40
41
42
Sea bottom
0.5 meters
SAND/SOIL
43
300
Pressure, bar
250
200
150
100
50
0
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
Temperature, C
No MEG
10% MEG
20% MEG
30% MEG
40% MEG
50% MEG
The graph shows the effect of MEG injection, calculated in PVTSim 11 . The curves are plotted for
pressure (bars) versus temperature (C)
44
160
140
Massflow [kg/s]
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
jan. 05
jan. 05
jan. 05
jan. 05
jan. 05
jan. 05
jan. 05
jan. 05
jan. 05
feb. 05
feb. 05
Date
45
31
29
27
dp bara
25
23
21
19
17
15
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
massflow kg/s
46
dT vs q
25
20
dT [C]
15
10
0
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
q [kg/s]
47
50
45
40
35
30
field data
25
calc k=0.04 mm
calc k=0.03 mm
20
15
10
5
0
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
massflow [kg/s]
48
0.3500
0.3000
ln((T2-Ts/(T1-Ts))
0.2500
0.2000
0.1500
0.1000
0.0500
0.0000
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
110.00
120.00
130.00
140.00
m assflow [kg/s]
49
Shutdown
100
70
90
60
80
massflow kg/s
60
40
choke %
50
70
total rate
50
choke
30
40
30
20
20
10
0
-5500
10
10th of
-5000
12th of March
-4500
-4000
-3500
-3000
-2500
-2000
-1500
-1000
-500
0
500
minutes
50
51
Hydrate Area
250
200
65 hrs Shutdown
150
bara
HYDRATE
21 hrs Shutdown
100
pressure buildup
50
0
0,000
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
52
Topside temperature
80
70
60
celsius
50
40
30
20
10
13 March 15:00
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
53
4 Bubble
Liquid velocity
Gas velocity
water film velocity
Flowregime
3 Slug
m/s
4
2 Annular
3
1 Stratifie
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
profile [m]
54
dp vs q
33
31
29
dp [bara]
27
dp measured [bara]
25
dp OLGA ss [bara]
dp OLGA stable run[bara]
23
21
19
17
15
90,00
100,00
110,00
120,00
130,00
140,00
q[kg/s]
55
dp vs q
33
31
29
dp [bara]
27
dp measured [bara]
25
dp OLGA ss [bara]
dp OLGA stable run[bara]
23
21
19
17
15
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
q[kg/s]
56
Pressure
270
265
260
pressure
255
250
245
240
235
230
16. jan.
18. jan.
20. jan.
22. jan.
24. jan.
26. jan.
28. jan.
30. jan.
1. feb.
date
57
dT vs q
25
20
15
dT [C]
10
0
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
q [kg/s]
58
15 %
10 %
5%
Wall
0%
Soil
90
95
100
105
110
115
120
125
130
135
140
Base Case
-5 %
-10 %
-15 %
59
80
70
60
50
celsius
40
30
20
10
13 March 15:00
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
60
80
70
60
50
celsius
OLGA Topside
i
30
20
10
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
61
80
70
60
50
celsius
40
30
20
10
13 March 15:00
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
62
80
70
60
celsius
50
40
OLGA topside
30
20
10
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
63
80
70
60
celsius
50
Field data topside temp
40
OLGA topside
30
20
10
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
64
80
70
60
celsius
50
Field data temp topside
40
OLGA topside
30
20
10
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
65
Y-grid
start (0)
Seabottom
Pipeline
X-grid
start (0)
X-coordinates
Y-coordinates
66
80
70
60
celsius
50
40
OLGA Topside
30
20
10
13 March 15:00
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
67
80
70
60
celsius
50
Field data temp topside
40
OLGA topside
30
20
10
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
68
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
30
20
20
10
0
4400
10
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
0
5400
minutes
69
kg/s
centigrades
80
70
60
50
Celcius
30
20
10
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
70
80
70
60
celsius
50
Field data
Soil Cp =1100
40
Soil Cp=1800
30
20
10
0
4400
4500
4600
4700
4800
4900
5000
5100
5200
5300
5400
minutes
71
Phase Envelope
200
180
Pressure [bar]
160
140
120
100
Process plant
operational area
80
60
40
20
0
-30
-20
-10
10
20
30
Temperature [C]
40
50
60
70
80
99 % condensate in vapor
97 % condensate in vapor
Water dew point line
72
PT
TT
gas
liqu
Riser
73
U-value
60
50
W/(m2*C)
40
30
20
10
0
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
metres
74
140
135
massflow [kg/s]
130
125
120
115
110
105
100
13.2.
15.2.
17.2.
19.2.
21.2.
23.2.
25.2.
27.2.
1.3.
date
75
8000
35
7000
30
Normal production Field B
6000
25
5000
tot liq
m3
20
production rate
delta p
4000
15
3000
10
2000
1000
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
300
q [kg/s]
76
0,5
4 Bubble
holdup
Flowregime
indicator
0,4
3 Slug
Holdup
0,3
2 Annular
0,2
1 Stratified
0,1
0
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
0
160000
profile
77
120
Bubble
Slug
Annular
Stratified
110
inlet
pressure
100
90
80
p [barg]
70
60
50
40
30
20
pressure
temperature
10
p inlet
Flowregime
0
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
profile [m]
78
A. Calculations
a. Field B
L
m
ID
density
viskosity
n
k
u
Re
f
delta p
Tinn
Tslutt
139618,6 m
135 kg/s
0,71 m
136,1 kg/m3
0,0169 cP
3
0,00003 m
2,505354 m/s
14325139
0,010233
8,595038 bara
31,384 C
6,2318 C
L
m
ID
density
viskosity
n
k
u
Re
f
delta p
Tinn
Tslutt
7745,906 m
135 kg/s
0,71 m
115,1266 kg/m3
0,014909 cP
1
0,00003 m
2,96177 m/s
16238646
0,093913
5,173519
total dp
13,76856
6,1033 C
2,8173 C