Company

Logo
Paper ID: A-1576
Effect of gas Lock in transient flow in HDPE water line- CBM field, Shahdol, MP India
Author(s) Name: Kumar Bhupendra, Singh Rajendra
Email: Bhupendra.pal@ril.com, Rajendra.de.singh@ril.com
Introduction CBM Well Head Separation System
Initial dewatering is required to start Gas production from Coal Bed Methane
(CBM) field. PCP are used for the dewatering of wells at RIL CBM field at
Shahdol, MP India. Water produced from well enters into HDPE water trunk line
network, spread over hilly terrain, after passing through the well separator, to
water Gathering Station (WGS). This case study is for some of the wells in
Shahdol, India CBM field have experienced high back pressure in the water
line, that exceeded the pump tripping set point, leading to pump tripping
consequently to gas production loss from the wells. In order to understand the
reason for high back pressure, transient multiphase flow behavior across the
pipeline has been studied using OLGA software.

Objective Water line network schematic

 To determine reason for high back pressure in CBM field HDPE water lines.
 Effect of dissolved gas in water trunkline
 Multiphase flow transient analysis using field data.
 Possibility of gas pocket formation and its location in water line.
 Probable mitigation plan to avoid high back pressure on wells, to avoid PCP
tripping.

Methodology Water Line Elevation Profile

 Study was done for the water pipeline network with 7 wells connected to
same trunkline (9.6 KM, 4”).
 Pipeline model build in OLGA for HDPE trunkline to conduct transient flow
analysis
 Pipeline elevation profile for every section was taken from pipeline
alignment sheet.
 U : 1.135 W/m2-C, Pipe roughness: 0.00006”
 In OLGA model wells considered as mass source with flow rate: 70 m3/d,
water temp: 50 Deg C, Amb Temp: 25 Deg C, Outlet pr: 1 atm
 Sensitivity analysis was done for different Gas Liquid Ratio (GLR) to check
Pipe Inlet pressure
the effect of gas on back pressure in water line.
 Flow parameters analyzed for different pipe section

Results
 Maximum back pressure of 8-10 bar observed at well head, for GLR ranging
from 0.1 to 1.0 m3/m3
 Back pressure at well head for different GLR:
GLR, m3/m3 First Well, barg Second Well, barg
0.00 3.5 1.6
0.05 6.7 4.8
0.10 9.4 7.4
Pressure across Pipeline
0.30 11.7 9.8
 Steady state pressure at GLR 0.10 m3/m3 matches with the actual field
pressure.
 For First Well: 10 barg
 For Second well: 8 – 9 barg
 Back pressure at GLR higher than 0.10 m3/m3 showing fluctuation in the
range of 1 – 1.5 bar at well head which may result in fluctuating pressure in
the pipeline. This may affect the mechanical integrity for pipeline.

Conclusion Water Flow rate Fluctuation

 Released gas from water in the pipeline gets accumulated at high points at
different section of the pipeline leading to gas pocket formation, creates
more pressure drop
 Excess pressure drop is due to more frictional drop at all location of gas lock
section of pipeline, which leads to tripping of Pumps hence production loss
 Gas pocket formation possibility is more in the pipeline section having
downward slope.
 Pipeline in hilly terrain with many undulations, gas pockets can create
serious mechanical damage to the pipeline
 Pipeline design for such cases needs detailed transient multi-phase flow
analysis
 Size of gas pocket depends on Angle of downward slope, length of line Gas Pocket location in pipeline
section in downward slope, GLR, pressure at the inlet of pipeline, fluid
velocity etc
 Probable Solution to reduce back pressure on wells (PCP trip)
 Check the functionality of present High point vent
 Additional high point vent valve at all high point location is
recommended.
 Provision at well head to release maximum amount of gas
 Based on elevation profile, if required, rerouting of flowlines/laterals to
nearest existing or new WGS can be planned

Shaping the New Energy World Through Innovation and Collaboration