ALASKA - USA August 2009

Field Application Comparison Conditioning Type Orifice Plates (4-holed) and Generic Cone Meters Mark W. Davis, Senior Staff Engineer Shell Exploration & Production Co. Inc. Houston, Texas USA

Philip A. Lawrence, Director of Business Development Cameron Measurement Systems, Inc. Houston, Texas USA
Abstract Allocation measurement of produced hydrocarbon gas in the upstream area require different measurement techniques and strategies than those used for standard pipeline quality gas measurement due to the nature of the fluids in the system. Wet gas, hydrate formation, liquid slugging, well clean-up debris and short meter runs all add to the difficult task of collecting meaningful data from High Pressure Full Well Stream (HPFWS) allocation metering points. Various meter types have been employed for these flow regimes in order to meet the necessary accuracy requirements and the arduous duty that normally occurs in these applications. This paper details the real world experience of such a allocation metering system operating in Wyoming, USA that has wide ranging environmental patterns from below - 30 deg F (-34 deg C) in the winter to + 90 deg F (+32 deg C) in the summer all which can have an impact on the measurement. The operational experience and differences between the two metering technologies, conditioning orifice plate versus cone will be detailed. Meter selection criteria will be discussed based on facility design constraints in accordance with regulatory and environmental requirements, allocation accuracy needs, along with sustainable and cost effective approaches for implementation. Data from the field operator will be shown together with performance, calibration data and computational fluid dynamic imagery (CFD) for some meter types that were and are now being fitted to meet the operators measurement philosophy. Field Location The location of the subject field is in West Central Wyoming consisting of remote well pad locations where access can pose problems during the winter months due to various environmental factors such as weather and animal migrations. From a sustainability standpoint, the remote measurement systems must operate effectively with minimum maintenance during these months with limited access. - Figure 1

Figure 1.0 The measurement systems installed at the locations shown use full well-stream metering and are adjusted by using a well test separator to calculate the volume correction factor for the wet gas metering. The environmental issue is one of keeping the production facilities to the smallest footprint possible, due to the impact on the local wildlife particularly the mule deer which use the Pinedale Anticline as a migratory route. Figure 2 shows the typical landscape that is dealt with here. The local regulatory authorities are very stringent in managing and keeping the delicate balance needed at these locations.

Figure 2.0

Measurement Philosophy Metering is required to fulfill a number of functions driven by regulatory, industry and internal requirements. The metering function relates to process control, sales quantity and quality, and hydrocarbon accounting. Consistent with a need to simplify facilities, metering equipment is minimized to that deemed necessary to run the business. The measurement systems are designed Fit For Purpose in order to reduce capital and operating expense, and simplify volume reconciliation procedures. Metering devices, flow conditioning equipment and ancillaries will be designed to meet the necessary level of accuracy only. Such accuracy requirements must be in accordance with BLM and Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission regulations, API standards, legal, accounting, SarbanesOxley (Sox) compliance, and reservoir management requirements. Continuous readings are taken during the well testing process. The test separator gas volumes are compared to the High Pressure Full Well Stream (HPFWS) Differential Pressure Meters (e.g. Cone meter, Conditioning Orifice Plate, or similar devices) readings and a gas volume correction factors are calculated. Once the gas volume correction factor (GVCF) is obtained, the gas only volumes from the HPFWS Meter will be used to calculate liquid volumes. Liquid yields will be calculated based on the gas volume produced during the test. The well test is used to calculate a daily well theoretical contribution percentage for oil, water, and gas. This percentage is calculated using algorithms involving the daily readings from the HPFWS Meter and the well test factors. Once the theoretical daily volumes are calculated, they are compared with daily readings from the applicable sales meter for accuracy. The daily sales are then allocated to each well based on each wells calculated contribution percentage. The fiscal allocation occurs when the daily sales readings are replaced with final sales readings and the same daily theoretical contribution percentage is applied. The use of Differential Pressure Technology (D.P.) to measure the full well stream wet gas is favored because these types of devices appear to be less susceptible to the effects caused by the multiphase aspects of the fluid. Although there is an effect of liquid in gas for all D.P. devices, it is known from research that the main issue here is one of repeatable results from well test to well test with minimum impact caused by liquid load changes. Since a correction factor / allocation factor is calculated for each well location the most important requirements are that the full well stream meter is robust, has a predictable and repeatable operating envelope, and is representative between well tests. The normal well test period is 24 hours once per month per full well stream meter to determine a gas volume correction factor (GVCF) that is used for the time till the next well test period.- Figure 3.0 Well Test Manifold System A well test manifold is installed in the flow line downstream of the HPFWS meters. There are chokes situated upstream of the HPFWS meters on most of the locations. Samples are taken at least semiannually from each gas and condensate stream. Shrinkage factors are applied to the gross volume obtained by the well test separator condensate/oil turbine meters to determine the net stock tank condensate volumes.

Figure - 3.0 - Typical Allocation System Meter Correction Calculations. During the well testing process, the volume of gas is measured at the outlet of the test vessel and recorded as the Standard Gas Volume (SGV). The indicated Full Well Stream Volume FWSV is also recorded during the same time frame. Then the SGV divided by the FWSV which yields a gas volume correction factor (GVCF) that is used to ascertain the gas volumes delivered through the HPFWS meter. Thus; FWSMF = SGTV / GVCF Where; SGTV GVCF = Standard Gas Test Volume (MCF). = Full Well Stream Standard Volume

FWSMF = Full Well Stream Meter Factor.

Condensate Volume Calculations Volumes of Condensate produced during the well test are also recorded. The indicated gross volumes usually are corrected to standard conditions (net volumes) in accordance with API MPMS 20.1.latest revision. The resulting net volume is used as well as the gas volumes from above in ascertaining the barrels of condensate per million cubic feet of gas yield (BBL / MMCF). Thus; CBMCF = CTV / (SGTV / 1000) Where; CBMCF = Condensate Barrels per MMCF. CTV = Condensate Test Volume.

Water Volume Calculations. Produced water volumes are ascertained in the same manner as the condensate volumes detailed before, since water at ambient temperature is assumed to be non-compressible. The only difference in the method is that there is no correction from gross to net volumes during the well test period required. Full Well Stream Meter Types (A) 4-Holed Differential Orifice Plate Devices. Originally the full well stream meters where selected on a cost basis and 4-holed orifice devices were used because of this mandate for the application regarding the system application. Around 250 devices were originally used at the Pinedale locations and field data for these devices was collected over an 18 month period. It was discovered over this period that various operational issues occurred resulting in less than satisfactory measurement results causing the operator to re-think operationally and from a metrological standpoint using this meter design for the application. The 4-holed orifice meter is reported by the manufacturer to be successfully operating at other worldwide locations. The performance of these devices is based on test data supplied by the manufacturers testing and also test data derived from some laboratory work performed to some of the API 22.2 differential test protocol requirements. 4-Holed Orifice Plate Manufacture/Design. Typically a circular plate is cut from stainless or other materials and 4 circular holes equally spaced on a radius are machined with a typical equivalent area ratio of a standard orifice plate to satisfy the normalized flow rates per diameter. These betas or area ratios are reported to be available in 0.2, 0.4 & 0.65 currently the writer has no data regarding other beta ratio types or the effect of coefficient of discharge. The device looks like a paddle as seen from the photographs of two models Figure 4 & 5

Figure 4 Beta Ratio

Figure 5

The effective area ratio () for all differential pressure devices is a function of the restriction versus the pipe area, the manufacturers published data sheet table for the four holed plate meter shows the beta ratio calculation for the device. The area ratio for all types of differential producers is the square root of the smallest free flow area (differential pressure element) / largest free flow area (pipe), for a 4 holed orifice plate this equation is shown next.- Figure 6 - (Equation) & Figure 7 - ( Data Table).

4HoledOrificePlate() EquationFigure6

o.p.

Where

d = Hole size of each of the holes

Where Pid = Pipe Internal Diameter

Nominal

D
3"

Pipe Schedule 40 80 160

Pipe ID (Pid) 3.068 2.9 2.624

4-Hole Orifice Plate (o.p.) d - 0.4 Beta 0.614 0.614 0.614

dc (from
Manufacturer Literature) for a 0.4 Beta 1.228 1.228 1.228

Total Flow Area 1.1844 1.1844 1.1844

Effective Beta Per Equation (Figure-6) 0.400 0.423 0.468

Area Ratio Table Figure 7- (Four Holed O.P. Manufacturer Data Table)

Baseline and Disturbance Testing 4 Holed Orifice Plate The effective area ratio changes with pipe schedule as can be seen from the table 5 b above below is test data from a recent test of a 4 inch 4 holed device tested with disturbance effect testing (1/2 moon plate) at 2 , 5 and 7, Pipe Diameters (Ds) data - Hollister & Dyer- 2008 - Figure 8

Figure 8

Full Well Stream Meter Types (B) - Generic Differential Pressure (D.P.) Cone Meter The generic cone meter uses a beta ratio equation similar to an annular orifice, which incorporates the flow around the outside of the cone annulus. The equation for this type of device is shown in Figure 11. All Cone Meters (non-wall tap design) consist of a conically shaped differential pressure producer fixed concentrically in the center of a pressure retaining pipe using a cantilever member, by which a differential pressure can be obtained across the interface of two cone frustums via an internal port-way system. This allows the downstream pressure P2 to be measured in the center of the closed conduit via a portway. The fluid is linearized through the meter throat (annulus) within a region defined by the differential producer cone surface area and the interior surface of the closed conduit, whilst also flattening the velocity profile in the throat region of the device Figure 9. The upstream pressure P1, being measured at the pipe wall.- Figure 9

ComputationalFluidDynamicsImage(50%Section) P1 P2
Meter Tube Wall

Meter Throat

FLOW

Field Acceptance

Separation

P2

Figure9(CFD)

The concept of using the center of the cone above to monitor the downstream pressure has shown certain benefits from historical data compared to conventional differential pressure meters such as the following :a) b) c) d) e) Flow Conditioning Effect. (shorter runs) High Turndown Ratio. ( up to 10-1 ) Some Static Mixing. Wet Gas usage at Lockhart & Martinelli Wet Gas Test Values LM = up to 0.35 & LM = 0.5. (One test only at 0.5 by Stevens - NSFMW 2003) Low Maintenance application : design is robust.

This was one of the reasons that the operator made a decision to try this type of device at the site in Pinedale Wyoming. The low maintenance aspect was a deciding factor ! Y Factor (Expansibility Coefficient) The Y factor equation (expansibility coefficient for gasses) for this type of device is per the Reader-HarrisPeters, (NEL-TUV in U.K.) generated equation thus - (eq.10)

Y=1(0.649+0.696^4)

..(10)

This equation has been accepted in Industry and is shown to work for cone type meters using the geometry shown in Figure 13 from 2 inch diameter meter sizes and larger.

Beta Ratio Cone Meter Cone meter area ratios (cone) are varied to accommodate the measurement of different flow rates by changing the cone length and thus the cone diameter. This changes the effective diameter of the cone in relation to the pipe diameter and thus the beta or effective area ratio and ultimately the velocity across the Beta edge boundary, the cone meter equation is shown in Figure 11 below. Generic Cone Meter () Equations - Figure 11 Honed Meter Body- Figure 12

D2 d 2 = cone D

&

d = D2 (D )2
cone
d 2.9 2.42198 0.55

D d Beta

Generic Cone Meter Beta D 2.9 2.42198 0.55000

Generic Cone Meter Geometry

P Taps:StaticLowPressure
Betaedgeboundary

Figure 13 Commercially made cone meters operate generally in Beta ratios from 0.45 - 0.85. As the beta ratio becomes larger (approaching beta 0.8- a smaller cone diameter) the meter performance changes and the measurement uncertainty may become greater with disturbed velocity profiles.- Figure-13 This performance effect is caused by the reduced interaction between the cone area and the fluid, i.e. A smaller cone has a smaller dynamic effect on the fluid so the flow linearization aspect of the meter can be reduced. Care must be taken when using smaller cone diameters where valves or other flow disturbance generators are in line and upstream of differential pressure cone device. The cone meter installations at the facilities had short upstream lengths at 4-5 pipe diameters (Ds), depending on the site location.

The cone meter manufacturer should be able to advise of the minimum straight lengths per Beta ratio and diameter versus Reynolds Number ReD, regarding this effect. The cone meters used in this application were also honed to improve surface roughness effects and roundness - Figure 12. The mass flow rate equation for generic cone meters is exactly the same as per any standard differential pressure device, (Orifice, Venturi.) with the exception of the C.d. implementation and beta ratio calculation which is usually derived from empirical testing by the manufacturer or other independent laboratories and not generally by mathematical iteration. Flow Conditioning Effect (Cone Meters) It is known from research that the use of a cone shape concentrically mounted in a closed conduit (pipe) can facilitate a flow conditioning effect by velocity profile re-distribution. This effect seems to occur over quite a wide Reynolds Number (ReD) range and appears to be enhanced farther away from the transition region (ReD:8000-10,000). 90 Deg. Out Of Plane Testing of a 4-inch Generic Cone Meter The graphical test results and photograph of the test are shown next for a 90 deg out of plane elbow test regime conducted at South West Research Laboratory (SWRI) in San Antonio in 2005 at 165psig ambient conditions with a 4-inch diameter 0.45 meter Figure 14

Figure 9

Figure 14 API Chapter 22.2 Testing of Generic Cone Meters Recently various generic cone meters supplied by Cameron Measurement Systems were tested at the Colorado Engineering Experimental Engineering Station (CEESI) facility in Nunn, Colorado to meet the API chapter 22.2 test protocol requirements. Test results for a 2-inch 0.45 beta meter which involved a full range of disturbance testing is shown next. The test is extremely aggressive regarding the up & downstream condition tests with a moon orifice plate (50%valve test) at 3 diameters upstream and 0-diameters on the outlet of the meter, Out of Plane Elbows at zero D,s, a swirl generator close coupled at three diameters, and finally a standard baseline over 12 points for comparison against the disturbance tests.- Figure15.

Figure 15 Installation and Operating Criteria The meters were installed in separate streams situated in a steel cabin. D.P. Temperature and Static Pressure data was collected and transmitted to a locally mounted Supervisory Control Data Acquisition System (SCADA) to allow computation of the flow rate. The process conditions varied over the well life so a meter sizing was selected to manage the following Natural Gas metering needs: Process Condition and Operating Criteria a) Initial Condition b) Majority Condition c) End Life (new) d) Old End life data : : 10 MMcf/day @ 2000 psig 6 MMcf/day @ 600 psig density 0.0443 lbm//ft^3 density 0.0443 lbm//ft^3 density 0.0443 lbm//ft^3 density 0.0443 lbm//ft^3

: 1.5 MMcf/day @ 600 psig : 1.0 MMcf/day @ 600 psig

Meter sizes were determined electronically from a Cameron supplied propriety software which gave a 3 inch - 0.55 Beta cone meter as the selection to fit the existing pipe-work and flow needs. Pressure rating for the piping was ANSI Class # 2500. Meters were manufactured from carbon steel with 316 stainless steel cone assemblies. The meters where installed locally by a skid manufacturer near to the field facility. The facility staff helped to ensure that the meter factors and dimensional /calibration data was inputted correctly into the SCADA system, original proof calibration of the meters was performed at FCC Ltd on water. The wells shown in examples (A) 3.7MMcf/Day and (B) 1.5MMcf /Day relate to original predicted process conditions for the facility with the four holed plate operating at 50% of the listed Majority Condition and the generic cone meter operating at the listed End Life (new) condition, as shown in the operating process criteria listing above. Graphical results are shown in - Figures 16 &17.

Field Allocation Results Example (A) Four Holed Orifice Plate Average Daily Rate = 3,757-MSCF/day.

Figure 16

Field Allocation Results Example (B) Generic Differential Pressure Cone Meter Average Daily Rate = 1461.5-MSCF/day

Figure 17

Conclusions In conclusion, both the 4-holed orifice plate and cone metering technologies provided wet gas measurement accuracy for well level allocation when adjusted by the GVCF from the well test in this full well stream wet gas application. The cone metering technology was chosen by Shell E&P because of enhanced operational and in-field documented allocation accuracy, with more robust wear capabilities in this particular flow regime. Reduced meter inspection frequencies and less problem interventions were also observed with this type of device. References (1) Hayward A. A Source Guide for Users Edition Published 1978 (2) Bagge, D.J., Evaluation of Ketema, V-Cone Flowmeters Test Report E 1705 S 92, SIREP, 1992. (3) Ifft, S. A and Mikkelsen, E.D - Pipe Elbow Effects on the V-Cone Flowmeter North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop, Peebles, Scotland, 1992 (4) B. K Lee, N.H. Cho and Y. D Choi, 1988 Analysis of periodically fully developed turbulent and heat transfer by k- equation model in artificial roughened annulus. Int J. Heat Mass Transfer, Vol,31, pp 1797-1806 (5) B. H. Chang and A. F Mills, 1993, Turbulent flow in a channel with transverse rib heat transfer augmentation, Int J. Heat Mass Transfer. Vol 36, No, 6, pp 1459-1469 (6) B. E Launder and D. B Spalding, 1974, The numerical computation of turbulent flows, Comput Meth Appl Mech Engng, Vol 3,pp 269-289 (7) C. K. G Lam and K. A Bremhorst, 1981, Modified form of the k-w model for predicting wall turbulence, Journal of Fluid Engineering, Vol 103, pp 456-460 (9) D.C Wilcox, 1993, Turbulence Modeling for CFD, DCW Industries, Inc (10) J.Y.Yoon, 1993, Numerical Analysis of flows in channels with sand dunes and ice covers, Ph.D Thesis,Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Iowa. (11) D.C. Wilcox, 1988, Reassessment of the Scale Determining Equation for Advanced Turbulence Models AIAA Journal, Vol 26, No 11, pp 1299-13 (12) M. C. Richmond and V. C Patel, 1991, Convex and Concave Surface Curvature Effects in WallBounded Turbulent Flows, AIAA Journal, Vol 29, pp 895-902 (13) J.Tyndall, 1988, A Numerical Study of Flow over Wavy Walls, M. S. Thesis, Department of Mechanical Eng. Univ. Iowa, Iowa City. (14) H. C Chen and V. C. Patel, 1988, Near-Wall Turbulence Models for Complex Flows Including Separation AIAA Journal, Vol 26, pp 641-648 (15) Braid C Mr. (Barton Canada) first principle calculations for flow computers 1999. (16)D. D. Knight, 1982, Application of Curvilinear Coordinate Generation Technique to the computation of Internal Flows, Numerical Grid generation, Elsevier Science Publishing Company, pp 357-384 (17) Sveedmen SWRI Homogenous Model and OFU liquid effect( report) (18) Ifft Wet Gas Testing at SWRI 1997 - V-Cone Meter (19) Lawrence-Wellhead Metering by V- Cone Technology NSFMW 2000 Gleneagles, Scotland,UK (20) Reader Harris-Peters. Y factor Expansibility Equation (NEL-TUV) (21) Braid-Cameron (Canada) Cone Equations for Flow Computers a Technical Document 2006 (22) Lawrence-CBM Measurement by D. P. Cone Meter CII Conference India 2007 (23) Lawrence-ISHM Oklahoma Class 1320 Wet Gas May 2008 (24) Hollister - Dyer Comparison of Established Orifice, Venturi & Nozzle with Cone, Conditioning Orifice, and Wedge Meters. NEL-TUV Production & Upstream Measurement Workshop 2008 (25) Davis.M.W - Shell Exploration and Production Allocation Methodology and Data Set Shell E&P Pinedale 2009.