You are on page 1of 264

CONFIDENTIAL

Field evaluation of
multiphase flow
meters for high gas
fraction well test
metering

Report No: S/EPT/047/03

Andrew Hall
Pipeline Transportation Team

Exploration & Production Technology Group


January 2004

CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL
Copyright BP Exploration Limited 2004
All rights reserved.
None of the contents shall be disclosed, except to those directly concerned with the subject and no part
of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any way or stored in any retrieval system without
prior written permission of general management, BP Exploration Limited.

Page 2/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

EPTG Indexing Sheet


BRANCH

REPORT NO.
S / E
P

AUTHOR(S)
Dr Andrew Hall

JOB NO.
8 4 4

TELEPHONE
01224
833507

LOCATION
Aberdeen
1H-54

DATE
January 2004

MAIN TITLE
Field evaluation of multiphase flow meters for high gas fraction well test metering

SUB TITLE

CLIENT
Greater Prudhoe Bay

PRINCIPAL RECIPIENT
Bruce Smith

COMMISSIONED BY
Bruce Smith

PLEASE TICK
UNCLASSIFIED

SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
TQA COMPLETED

YES

CONFIDENTIAL

NO

KEYWORDS

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
PAGE

RECORD

FOR EXTERNAL CLIENT LISTING

DISTRIBUTION
OVERLEAF

ABSTRACT

PREPARED BY:

APPROVED BY:

AUTHORISED FOR ISSUE BY:

....................................................

....................................................

....................................................

ISSUE DATE: January 26th, 2004

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 3/264

CONFIDENTIAL

DISTRIBUTION LIST

NAME

COMPANY

LOCATION

BDM/EPTG Library
Mohammed Al-Nakhi
Jerry Brady
Victor Castro
Dave Christensen
Sidsel Corneliussen
Andrew Hall
Brant Hasebe
Andrew Humphrey
Roger Leach
Christopher Lindsey-Curran
Girish Murarka
Steven Petty
Bill Priddy
Jimmy Raper
Bruce Smith
Terri Tyssen
Dennis Vavra
Bob Webb

BP EPT
BP
BPXA
BP Colombia
BP GUPCO
BP Norway
BP EPT
BPXA
BP Angola Block 18
BP GOM DWP
BP EPT
BP EPT
BP EPT
BP EPT
BP EPT
BPXA
BP GOM DWP
BP EPT
BP GOM DWP

Sunbury
Abu Dhabi
Anchorage
Bogot
Cairo
Stavanger
Aberdeen
Anchorage
Leatherhead
Houston
Houston
Houston
Houston
Sunbury
Houston
Anchorage
Houston
Houston
Houston

Parviz Mehdizadeh

Production Technology

Phoenix

Harry Cellos
Gordon Stobie

ConocoPhillips
ConocoPhillips

Anchorage
Houston

Leonard Meaux
Mike Mullally

ExxonMobil
ExxonMobil

Houston
Houston

Gary Fransen
(Section 9 only)

Agar Corporation

Houston

John Greene
(Section 10 only)

FMC

Houston

Alex Vera
(Section 11 only)

Roxar Flow Measurement

Houston

Bob Staats
(Section 12 only)

Schlumberger Oilfield
Services

Prudhoe Bay

Page 4/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

GLOSSARY
Agar
AOGCC
ASRC
CMR
DOR
EPTG
ESP
FMC
GOR
GPB
GVF
MFM
MI
NEL
NS
O&M
PSV
Roxar
SLB
WLR

Agar Corporation
Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission
The Arctic Slope Regional Corporation (ASRC Energy Services)
Christian Michelsen Research Institute (Bergen, Norway)
Department of Revenue (Alaska)
BP Exploration & Production Technology Group
Electric Submersible Pump
FMC Energy Systems
Gas/Oil Ratio (Gas volume relative to oil volume, at standard conditions)
Greater Prudhoe Bay
Gas volume fraction (Gas volume % of total flow, at line conditions)
Multiphase flow meter
Miscible injectant
National Engineering Laboratory (Glasgow, UK)
North Slope
Operations and Maintenance
Pressure Safety Valve
Roxar Flow Measurement
Schlumberger
Water in liquid ratio (= water cut at line conditions)

CONTACTS FOR MULTIPHASE FLOW METER PROJECT TEAM


Jerry Brady
Andrew Hall
Brant Hasebe
Parviz Mehdizadeh
Bruce Smith

BP Exploration Alaska
BP EPTG
BP Exploration Alaska
Production Technology Inc
BP Exploration Alaska

bradyjl@bp.com
halla9@bp.com
hasebebm@bp.com
p.mehdizadeh@cox.net
smithbw@bp.com

+1 (907) 564 5291


+44 (1224) 833507
+1 (907) 564 4333
+1 (480) 661 7512
+1 (907) 564 5093

WEBSITES FOR MULTIPHASE FLOW METER VENDORS


Agar
FMC
Roxar
Schlumberger

www.agarcorp.com
www.fmcflowmeasurementsolutions.com
www.roxar.com
www.framoeng.no

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 5/264

CONFIDENTIAL

Page 6/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

CONTENTS

CONTENTS ................................................................................................................................................7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .........................................................................................................................9

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 11

3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
4

Background ...................................................................................................................... 11
Benefits ............................................................................................................................ 12
Trial specifics ................................................................................................................... 13
Multiphase metering qualification test.......................................................................... 13

MULTIPHASE FLOWMETERS........................................................................................................... 15

4.1
4.2
5

Summary of multiphase flow meter operating principles ............................................ 15


Descriptions of the multiphase flow meters .................................................................. 16

TEST INSTALLATION ......................................................................................................................... 21

5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
6

Location and installation of meters................................................................................ 21


Reference system (ASRC test separator) ....................................................................... 24
Fluid property data ......................................................................................................... 25
Calibration of the multiphase flow meters .................................................................... 25
Data recording and processing ....................................................................................... 25
Data reprocessing ............................................................................................................ 27
Meter breakdowns ........................................................................................................... 28

TEST RESULTS ..................................................................................................................................... 31

6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
7

Meter results.................................................................................................................... 31
Definition of errors .......................................................................................................... 31
Summary statistics all data......................................................................................... 32
Summary statistics data in restricted operating envelope........................................ 33
Comparison with vendor specifications ......................................................................... 34
Summary of repeatability results................................................................................... 43
Comparison of the results from the four meters ........................................................... 45
Meter sizing analysis....................................................................................................... 53

CONFIDENCE IN TEST DATA ........................................................................................................... 55

7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
8

Tank tests......................................................................................................................... 55
Statistical analysis of reference data ............................................................................. 58
Comparison with laboratory test data ........................................................................... 58
Comparison with laboratory test data (repeatability) .................................................. 79

MULTIPHASE METER EVALUATION ............................................................................................. 81

8.1
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
9

Operating area................................................................................................................. 81
Three phase metering evaluation criteria ..................................................................... 85
Weighting of the multiphase metering evaluation criteria .......................................... 88
Scoring and ranking of multiphase meters.................................................................... 89
Meter liquid rate measurement at low liquid rates ...................................................... 94

AGAR-401 MULTIPHASE FLOW METER ........................................................................................ 97

9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
10

10.1
10.2

Description of the meter.................................................................................................. 97


Summary statistics.......................................................................................................... 98
Test results (measurement accuracy) .......................................................................... 100
Test results (repeatability) ........................................................................................... 114
FMC FLOWSYS MULTIPHASE FLOW METER ........................................................................ 117

Description of the meter................................................................................................ 117


Summary statistics........................................................................................................ 118

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 7/264

CONFIDENTIAL
10.3
10.4
11

Test results (measurement accuracy) .......................................................................... 119


Test results (repeatability) ........................................................................................... 133
ROXAR MPFM 1900VI MULTIPHASE FLOW METER ............................................................ 137

11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
12

Description of the meter................................................................................................ 137


Summary statistics........................................................................................................ 138
Test results (measurement accuracy) .......................................................................... 139
Test results (repeatability) ........................................................................................... 153
SCHLUMBERGER VX29 MULTIPHASE FLOW METER ........................................................ 157

12.1
12.2
12.3
12.4
12.5
12.6
12.7

Description of the meter................................................................................................ 157


Summary statistics........................................................................................................ 158
Test results (measurement accuracy) .......................................................................... 160
Test results (repeatability) ........................................................................................... 173
Test results after reprocessing with correct well profile data (accuracy) .................. 176
Test results after reprocessing with correct well profile data (repeatability) ........... 189
Comparison of raw and reprocessed data .................................................................... 192

13

REFERENCE DATA QUALITY ..................................................................................................... 201

14

PROJECT DOCUMENTATION..................................................................................................... 227

14.1
14.2
14.3
14.4
14.5
15

Calibration procedures phase 1 ................................................................................. 227


Roxar installation and start up procedures................................................................. 229
Vendor requirements: Agar MPFM-401 ...................................................................... 230
Vendor requirements: FMC Flowsys............................................................................ 233
Vendor requirements: Schlumberger ........................................................................... 239
PROJECT CONSULTANTS DAILY REPORTS ........................................................................ 243

15.1
15.2
15.3
15.4
15.5
15.6
15.7
15.8
15.9
15.10
15.11
15.12
15.13
15.14
16

16.1
16.2

August 31st, 2003 ........................................................................................................... 243


September 1st, 2003 ....................................................................................................... 244
September 3rd, 2003....................................................................................................... 245
September 4th, 2003....................................................................................................... 246
September 7th, 2003....................................................................................................... 247
September 11th, 2003..................................................................................................... 248
September 15th, 2003..................................................................................................... 250
September 16th, 2003..................................................................................................... 252
September 18th, 2003..................................................................................................... 253
September 21st, 2003 ..................................................................................................... 254
September 23rd, 2003 ................................................................................................... 255
September 25th, 2003..................................................................................................... 256
September 28th, 2003..................................................................................................... 257
September 30th, 2003..................................................................................................... 258

FIGURES AND TABLES ................................................................................................................ 259

List of figures ................................................................................................................. 259


List of tables................................................................................................................... 264

Page 8/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Alaska North Slope operations has considered the deployment of multiphase flow
meters (MFM) for a number of years, but has essentially been waiting for
improvements in the ability of the technology to provide trouble-free, accurate
measurements. Given the recent improvements in MFM and the potential economic
and reservoir management gains with the use of MFM, North Slope operations has
conducted a simultaneous test of four MFM. These four meters use a wide range of
measurement techniques and strategies, which increased the probability of finding
meters that would qualify for measuring the production from various fields.
The four meters tested included Agar MPFM-401, FMC Flowsys, Roxar MPFM1900 VI
and Schlumberger PhaseWatcher (VX29). A brief description of the measuring
principles is included in the table below:
Meter
Agar
MPFM 401
FMC
Flowsys
Roxar
(MPFM 1900VI)
Schlumberger
PhaseWatcher Vx 29

Volume flow
Positive displacement
and Venturi Device
Cross correlation and
Extended Venturi
Venturi Device and
cross correlation
Venturi Device

Gas fraction
Venturi
Device
Venturi
Device
Gamma densitometer
(137Cs 662 keV)
Gamma densitometer
(133Ba 80 keV)

Water cut
Microwave
(GHz)
Electrical impedance
(MHz)
Electrical impedance
(MHz)
Gamma densitometer
(133Ba 29 keV)

The North Slope provides numerous obstacles to the successful application of MFM.
These obstacles include varying crude quality from three different horizons; water and
miscible injectant breakthrough; high gas-volume fractions (85%-99% GVF); and a
wide range of water cuts (0-100% WC). Monitoring is further complicated by the fact
that a high percentage of the wells are on artificial lift either with gas lift or with jet
pumps powered by water. In either case, artificial lift greatly increases the GVF or
water cut of the liquid stream measured at the surface.
Four applications for these meters have been identified. They include individual well
deployment (usually for new developments), supplementation of current well test
separators; a mobile test unit; and replacement of existing test separators.
The results of the tests show that all four meters qualify in specific or limited operating
areas. At least one metering system has been identified that is suitable for each class
of application. In general, the higher GVF applications are much more problematic for
the meters and result in a significantly higher measurement error. Wells with high
gas lift rates or in the Gravity Drainage (GD) portion of the field fall into the high GVF
flow regime.
New developments or fields employing jet pumps or electrical
submersible pumps (ESP) are potentially good candidates for the MFM technologies
evaluated in this project.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 9/264

CONFIDENTIAL

Page 10/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

INTRODUCTION

3.1

Background

Multiphase testing, or the ability to measure multiphase flow accurately without


requiring separation, has been the goal of a number of metering companies and
operators alike for a number of years. The technology continues to improve, and BP
has experience with a number of meters in both operated and non-operated fields,
including Egypt (Gupco), Abu Dhabi, Columbia, Venezuela and the North Sea. A
significant number of meters worldwide are also installed in subsea applications,
where conventional test separation with a vessel of significant size is not practical.
Long test pipelines in subsea fields require large capital investment and long
stabilisation times for well testing.
North Slope operations has considered the employment of multiphase flow meters for a
number of years, but has essentially been waiting for improvements in the ability of
the technology to provide trouble-free, accurate measurements.
Previous BP
experiences with earlier versions of multiphase flow meters include issues with
constant re-calibration, mechanical breakdown, black box data output, and
measurement inaccuracies at high GVF.
BP now feels the technology is mature enough to warrant serious consideration for
North Slope operations. Internal experts with EPTG were contacted to ensure Alaska
was not operating in isolation, and to provide critical oversight and data analysis for
this field trial. It should also be noted that various state agencies (AOGCC, DOR, etc.)
have also shown an interest in multiphase metering and the potential implication on
North Slope operations and allocations.
BP has kept an open channel of
communication to the noted agencies and facilitated a trip to Prudhoe Bay for
representatives to witness part of the field trial.
Prior to any wide scale use of multiphase metering technologies, as a prudent operator
it is imperative that BP has hands-on, intimate knowledge of what is available in the
marketplace. It is entirely plausible that the technology chosen for single well
application is different from that most suited to a portable test unit or used to replace
or augment existing traditional well pad separators. BP needed first hand knowledge
of the various meters in order to make the most educated decisions. In addition, due to
the benefits of multiphase metering, it is highly likely that companies such as ASRC
and Schlumberger will offer multiphase metering as a lower cost alternative to
traditional portable separators. Nearly every decision made in the oilfield, from well
work to drilling, reservoir management to facility de-bottlenecking and optimisation,
extends in some fashion from well test data. It is important for BP to understand what
technology is being offered from various vendors, along with its limitations and
advantages.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 11/264

CONFIDENTIAL
3.2

Benefits

The rapid advancement of multiphase metering technology over the past several years
is testimony to the significance of the benefits envisioned by the entire industry. The
competitive vendors are marketing MFMs at reasonable prices, opening the potential
to put a MFM on every well of a pad, new developments, or existing field. This would
provide the ability to make much faster, better-informed decisions and well
interventions. From a capital and operating expense perspective, this also has
potentially significant impacts upon new developments. A MFM installed on the
production flowline of every well would eliminate the need for a traditional test vessel,
reducing the footprint of the pad and fire and gas suppression requirements,
eliminating a separate test header and the associated divert valves, and reducing the
necessary automation and safety systems. Many MFMs also claim considerable
tolerance to emulsion, which has the potential to reduce the dependence and cost
associated with emulsion breaker.
The potential development of I-Pad as part of the Orion development is an imminent
opportunity for BP Alaska and its partners to capitalize on this technology, and was
one of the principle drivers for initiating this field trial. In order to make a decision
impacting tens of millions of dollars of capital investment, understanding the various
aspects of the existing products and technology is critical. This also extends to the
impact of MFMs on O&M, which is also necessary to make the wisest decision
spanning the life of a development.
MFMs also have the potential to augment or replace traditional pad separators that
are consistently troublesome. In Alaska, GPB has a number of pad separators which
for a variety of reasons are yielding inconsistent and questionable results. A proven
MFM that could handle the necessary range of water cuts, GVFs, and flowrates would
prove extremely useful in augmentation of the existing separators. Ultimately this
could reduce operator dependence on portable testing units which are currently
employed for compliance testing, in addition to more frequent and timely information
on well production. The fundamental difference between testing with a vessel as
opposed to a MFM should also be noted the fluid is measured instantaneously as it is
produced from the well therefore there is no dependency on separator liquid level,
weir height, or solids build-up. Additionally there is less confusion created by well
slugging.
When additional compliance testing is required, there also exists another potential
application of this technology portable well testing. It is perhaps in this arena that
this technology will be most quickly and readily applied, providing both vendors and
BP the most immediate benefits. Elimination of the vessel traditionally employed for
test separation means a more mobile operation and no purge time, reducing total test
time and rig-up and rig-down time, enabling increased testing frequency at a give day
rate. Elimination of the vessel also reduces HSE exposure by eliminating overpressure potential at a weak point in the system, required vessel clean-outs, chemical
usage, etc.

Page 12/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
3.3

Trial specifics

The current trial involved four vendors: Agar, FMC, Roxar and Schlumberger. Each of
the vendors provides a different approach to multiphase metering, and inclusion of all
four in such a direct comparison is an event of some significance for both the vendors
and BP worldwide. As mentioned previously, EPTG were included to ensure adequate
and comprehensive communication of the test results and conclusions to other BP
assets. Together the four vendors represent the major players in the MPM arena as
well as a wide range of the available technology. Schlumberger and Roxar employ
radioactive sources to identify the different phases and quantities of oil, water and gas,
whilst Agar and FMC employ methods based on electrical signal analysis.
All testing was done through the various MFMs in series, allowing for direct, real-time
comparison, and then benchmarked through the ASRC portable test unit. The trial
took place at V-Pad, utilizing the common test header to maximise efficiency, as well as
providing the opportunity to test wells producing out of all three Prudhoe reservoirs
the Ivishak, Kuparuk, and Schrader. The tests also involved calibration and
verification of the ASRC separator with nine tank tests, with at least one tank test per
reservoir. In addition to the EPTG consultant, a third party consultant, Parviz
Mehdizadeh of Production Technology Inc. was hired to oversee the entire test on
behalf of BP.
3.4

Multiphase metering qualification test

3.4.1 Scope

Evaluate the safety and environmental acceptability of operating multiphase


metering systems.
Qualify one or more multiphase meters for operation at Prudhoe Bay with
operating ranges clearly identified.
Utilize gas lift and jet pump water rates as necessary to test the meters over a
broad range of gas volume fraction (GVF) and water cut.
Evaluate multiphase meters for four potential applications:
o Individual well deployment (likely for new developments)
o Supplementation of current pad test separators
o Replacement of existing pad test separators
o A mobile compliance test unit.

3.4.2 Operational Details

All tests were performed at V-Pad via the common test header
Tests were performed on Ivishak, Kuparuk, and Schrader Bluff fluids
Four different multiphase flow meters were rigged up in series
o Schlumberger
o FMC
o Roxar
o Agar

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 13/264

CONFIDENTIAL

All multiphase flow meters were isolated from the production facility for data
acquisition and power. Each unit was essentially self-contained.
Safety systems included pressure safety valves (PSV) upstream and
downstream of the metering skid to account for a spec break from ANSI 1500 to
ANSI 600 (#700 psi MAWP) at the Agar meter. The test skid was fabricated
with 2 1502 chicksan.
VECO Wells Support fabricated the test skid, spill containment, weather
protection tents, and angle-iron mounting stands for the Roxar and FMC
meters.
ASRC provided on-site supervision 24 hours a day, site-specific safety reviews
(in coordination with North Slope Safety Personnel), and personnel sign-in
sheets for the duration of the project. ASRC also provided a footprint design of
the pad and project equipment, two 500 bbl exploration tanks for the open tank
tests, and the lab containing the vendor data acquisition systems (industrial
computers).
All multiphase flow meters reported raw, line-condition data in a consistent
format. BP then applied the correct (formation specific) shrinkage correlation to
each data point, providing for a direct comparison of meter performance at
stock-tank conditions without any inconsistencies resulting from minor
variations in temperature and pressure between meters.
Each meter company provided at least one technical expert available
throughout the test to ensure the proper operation of their meter and to perform
any required meter maintenance.
Vendors were allowed whatever initial calibration they required: PVT analysis,
flow rate tests, open-cavity tests, in-situ analysis, etc. After the initial round of
calibration they were required to leave location, so as to avoid constant recalibration of meter parameters. Any calibrations to the meters required
notification and documentation of the changes made.
Each vendor provided shutdown and startup (including calibration)
documentation, and also signed documentation attesting to the validity of the
test set-up prior to the start of the trial.

3.4.3 Evaluation

All multiphase flow meters were evaluated against the ASRC portable test
separator. Nine open tank shrinkage tests were performed to verify test
separator liquid readings, at least one per reservoir. Each vendor was allowed
to audit the ASRC separator for details on operation and equipment, and each
signed an agreement that ASRC would serve as the test benchmark.
Each meter was evaluated for each potential application in the context of Initial
Installation, Performance, and Operability.
Evaluation of the meters was performed primarily by:
o EPTG
o BP Anchorage staff
o BP North Slope operations
Test data complemented an ongoing test of the Roxar meter at Conoco Phillips
Kuparuk Unit. Data points were also compared to NEL data from previous
meter testing.

Page 14/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

MULTIPHASE FLOWMETERS

4.1

Summary of multiphase flow meter operating principles

Meter
Agar
401
FMC
Flowsys
Roxar
(MPFM 1900VI)
Schlumberger
PhaseWatcher Vx 29

Volume flow
Positive displacement
meter
Cross correlation

Gas fraction
Venturi

Venturi meter or cross


correlation
Venturi meter

Gamma densitometer
(137Cs 662 keV)
Gamma densitometer
(133Ba 80 keV)

Venturi

Water cut
Microwave
(GHz)
Electrical impedance
(MHz)
Electrical impedance
(MHz)
Gamma densitometer
(133Ba 29 keV)

Multiphase flow meter technology (volume flow measurement)


Positive displacement meter (Agar) specially adapted for use in multiphase flow, the
positive displacement meter records the total volumetric flowrate of gas + liquid.
Cross-correlation (Flowsys, Roxar) cross-correlation of high resolution time signals
from pairs of electrodes can be used to calculate a characteristic velocity of the
multiphase mixture.
Venturi (Roxar, Schlumberger) the differential pressure across the Venturi, corrected
for gas fraction, can be used to determine the total mass flowrate of the multiphase
mixture.
Multiphase flow meter technology (gas fraction measurement)
Venturi meter (Agar, Flowsys) given the total volumetric flowrate from the positive
displacement meter or cross-correlation, the differential pressure across the Venturi
meter can be used to determine the density and hence gas fraction of the multiphase
mixture.
Single energy gamma densitometer (Roxar) the gamma densitometer measures the
density of the multiphase mixture which can be used to determine the gas fraction.
Dual energy gamma densitometer (Schlumberger) the higher of the two energy levels
in the gamma densitometer measures the density of the multiphase mixture which can
be used to determine the gas fraction.
Multiphase flow meter technology (water cut measurement)
Microwave water cut meter (Agar) this uses the different absorption of microwave
energy of water compared to hydrocarbons
Inductive water cut meter (Flowsys, Roxar) uses the difference in dielectric
coefficient between water (75) and hydrocarbons (2). Needs to switch from capacitance
measurement in oil-continuous flow to conductivity measurement in water-continuous
flow.
Dual energy gamma densitometer (Schlumberger) the lower of the two energy levels
in the gamma densitometer measures the water cut of the multiphase mixture

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 15/264

CONFIDENTIAL
4.2

Descriptions of the multiphase flow meters

4.2.1 AGAR 401


The Agar MPFM-401 series multiphase flow meter consists of an Agar MPFM-300
series multiphase flow meter modified by the addition of a Fluidic Flow Diverter
(FFD) device and a gas bypass loop.
The FFD device uses the difference in flow momentum of the gas and liquid to divert
most of the free gas in the multiphase stream into a secondary measurement loop
around the core MPFM-300. The secondary measurement loop is a wet gas metering
system consisting of a Venturi and a vortex shedding flow meter in series. The
remaining liquids flow through the core MPFM-300 series system. The gas in the
bypass loop is metered and added to the oil, water and gas measured through the core
multiphase meter.
By reducing the amount of gas flowing through the core multiphase meter, a smaller
meter can be used, and the accuracy of the multiphase measurement is increased as a
result of decrease in the GVF.
The MPFM-300 series multiphase flow meter has three main components: a positive
displacement meter which measures the total volumetric flowrate; a momentum meter
(dual Venturi meter) which measures the gas fraction of the flow; and a microwave
monitor which measures the water cut of the liquid.
Figure 4.1: Schematic diagram of Agar MPFM-400 series multiphase flow meter

Page 16/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 4.2: Photograph of the Agar-401 multiphase flow meter at the test site

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 17/264

CONFIDENTIAL
4.2.2 FMC Flowsys
The Flowsys TopFlow multiphase flow meter is based on the measurement principles
of a Venturi meter, capacitance/conductivity and cross-correlation. The major parts of
the TopFlow meter are the Venturi insert and the electrodes incorporated inside the
throat of the Venturi. The flowrates of oil, water and gas are calculated based on the
measurements obtained by the electrodes and the measurement of the differential
pressure across the Venturi inlet. No separating devices, mixers, by-pass lines or
radioactive sources are used in the meter.
Following a blind tee the flow passes directly upwards through the meter. The velocity
(volumetric flowrate) of the multiphase stream is determined by cross-correlation of
electrical signals. Since the Venturi meter can also be used to determine the total
mass flowrate, these two measurements together can be used to determine the mixture
density, and hence gas volume fraction of the flow. The electrical capacitance and
conductivity measurement is used to determine the water cut.
Figure 4.3: Photograph of the Flowsys multiphase flow meter at the test site

Page 18/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
4.2.3 Roxar MPFM 1900VI
The Roxar MPFM 1900VI multiphase flow meter measures the rates of oil, water and
gas without separation, mixing or moving parts.
Following a blind tee the flow passes directly upwards through the electrical
capacitance/conductivity sensor which measures the water cut, and a 137Cs (662keV)
gamma densitometer which measures the mixture density. The gas volume fraction
can be derived from the density measurement. The velocity of the mixture is measured
by cross-correlation of electrical signals, or alternatively from a Venturi meter
measurement. The choice between the cross-correlation and the Venturi measurement
is determined by the flow conditions in the meter.
Figure 4.4: Photograph of the Roxar MPFM 1900VI multiphase flow meter at the test
site (centre meter, prior to installation of radioactive source)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 19/264

CONFIDENTIAL
4.2.4 Schlumberger PhasewatcherVX29
The Phasewatcher VX29 multiphase flow meter employs two measurement techniques,
namely a Venturi and a dual-energy gamma densitometer. Following a blind tee the
flow passes directly upwards through a Venturi meter. All the measurements are made
at the Venturi throat, i.e. absolute pressure, temperature, differential pressure relative
to upstream conditions and phase fractions.
Phase fractions are measured using a dual energy gamma densitometer using a 133Ba
(Barium) source. This source has energy levels which are appropriate for measurement
of gas fraction and water cut (29 and 80 keV) and the location of the densitometer at
the narrowest part of the flow conduit allows these low energy levels to be feasibly used
at a relatively low source strength (10 mCi). The nuclear acquisition frequency is
higher (45 Hz) than used in other multiphase flow meters (typically 1 Hz) which allows
rapid resolution of the dynamic behaviour of the multiphase flow passing through the
meter.
For this test, for logistical reasons, the radioactive source used was the 153Gd source
from the prototype VX meter. This uses energy levels of 42 and 97 keV and is not
considered to have had a significant impact on the measurement results compared to
using a 133Ba source.
Figure 4.5: Photograph of the Schlumberger multiphase flow meter at the test site

Page 20/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

TEST INSTALLATION

5.1

Location and installation of meters


Figure 5.1: Location of the field test site

V pad

The meters were installed at the Prudhoe Bay oilfield in northern Alaska on the V-Pad,
at the location shown in Figure 5.1. This is a production pad consisting of 12
production wells, a well pad test separator and metering, and export pipelines. The
well pad has space and connections available for hooking up to a portable test
separator. For these tests the 4 multiphase flow meters were connected in series, then
flowed through an ASRC portable test separator, and then to the well pad separator, as
shown schematically in Figure 5.2 and in the photograph in Figure 5.3.
To vary the range of GVF and water cut encountered in the tests, the gas lift rates to
some of the wells were varied during the tests and water was injected to one of the
wells.
The temperature of the tests varied from 11C to 45C (52 to 112F) and the pressure
from 20 to 50 bar (283 to 721 psi) measured at the ASRC test separator. The pressures
at the multiphase flow meters were typically 2 to 5 bar (30 to 70 psi) higher than the
test separator pressure due to pressure losses through the MFMs and the connecting
pipework.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 21/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 5.2: Schematic of multiphase flow meter installation

17 ft
3- 90s

22 ft
7-90s

A
G
A
R

14 ft
4-90s

15 ft
4-90s

R
O
X
A
R

12 ft
3-90s

F
M
C

19 ft
5 90s

S
L
B

ASRC

Length
90's

Inlet Run Lengths and 90's


Inlet
SLB
FMC
Roxar
Agar
19
12
15
14
5
3
4
4

ASRC
22
7

Total
17
3

99
26

Figure 5.3: Photograph of multiphase flow meter installation

Page 22/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
After initial set-up and calibration, the meters were enclosed in temporary tents with
diesel-fired warm air heaters to maintain an ambient temperature above freezing,
shown in Figure 5.4.
Figure 5.4: Photograph of meter protection

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 23/264

CONFIDENTIAL
5.2

Reference system (ASRC test separator)

The ASRC test separator is a 40 bbl horizontal vessel utilizing either manual or
automatic (Fischer) level control, MicroMotion Coriolis meter for liquid volume flow,
Halliburton turbine meters for gas flowrate, and Phase Dynamics (combined with
manual shakeouts) for water cut determination. The MicroMotion meter used for mass
flow (serial #487016) was calibrated with water at the factory on July 10th, 2003. The
MMM transmitter was also configured at that time. The High Range Halliburton Gas
Turbine Meter is calibrated at 71.70 pulses/ACF, and the Low Range at 338.41
pulses/ACF.
A Phase Dynamics meter was used for water cut determination, upon field calibration
as per the following procedure. A starting point for salinity is used from historical
salinity values for each well during the purge time of each test. Spinouts are then
gathered, and the water cut combined with the off gas rate, gas lift rate, gross liquid
rate, and separator pressure and temperature were input into a reverse shrinkage
calculator generated by Eric Ward (BP). This reverse shrinkage calculator takes into
account the fact that the Phase Dynamics meter is reading the water cut at line
conditions, while a shakeout is at atmospheric. Then the Phase Dynamics meter
water cut is adjusted to match the shakeout, and the test proceeds.
A simplified diagram of the layout of the ASRC Millennium unit is included below in
Figure 5.5:
Figure 5.5: Simplified ASRC Separator Schematic
Necks down to 2 20 Diameters
upstream, back to 3 5 Diameters
downstream for both meters
High rate 2 Halliburton Turbine Meter

8
Bypass

3 Gas Outlet

3 Inlet

Low rate 2 Halliburton Turbine Meter

Chemical Injection

Demister

Sight Glass

40 bbl capacity

Phase Dynamics
Watercut Meter

MicroMotion
Coriolis Meter
Vessel Bypass

Bypass

3 Liquid Outlet

Page 24/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
5.3

Fluid property data

Fluid properties were obtained for each of the wells and PVT analysis conducted by
Schlumberger prior to the multiphase flow meter tests. This data was shared with all
the participating vendors, and is summarised in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1: Well specific fluid property data

V03
V101
V102
V103
V106
V107
V108
V109
V113
V117
V201
V202

5.4

Oil Viscosity
cp
Temp
16.4
80.6
25.5
78.8
20.9
79.3
25.0
87.8
21.1
77.5
18.8
90.7
28.7
70.7
44.5
71.2
21.5
79.7
16.6
86.5
35.0
92.5
55.7
69.1

Oil Gravity @ 60F


Sg
API
0.894
26.8
0.904
25.1
0.899
25.9
0.906
24.6
0.901
25.5
0.906
24.7
0.904
25.0
0.915
23.2
0.899
25.9
0.898
26.1
0.919
22.5
0.921
22.2

Water Gravity
Sg
Temp
1.0123
72.0
1.0140
78.1
1.0150
74.7
1.0148
83.0
1.0158
83.0
1.0130
94.2
1.0154
83.7
1.0178
71.3
1.0139
94.9
-

Gas
Sg
0.738
0.714
0.723
0.720
0.736
0.744
0.716
0.704
0.707
0.645
0.754
0.668

Mixture Visc
cp
Temp
19.5
73.0
99.0
70.7
35.0
71.4
77.1
70.9
60.2
71.4
413.6
70.9
80.6
70.7
79.8
71.6
26.9
71.4
450.0
69.8
47.2
71.2
52.5
72.3

BSW
Reading 1 Reading 2
3.2
3.4
34.0
34.0
8.0
8.0
26.0
26.0
28.0
28.0
60.0
60.0
30.0
30.0
16.0
16.0
0.5
0.5
60.0
60.0
1.4
1.4
0.0
0.0

Calibration of the multiphase flow meters

The multiphase flow meters were set up and calibrated according to the vendors
requirements, under the supervision of the project consultant, Parviz Mehdizadeh.
The calibration procedure included three well tests under multiphase flow conditions
for the Agar, FMC and Schlumberger meters. The Roxar meter joined the tests midway through, after delivery of their radioactive source to the test site, and their
calibration included a single multiphase well test. The calibration procedures are
documented in Section 14. Dr Mehdizadeh provided regular progress reports during
the tests, which are shown in Section 15.
5.5

Data recording and processing

The MFMs were set up to record data continuously at 1 minute intervals. This
information was written to data files starting at midnight on each day. The results
could therefore be retrieved from the meters each day and converted into a standard
format using various Excel conversion spreadsheets and macros, written by the meter
vendors.
5.5.1 MFM data format
The required data from each vendor was:
Date and time
Well name
Oil rate (barrels of oil per day)
Water rate (barrels of water per day)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 25/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Gas rate (Thousand actual cubic feet per day)
Water cut
Gas volume fraction
Pressure (psia)
Temperature (F)
All data was reported from the meters at line conditions, i.e. at the temperature and
pressure at the multiphase meter measuring Section.
5.5.2 ASRC data format
ASRC produced a data file at the end of each test which recorded the reference
measurements from the ASRC test separator at 1 minute intervals. The format of the
file was the same as the MFM data files.
5.5.3 Pressure, temperature and shrinkage calculations
As the MFMs all operated at slightly different pressure (due to pressure loss through
the meters and the installation pipework) and temperature, it was necessary to make
some corrections to the readings to allow a truly valid comparison with the ASRC
reference conditions.
Gas rate was corrected from the reported meter line conditions and the ASRC reference
conditions to standard conditions (1 atm, 60F). Gas rates are therefore shown in
MMscf/d. However for meaningful comparison with other MFM test data and the
specifications for the MFM accuracies, the gas volume fraction (GVF) is required at the
MFM line conditions. For GVF calculations the gas rate was evaluated at the ASRC
reference temperature and pressure.
Oil rate was corrected to stock tank conditions using reservoir specific shrinkage
correlations provided by BP Alaska. Two correlations were provided, one each for
Ivishak and Borealis crude. Both shrinkage factors are based upon updated Peng
Robinson Equations of State based upon PVT analysis. The correlations are functions
of pressure, temperature, and GOR. Effects of varying API gravity are taken into
account via the different correlations for the different reservoirs. No reservoir specific
shrinkage correlation has been developed for Orion to date; the Ivishak shrinkage
factor was employed for the one well on V-Pad producing from the Orion development.
Water rate was corrected to stock tank conditions using the following equation derived
for the density of water:
Density of water =

1.40770810-10T4 + 4.33811610-8T3 7.61112210-6T2


+ 5.26178410-5T + 9.99903210-1

(T in C), so that:
Water shrinkage factor = density of water (60F) / density of water (Tmeter)

Page 26/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
These pressure, temperature and shrinkage corrections do not fully represent the PVT
behaviour of the wellstream fluids, but are sufficiently accurate for the purpose of the
tests. There is in any case some uncertainty of the PVT behaviour of the fluids flowing
in any particular well test due to the variable nature of the produced fluids and the gas
lift composition. It is important to note that ultimately the correlations were only used
for the purpose of compensating for very slight differences in pressure and temperature
between meters any deviations in one wells behaviour from that described by the
correlations would produce cancelling errors.
5.5.4 Data selection
Each ASRC reference data file was analysed using Excel, plotting the oil, water, liquid
and gas flowrates and water cut against time to determine the valid period of the test.
In some cases, for example, the early period of the test time was invalid as the
flowrates were still stabilising. Two methods were used: visual inspection of the plots,
and calculation of the statistical confidence in the average rates. The valid test period
was selected to minimise the confidence value (as a fraction of the average rate).
5.6

Data reprocessing

Some of the multiphase flow meters use measurements to determine the multiphase
flow rates which are dependent on the physical properties of the fluids. As can be seen
from Table 5.1, the properties vary quite significantly between the wells. However, in
addition to the variation between the wells as tested at that time, there can be
variations in physical properties of the produced fluids with time, as a result of
producing crudes from different horizons, from water and miscible injectant
breakthrough, and from variability in the composition of the lift gas.
One objective of the test was to determine the impact of variable fluid properties on
the multiphase flow meters, and therefore all the tests were performed blind without
changing the calibration data for the well under test. At the end of the test
programme, each vendor was provided with the raw data from their meter, and a
schedule showing which wells were under test and the times of the tests, as shown in
Table 5.2. This provided sufficient information to reprocess the data to produce new
multiphase flow meter output. At this stage no ASRC reference data was released
to the vendors.
Of the four vendors, Agar, FMC and Roxar did not consider reprocessing to be
required. Schlumberger provided complete reprocessed data for each well, and this
data has been analysed alongside the original meter outputs, to demonstrate the
impact of fluid property reprocessing. Cross plots of these results are shown in Section
12.7.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 27/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Table 5.2: Well test schedule
Start
time

End
time

mm/dd/yy hh:mm

mm/dd/yy hh:mm

09/05/03 13:00
09/05/03 20:40
09/06/03 03:35
09/07/03 18:00
09/08/03 00:30
09/08/03 09:00
09/08/03 11:00
09/09/03 02:11
09/09/03 11:31
09/09/03 18:31
09/10/03 02:46
09/10/03 11:00
09/10/03 17:45
09/11/03 22:53
09/12/03 12:00
09/13/03 07:00
09/14/03 01:30
09/14/03 17:00
09/15/03 07:16
09/15/03 17:30

09/05/03 17:00
09/06/03 00:00
09/06/03 06:00
09/07/03 22:00
09/08/03 06:30
09/08/03 11:00
09/08/03 15:00
09/09/03 07:00
09/09/03 15:00
09/09/03 22:00
09/10/03 07:46
09/10/03 15:00
09/10/03 22:00
09/12/03 05:02
09/12/03 18:45
09/13/03 17:00
09/14/03 12:30
09/15/03 04:00
09/15/03 08:16
09/16/03 05:30

5.7

Well

V106
V102
V117
V106
V102
V117
V117
V101
V103
V107
V108
V109
V113
V202
V03
V102
V103
V106
V101
V107

Test
duration
hh:mm
4:00
3:20
2:25
4:00
6:00
2:00
4:00
4:49
3:29
3:29
5:00
4:00
4:15
6:09
6:45
10:00
11:00
11:00
1:00
12:00

Start
time

End
time

mm/dd/yy hh:mm

mm/dd/yy hh:mm

09/16/03 11:00
09/19/03 02:45
09/19/03 20:00
09/21/03 12:30
09/22/03 01:00
09/22/03 16:30
09/22/03 19:55
09/23/03 00:15
09/23/03 02:15
09/23/03 06:00
09/23/03 23:00
09/24/03 03:30
09/24/03 07:02
09/24/03 14:00
09/24/03 19:05
09/24/03 23:30
09/27/03 03:00
09/27/03 17:00
09/30/03 14:30
09/30/03 21:30

09/16/03 15:00
09/19/03 08:15
09/20/03 07:00
09/21/03 18:00
09/22/03 07:09
09/22/03 19:00
09/22/03 21:55
09/23/03 01:30
09/23/03 04:45
09/23/03 08:30
09/24/03 03:00
09/24/03 06:00
09/24/03 11:01
09/24/03 16:00
09/24/03 20:50
09/25/03 02:45
09/27/03 12:00
09/28/03 04:00
09/30/03 21:00
10/01/03 02:45

Well

V108
V108
V109
V03
V113
V107
V107
V108
V108
V108
V109
V109
V107
V102
V103
V117
V201
V113
V202
V202

Test
duration
hh:mm
4:00
5:30
11:00
5:30
6:09
2:30
2:00
1:15
2:30
2:30
4:00
2:30
3:59
2:00
1:45
3:15
9:00
11:00
6:30
5:15

Meter breakdowns

A number of sensor failures and breakdowns occurred during the tests, which are
recorded here for completeness.
5.7.1 FMC Flowsys
The temperature measured failed on the FMC Flowsys meter on September 10th, and
was noticed the following day. The fault was traced to a loose connection from the
temperature transmitter at the data acquisition A to D converter on September 15th.
Because the temperature is used in the derivation of the gas and liquid flowrates, the
multiphase meter outputs could not be relied on during this period. The raw data was
taken from the Flowsys meter and sent to FMC with the average temperatures for the
tests. The information was used to regenerate the correct multiphase flow meter
output, and this has been used in the analysis in this report.
5.7.2 Schlumberger VX29
On September 17th, after a generator power failure on ASRCs MTU, the PhaseWatcher
would not restart with the Service Computer. A Schlumberger representative was
dispatched to V-Pad and there determined that a gamma detector failure had occurred.
The detector (Model 770) was replaced with a spare detector (a previous model) from
the Schlumberger WCP base in Deadhorse, which required about 4 hours, including 2
hours travel time between V-Pad and Schlumberger WCP. The PhaseWatcher outlet

Page 28/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
was opened and an empty pipe calibration was performed. Since well testing had been
stopped for other operations; there was no lost time involved. The faulty detector was
immediately sent to Schlumberger Princeton for investigation.
5.7.3 Agar 401
Agar informed BP that based on the system log files, the positive displacement (PD)
meter on their system failed September 30th, and therefore the data from that point
on is not good. This is evident from the data, where the meter was reporting
approximately 50% under-reading from this point, although the Agar meter continued
tracking water cut. The lower flow rate (rather than zero rate) is due to the part of the
stream passing through the wet gas metering loop.
Agar has indicated that the cause of the PD meter failure is due to the sand/stone in
the stream reaching the PD meter that was not protected by the strainer. When the
meter is returned to Agar in Houston from the North Slope, a BP representative will
attend at the time they open up the PD meter to audit the cause of failure.
Data from the point of PD meter failure has not been used in the analysis as it is
clearly erroneous.
5.7.4 Roxar MPFM 1900VI
Roxar suffered no meter failures during the tests. However, it is worth recording the
reason that far less data was collected from the Roxar meter was a result of logistical
difficulties in shipping the radioactive source to the North Slope. This delayed Roxars
meter set-up until about half-way through the test programme.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 29/264

CONFIDENTIAL

Page 30/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

TEST RESULTS

6.1

Meter results

This section details the statistical analysis of each meters test data compared to the
ASRC benchmark, the methodology behind the statistics, comparison of meter
performance to vendor specifications, and a comparison of test results from all four
meters. It should be noted that this section details only the quantitative results of the
field trial. More complete analysis of meter performance, including issues associated
with initial installation and operability, are in Section 8.
6.1.1 Agar 401
The test points covered are shown in Table 9.5. The points are sorted into order by the
well tested and the date of the test. Graphs of the test points plotted against the
reference values are shown in Section 7.
6.1.2 FMC Flowsys
The test points covered are shown in Table 10.5. The points are sorted into order by the
well tested and the date of the test. Graphs of the test points plotted against the
reference values are shown in Section 10.
6.1.3 Roxar MPFM 1900VI
The test points covered are shown in Table 11.5. The points are sorted into order by the
well tested and the date of the test. Graphs of the test points plotted against the
reference values are shown in Section 11.
6.1.4 Schlumberger VX29
The test points covered are shown in Table 12.5 and Table 12.8 (reprocessed data). The
points are sorted into order by the well tested and the date of the test. Graphs of the
test points plotted against the reference values are shown in Section 12.
6.2

Definition of errors

In this report, errors in oil, water, total liquid and gas flowrates, and GOR, are
expressed as relative errors, defined as:
Relative error = (Meter reading reference reading) / Reference reading
while for water cut and GVF the errors are expressed as absolute errors, defined by:
Absolute error = Meter reading reference reading

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 31/264

CONFIDENTIAL
6.3

Summary statistics all data

Three methods have been used to quantify the measurement performance of the
multiphase flow meters.
6.3.1 5% criteria
The first calculation recognises the value of low measurement uncertainty and weights
the results accordingly. Each test point is rated according to its deviation from the
reference value for liquid flowrate, gas flowrate, and water cut. A value of 5 is
allocated if the liquid or gas flowrate is within 5%, and the water cut is within 1%; a
value of 2 is allocated if the liquid or gas flowrate is within 10%, and the water cut is
within 2%; a value of 0 is allocated if the deviations lie outwith these ranges.
To allow for uncertainty in the ASRC reference data, an allowance of 5% on liquid
flowrate, 2% on gas flowrate and 0.5% on water cut has been made before calculating
the above scores.
The points are totalled and then divided by the number of test points to give a
normalised score. The values for each meter are shown in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1: Summary scores for multiphase flow meter 5% criteria
AGAR

FMC

ROXAR

SLB

SLB
(reprocessed)

Liquid flowrate
Gas flowrate
Water cut

3.6
4.1
2.4

2.6
2.9
1.2

2.4
0.7
1.1

3.3
2.5
1.0

3.9
2.6
2.0

TOTAL score
Ideal score

10.0

6.7

4.2
15

6.8

8.5

6.3.2 RMS average


The root-mean-square average has been calculated for the deviations between the
MFM readings and the ASRC reference values for liquid flowrate, gas flowrate and
water cut. This tends to produce a large average value, since all points are used in
calculating the average. The RMS average values are shown in Table 6.2.
Table 6.2: RMS average multiphase flow meter deviations

Liquid flowrate
Gas flowrate
Water cut
Ideal score
Page 32/264

AGAR

FMC

ROXAR

SLB

SLB
(reprocessed)

12.3
8.8
5.6

71.8
41.8
12.0

26.9
38.4
10.2

14.8
14.1
12.9

13.6
12.4
9.2

The lower the value of RMS average the better


Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
6.3.3 Proportion of points within range
For this evaluation, the proportion of test points has been evaluated where the
deviation between the MFM and the ASRC reference is within a specified range. For
liquid flowrate the range is 10%, for gas flowrate the range is 10% and for water cut
the range is 2%.
To allow for uncertainty in the ASRC reference data, an allowance of 5% on liquid
flowrate, 2% on gas flowrate and 0.5% on water cut has been made before calculating
the above scores.
A final calculation has been made of the proportion of test points where the combined
error calculated by the equation below lies within 10%:

RMS error =

(relative % error in Q L )2 + (relative % error in Q G )2 + (absolute % error in

WC

)2

Table 6.3: proportion of points within range

Liquid flowrate
Gas flowrate
Water cut
Combined error

AGAR

FMC

ROXAR

SLB

SLB
(reprocessed)

82.5
90.0
60.0
80.0

53.3
64.4
24.4
53.3

56.5
17.4
26.1
17.4

71.7
56.5
21.7
56.5

88.6
68.2
43.2
77.3

Ideal score

6.4

100

Summary statistics data in restricted operating envelope

The following statistics have been calculated for a limited range of data for the
operating envelope defined by:
GVF
Liquid rate

< 95%
> 1100 stb/d

The reasons for these restrictions are that most of the meters had greatly increased
measurement errors above 95% GVF, and that the size of the meters in the test limited
their lower range of liquid flowrate measurement. Using data from a restricted
operating range generally shows an improved overall meter performance.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 33/264

CONFIDENTIAL
6.4.1 5% criteria
Table 6.4: Summary scores for multiphase flow meter 5% criteria
AGAR

FMC

ROXAR

SLB

SLB
(reprocessed)

Liquid flowrate
Gas flowrate
Water cut

4.4
4.1
2.5

3.7
3.3
1.3

4.2
1.4
1.4

4.1
4.7
1.8

4.5
3.8
2.4

TOTAL score
Ideal score

11.0

8.2

7.1
15

10.5

10.7

6.4.2 RMS average


Table 6.5: RMS average multiphase flow meter deviations

Liquid flowrate
Gas flowrate
Water cut

AGAR

FMC

ROXAR

SLB

SLB
(reprocessed)

8.3
10.0
2.3

22.6
44.4
7.8

13.4
23.9
13.4

8.2
5.2
8.5

7.8
8.0
6.6

Ideal score

The lower the value of RMS average the better

6.4.3 Proportion of points within range


Table 6.6: proportion of points within range

Liquid flowrate
Gas flowrate
Water cut
Combined error
Ideal score

6.5

AGAR

FMC

ROXAR

SLB

SLB
(reprocessed)

95.2
90.5
66.7
90.5

76.2
71.4
28.6
71.4

88.9
33.3
33.3
44.4

85.7
100.0
38.1
85.7

100.0
95.7
52.2
95.7

100

Comparison with vendor specifications

Each of the vendors was asked to provide an uncertainty specification for their meter,
giving the relative error in liquid and gas rate measurement, and the absolute error in
water cut measurement. For most of the meters, the uncertainty specification was
dependent on GVF. The following figures show the liquid flowrate, gas flowrate and
water cut errors from the tests plotted against GVF for each of the meters, together
with the vendor uncertainty specification.

Page 34/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
6.5.1 Agar 401
The specification provided by Agar is:
Gas flowrate uncertainty
Liquid flowrate uncertainty
Water cut uncertainty

5%
2%
2%

Agar additionally specify an error based on the full scale reading, for example, liquid
error is 2% of reading plus 1% of full scale. This significantly increases the relative
error specification compared to the values shown above.
This specification in valid for the whole GVF range from 0% to 100%.
Figure 6.1: Agar 401 liquid flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 5% relative error
AGAR-401: all points

Total liquid flowrate error (% relative to reference)

40

AGAR-401: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

vendor specification
20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 35/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 6.2: Agar 401 gas flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
AGAR-401: all points

40

Gas flowrate error (% relative to reference)

AGAR-401: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

vendor specification

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 6.3: Agar 401 water cut error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
25
+/- 5% absolute error
AGAR-401: all points

20

Water cut error (% absolute from reference)

AGAR-401: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

15

vendor specification

10

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Page 36/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
6.5.2 FMC Flowsys
The specification provided by FMC gives the uncertainty in gas flowrate, liquid
flowrate and water cut as a function of the GVF:
Table 6.7: FMC Flowsys vendor uncertainty specification

GVF

Gas flowrate
uncertainty
10
10
10
10
10
-

0-25%
25-60%
60-70%
70-85%
85-92%
92-97%
97-100

Liquid flowrate
uncertainty
5
5
7
7
10
15
-

Water cut
uncertainty
2
2
2
3
3
5
-

Figure 6.4: FMC Flowsys liquid flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 5% relative error
FMC-Flowsys: all points

Total liquid flowrate error (% relative to reference)

40

FMC-Flowsys: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

vendor specification
20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 37/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 6.5: FMC Flowsys gas flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
FMC-Flowsys: all points

40

Gas flowrate error (% relative to reference)

FMC-Flowsys: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

vendor specification
20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 6.6: FMC Flowsys water cut error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
25
+/- 5% absolute error
FMC-Flowsys: all points

20

Water cut error (% absolute from reference)

FMC-Flowsys: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

15

vendor specification
10

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Page 38/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
6.5.3 Roxar MPFM 1900VI
The specification provided by Roxar gives the uncertainty in gas flowrate, liquid
flowrate and water cut as a function of the GVF. The water cut uncertainty
specification is additionally dependent on water cut. In Figure 6.9 only the higher
water cut specification (for water continuous flow) is shown.
Table 6.8: Roxar MPFM 1900VI vendor uncertainty specification

GVF

Gas flowrate
uncertainty

0-5%
0-30%
30-90%
90-96%
96-99%
99-100%

8
6
6
6
6

Liquid
flowrate
uncertainty
2
2
3
5
7
-

Water cut
uncertainty
wc<60%
1.5
1.5
2
3
4
-

Water cut
uncertainty
wc>60%
2.25
2.25
3
4.5
6
-

Figure 6.7: Roxar MPFM 1900VI liquid flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 5% relative error
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: all points

Total liquid flowrate error (% relative to reference)

40

Roxar-MPFM1900VI: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

vendor specification
20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 39/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 6.8: Roxar MPFM 1900VI gas flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: all points

40

Gas flowrate error (% relative to reference)

Roxar-MPFM1900VI: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

vendor specification
20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 6.9: Roxar MPFM 1900VI water cut error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
25
+/- 5% absolute error
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: all points

20

Water cut error (% absolute from reference)

Roxar-MPFM1900VI: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

15

vendor specification
10

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Reference GVF (%)

Page 40/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
6.5.4 Schlumberger VX29
The specification provided by Schlumberger gives the uncertainty in gas flowrate,
liquid flowrate and water cut as a function of the GVF. The water cut uncertainty
specification is additionally dependent on water cut. In Figure 6.12 only the higher
water cut specification (for water continuous flow) is shown.
Table 6.9: Schlumberger VX29 vendor uncertainty specification

GVF

Gas flowrate
uncertainty

0-92%
92-96%
96-98%
98-100%

7.5
7.5
9
-

Liquid
flowrate
uncertainty
7.5
8
11
-

Water cut
uncertainty
wc<60%
9
10.5
16
-

Water cut
uncertainty
wc>60%
9.5
12
16.5
-

Figure 6.10: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) liquid flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 5% relative error
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: all points

Total liquid flowrate error (% relative to reference)

40

SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope
30

vendor specification

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 41/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 6.11: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) gas flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: all points

40

Gas flowrate error (% relative to reference)

SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

vendor specification

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 6.12: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) water cut error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
25
+/- 5% absolute error
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: all points

20

Water cut error (% absolute from reference)

SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope
15

vendor specification

10

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 42/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
6.6

Summary of repeatability results

For each of the parameters liquid flowrate, gas flowrate and water cut the repeatability
is calculated as:
repeatability =

(max imum error )- (min imum error )


number of tests

Then a combined repeatability value is calculated using:

RMS repeatability =

(repeatability of QL )2 + (repeatability of QG )2 + (repeatability of

WC

)2

The tests were sorted and the points selected for repeatability analysis are shown in
Table 9.6 (Agar), Table 10.6 (FMC), Table 11.6 (Roxar), Table 12.6 (Schlumberger) and
Table 12.9 (Schlumberger reprocessed). The repeatability results for the four meters
are summarised in Table 6.10. Figure 13.16 to Figure 13.23 show the behaviour of the
V-106 well tests, showing considerable variability. Hence this test has been excluded
from the repeatability calculations. For comparison, the values in brackets show the
repeatability values including V-106.
Table 6.10: Repeatability results for the four multiphase flow meters

Agar
FMC
Roxar
SLB
SLB
(reprocessed)

Liquid
flowrate
repeatability
5.5 (6.4)
14.5 (22.6)
8.7 (10.9)
6.4 (7.1)
5.6 (6.4)

Gas flowrate
repeatability

Water cut
repeatability

Combined
repeatability

3.1 (3.1)
6.2 (8.3)
7.2 (8.5)
3.1 (3.3)
2.9 (3.1)

1.3 (1.4)
3.6 (4.7)
3.1 (5.9)
5.5 (6.3)
4.3 (4.7)

3.9 (4.4)
9.7 (14.5)
7.1 (9.1)
5.9 (6.5)
5.0 (5.5)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 43/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 6.13: Liquid flowrate repeatability for the four meters
120
Agar
FMC
Roxar

100

SLB

Liquid flowrate repeatability

SLB reprocessed

80

60

40

20

0
V03

V101

V102

V103

V106

V107

V107

V108

V109

V113

V117

V202

Figure 6.14: Gas flowrate repeatability for the four meters


35
Agar
FMC

30

Roxar
SLB
SLB reprocessed

Gas flowrate repeatability

25

20

15

10

0
V03

Page 44/264

V101

V102

V103

V106

V107

V107

V108

V109

V113

V117

V202

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 6.15: Water cut repeatability for the four meters
25
Agar
FMC
Roxar

20

SLB

Water cut repeatability

SLB reprocessed

15

10

0
V03

6.7

V101

V102

V103

V106

V107

V107

V108

V109

V113

V117

V202

Comparison of the results from the four meters

Figure 6.16 to Figure 6.29 show the results from the 4 multiphase flow meters plotted
together. These figures are very useful in showing the different performance of the
meters, for example Figure 6.22 quite clearly shows a different trend of metered gas
rate against the reference for each meter. If, on the other hand, the four meters had
given similar trends, this might indicate an underlying systematic error in the
reference measurement.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 45/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 6.16: Oil flowrate from the 4 multiphase flow meters
vs. ASRC reference oil flowrate
2000
+/- 10% relative error
Agar
FMC
Roxar
SLB

1800

1600

Meter oil flowrate (stb/d)

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

Reference oil flowrate (stb/d)

Figure 6.17: Oil flowrate error from the 4 multiphase flow meters
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
Agar

40

FMC

Oil flowrate error (% relative to reference)

Roxar
30

SLB

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

20

40

60

80

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 46/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 6.18: Water flowrate from the 4 multiphase flow meters
vs. ASRC reference water flowrate
2500
+/- 10% relative error
Agar
FMC
Roxar
SLB

Meter water flowrate (stb/d)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Reference water flowrate (stb/d)

Figure 6.19: Water flowrate error from the 4 multiphase flow meters
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
Agar
FMC

Water flowrate error (% relative to reference)

40

Roxar
SLB

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

20

40

60

80

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 47/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 6.20: Liquid flowrate from the 4 multiphase flow meters
vs. ASRC reference liquid flowrate
3500
+/- 5% relative error
Agar
FMC

3000

Roxar

Meter liquid flowrate (stb/d)

SLB
2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Reference liquid flowrate (stb/d)

Figure 6.21: Liquid flowrate error from the 4 multiphase flow meters
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 5% relative error
Agar
FMC
Roxar
SLB

Liquid flowrate error (% relative to reference)

40

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

20

40

60

80

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 48/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 6.22: Gas flowrate from the 4 multiphase flow meters
vs. ASRC reference gas flowrate
9.0
+/- 10% relative error
Agar
FMC
Roxar
SLB

8.0

Meter gas flowrate (MMscf/d)

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Reference gas flowrate (MMscf/d)

Figure 6.23: Gas flowrate error from the 4 multiphase flow meters
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
Agar
FMC

Gas flowrate error (% relative to reference)

40

Roxar
SLB

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

20

40

60

80

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 49/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 6.24: Water cut from the 4 multiphase flow meters
vs. ASRC reference water cut
100
+/- 5% absolute error
Agar
FMC
Roxar
SLB

80

Meter water cut (%)

60

40

20

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

-20

Reference water cut (%)

Figure 6.25: Water cut error from the 4 multiphase flow meters
vs. ASRC reference GVF
25
+/- 5% absolute error
Agar

20

FMC

Water cut error (% relative to reference)

Roxar
15

SLB

10

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
0

20

40

60

80

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 50/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 6.26: GVF from the 4 multiphase flow meters
vs. ASRC reference GVF
100
+/- 5% absolute error
Agar
FMC
Roxar
SLB

90

80

Meter GVF (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 6.27: GVF error from the 4 multiphase flow meters


vs. ASRC reference GVF
15
+/- 5% relative error
Agar
FMC
Roxar

Meter GVF error (% relative to reference)

10

SLB

-5

-10

-15
0

20

40

60

80

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 51/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 6.28: GOR from the 4 multiphase flow meters
vs. ASRC reference GOR
100000
+/- 10% relative error
Agar
FMC
Roxar
SLB

Meter GOR (scf/stb)

10000

1000

100
100

1000

10000

100000

Reference GOR (scf/stb)

Figure 6.29: GOR error from the 4 multiphase flow meters


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% absolute error
Agar

40

FMC
Roxar

GOR error (% relative to reference)

30

SLB

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

20

40

60

80

100

Reference GOR (%)

Page 52/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
6.8

Meter sizing analysis

The tests were generally at high GVF (the majority of the points were above 90% GVF)
and these points corresponded to relatively low liquid flowrate conditions. One of the
issues which emerged from analysis of the data and subsequent discussion with the
vendors was that loss of metering accuracy at high GVF could be a result both of the
high GVF and the low liquid flowrate. For this reason, a limited operating envelope
was defined for analysis of the results at a minimum liquid flowrate limit of 1100 stb/d
and maximum GVF of 95%.
However, it is useful to be able to determine whether the largest contributor to meter
error is from high GVF or low liquid flowrate, and therefore make an assessment of
whether better accuracy could have been obtained by sizing the meter differently.
EPTG has developed a model in Excel to describe the performance of a dual energy
Venturi type of multiphase flow meter. This calculates the pressure drop across the
Venturi and the uncertainties associated with measurement of the Venturi pressure
drop and the phase fractions. For the Schlumberger VX29 meter, at the conditions of
each well tested, the calculated Venturi pressure drop is shown in Figure 6.30. This
shows that with the exception of two well tests, the average Venturi pressure drop for a
test is greater than 500 mbar. This is well within the accurate measurement range for
the Venturi dP transmitter. If the Venturi had been smaller, the dP would have been
out of range for many of the tests. It can be concluded that the meter was correctly
sized for the range of well tests undertaken, and the dominant source of error was due
to high GVF measurement and not to low liquid rate.
Figure 6.30: Venturi pressure drop for 29mm Venturi throat
5000
4500
4000

Venturi dP (mbar)

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Modelled Venturi dP
0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Oil flowrate (barrels per day)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 53/264

CONFIDENTIAL

Page 54/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENCE IN TEST DATA

7.1

Tank tests

Tank tests were conducted on selected wells to obtain additional data to assess the
quality of the test separator liquid measurements. The availability of the wells and
tank capacity dictated the number and duration of these tank tests. The steps
described in Section 7.1.1 were used to conduct the tank tests. The ASRC equipment
employed 2 test tanks, each had a total capacity of 400 bbl corresponding to a tank
liquid level of 240 inches. Tank strapping was done using a W L Walker tape. Some of
the wells flowed at high rate and in these cases the second tank was used so as not to
interrupt the test. Tank strapping was done with a standard tank strap reel with a
plum bob at the bottom and a bonding strap. The conversion factor for the tape
measurements is 1.667 bbl per inch. With proper tank strapping methods, the
estimated tank volume measurement accuracy is better than 1 bbl. The tanks were
insulated and open to atmosphere. Figure 7.1 shows the schematic and Figure 7.2
shows a general view of the tank tests.
Figure 7.1: Schematic of tank test installation

R
O
X
A
R

A
G
A
R

F
M
C

S
L
B

ASRC

Tank

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Tank

Page 55/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.2: View of the tank test location

7.1.1 Tank Test Procedure


Prior to a tank test the well was allowed to stabilize for at least 2 hours by flowing it
through the test separator and directing the returns to the header. During this
stabilization period, the ASRC operators established the well flow rate and separator
level adjustments. These rates and levels were used to adjust the controls on the
separator later on during the tank tests. Once a stable rate was established, the flow
was diverted to the tank and a small amount of defoamer was injected by a chemical
injection pump into the liquid leg of the test separator, shown in Figure 5.5,
downstream of the MicroMotion flow meter. The following steps were then used to
obtain tank data:

Ten minutes before test time, the MicroMotion meter was by-passed. The
transmitter was set to zero and verified.
Slowly re-open the MicroMotion to avoid slug flow error and shut the bypass.
At least one minute before starting the test stop and reset the PLC totalisers.
At the same time at the top of the hour for the start test time, divert from the
header/purge tank to the test tank and start the totalisers in the PLC.
Obtain tank straps every half hour from the start test time. Watch for foaming
during the tank level measurements.

Page 56/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

When the tank test duration is achieved, begin 15 minute tank straps until
shrinkage subsides, and once shrinkage has stabilized, take two more one half
hour straps to ensure shrinkage is complete.
Freeze protect tank lines if it is cold and they will sit for a while, or purge with
gas to blow-dry.

7.1.2 Tank Test and Liquid Correction


Table 7.1 shows the results from the 9 tank tests. The third and forth columns in the
table show the liquid volumes measured by the tank and the corresponding liquid
volumes measured by the test separator. The test separator (ASRC) volumes were
further corrected for shrinkage using BPs shrinkage correlations shown in Section
5.5.3. The shrinkage is applied to the oil portion of the liquid, as determined by the
water cut values for each well. The corrected volumes and the variance with respect to
the tank values are shown in columns 9 and 10 of the table. An average uncertainty of
5%, based on the total tank volumes measured for all 9 wells and shrinkage corrected
volumes reported by the test separator, was calculated and used as the estimate of
uncertainty in the reference liquid flowrate.
Table 7.1: Tank Tests and corrections for the ASRC liquid volumes

Well

Date

3
103
106
106
108
109
113
117
202

9/21/03
9/24/03
9/7/03
9/29/03
9/19/03
9/20/03
9/21/03
9/25/03
9/30/03

Average

Tank
Volume BBL
157.0
212.9
102.7
99.4
78.3
110.8
89.3
233.8
198.3

ASRC
VolumeBBL
156.1
209.2
106.9
102.9
69.2
102.1
83.1
231.3
204.9

Oil Water
(bbls) (bbls)
140.3
143.1
62.7
62.1
47.3
83.1
83.1
77.2
204.9

1282.6

Exploration & Production Technology Group

15.8
66.0
44.2
40.8
21.9
19.0
0.1
154.0
0.0

OSF
1.0682
1.0445
1.0503
1.0524
1.0536
1.0474
1.0542
1.0641
1.0543

Shrunk Liquid ASRC underOil Vol Shrinkage Reading


131.3
137.0
59.7
59.0
44.9
79.4
78.8
72.6
194.4

147.1
203.1
103.9
99.8
66.8
98.3
78.9
226.6
194.4

-6%
-5%
1%
0%
-15%
-11%
-12%
-3%
-2%

1218.8

-5.0%

Page 57/264

CONFIDENTIAL
7.2

Statistical analysis of reference data

Data was recorded from the ASRC reference system at 1 minute intervals throughout
the tests. For each test the oil, water, liquid and gas rates and the water cut were
plotted against time and the most appropriate portion of the data was selected for the
test period. For each test the statistical confidence of liquid rate, gas rate and water
cut were calculated. This is the 95% confidence value, divided by the mean flowrate.
The results of this analysis are shown in full in Section 13.
7.3

Comparison with laboratory test data

Most of the multiphase flow meters tested in this project have been subjected to
extensive trials at multiphase flow test laboratories, during the development of the
meter technology, as part of Joint Industry Projects, and qualification tests for meter
installations. The three principal laboratories where these tests have taken place are
at Humble, Texas (Texaco); Porsgrunn, Norway (Norsk Hydro) and the UK National
Engineering Laboratory in Glasgow, Scotland.
Unfortunately there are limitations to the use of this information, either for reasons of
commercial confidentiality, or because the meter technology has changed substantially
since the laboratory trials took place. Test results for the Schlumberger, Roxar and
FMC multiphase flow meters are shown in Section 7.3.1, 7.3.2 and 7.3.3.
7.3.1 Data for the Schlumberger VX multiphase flow meter
The best quality data available to this study is for the Schlumberger meter tested at
NEL. A prototype of the VX52 meter (with 153Gd radioactive source) was tested in a
Joint Industry Project at NEL in 1999, and BP, Exxon and Phillips were all sponsors of
this project at that time. A second VX52 meter, now with the 133Ba source, was tested
at NEL in 2001 for the Maclure field development in the UK North Sea BP, Conoco
and ExxonMobil all had interests in this development, and therefore access to this test
data.
The following figures show a comparison of results from the NEL test of the
Schlumberger VX52 prototype meter in 1999, the NEL test of the Schlumberger VX52
meter for the Maclure field in 2001, the Prudhoe Bay test of the Schlumberger VX29
meter in 2003, and the reprocessed results from the Prudhoe Bay test of the
Schlumberger VX29 meter in 2003. Note that the figures are plotted in units of
litres/sec at line conditions, as there is not a meaningful PVT correction to stock tank
conditions for the laboratory fluids.
There is very good consistency between the various data sets plotted in Figure 7.3 to
Figure 7.14, showing agreement between the measurement results from three different
versions of the Schlumberger multiphase flow meter in two different test locations
(laboratory and field). This gives us confidence that the test procedure and the
reference values obtained from the field test are of high quality.

Page 58/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.3: Schlumberger oil flowrate
vs. reference oil flowrate
30
+/- 10% relative error
VX52 Prototype, NEL 1999
Maclure VX52, NEL 2001
25

VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003

Meter oil flowrate (litres/second)

VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed

20

15

10

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Reference oil flowrate (litres/second)

Figure 7.4: Schlumberger oil flowrate error


vs. reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
VX52 Prototype, NEL 1999

40

Oil flowrate error (% relative to reference)

Maclure VX52, NEL 2001


VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003

30

VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed


20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

20

40

60

80

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 59/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.5: Schlumberger water flowrate
vs. reference water flowrate
10
+/- 10% relative error
VX52 Prototype, NEL 1999

Maclure VX52, NEL 2001


VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003

Meter water flowrate (litres/second)

VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed


7

0
0

10

80

90

100

Reference water flowrate (litres/second)

Figure 7.6: Schlumberger water flowrate error


vs. reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
VX52 Prototype, NEL 1999

40

Water flowrate error (% relative to reference)

Maclure VX52, NEL 2001


VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003

30

VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed


20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Page 60/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.7: Schlumberger liquid flowrate
vs. reference liquid flowrate
30
+/- 5% relative error
VX52 Prototype, NEL 1999
Maclure VX52, NEL 2001

25

Meter liquid flowrate (litres/second)

VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003


VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed
20

15

10

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Reference liquid flowrate (litres/second)

Figure 7.8: Schlumberger liquid flowrate error


vs. reference GVF
50
+/- 5% relative error

Total liquid flowrate error (% relative to reference)

40

VX52 Prototype, NEL 1999


Maclure VX52, NEL 2001

30

VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003


VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 61/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.9: Schlumberger gas flowrate
vs. reference gas flowrate
100
+/- 10% relative error
VX52 Prototype, NEL 1999

90

Maclure VX52, NEL 2001


VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003

80

Meter gas flowrate (litres/second)

VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed


70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference gas flowrate (litres/second)

Figure 7.10: Schlumberger gas flowrate error


vs. reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
VX52 Prototype, NEL 1999

40

Gas flowrate error (% relative to reference)

Maclure VX52, NEL 2001


VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003

30

VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed


20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Page 62/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.11: Schlumberger water cut
vs. reference water cut
100
+/- 5% absolute error
VX52 Prototype, NEL 1999
Maclure VX52, NEL 2001
80

VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003


VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed

Meter water cut (%)

60

40

20

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

-20

Reference water cut (%)

Figure 7.12: Schlumberger water cut error


vs. reference GVF
25
+/- 5% absolute error
VX52 Prototype, NEL 1999

20

Water cut error (% absolute from reference)

Maclure VX52, NEL 2001


VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003

15

VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed


10

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 63/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.13: Schlumberger GVF
vs. reference GVF
100
+/- 5% absolute error
90

VX52 Prototype, NEL 1999


Maclure VX52, NEL 2001

80

VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003


VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed

Meter GVF (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 7.14: Schlumberger GVF error


vs. reference GVF
15
+/- 5% absolute error
VX52 Prototype, NEL 1999
Maclure VX52, NEL 2001

10

GVF error (% absolute from reference)

VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003


VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed
5

-5

-10

-15
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Page 64/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
7.3.2 Data for the Roxar MPFM1900VI multiphase flow meter
Further data is available for the Roxar meter. Earlier versions of the Roxar meter
when it was developed by Fluenta were tested in the NEL Joint Industry Projects in
1995 (MPFM1900VI) and 1999 (SMFM1000).
Although these meters differed
substantially from the current Roxar MPFM1900VI, the underlying technology is the
same, and a comparison of their performance with meter tested in Prudhoe Bay is
interesting.
A Roxar MPFM1900VI was also tested by ConocoPhillips in the Kuparuk field in
summer 2003, and this data is included for comparison. In the Kuparuk test, the
Roxar meter was compared to an Accuflow multiphase metering system, and there was
some doubt as to the quality of the Accuflow gas measurement. This may explain the
unusual deviation in gas rate measurements from that test. Liquid rate and water cut
measurement is generally consistent with the other test data sources.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 65/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.15: Roxar oil flowrate
vs. reference oil flowrate
40
+/- 10% relative error
Fluenta MPFM1900VI, NEL 1995
35

Fluenta SMFM1000, NEL 1999


Roxar MPFM1900VI, Kuparuk, 2003
Roxar MPFM1900VI, Prudhoe Bay, 2003

Meter oil flowrate (litres/second)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Reference oil flowrate (litres/second)

Figure 7.16: Roxar oil flowrate error


vs. reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
Fluenta MPFM1900VI, NEL 1995

40

Oil flowrate error (% relative to reference)

Fluenta SMFM1000, NEL 1999


Roxar MPFM1900VI, Kuparuk, 2003

30

Roxar MPFM1900VI, Prudhoe Bay, 2003


20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

20

40

60

80

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 66/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.17: Roxar water flowrate
vs. reference water flowrate
40
+/- 10% relative error
Fluenta MPFM1900VI, NEL 1995

35

Fluenta SMFM1000, NEL 1999

Meter water flowrate (litres/second)

Roxar MPFM1900VI, Kuparuk, 2003


Roxar MPFM1900VI, Prudhoe Bay, 2003

30

25

20

15

10

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Reference water flowrate (litres/second)

Figure 7.18: Roxar water flowrate error


vs. reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
40

Fluenta MPFM1900VI, NEL 1995

Water flowrate error (% relative to reference)

Fluenta SMFM1000, NEL 1999


Roxar MPFM1900VI, Kuparuk, 2003

30

Roxar MPFM1900VI, Prudhoe Bay, 2003


20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 67/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.19: Roxar liquid flowrate
vs. reference liquid flowrate
40
+/- 5% relative error
Fluenta MPFM1900VI, NEL 1995
35

Fluenta SMFM1000, NEL 1999

Meter liquid flowrate (litres/second)

Roxar MPFM1900VI, Kuparuk, 2003


Roxar MPFM1900VI, Prudhoe Bay, 2003

30

25

20

15

10

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Reference liquid flowrate (litres/second)

Figure 7.20: Roxar liquid flowrate error


vs. reference GVF
50
+/- 5% relative error
Fluenta MPFM1900VI, NEL 1995

Total liquid flowrate error (% relative to reference)

40

Fluenta SMFM1000, NEL 1999


Roxar MPFM1900VI, Kuparuk, 2003

30

Roxar MPFM1900VI, Prudhoe Bay, 2003


20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 68/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.21: Roxar gas flowrate
vs. reference gas flowrate
250
+/- 10% relative error
Fluenta MPFM1900VI, NEL 1995
Fluenta SMFM1000, NEL 1999

Meter gas flowrate (litres/second)

200

Roxar MPFM1900VI, Kuparuk, 2003


Roxar MPFM1900VI, Prudhoe Bay, 2003

150

100

50

0
0

50

100

150

200

250

Reference gas flowrate (litres/second)

Figure 7.22: Roxar gas flowrate error


vs. reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
Fluenta MPFM1900VI, NEL 1995

40

Gas flowrate error (% relative to reference)

Fluenta SMFM1000, NEL 1999


Roxar MPFM1900VI, Kuparuk, 2003

30

Roxar MPFM1900VI, Prudhoe Bay, 2003


20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 69/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.23: Roxar water cut
vs. reference water cut
100
+/- 5% absolute error
Fluenta MPFM1900VI, NEL 1995

90

Fluenta SMFM1000, NEL 1999


Roxar MPFM1900VI, Kuparuk, 2003

80

Roxar MPFM1900VI, Prudhoe Bay, 2003

Meter water cut (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference water cut (%)

Figure 7.24: Roxar water cut error


vs. reference GVF
25
+/- 5% absolute error
Fluenta MPFM1900VI, NEL 1995

20

Water cut error (% absolute from reference)

Fluenta SMFM1000, NEL 1999


Roxar MPFM1900VI, Kuparuk, 2003

15

Roxar MPFM1900VI, Prudhoe Bay, 2003


10

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Page 70/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.25: Roxar GVF
vs. reference GVF
100
+/- 5% absolute error
90

Fluenta MPFM1900VI, NEL 1995


Fluenta SMFM1000, NEL 1999

80

Roxar MPFM1900VI, Kuparuk, 2003


Roxar MPFM1900VI, Prudhoe Bay, 2003

Meter GVF (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 7.26: Roxar GVF error


vs. reference GVF
15
+/- 5% absolute error
Fluenta MPFM1900VI, NEL 1995
Fluenta SMFM1000, NEL 1999

10

GVF error (% absolute from reference)

Roxar MPFM1900VI, Kuparuk, 2003


Roxar MPFM1900VI, Prudhoe Bay, 2003

-5

-10

-15
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 71/264

CONFIDENTIAL
7.3.3 Data for the FMC Flowsys multiphase flow meter
Further data is available for the Flowsys meter. Test results are available from CMR
in Norway, NEL in the UK and Trecate in Italy.
The CMR multiphase flow loop was initially built for use in internal research and
development projects. However, as an independent technological research institute,
CMR has also offered external services based on these facilities. Examples of such are
Factory acceptance tests on water fraction meters and multiphase meters, where CMR
is an independent third party. It should be noted that the flow loop is not an
accredited flow loop. Hence, the facility itself is not approved for calibration purposes.
However, the reference instrumentation is subject to calibration once a year, and
should therefore comply with general requirements for such a multiphase flow facility.
A 3-inch Flowsys TopFlow was tested at CMR in 2000.
Shortly after the CMR test, the meter was tested at NEL. Development of this meter
was too late for the multiphase metering Joint Industry Projects run by NEL which
provided data shown in Sections 7.3.1 and 7.3.2 for Schlumberger and Roxar. The test
conditions for the Flowsys meter test were selected from the test matrix used for the
Multiflow 2 Joint Industry Project, and the test procedures were similar, so the data is
of equal value.
The Trecate test loop was built in the years 1992-93, mainly to test multiphase meters
and pumps, but it has also been used to test novel separators and ejectors as well, to
collect fluid dynamic data for multiphase code qualification. The loop is located in the
Trecate 2 satellite area of the Trecate/Villafortuna field outside Milan, Italy. A 3-inch
Flowsys TopFlow meter was tested at Trecate in 2001. The fluids were mainly taken
from two different wells: the TR 20 with nominally no water and the TR 10 with water
cut in the range of 45%.
All three data sets have been provided to the project by FMC.

Page 72/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.27: FMC oil flowrate
vs. reference oil flowrate
25
+/- 10% relative error
Flowsys, CMR, 2000
Flowsys, NEL, 2000
Flowsys, Trecate, 2001

20

Meter oil flowrate (litres/second)

Flowsys, Prudhoe Bay, 2003

15

10

0
0

10

15

20

25

80

100

Reference oil flowrate (litres/second)

Figure 7.28: FMC oil flowrate error


vs. reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
Flowsys, CMR, 2000

40

Oil flowrate error (% relative to reference)

Flowsys, NEL, 2000


Flowsys, Trecate, 2001

30

Flowsys, Prudhoe Bay, 2003


20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

20

40

60

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 73/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.29: FMC water flowrate
vs. reference water flowrate
16
+/- 10% relative error
Flowsys, CMR, 2000
14

Flowsys, NEL, 2000

Meter water flowrate (litres/second)

Flowsys, Trecate, 2001


Flowsys, Prudhoe Bay, 2003

12

10

0
0

10

12

14

16

Reference water flowrate (litres/second)

Figure 7.30: FMC water flowrate error


vs. reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
Flowsys, CMR, 2000

40

Water flowrate error (% relative to reference)

Flowsys, NEL, 2000


Flowsys, Trecate, 2001

30

Flowsys, Prudhoe Bay, 2003


20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 74/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.31: FMC liquid flowrate
vs. reference liquid flowrate
30
+/- 5% relative error
Flowsys, CMR, 2000
Flowsys, NEL, 2000

Meter liquid flowrate (litres/second)

25

Flowsys, Trecate, 2001


Flowsys, Prudhoe Bay, 2003

20

15

10

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

Reference liquid flowrate (litres/second)

Figure 7.32: FMC liquid flowrate error


vs. reference GVF
50
+/- 5% relative error
Flowsys, CMR, 2000

Total liquid flowrate error (% relative to reference)

40

Flowsys, NEL, 2000


Flowsys, Trecate, 2001

30

Flowsys, Prudhoe Bay, 2003


20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 75/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.33: FMC gas flowrate
vs. reference gas flowrate
100
+/- 10% relative error
Flowsys, CMR, 2000

90

Flowsys, NEL, 2000


Flowsys, Trecate, 2001

Meter gas flowrate (litres/second)

80

Flowsys, Prudhoe Bay, 2003


70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference gas flowrate (litres/second)

Figure 7.34: FMC gas flowrate error


vs. reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
40

Flowsys, CMR, 2000

Gas flowrate error (% relative to reference)

Flowsys, NEL, 2000


Flowsys, Trecate, 2001

30

Flowsys, Prudhoe Bay, 2003


20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Page 76/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.35: FMC water cut
vs. reference water cut
100
+/- 5% absolute error
Flowsys, CMR, 2000

90

Flowsys, NEL, 2000


Flowsys, Trecate, 2001

80

Flowsys, Prudhoe Bay, 2003

Meter water cut (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

70

80

90

100

Reference water cut (%)

Figure 7.36: FMC water cut error


vs. reference GVF
25
+/- 5% absolute error
Flowsys, CMR, 2000

20

Water cut error (% absolute from reference)

Flowsys, NEL, 2000


Flowsys, Trecate, 2001

15

Flowsys, Prudhoe Bay, 2003


10

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 77/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.37: FMC GVF
vs. reference GVF
100
+/- 5% absolute error
Flowsys, CMR, 2000

90

Flowsys, NEL, 2000


Flowsys, Trecate, 2001

80

Flowsys, Prudhoe Bay, 2003

Meter GVF (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 7.38: FMC GVF error


vs. reference GVF
15
+/- 5% absolute error
Flowsys, CMR, 2000
Flowsys, NEL, 2000

10

GVF error (% absolute from reference)

Flowsys, Trecate, 2001


Flowsys, Prudhoe Bay, 2003

-5

-10

-15
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Reference GVF (%)

Page 78/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
7.4

Comparison with laboratory test data (repeatability)

Repeatability data is available from the NEL tests of the Schlumberger VX-52 and
Fluenta MPFM1900VI meters. Repeatability has been calculated from that data using
the same methods used for repeatability assessment of the current data. For each of
the parameters liquid flowrate, gas flowrate and water cut the repeatability is
calculated as:
repeatability =

((max imum error )- (min imum error ))


number of tests

Then a combined repeatability value is calculated using:

RMS repeatability =

(repeatability of

QL

)2 + (repeatability of

QG

)2 + (repeatability of

WC

)2

The results are shown in Figure 7.39 and Figure 7.40 for the Schlumberger and Roxar
multiphase flow meters, against GVF. Although test results from different meters are
being compared in both cases, the behaviour of RMS repeatability against GVF is very
similar for the two tests of each meter.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 79/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.39: Repeatability of Schlumberger VX multiphase flow meters
12
VX52, NEL, 1999
VX29, Prudhoe Bay, 2003

Repeatability (RMS %)

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 7.40: Repeatability of Roxar MPFM1900VI multiphase flow meters


30
Fluenta, NEL, 1999
Roxar, Prudhoe Bay, 2003

Repeatability (RMS %)

25

20

15

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 80/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

MULTIPHASE METER EVALUATION

GPB performed this field trial with the intent of identifying the potential for practical
application of one or more multiphase flow meters in a number of different scenarios.
Specifically, potential applications are seen in:

portable (compliance) well testing


new builds (meter on every well)
replacing or complementing an existing pad separator, and
augmenting an existing pad separator.

The first step is to determine which meters qualify for a particular application, usually
a function of meter performance at expected GVFs. Assuming more than one meter
qualified, the second step would be a more holistic evaluation of meter applicability.
Each of these scenarios is unique in its requirements for installation, operability, and
performance (accuracy, precision, and repeatability), and thus it was desirable to have
a consistent methodology by which to rank the applicability of each meter in an
unbiased fashion. This section describes the development steps for the Kepner-Tregoe
matrix that was employed to enact the most unbiased evaluation possible. In this
manner, each meter was evaluated holistically, notably without undue weighting on
accuracy or any other single element, which could result in an unsuccessful
installation.
8.1

Operating area

One of the primary goals of this field trail was to qualify one or more meters for a
number of different applications. In order for a MFM to qualify for an application, it
must have acceptable performance (accuracy, precision, and repeatability) for the
wells it will be used to monitor. As MFM performance is strongly a function of GVF, it
follows that each meter will have an upper limit of GVF at which it successfully meters
multiphase flow. This upper GVF limit was defined at the point of significant
deviation from standard meter performance, for any of the three basic measurements:
water cut, gas rate, or total fluid rate. The lowest GVF that caused significant
deviation defined the operating envelope for each meter (if a meter performed
adequately up to 98% GVF on liquid rate and gas rate, but had difficulty with water
cut at 95% GVF, the acceptable GVF limit would be 95%). Some of the operating
envelopes were constrained by only one measurement, others by all three.
The operating envelope for each meter is overlaid on a plot of producing GVF for
Prudhoe Bay, to illustrate both the reservoir mechanisms (gravity drainage,
waterflood) and the percentage of wells at relatively high GVF. It should be noted that
lift mechanism has a significant impact on producing GVF, with jet pumped and ESP
lifted wells at significantly lower GVF than gas lifted wells.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 81/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 8.1 shows the water cut and GVF of the most recent tests of all the wells in the
Greater Prudhoe Bay field, and then Figure 8.2 to Figure 8.5 show the qualified
operating envelopes for each of the multiphase flow meters tested.

Agar (Figure 8.2) was limited to ~95% GVF based only on total fluid rate
deviations from the standard.

FMC (Figure 8.3) was limited to ~93% based on liquid rate, gas rate, and water
cut.

Roxar (Figure 8.4) was limited to ~88% GVF based on gas rate.

Schlumberger (Figure 8.5) was limited to ~95% GVF based on liquid rate, gas
rate, and water cut.
Figure 8.1: GPB well test map
100

Water cut %

75

GD
Endicott

50

MPU ESP_JP
MPU GL
AUR_BOR
GDWFI
GPMA

25

PERIPHERY
PT MAC
PBU SAG
PBU VISCOUS
WF

0
0

25

50

75

100

GVF %

Page 82/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 8.2: GPB well test map, showing Agar-401
qualified operating envelope

Agar Qualification for Prudhoe Producing Wells


100

WC %

75

50

25

85

90

GVF %

95

MPFM Trial Gravity Drainage Other Satellites GDWFI

100

Waterflood

Figure 8.3: GPB well test map, showing FMC-Flowsys


qualified operating envelope

FMC Qualification for Prudhoe Producing Wells


100

WC %

75

50

25

85

90

MPFM Trial

GVF %

95

100

Gravity Drainage Other Satellites GDWFI Waterflood

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 83/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 8.4: GPB well test map, showing Roxar MPFM1900VI
qualified operating envelope

Roxar Qualification for Prudhoe Producing Wells

100

WC %

75

50

25

85

90

MPFM Trial

Gravity Drainage

GVF %

95

Other Satellites

100

GDWFI

Waterflood

Figure 8.5: GPB well test map, showing Schlumberger VX29


qualified operating envelope

SLB Qualification for Prudhoe Producing Wells


100

WC %

75

50

25

85

90

GVF %

95

MPFM Trial Gravity Drainage Other Satellites GDWFI

Page 84/264

100

Waterflood

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
8.2

Three phase metering evaluation criteria

Assuming the MFM in question qualified for an application based upon the GVF of the
wells to be tested, then a more detailed evaluation of meter applicability is warranted.
The decision matrix to assist with this evaluation was developed through the following
steps:

Identification and clarification of the key components of initial installation,


performance (accuracy and precision), and operability.
Weighting of these key components appropriately for portable testing, new
builds, pad separator replacement, and pad separator augmentation.
Each meter given a score to reflect its performance in that specific category.
When possible, data was used to generate the most objective score possible for a
particular category, though some categories require subjective interpretation.
Multiplication of the meter score with the criteria weighting to yield a weighted
final score for each application.

It should be noted that for a meter recommendation specific to another site, a


similar format could be used to make the most appropriate decision, based
upon the quantitative performance data from this field trial, combined with
site-specific requirements for installation, operability, and accuracy.
8.2.1 Initial installation
The expense to install a meter in the field is clearly dependent upon issues such as
initial calibration requirements, connection to data acquisition system requirements,
retrofitting for arctic conditions, design and install of peripheral systems (safety, fire
and gas), etc. Depending on the number of meters in question and their application,
the relative importance of the initial installation varies. Within the general category of
Initial Installation, each meter will be evaluated with respect to the following
elements:
Mechanical design: Elements taken into consideration are primarily simplicity of
design, requirements of peripheral systems, and footprint. The number of components
with potential to erode, break down, or have another form of mechanical failure is
taken into account in the Operability Section, via the Intervention and Repair
category.
E&I: Ease of connections to EIA (Electronics Industry Association) RS485 data
communication systems, electrical ratings, etc.
Calibration (initial): The initial calibration required depends upon each meter,
including in situ measurements of oil and water, gas chromatograph analysis of
samples, viscosity measurements, flow rate calibrations, etc. The level of sampling and
initial calibration speaks directly to the ease of operation of the unit to achieve
acceptable accuracy.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 85/264

CONFIDENTIAL
8.2.2 Performance
Determining the ability of each meter to measure production rates of oil, water, and
gas accurately and consistently was one of the primary objectives of the field trial. The
level of accuracy required, however, is not entirely straightforward, as performance
requirements also are dictated by the application chosen. Meter scores in the
Performance category are generated entirely from statistical analysis of the test results
to provide an objective evaluation of each meter. The numerical method by which the
meters were scored is described in detail in this section. Within the general category of
Performance, each meter will be evaluated with respect to the following elements:
Total liquid rate, gas flow rate, and water cut accuracy (5% criteria): The first
calculation recognises the value of accuracy and weights the results accordingly. Each
test point is rated according to its deviation from the reference value for liquid
flowrate, gas flowrate, and water cut. A value of 5 is allocated if the liquid or gas
flowrate is within 5%, and the water cut is within 1%; a value of 2 is allocated if the
liquid or gas flowrate is within 10%, and the water cut is within 2%; a value of 0 is
allocated if the deviations lie outside these ranges. To allow for uncertainty in the
ASRC reference data, an allowance of 5% on liquid flowrate, 2% on gas flowrate and
0.5% on water cut has been made before calculating the above scores. The points are
totalled and then divided by the number of test points to give a normalised score.
Large deviations from the standard have no effect on this rating, value is given only to
those close to the reference.
Total liquid rate, gas flow rate, and water cut RMS average: The root-mean-square
average has been calculated for the deviations between the MFM readings and the
ASRC reference values for liquid flowrate, gas flowrate and water cut. This tends to
produce a large average value, since all points are used in calculating the average. The
lower the RMS average, the tighter the scatter around the benchmark and the better
the reliability of the measurements. This calculation penalizes proportionately for
values that differ significantly from the standard.
Proportion of points within range: For this evaluation, the proportion of test points has
been evaluated where the deviation between the MFM and the ASRC reference is
within a specified range. For liquid and gas flowrate the range is 10% error (relative
to the standard), and for water cut the range is 2% error (absolute error based upon 0100% full range). To allow for uncertainty in the ASRC reference data, an allowance of
5% on liquid flowrate, 2% on gas flowrate and 0.5% on water cut has been made before
calculating the above scores. This measurement does not penalize for large deviations
from the standard, and provides a bit more leniency on matching the standard, in
effect downplaying the importance of matching the ASRC standard precisely.
A final calculation has been made of the proportion of test points where the combined
error calculated by the equation below lies within 10%:

RMS error =

Page 86/264

(relative % error in QL )2 + (relative % error in QG )2 + (absolute % error in WC)2


3

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
The other evaluation criteria rate meter performance on each measurement (liquid
rate, gas rate, water cut) individually. This total measurement rates each meter on
accuracy of all three measurements simultaneously for a given well test.
Effect of high GVF or low liquid rate: Each of the meters has a specified operating
envelope over which they claim to have accurate metering ability. In the practical
application of such a meter, there may be instances where wells outside the operating
envelope are tested. This rating is a quantitative measurement of the degradation in
measurement accuracy outside the operating envelope, specifically at a low total liquid
rate or high GVF. For simplicitys sake, the restricted envelope was defined as liquid
rate >1100 stb/d and GVF <95% for each meter. The same calculations described
above (5% criteria, RMS, proportion of points within range) were performed over the
entire data set. The difference in relative accuracy was used as a measure of the
sensitivity to the operating envelope. The evaluation in the restricted envelope was
termed in-envelope performance and the evaluation using all data was termed full
range performance.
Consistency (repeatability): The repeatability of a measurement is an important
characteristic for both continuous monitoring and spot-testing of production wells, and
also speaks the confidence in any given measurement. During the course of the test,
some wells were tested multiple times, allowing for the evaluation of the consistency of
the meter performance. The repeatability of each measurement (liquid, water cut, and
gas) was performed for each well according to the following calculation:
repeatability =

(max imum error )- (min imum error )


number of tests

Finally, an overall repeatability score was calculated, similar to the combined RMS
error described above, which accounts for overall repeatability of the liquid rate, water
cut, and gas rate measurements from one test to the next, for a given well:
Combined repeatabil ity =

(liquid repeatabil ity )2 +

(water cut repeatability )2 +

(gas repeatabil ity )2

8.2.3 Operability
Depending upon the application, ease and simplicity of operation of the multiphase
unit can be of critical importance. GPB and most mature assets are continually
struggling to reduce O&M costs, requiring that any new equipment permanently
installed in the field should need minimal oversight. Any successful installation of a
MPM will realise the value of the investment over the full lifespan of the equipment,
which requires buy-in from Operations personnel. Within the general category of
Operability, each meter will be evaluated with respect to the following elements:
HSE issues: Any installation in the field must be rated for the appropriate pressure
and allow for safe operation of the unit. Potential for overpressure, mechanical failure
leading to environmental release, and handling requirements for radioactive sources
will be taken into consideration.
Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 87/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Service: None of the multiphase flow meters are simplistic enough to justify extensive
maintenance and troubleshooting by the resident instrument technicians and
electricians available to Operations. Any detailed troubleshooting of the meter will
require service from the vendor. The timeliness and competence of this service, as well
as replacement parts and materials, are important elements of a sustainable
installation.
Expected O&M cost: Relative estimates of operating expense were made, depending on
the application and the level of service necessary to both maintain and operate the
units. O&M costs need to be taken into consideration for any permanent installation
in the field.
Calibration (periodic): All meters require periodic verification, simply as assurance if
not for actual calibration. The level of re-calibration necessary to ensure measurement
integrity is also variable among the meters and speaks to medium-term operability.
Intervention / repair: Anticipated long term interventions and repairs are difficult to
evaluate due to the limited timeframe of this field trial. However, based upon the
intervention and repair during the test some general conclusions can be reached.
Additionally, the mechanical design of the meters and the potential for elements to
erode, break down, or have another form of mechanical failure is taken into account
Data interface (downloading / reset / restart): The primary point of interaction
between the operator and the meter will be the data interface, the PC and software
used to evaluate meter performance and troubleshoot both the meter and well
performance. It is thus desirable to have a clear, understandable, user-friendly frontend interface.
8.3

Weighting of the multiphase metering evaluation criteria

The first exercise weighted the major categories (Initial Installation, Performance, and
Operability) appropriately for the application under discussion. For example, it was
deemed that for portable well testing, Initial Installation would be worth 10% of the
entire score, due to limited long term impacts to operations and O&M. However, for
the new build application, this category was significantly more important, and was
weighted to 30% of the total score. The second level of weighting was performed within
each of the major categories, where each component was weighted on a scale of 1-10,
again within the context of each application being considered (portable testing, retrofit,
etc.). This process was done without respect to how each meter performed, providing
for an impartial ranking process, as per the Kepner-Tregoe decision model. For the
qualitative issues, the category weighting and meter performance evaluations were
performed by Brady, Hasebe, and Smith, and endorsed by BP upper management.
Table 8.1 lists the criteria discussed above and the weighting used for each application.

Page 88/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
8.4

Scoring and ranking of multiphase meters

Each meter was ranked from 0-10 on its performance against each criterion, without
consideration to the categorys relative weighting. Evaluation in the Performance
category was based strictly upon statistical analysis of the test results, in an effort to
objectify the conclusion as much as possible. Meter performance in the Initial
Installation and Operability categories was again evaluated by Brady, Hasebe, and
Smith and confirmed by BP upper management. The overall score obtained at the end
of the exercise was then used as the relative recommendation for each application.
Meter performance, without regard to relative importance or weighting for each
potential application, is identified in Table 8.2.
The weighting of the evaluation criteria is then multiplied by the meter performance
for each application, yielding the rankings shown in Figure 8.6 to Figure 8.9.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 89/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Table 8.1: Multiphase meter evaluation criteria weighting

Initial Installation
Mechanical Design (footprint)
E&I (hookup)
Calibration (Initial)
Total Possible Score

Performance
In-Envelope Performance
5% Criteria Liquid Flowrate
5% Criteria Gas Flowrate
5% Criteria Watercut
RMS Liquid Flowrate
RMS Gas Flowrate
RMS Watercut
% in Range Liquid Flowrate
% in Range Gas Flowrate
% in Range Watercut
% in Range Combined
Full Range Performance
5% Criteria Liquid Flowrate
5% Criteria Gas Flowrate
5% Criteria Watercut
RMS Liquid Flowrate
RMS Gas Flowrate
RMS Watercut
% in Range Liquid Flowrate
% in Range Gas Flowrate
% in Range Watercut
% in Range Combined
Repeatability
RMS Liquid Rate
RMS Gas Rate
RMS Watercut
RMS Combined Repeatability
Total Possible Score

Operability
HSE Issues
Service (vendor support)
Expected O&M cost
Calibration (Periodic)
Intervention/Repair
Data Interface
Total Possible Score

Page 90/264

Portable Well
Testing
10 Points
7
1
8

New Build
(every well)
30 Points
8
8
7

WPS
Replacement
10 Points
2
5
3

WPS
Augmentation
10 Points
7
5
3

160

230

100

150

70 Points

30 Points

60 Points

60 Points

7
5
6
7
5
6
6
5
5
9

4
2
3
4
2
3
3
2
2
6

6
4
5
6
4
5
5
4
4
8

6
4
5
6
4
5
5
4
4
8

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
4

7
6
7
9

5
4
5
6

6
5
6
8

6
5
6
8

1110

510

1070

1070

20 Points
9
7
3
0
1
1

40 Points
7
10
9
9
9
8

30 Points
5
5
5
5
5
5

30 Points
5
5
5
5
5
5

210

520

300

300

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Table 8.2: Multiphase meter evaluation meter performance

AGAR

FMC

Roxar

Schlumberger

SLB raw

4
5
9

9
9
7

9
7
6

9
9
1

9
9
6

8.8
8.3
5.0
8.4
8.8
9.3
9.5
9.0
6.7
9.0

7.4
6.5
2.5
5.7
4.7
7.6
7.6
7.1
2.9
7.1

8.4
2.9
2.9
7.4
7.1
5.8
8.9
3.3
3.3
4.4

9.0
7.7
4.9
8.5
9.1
7.8
10.0
9.6
5.2
9.6

8.2
9.3
3.6
8.4
9.4
7.3
8.6
10.0
3.8
8.6

7.3
8.1
4.7
9.0
9.1
8.6
8.3
9.0
6.0
8.0

5.2
5.8
2.4
4.3
5.9
7.1
5.3
6.4
2.4
5.3

4.8
1.4
2.3
7.9
6.3
7.5
5.7
1.7
2.6
1.7

7.8
5.3
4.0
8.9
8.8
7.5
8.9
6.8
4.3
7.7

6.6
5.0
1.9
8.8
8.6
6.8
7.2
5.7
2.2
5.7

8.4
8.4
8.9
8.5

5.8
6.8
7.1
6.2

7.5
6.3
7.5
7.2

8.4
8.5
6.5
8.1

8.2
8.4
5.9
7.8

4
5
5
8
3
5

10
7
8
5
6
8

6
3
6
5
6
8

6
10
2
1
5
6

6
10
4
5
5
6

Initial Installation
Mechanical Design (footprint)
E&I (hookup)
Calibration (Initial)

Performance
In-Envelope Performance
5% Criteria Liquid Flowrate
5% Criteria Gas Flowrate
5% Criteria Watercut
RMS Liquid Flowrate
RMS Gas Flowrate
RMS Watercut
% in Range Liquid Flowrate
% in Range Gas Flowrate
% in Range Watercut
% in Range Combined

Full Range Performance


5% Criteria Liquid Flowrate
5% Criteria Gas Flowrate
5% Criteria Watercut
RMS Liquid Flowrate
RMS Gas Flowrate
RMS Watercut
% in Range Liquid Flowrate
% in Range Gas Flowrate
% in Range Watercut
% in Range Combined

Repeatability
RMS Liquid Rate
RMS Gas Rate
RMS Watercut
RMS Combined Repeatability

Operability
HSE Issues
Service (vendor support)
Expected O&M cost
Calibration (Periodic)
Intervention/Repair
Data Interface

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 91/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 8.6: Overall score for portable well testing
(Assuming majority of wells lie in meter operating range)

Schlumberger

73.7%

AGAR

73.6%
70.2%

SLB raw

66.5%

FMC

57.5%

Roxar
0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Figure 8.7: Overall score for well pad separator new build
(Assuming majority of wells lie in meter operating range)

72.8%

FMC

70.5%

SLB raw
Schlumberger

64.2%

Roxar

63.2%

AGAR

63.1%

0%

Page 92/264

25%

50%

75%

100%

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 8.8: Overall score for well pad separator replacement
(Assuming majority of wells lie in meter operating range)

70.4%

AGAR
Schlumberger

68.4%

SLB raw

67.1%

FMC

65.5%

Roxar
0%

57.3%
25%

50%

75%

100%

Figure 8.9: Overall score for well pad separator augmentation


(Assuming majority of wells lie in meter operating range)

AGAR

69.8%

Schlumberger

69.2%

SLB raw

67.4%

FMC

65.7%

Roxar
0%

57.9%
25%

Exploration & Production Technology Group

50%

75%

100%

Page 93/264

CONFIDENTIAL
8.5

Meter liquid rate measurement at low liquid rates

It was noted after analysis of the performance of the meters, particularly when all
meters were compared together, that the Agar and Schlumberger total fluid data sets
were very similar. Both meters measured the total fluid rate with minimal scatter and
indicated slightly higher rates than the ASRC standard, particularly at the lower
range. Due to the extremely different measurement principles behind the Agar and
Schlumberger meters, this began to raise the question of potential under-reading by
ASRC, possibly due to gas breakout or carry-under through the MicroMotion Coriolis
meter.
An analysis of the dP across a 3-inch Venturi such as that used by Schlumberger,
shown in Section 6.8, indicated very reasonable dP for the wells tested, therefore
indicating the Venturi was reasonably sized and there should be no systematic error in
the liquid measurement due to low flow rate. This further raises confidence that the
Agar and Schlumberger meters may have independently verified a reading closer to
the true liquid rate. Figure 8.10 shows the Agar and Schlumberger total fluid rate best
fit lines, overlaid on the Agar data points.
Figure 8.10: Best fit to Agar and Schlumberger
liquid flowrate measurement data
3500
+/- 5% relative error
AGAR-401: all points
3000

AGAR-401: limited operating envelope

Meter liquid flowrate (stb/d)

limited operating envelope


Linear SLB-r Best Fit
2500

Linear (AGAR-401: ALL data)

2000

1500
AGAR Best Fit Line: Y = 0.9149x + 207.44
R2 = 0.9745
1000
SLB Best Fit Line: Y = 0.9002x + 195.53
R2 = 0.9786
500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Reference liquid flowrate (stb/d)

Page 94/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
This realization indicates that both Agar and Schlumbergers liquid rate measurement
may qualify over the entire range of GVF, up to > 99%. This has the most significant
implications for the qualification of the Agar meter, as it showed no significant
deviation at high GVF on either gas or water cut measurements, indicating the meter
may qualify for metering wells at a full range of GVF. Because the Schlumberger
meter still showed significant deviation in gas and water cut measurement above 95%
GVF, it still would not qualify for metering wells above 95%. Similarly, this analysis
does not change the qualification ranges of the Roxar or FMC meters.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 95/264

CONFIDENTIAL

Page 96/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

AGAR-401 MULTIPHASE FLOW METER

9.1

Description of the meter

The Agar MPFM-401 series multiphase flow meter consists of an Agar MPFM-300
series multiphase flow meter modified by the addition of a Fluidic Flow Diverter
(FFD) device and a gas bypass loop.
The FFD device uses the difference in flow momentum of the gas and liquid to divert
most of the free gas in the multiphase stream into a secondary measurement loop
around the core MPFM-300. The secondary measurement loop is a wet gas metering
system consisting of a Venturi and a vortex shedding flow meter in series. The
remaining liquids flow through the core MPFM-300 series system. The gas in the
bypass loop is metered and added to the oil, water and gas measured through the core
multiphase meter.
By reducing the amount of gas flowing through the core multiphase meter, a smaller
meter can be used, and the accuracy of the multiphase measurement is increased as a
result of decrease in the GVF.
The MPFM-300 series multiphase flow meter has three main components: a positive
displacement meter which measures the total volumetric flowrate; a momentum meter
(dual Venturi meter) which measures the gas fraction of the flow; and a microwave
monitor which measures the water cut of the liquid.
Figure 9.1: Schematic diagram of Agar MPFM-400 series multiphase flow meter

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 97/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 9.2: Photograph of the Agar-401 multiphase flow meter at the test site

9.2

Summary statistics

Three methods have been used to quantify the measurement performance of the
multiphase flow meters.
9.2.1 5% criteria
The first calculation recognises the value of low measurement uncertainty and weights
the results accordingly. Each test point is rated according to its deviation from the
reference value for liquid flowrate, gas flowrate, and water cut. A value of 5 is
allocated if the liquid or gas flowrate is within 5%, and the water cut is within 1%; a
value of 2 is allocated if the liquid or gas flowrate is within 10%, and the water cut is
within 2%; a value of 0 is allocated if the deviations lie outwith these ranges.
To allow for uncertainty in the ASRC reference data, an allowance of 5% on liquid
flowrate, 2% on gas flowrate and 0.5% on water cut has been made before calculating
the above scores.
The points are totalled and then divided by the number of test points to give a
normalised score. The values for the Agar meter are shown in Table 9.1.

Page 98/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

Table 9.1: Summary scores for multiphase flow meter 5% criteria


AGAR

Liquid flowrate
Gas flowrate
Water cut

3.6
4.1
2.4

AGAR
GVF < 95%
Liquid > 1100 stb/d
4.4
4.1
2.5

TOTAL score

10.0

11.0

All data

9.2.2 RMS average


The root-mean-square average has been calculated for the deviations between the
MFM readings and the ASRC reference values for liquid flowrate, gas flowrate and
water cut. This tends to produce a large average value, since all points are used in
calculating the average. The RMS average values are shown in Table 9.2.
Table 9.2: RMS average multiphase flow meter deviations
AGAR

AGAR
GVF < 95%
Liquid > 1100 stb/d
8.3
10.0
2.3

All data
Liquid flowrate
Gas flowrate
Water cut

12.3
8.8
5.6

9.2.3 Proportion of points within range


For this evaluation, the proportion of test points has been evaluated where the
deviation between the MFM and the ASRC reference is within a specified range. For
liquid flowrate the range is 10%, for gas flowrate the range is 10% and for water cut
the range is 2%.
To allow for uncertainty in the ASRC reference data, an allowance of 5% on liquid
flowrate, 2% on gas flowrate and 0.5% on water cut has been made before calculating
the above scores.
A final calculation has been made of the proportion of test points where the combined
error calculated by the equation below lies within 10%:

RMS error =

(relative % error in QL )2 + (relative % error in QG )2 + (absolute % error in WC)2

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 99/264

CONFIDENTIAL

Table 9.3: proportion of points within range


AGAR
All data
Liquid flowrate
Gas flowrate
Water cut
Combined error

9.3

82.5
90.0
60.0
80.0

AGAR
GVF < 95%
Liquid > 1100 stb/d
95.2
90.5
66.7
90.5

Test results (measurement accuracy)

The test results for the Agar-401 multiphase flow meter are shown in Figure 9.3 to
Figure 9.26. Several types of graphs are used to demonstrate the measurement
accuracy of the meter.
Figure 9.3 shows the oil flowrate from the multiphase flow meter plotted against the
oil flowrate from the ASRC test separator reference. For perfect agreement between
the multiphase flow meter and the test separator reference, the points would lie on the
solid diagonal line. The dashed diagonal lines show a 10% deviation from the
reference values.
Figure 9.4 shows the percentage error in the oil flowrate measurement from the
multiphase flow meter (relative to the test separator reference) plotted against the gas
volume fraction. This comparison is used because normally the GVF has the biggest
influence on multiphase flow meter uncertainty, and can be seen to be true in this case
as the oil flowrate errors increase with GVF.
Figure 9.5 shows the error in the oil flowrate measurement plotted against water cut
and GVF. The error is represented by a different coloured point depending whether it
is < 10% (green), <25% (blue), < 50% (red) or >50% (black). Clearly the ideal
multiphase flow measurement behaviour would be to have entirely green points on this
plot. These plots can be useful to isolate any separate influence of water cut on the
measurement, compared to the stronger trends with GVF.
Similar plots are given for water flowrate, liquid flowrate, gas flowrate, water cut ,
GVF and GOR. For flowrates and GOR the errors are evaluated as relative percentage
errors:
Relative error = (Meter reading reference reading) / Reference reading
while for water cut and GVF the errors are expressed as absolute deviations,
Absolute error = Meter reading reference reading
Figure 9.24 shows the flowrate errors as a histogram in bands of 10%, 25%, 50% and
> 50% errors.

Page 100/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
In Figure 9.25 and Figure 9.26 the cumulative error plotted in the y-axis is the
proportion of test points giving an error less than or equal to the value on the x-axis.
For example on Figure 9.25, 34% of test points had an oil flowrate error within 10%.
For the curve in Figure 9.26, RMS error is defined as:

RMS error =

(relative % error in QL )2 + (relative % error in QG )2 + (absolute % error in WC)2

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 101/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 9.3: Agar 401 oil flowrate
vs. ASRC reference oil flowrate
2500
+/- 10% relative error
AGAR-401: all points
AGAR-401: limited operating envelope

Meter oil flowrate (stb/d)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

80

100

Reference oil flowrate (stb/d)

Figure 9.4: Agar 401 oil flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
AGAR-401: all points

40

Oil flowrate error (% relative to reference)

AGAR-401: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

20

40

60

Reference GVF (%)

Page 102/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 9.5: Agar 401 oil flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70
Oil flowrate error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 9.6: Agar 401 water flowrate


vs. ASRC reference water flowrate
2500
+/- 10% relative error
AGAR-401: all points
AGAR-401: limited operating envelope

Meter water flowrate (stb/d)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Reference water flowrate (stb/d)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 103/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 9.7: Agar 401 water flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
AGAR-401: all points

40

Water flowrate error (% relative to reference)

AGAR-401: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 9.8: Agar 401 water flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70
Water flowrate error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Page 104/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 9.9: Agar 401 liquid flowrate
vs. ASRC reference liquid flowrate
3500
+/- 5% relative error
AGAR-401: all points
AGAR-401: limited operating envelope

3000

Meter liquid flowrate (stb/d)

limited operating envelope

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Reference liquid flowrate (stb/d)

Figure 9.10: Agar 401 liquid flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 5% relative error
AGAR-401: all points

Total liquid flowrate error (% relative to reference)

40

AGAR-401: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 105/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 9.11: Agar 401 liquid flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

Liquid flowrate error


< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 9.12: Agar 401 gas flowrate


vs. ASRC reference gas flowrate
8.0
+/- 10% relative error
AGAR-401: all points
7.0

AGAR-401: limited operating envelope

Meter gas flowrate (MMscf/d)

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Reference gas flowrate (MMscf/d)

Page 106/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 9.13: Agar 401 gas flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
AGAR-401: all points

40

Gas flowrate error (% relative to reference)

AGAR-401: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope
30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 9.14: Agar 401 gas flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70
Gas flowrate error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 107/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 9.15: Agar 401 water cut
vs. ASRC reference water cut
100
+/- 5% absolute error
AGAR-401: all points

90

AGAR-401: limited operating envelope


80

Meter water cut (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference water cut (%)

Figure 9.16: Agar 401 water cut error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
25
+/- 5% absolute error
AGAR-401: all points

20

Water cut error (% absolute from reference)

AGAR-401: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

15

10

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Page 108/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 9.17: Agar 401 water cut error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

Watercut error
< -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to -5%
-5% to +5%
+5% to +10%
+10% to +25%
> +25%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 9.18: Agar 401 GVF


vs. ASRC reference GVF
100
+/- 5% absolute error
AGAR-401: all points

90

AGAR-401: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

80

Meter GVF (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 109/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 9.19: Agar 401 GVF error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
15
+/- 5% absolute error
AGAR-401: all points
AGAR-401: limited operating envelope

GVF error (% absolute from reference)

10

limited operating envelope

-5

-10

-15
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 9.20: Agar 401 GVF error


vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

GVF error
< -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to -5%
-5% to +5%
+5% to +10%
+10% to +25%
> +25%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Page 110/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 9.21: Agar 401 GOR
vs. ASRC reference GOR
1.0E+05
+/- 10% absolute error
AGAR-401: all points
AGAR-401: limited operating envelope

Meter GOR (scf/stb)

1.0E+04

1.0E+03

1.0E+02
1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.0E+05

Meter GOR (scf/stb)

Figure 9.22: Agar 401 GOR error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% absolute error
AGAR-401: all points

40

AGAR-401: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

GOR error (% relative from reference)

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 111/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 9.23: Agar 401 GOR error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

GOR error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 9.24: Agar 401 statistics

100
Oil

Water

Gas

Liquid

90

Percentage of points in band

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
< -50

-50 to -25

-25 to -10

-10 to +10

+10 to +25

+25 to +50

> +50

Error band

Page 112/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 9.25: Agar 401 cumulative curves

100

90

Cumulative number of points (%)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

Oil flowrate
Water flowrate

10

Gas flowrate
Water cut

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Error value (%)

Figure 9.26: Agar 401 cumulative curves

100

90

Cumulative number of points (%)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20
Total liquid flowrate
10

RMS error
GOR

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Error value (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 113/264

CONFIDENTIAL
9.4

Test results (repeatability)

For each of the parameters liquid flowrate, gas flowrate and water cut the repeatability
is calculated as:
repeatability =

(max imum error )- (min imum error )


number of tests

Then a combined repeatability value is calculated using:

RMS repeatability =

(repeatability of QL )2 + (repeatability of QG )2 + (repeatability of

WC

)2

The repeatability results are shown in Figure 9.27. It can be seen that repeatability of
water cut is very good (always < 3%) while the repeatability of liquid and gas flowrate
measurement varies depending on the well under test.
Generally the larger
repeatability values correspond to the less steady flow conditions. Figures in brackets
exclude well V-106.
Table 9.4: Repeatability results for the Agar 401 multiphase flow meter

Liquid
flowrate
repeatability
6.4 (5.5)

Agar

Gas flowrate
repeatability

Water cut
repeatability

Combined
repeatability

3.1 (3.1)

1.4 (1.3)

4.4 (3.9)

Figure 9.27: Agar 401 repeatability


18
Liquid
16

Gas
Water cut

14

RMS

Repeatability (%)

12

10

0
V03

Page 114/264

V101

V102

V103

V106

V107

V107

V108

V109

V113

V117

V202

Average

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Table 9.5: Agar-401 test results (accuracy)

CONFIDENTIAL
Table 9.6: Agar-401 test results (repeatability)

CONFIDENTIAL

10

FMC FLOWSYS MULTIPHASE FLOW METER

10.1

Description of the meter

The Flowsys TopFlow multiphase flow meter is based on the measurement principles
of a Venturi meter, capacitance/conductivity and cross-correlation. The major parts of
the TopFlow meter are the Venturi insert and the electrodes incorporated inside the
throat of the Venturi. The flowrates of oil, water and gas are calculated based on the
measurements obtained by the electrodes and the measurement of the differential
pressure across the Venturi inlet. No separating devices, mixers, by-pass lines or
radioactive sources are used in the meter.
Following a blind tee the flow passes directly upwards through the meter. The velocity
(volumetric flowrate) of the multiphase stream is determined by cross-correlation of
electrical signals. Since the Venturi meter can also be used to determine the total
mass flowrate, these two measurements together can be used to determine the mixture
density, and hence gas volume fraction of the flow. The electrical capacitance or
conductivity measurement is used to determine the water cut.
Figure 10.1: Photograph of the Flowsys multiphase flow meter at the test site

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 117/264

CONFIDENTIAL
10.2

Summary statistics

Three methods have been used to quantify the measurement performance of the
multiphase flow meters.
10.2.1 5% criteria
The first calculation recognises the value of low measurement uncertainty and weights
the results accordingly. Each test point is rated according to its deviation from the
reference value for liquid flowrate, gas flowrate, and water cut. A value of 5 is
allocated if the liquid or gas flowrate is within 5%, and the water cut is within 1%; a
value of 2 is allocated if the liquid or gas flowrate is within 10%, and the water cut is
within 2%; a value of 0 is allocated if the deviations lie outwith these ranges.
To allow for uncertainty in the ASRC reference data, an allowance of 5% on liquid
flowrate, 2% on gas flowrate and 0.5% on water cut has been made before calculating
the above scores.
The points are totalled and then divided by the number of test points to give a
normalised score. The values for the Flowsys meter are shown in Table 10.1.
Table 10.1: Summary scores for multiphase flow meter 5% criteria
FMC

Liquid flowrate
Gas flowrate
Water cut

2.6
2.9
1.2

FMC
GVF < 95%
Liquid > 1100 stb/d
3.7
3.3
1.3

TOTAL score

6.7

8.2

All data

10.2.2 RMS average


The root-mean-square average has been calculated for the deviations between the
MFM readings and the ASRC reference values for liquid flowrate, gas flowrate and
water cut. This tends to produce a large average value, since all points are used in
calculating the average. The RMS average values are shown in Table 10.2.
Table 10.2: RMS average multiphase flow meter deviations
FMC
All data
Liquid flowrate
Gas flowrate
Water cut

Page 118/264

71.8
41.8
12.0

FMC
GVF < 95%
Liquid > 1100 stb/d
22.6
44.4
7.8

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
10.2.3 Proportion of points within range
For this evaluation, the proportion of test points has been evaluated where the
deviation between the MFM and the ASRC reference is within a specified range. For
liquid flowrate the range is 10%, for gas flowrate the range is 10% and for water cut
the range is 2%.
To allow for uncertainty in the ASRC reference data, an allowance of 5% on liquid
flowrate, 2% on gas flowrate and 0.5% on water cut has been made before calculating
the above scores.
A final calculation has been made of the proportion of test points where the combined
error calculated by the equation below lies within 10%:

RMS error =

(relative % error in QL )2 + (relative % error in QG )2 + (absolute % error in WC)2


3

Table 10.3: proportion of points within range


FMC
All data
Liquid flowrate
Gas flowrate
Water cut
Combined error

10.3

53.3
64.4
24.4
53.3

FMC
GVF < 95%
Liquid > 1100 stb/d
76.2
71.4
28.6
71.4

Test results (measurement accuracy)

The test results for the FMC Flowsys multiphase flow meter are shown in Figure 10.2
to Figure 10.25. Several types of graphs are used to demonstrate the measurement
accuracy of the meter.
Figure 10.2 shows the oil flowrate from the multiphase flow meter plotted against the
oil flowrate from the ASRC test separator reference. For perfect agreement between
the multiphase flow meter and the test separator reference, the points would lie on the
solid diagonal line. The dashed diagonal lines show a 10% deviation from the
reference values.
Figure 10.3 shows the percentage error in the oil flowrate measurement from the
multiphase flow meter (relative to the test separator reference) plotted against the gas
volume fraction. This comparison is used because normally the GVF has the biggest
influence on multiphase flow meter uncertainty, and can be seen to be true in this case
as the oil flowrate errors increase with GVF.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 119/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 10.4 shows the error in the oil flowrate measurement plotted against water cut
and GVF. The error is represented by a different coloured point depending whether it
is < 10% (green), <25% (blue), < 50% (red) or >50% (black). Clearly the ideal
multiphase flow measurement behaviour would be to have entirely green points on this
plot. These plots can be useful to isolate any separate influence of water cut on the
measurement, compared to the stronger trends with GVF.
Similar plots are given for water flowrate, liquid flowrate, gas flowrate, water cut ,
GVF and GOR. For flowrates and GOR the errors are evaluated as relative percentage
errors:
Relative error = (Meter reading reference reading) / Reference reading
while for water cut and GVF the errors are expressed as absolute deviations,
Absolute error = Meter reading reference reading
Figure 10.23 shows the flowrate errors as a histogram in bands of 10%, 25%, 50% and
> 50% errors.
In Figure 10.24 and Figure 10.25 the cumulative error plotted in the y-axis is the
proportion of test points giving an error less than or equal to the value on the x-axis.
For example on Figure 10.24, 29% of test points had an oil flowrate error within 10%.
For the curve in Figure 10.25, RMS error is defined as:

RMS error =

Page 120/264

(relative % error in QL )2 + (relative % error in QG )2 + (absolute % error in WC)2


3

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 10.2: FMC Flowsys oil flowrate
vs. ASRC reference oil flowrate
2500
+/- 10% relative error
FMC-Flowsys: all points
FMC-Flowsys: limited operating envelope

Meter oil flowrate (stb/d)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

80

100

Reference oil flowrate (stb/d)

Figure 10.3: FMC Flowsys oil flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
FMC-Flowsys: all points

40

Oil flowrate error (% relative to reference)

FMC-Flowsys: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

20

40

60

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 121/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 10.4: FMC Flowsys oil flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70
Oil flowrate error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 10.5: FMC Flowsys water flowrate


vs. ASRC reference water flowrate
2500
+/- 10% relative error
FMC-Flowsys: all points
FMC-Flowsys: limited operating envelope

Meter water flowrate (stb/d)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Reference water flowrate (stb/d)

Page 122/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 10.6: FMC Flowsys water flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
FMC-Flowsys: all points

40

Water flowrate error (% relative to reference)

FMC-Flowsys: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 10.7: FMC Flowsys water flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70
Water flowrate error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 123/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 10.8: FMC Flowsys liquid flowrate
vs. ASRC reference liquid flowrate
3500
+/- 5% relative error
FMC-Flowsys: all points
FMC-Flowsys: limited operating envelope

3000

Meter liquid flowrate (stb/d)

limited operating envelope

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Reference liquid flowrate (stb/d)

Figure 10.9: FMC Flowsys liquid flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 5% relative error
FMC-Flowsys: all points

Total liquid flowrate error (% relative to reference)

40

FMC-Flowsys: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 124/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 10.10: FMC Flowsys liquid flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

Liquid flowrate error


< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 10.11: FMC Flowsys gas flowrate


vs. ASRC reference gas flowrate
8.0
+/- 10% relative error
FMC-Flowsys: all points
7.0

FMC-Flowsys: limited operating envelope

Meter gas flowrate (MMscf/d)

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Reference gas flowrate (MMscf/d)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 125/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 10.12: FMC Flowsys gas flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
FMC-Flowsys: all points

40

Gas flowrate error (% relative to reference)

FMC-Flowsys: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope
30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 10.13: FMC Flowsys gas flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70
Gas flowrate error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Page 126/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 10.14: FMC Flowsys water cut
vs. ASRC reference water cut
100
+/- 5% absolute error
FMC-Flowsys: all points

90

FMC-Flowsys: limited operating envelope


80

Meter water cut (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference water cut (%)

Figure 10.15: FMC Flowsys water cut error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
25
+/- 5% absolute error
FMC-Flowsys: all points

20

Water cut error (% absolute from reference)

FMC-Flowsys: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

15

10

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 127/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 10.16: FMC Flowsys water cut error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

Watercut error
< -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to -5%
-5% to +5%
+5% to +10%
+10% to +25%
> +25%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 10.17: FMC Flowsys GVF


vs. ASRC reference GVF
100
+/- 5% absolute error
FMC-Flowsys: all points

90

FMC-Flowsys: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

80

Meter GVF (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Reference GVF (%)

Page 128/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 10.18: FMC Flowsys GVF error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
15
+/- 5% absolute error
FMC-Flowsys: all points
FMC-Flowsys: limited operating envelope

GVF error (% absolute from reference)

10

limited operating envelope

-5

-10

-15
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 10.19: FMC Flowsys GVF error


vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

GVF error
< -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to -5%
-5% to +5%
+5% to +10%
+10% to +25%
> +25%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 129/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 10.20: FMC Flowsys GOR
vs. ASRC reference GOR
1.0E+05
+/- 10% absolute error
FMC-Flowsys: all points
FMC-Flowsys: limited operating envelope

Meter GOR (scf/stb)

1.0E+04

1.0E+03

1.0E+02
1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.0E+05

Meter GOR (scf/stb)

Figure 10.21: FMC Flowsys GOR error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% absolute error
FMC-Flowsys: all points

40

FMC-Flowsys: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

GOR error (% relative from reference)

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 130/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 10.22: FMC Flowsys GOR
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

GOR error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 10.23: FMC Flowsys statistics

100
Oil

Water

Gas

Liquid

90

Percentage of points in band

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
< -50

-50 to -25

-25 to -10

-10 to +10

+10 to +25

+25 to +50

> +50

Error band

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 131/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 10.24: FMC Flowsys cumulative curves

100

90

Cumulative number of points (%)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

Oil flowrate
Water flowrate

10

Gas flowrate
Water cut

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Error value (%)

Figure 10.25: FMC Flowsys cumulative curves

100

90

Cumulative number of points (%)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20
Total liquid flowrate
10

RMS error
GOR

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Error value (%)

Page 132/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
10.4

Test results (repeatability)

For each of the parameters liquid flowrate, gas flowrate and water cut the repeatability
is calculated as:
repeatability =

(max imum error )- (min imum error )


number of tests

Then a combined repeatability value is calculated using:

RMS repeatability =

(repeatability of QL )2 + (repeatability of QG )2 + (repeatability of

WC

)2

The repeatability results are shown in Figure 10.26. Generally the larger repeatability
values correspond to the less steady flow conditions. Figures in brackets exclude well
V-106.
Table 10.4: Repeatability results for the four multiphase flow meters

Liquid
flowrate
repeatability
22.6 (14.5)

FMC

Gas flowrate
repeatability

Water cut
repeatability

Combined
repeatability

8.3 (6.2)

4.7 (3.6)

14.5 (9.7)

Figure 10.26: FMC Flowsys repeatability


120
Liquid
Gas
100

Water cut
RMS

Repeatability (%)

80

60

40

20

V03

V101

V102

V103

V106

V107

Exploration & Production Technology Group

V107

V108

V109

V113

V117

V202

Average

Page 133/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Table 10.5: FMC Flowsys test results (accuracy)

CONFIDENTIAL
Table 10.6: FMC Flowsys test results (repeatability)

CONFIDENTIAL

Page 136/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

11

ROXAR MPFM 1900VI MULTIPHASE FLOW METER

11.1

Description of the meter

The Roxar MPFM 1900VI multiphase flow meter measures the rates of oil, water and
gas without separation, mixing or moving parts.
Following a blind tee the flow passes directly upwards through the electrical
capacitance and conductivity sensor which measures the water cut, and a 137Cs
(662keV) gamma densitometer which measures the mixture density. The gas volume
fraction can be derived from the density measurement. The velocity of the mixture is
measured by cross-correlation of electrical signals, or alternatively from a Venturi
meter measurement. The choice between the cross-correlation and the Venturi
measurement is determined by the flow conditions in the meter.
Figure 11.1: Photograph of the Roxar MPFM 1900VI multiphase flow meter at the test
site (centre meter, prior to installation of radioactive source)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 137/264

CONFIDENTIAL
11.2

Summary statistics

Three methods have been used to quantify the measurement performance of the
multiphase flow meters.
11.2.1 5% criteria
The first calculation recognises the value of low measurement uncertainty and weights
the results accordingly. Each test point is rated according to its deviation from the
reference value for liquid flowrate, gas flowrate, and water cut. A value of 5 is
allocated if the liquid or gas flowrate is within 5%, and the water cut is within 1%; a
value of 2 is allocated if the liquid or gas flowrate is within 10%, and the water cut is
within 2%; a value of 0 is allocated if the deviations lie outwith these ranges.
To allow for uncertainty in the ASRC reference data, an allowance of 5% on liquid
flowrate, 2% on gas flowrate and 0.5% on water cut has been made before calculating
the above scores.
The points are totalled and then divided by the number of test points to give a
normalised score. The values for the Roxar meter are shown in Table 11.1.
Table 11.1: Summary scores for multiphase flow meter 5% criteria
ROXAR

Liquid flowrate
Gas flowrate
Water cut

2.4
0.7
1.1

ROXAR
GVF < 95%
Liquid > 1100 stb/d
4.2
1.4
1.4

TOTAL score

4.2

7.1

All data

11.2.2 RMS average


The root-mean-square average has been calculated for the deviations between the
MFM readings and the ASRC reference values for liquid flowrate, gas flowrate and
water cut. This tends to produce a large average value, since all points are used in
calculating the average. The RMS average values are shown in Table 11.2.
Table 11.2: RMS average multiphase flow meter deviations
ROXAR
All data
Liquid flowrate
Gas flowrate
Water cut

Page 138/264

26.9
38.4
10.2

ROXAR
GVF < 95%
Liquid > 1100 stb/d
13.4
23.9
13.4

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
11.2.3 Proportion of points within range
For this evaluation, the proportion of test points has been evaluated where the
deviation between the MFM and the ASRC reference is within a specified range. For
liquid flowrate the range is 10%, for gas flowrate the range is 10% and for water cut
the range is 2%.
To allow for uncertainty in the ASRC reference data, an allowance of 5% on liquid
flowrate, 2% on gas flowrate and 0.5% on water cut has been made before calculating
the above scores.
A final calculation has been made of the proportion of test points where the combined
error calculated by the equation below lies within 10%:

RMS error =

(relative % error in QL )2 + (relative % error in QG )2 + (absolute % error in WC)2


3

Table 11.3: proportion of points within range


ROXAR
All data
Liquid flowrate
Gas flowrate
Water cut
Combined error

11.3

56.5
17.4
26.1
17.4

ROXAR
GVF < 95%
Liquid > 1100 stb/d
88.9
33.3
33.3
44.4

Test results (measurement accuracy)

The test results for the Roxar MPFM 1900VI multiphase flow meter are shown in
Figure 11.2 to Figure 11.25. Several types of graphs are used to demonstrate the
measurement accuracy of the meter.
Figure 11.2 shows the oil flowrate from the multiphase flow meter plotted against the
oil flowrate from the ASRC test separator reference. For perfect agreement between
the multiphase flow meter and the test separator reference, the points would lie on the
solid diagonal line. The dashed diagonal lines show a 10% deviation from the
reference values.
Figure 11.3 shows the percentage error in the oil flowrate measurement from the
multiphase flow meter (relative to the test separator reference) plotted against the gas
volume fraction. This comparison is used because normally the GVF has the biggest
influence on multiphase flow meter uncertainty, and can be seen to be true in this case
as the oil flowrate errors increase with GVF.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 139/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 11.4 shows the error in the oil flowrate measurement plotted against water cut
and GVF. The error is represented by a different coloured point depending whether it
is < 10% (green), <25% (blue), < 50% (red) or >50% (black). Clearly the ideal
multiphase flow measurement behaviour would be to have entirely green points on this
plot. These plots can be useful to isolate any separate influence of water cut on the
measurement, compared to the stronger trends with GVF.
Similar plots are given for water flowrate, liquid flowrate, gas flowrate, water cut ,
GVF and GOR. For flowrates and GOR the errors are evaluated as relative percentage
errors:
Relative error = (Meter reading reference reading) / Reference reading
while for water cut and GVF the errors are expressed as absolute deviations,
Absolute error = Meter reading reference reading
Figure 11.23 shows the flowrate errors as a histogram in bands of 10%, 25%, 50% and
> 50% errors.
In Figure 11.24 and Figure 11.25 the cumulative error plotted in the y-axis is the
proportion of test points giving an error less than or equal to the value on the x-axis.
For example on Figure 11.24, 29% of test points had an oil flowrate error within 10%.
For the curve in Figure 11.25, RMS error is defined as:

RMS error =

Page 140/264

(relative % error in QL )2 + (relative % error in QG )2 + (absolute % error in WC)2


3

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 11.2: Roxar MPFM 1900VI oil flowrate
vs. ASRC reference oil flowrate
2500
+/- 10% relative error
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: all points
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: limited operating envelope

Meter oil flowrate (stb/d)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Reference oil flowrate (stb/d)

Figure 11.3: Roxar MPFM 1900VI oil flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: all points

40

Oil flowrate error (% relative to reference)

Roxar-MPFM1900VI: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

20

40

60

80

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 141/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 11.4: Roxar MPFM 1900VI oil flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70
Oil flowrate error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1800

2000

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 11.5: Roxar MPFM 1900VI water flowrate


vs. ASRC reference water flowrate
2000
+/- 10% relative error
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: all points

1800

Roxar-MPFM1900VI: limited operating envelope

Meter water flowrate (stb/d)

1600

1400

1200

1000

800

600

400

200

0
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Reference water flowrate (stb/d)

Page 142/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 11.6: Roxar MPFM 1900VI water flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: all points

40

Water flowrate error (% relative to reference)

Roxar-MPFM1900VI: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 11.7: Roxar MPFM 1900VI water flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70
Water flowrate error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 143/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 11.8: Roxar MPFM 1900VI liquid flowrate
vs. ASRC reference liquid flowrate
3500
+/- 5% relative error
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: all points
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: limited operating envelope

3000

Meter liquid flowrate (stb/d)

limited operating envelope

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Reference liquid flowrate (stb/d)

Figure 11.9: Roxar MPFM 1900VI liquid flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 5% relative error
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: all points

Total liquid flowrate error (% relative to reference)

40

Roxar-MPFM1900VI: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 144/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 11.10: Roxar MPFM 1900VI liquid flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

Liquid flowrate error


< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 11.11: Roxar MPFM 1900VI gas flowrate


vs. ASRC reference gas flowrate
7.0
+/- 10% relative error
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: all points
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: limited operating envelope

Meter gas flowrate (MMscf/d)

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

Reference gas flowrate (MMscf/d)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 145/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 11.12: Roxar MPFM 1900VI gas flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: all points

40

Gas flowrate error (% relative to reference)

Roxar-MPFM1900VI: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope
30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 11.13: Roxar MPFM 1900VI gas flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70
Gas flowrate error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Reference GVF (%)

Page 146/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 11.14: Roxar MPFM 1900VI water cut
vs. ASRC reference water cut
100
+/- 5% absolute error
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: all points

90

Roxar-MPFM1900VI: limited operating envelope


80

Meter water cut (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

90

100

Reference water cut (%)

Figure 11.15: Roxar MPFM 1900VI water cut error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
25
+/- 5% absolute error
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: all points

20

Water cut error (% absolute from reference)

Roxar-MPFM1900VI: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

15

10

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 147/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 11.16: Roxar MPFM 1900VI water cut error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

Watercut error
< -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to -5%
-5% to +5%
+5% to +10%
+10% to +25%
> +25%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 11.17: Roxar MPFM 1900VI GVF


vs. ASRC reference GVF
100
+/- 5% absolute error
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: all points

90

Roxar-MPFM1900VI: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

80

Meter GVF (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Page 148/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 11.18: Roxar MPFM 1900VI GVF error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
15
+/- 5% absolute error
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: all points
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: limited operating envelope

GVF error (% absolute from reference)

10

limited operating envelope

-5

-10

-15
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 11.19: Roxar MPFM 1900VI GVF error


vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

GVF error
< -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to -5%
-5% to +5%
+5% to +10%
+10% to +25%
> +25%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 149/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 11.20: Roxar MPFM 1900VI GOR
vs. ASRC reference GOR
1.0E+05
+/- 10% absolute error
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: all points
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: limited operating envelope

Meter GOR (scf/stb)

1.0E+04

1.0E+03

1.0E+02
1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.0E+05

Meter GOR (scf/stb)

Figure 11.21: Roxar MPFM 1900VI GOR error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% absolute error
Roxar-MPFM1900VI: all points

40

Roxar-MPFM1900VI: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

GOR error (% relative from reference)

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 150/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 11.22: Roxar MPFM 1900VI GOR error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

GOR error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 11.23: Roxar MPFM 1900VI statistics

100
Oil

Water

Gas

Liquid

90

Percentage of points in band

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
< -50

-50 to -25

-25 to -10

-10 to +10

+10 to +25

+25 to +50

> +50

Error band

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 151/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 11.24: Roxar MPFM 1900VI cumulative curves

100

90

Cumulative number of points (%)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

Oil flowrate
Water flowrate

10

Gas flowrate
Water cut

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Error value (%)

Figure 11.25: Roxar MPFM 1900VI cumulative curves

100

90

Cumulative number of points (%)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20
Total liquid flowrate
10

RMS error
GOR

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Error value (%)

Page 152/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
11.4

Test results (repeatability)

For each of the parameters liquid flowrate, gas flowrate and water cut the repeatability
is calculated as:
repeatability =

(max imum error )- (min imum error )


number of tests

Then a combined repeatability value is calculated using:

RMS repeatability =

(repeatability of QL )2 + (repeatability of QG )2 + (repeatability of

WC

)2

The repeatability results are shown in Figure 11.26. Generally the larger repeatability
values correspond to the less steady flow conditions. Figures in brackets exclude well
V-106.
Table 11.4: Repeatability results for the four multiphase flow meters

Liquid
flowrate
repeatability
10.9 (8.7)

Roxar

Gas flowrate
repeatability

Water cut
repeatability

Combined
repeatability

8.5 (7.2)

5.9 (3.1)

9.1 (7.1)

Figure 11.26: Roxar MPFM 1900VI repeatability


25
Liquid
Gas

20

Water cut

Repeatability (%)

RMS

15

10

V03

V101

V102

V103

V106

V107

Exploration & Production Technology Group

V107

V108

V109

V113

V117

V202

Average

Page 153/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Table 11.5: Roxar MPFM 1900VI test results (accuracy)

CONFIDENTIAL
Table 11.6: Roxar MPFM 1900VI test results (repeatability)

CONFIDENTIAL

Page 156/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

12

SCHLUMBERGER VX29 MULTIPHASE FLOW METER

12.1

Description of the meter

The Phasewatcher VX29 multiphase flow meter employs two measurement techniques,
namely a Venturi and a dual-energy gamma densitometer. Following a blind tee the
flow passes directly upwards through a Venturi meter. All the measurements are made
at the Venturi throat, i.e. absolute pressure, temperature, differential pressure relative
to upstream conditions and phase fractions.
Phase fractions are measured using a dual energy gamma densitometer using a 133Ba
(Barium) source. This source has energy levels which are appropriate for measurement
of gas fraction and water cut (29 and 80 keV) and the location of the densitometer at
the narrowest part of the flow conduit allows these low energy levels to be feasibly used
at a relatively low source strength (10 mCi). The nuclear acquisition frequency is
higher (45 Hz) than used in other multiphase flow meters (typically 1 Hz) which allows
rapid resolution of the dynamic behaviour of the multiphase flow passing through the
meter.
Figure 12.1: Photograph of the Schlumberger multiphase flow meter at the test site

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 157/264

CONFIDENTIAL
12.2

Summary statistics

Three methods have been used to quantify the measurement performance of the
multiphase flow meters.
12.2.1 5% criteria
The first calculation recognises the value of low measurement uncertainty and weights
the results accordingly. Each test point is rated according to its deviation from the
reference value for liquid flowrate, gas flowrate, and water cut. A value of 5 is
allocated if the liquid or gas flowrate is within 5%, and the water cut is within 1%; a
value of 2 is allocated if the liquid or gas flowrate is within 10%, and the water cut is
within 2%; a value of 0 is allocated if the deviations lie outwith these ranges.
To allow for uncertainty in the ASRC reference data, an allowance of 5% on liquid
flowrate, 2% on gas flowrate and 0.5% on water cut has been made before calculating
the above scores.
The points are totalled and then divided by the number of test points to give a
normalised score. The values for the Schlumberger meter are shown in Table 12.1.
Table 12.1: Summary scores for multiphase flow meter 5% criteria
SLB

Liquid flowrate
Gas flowrate
Water cut

3.3
2.5
1.0

GVF < 95%


Liquid > 1100 stb/d
4.1
4.7
1.8

TOTAL score

6.8

10.5

All data

SLB
(reprocessed)
GVF < 95%
All data
Liquid > 1100 stb/d
3.9
4.5
2.6
3.8
2.0
2.4
8.5

10.7

12.2.2 RMS average


The root-mean-square average has been calculated for the deviations between the
MFM readings and the ASRC reference values for liquid flowrate, gas flowrate and
water cut. This tends to produce a large average value, since all points are used in
calculating the average. The RMS average values are shown in Table 12.2.

Page 158/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Table 12.2: RMS average multiphase flow meter deviations
SLB
All data
Liquid flowrate
Gas flowrate
Water cut

14.8
14.1
12.9

GVF < 95%


Liquid > 1100 stb/d
8.2
5.2
8.5

SLB
(reprocessed)
GVF < 95%
All data
Liquid > 1100 stb/d
13.6
7.8
12.4
8.0
9.2
6.6

12.2.3 Proportion of points within range


For this evaluation, the proportion of test points has been evaluated where the
deviation between the MFM and the ASRC reference is within a specified range. For
liquid flowrate the range is 10%, for gas flowrate the range is 10% and for water cut
the range is 2%.
To allow for uncertainty in the ASRC reference data, an allowance of 5% on liquid
flowrate, 2% on gas flowrate and 0.5% on water cut has been made before calculating
the above scores.
A final calculation has been made of the proportion of test points where the combined
error calculated by the equation below lies within 10%:

RMS error =

(relative % error in QL )2 + (relative % error in QG )2 + (absolute % error in WC)2


3

Table 12.3: proportion of points within range


SLB
All data
Liquid flowrate
Gas flowrate
Water cut
Combined error

71.7
56.5
21.7
56.5

GVF < 95%


Liquid > 1100 stb/d
85.7
100.0
38.1
85.7

Exploration & Production Technology Group

SLB
(reprocessed)
GVF < 95%
All data
Liquid > 1100 stb/d
88.6
100.0
68.2
95.7
43.2
52.2
77.3
95.7

Page 159/264

CONFIDENTIAL
12.3

Test results (measurement accuracy)

The test results for the Schlumberger VX29 multiphase flow meter are shown in
Figure 12.2 to Figure 12.25. Several types of graphs are used to demonstrate the
measurement accuracy of the meter.
Figure 12.2 shows the oil flowrate from the multiphase flow meter plotted against the
oil flowrate from the ASRC test separator reference. For perfect agreement between
the multiphase flow meter and the test separator reference, the points would lie on the
solid diagonal line. The dashed diagonal lines show a 10% deviation from the
reference values.
Figure 12.3 shows the percentage error in the oil flowrate measurement from the
multiphase flow meter (relative to the test separator reference) plotted against the gas
volume fraction. This comparison is used because normally the GVF has the biggest
influence on multiphase flow meter uncertainty, and can be seen to be true in this case
as the oil flowrate errors increase with GVF.
Figure 12.4 shows the error in the oil flowrate measurement plotted against water cut
and GVF. The error is represented by a different coloured point depending whether it
is < 10% (green), <25% (blue), < 50% (red) or >50% (black). Clearly the ideal
multiphase flow measurement behaviour would be to have entirely green points on this
plot. These plots can be useful to isolate any separate influence of water cut on the
measurement, compared to the stronger trends with GVF.
Similar plots are given for water flowrate, liquid flowrate, gas flowrate, water cut ,
GVF and GOR. For flowrates and GOR the errors are evaluated as relative percentage
errors:
Relative error = (Meter reading reference reading) / Reference reading
while for water cut and GVF the errors are expressed as absolute deviations,
Absolute error = Meter reading reference reading
Figure 12.23 shows the flowrate errors as a histogram in bands of 10%, 25%, 50% and
> 50% errors.
In Figure 12.24 and Figure 12.25 the cumulative error plotted in the y-axis is the
proportion of test points giving an error less than or equal to the value on the x-axis.
For example on Figure 12.24, 34% of test points had an oil flowrate error within 10%.
For the curve in Figure 12.25, RMS error is defined as:

RMS error =

Page 160/264

(relative % error in QL )2 + (relative % error in QG )2 + (absolute % error in WC)2


3

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.2: Schlumberger VX29 oil flowrate
vs. ASRC reference oil flowrate
2500
+/- 10% relative error
SLB-VX29: all points
SLB-VX29: limited operating envelope

Meter oil flowrate (stb/d)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Reference oil flowrate (stb/d)

Figure 12.3: Schlumberger VX29 oil flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
SLB-VX29: all points

40

Oil flowrate error (% relative to reference)

SLB-VX29: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

20

40

60

80

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 161/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.4: Schlumberger VX29 oil flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70
Oil flowrate error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 12.5: Schlumberger VX29 water flowrate


vs. ASRC reference water flowrate
2500
+/- 10% relative error
SLB-VX29: all points
SLB-VX29: limited operating envelope

Meter water flowrate (stb/d)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Reference water flowrate (stb/d)

Page 162/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.6: Schlumberger VX29 water flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
SLB-VX29: all points

40

Water flowrate error (% relative to reference)

SLB-VX29: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 12.7: Schlumberger VX29 water flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70
Water flowrate error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 163/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.8: Schlumberger VX29 liquid flowrate
vs. ASRC reference liquid flowrate
3500
+/- 5% relative error
SLB-VX29: all points
SLB-VX29: limited operating envelope

3000

Meter liquid flowrate (stb/d)

limited operating envelope

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Reference liquid flowrate (stb/d)

Figure 12.9: Schlumberger VX29 liquid flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 5% relative error
SLB-VX29: all points

Total liquid flowrate error (% relative to reference)

40

SLB-VX29: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 164/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.10: Schlumberger VX29 liquid flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

Liquid flowrate error


< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 12.11: Schlumberger VX29 gas flowrate


vs. ASRC reference gas flowrate
8.0
+/- 10% relative error
SLB-VX29: all points
7.0

SLB-VX29: limited operating envelope

Meter gas flowrate (MMscf/d)

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Reference gas flowrate (MMscf/d)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 165/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.12: Schlumberger VX29 gas flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
SLB-VX29: all points

40

Gas flowrate error (% relative to reference)

SLB-VX29: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope
30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 12.13: Schlumberger VX29 gas flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70
Gas flowrate error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Reference GVF (%)

Page 166/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.14: Schlumberger VX29 water cut
vs. ASRC reference water cut
100
+/- 5% absolute error
SLB-VX29: all points
SLB-VX29: limited operating envelope
80

Meter water cut (%)

60

40

20

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

90

100

-20

Reference water cut (%)

Figure 12.15: Schlumberger VX29 water cut error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
25
+/- 5% absolute error
SLB-VX29: all points

20

Water cut error (% absolute from reference)

SLB-VX29: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

15

10

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 167/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.16: Schlumberger VX29 water cut error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

Watercut error
< -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to -5%
-5% to +5%
+5% to +10%
+10% to +25%
> +25%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 12.17: Schlumberger VX29 GVF


vs. ASRC reference GVF
100
+/- 5% absolute error
SLB-VX29: all points

90

SLB-VX29: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

80

Meter GVF (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Page 168/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.18: Schlumberger VX29 GVF error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
15
+/- 5% absolute error
SLB-VX29: all points
SLB-VX29: limited operating envelope

GVF error (% absolute from reference)

10

limited operating envelope

-5

-10

-15
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 12.19: Schlumberger VX29 GVF error


vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

GVF error
< -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to -5%
-5% to +5%
+5% to +10%
+10% to +25%
> +25%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 169/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.20: Schlumberger VX29 GOR
vs. ASRC reference GOR
1.0E+05
+/- 10% absolute error
SLB-VX29: all points
SLB-VX29: limited operating envelope

Meter GOR (scf/stb)

1.0E+04

1.0E+03

1.0E+02
1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.0E+05

Meter GOR (scf/stb)

Figure 12.21: Schlumberger VX29 GOR error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% absolute error
SLB-VX29: all points

40

SLB-VX29: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

GOR error (% relative from reference)

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 170/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.22: Schlumberger VX29 GOR error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

GOR error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 12.23: Schlumberger VX29 statistics

100
Oil

Water

Gas

Liquid

90

Percentage of points in band

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
< -50

-50 to -25

-25 to -10

-10 to +10

+10 to +25

+25 to +50

> +50

Error band

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 171/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.24: Schlumberger VX29 cumulative curves

100

90

Cumulative number of points (%)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

Oil flowrate
Water flowrate

10

Gas flowrate
Water cut

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Error value (%)

Figure 12.25: Schlumberger VX29 cumulative curves

100

90

Cumulative number of points (%)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20
Total liquid flowrate
10

RMS error
GOR

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Error value (%)

Page 172/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
12.4

Test results (repeatability)

For each of the parameters liquid flowrate, gas flowrate and water cut the repeatability
is calculated as:
repeatability =

(max imum error )- (min imum error )


number of tests

Then a combined repeatability value is calculated using:

RMS repeatability =

(repeatability of QL )2 + (repeatability of QG )2 + (repeatability of

WC

)2

The repeatability results are shown in Figure 12.26. This figure is included for
completeness in the report, but may give a misleading impression of the repeatability
as the same well properties were not necessarily used for each repeat test of a well. A
better representation of the VX29 meter repeatability is given in the following Section
for the reprocessed meter data, and can be seen in Figure 12.51. Figures in brackets
exclude well V-106.
Table 12.4: Repeatability results for the four multiphase flow meters

Liquid
flowrate
repeatability
7.1 (6.4)

SLB

Gas flowrate
repeatability

Water cut
repeatability

Combined
repeatability

3.3 (3.1)

6.3 (5.5)

6.5 (5.9)

Figure 12.26: Schlumberger VX29 repeatability


16
Liquid
14

Gas
Water cut

Repeatability (%)

12

RMS

10

0
V03

V101

V102

V103

V106

V107

Exploration & Production Technology Group

V107

V108

V109

V113

V117

V202

Average

Page 173/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Table 12.5: Schlumberger VX29 test results (accuracy)

CONFIDENTIAL
Table 12.6: Schlumberger VX29 test results (repeatability)

CONFIDENTIAL
12.5

Test results after reprocessing with correct well profile data (accuracy)

The test results for the Schlumberger VX29 multiphase flow meter after reprocessing
with the correct well profile data are shown in Figure 12.27 to Figure 12.50. Several
types of graphs are used to demonstrate the measurement accuracy of the meter.
Figure 12.27 shows the oil flowrate from the multiphase flow meter plotted against the
oil flowrate from the ASRC test separator reference. For perfect agreement between
the multiphase flow meter and the test separator reference, the points would lie on the
solid diagonal line. The dashed diagonal lines show a 10% deviation from the
reference values.
Figure 12.28 shows the percentage error in the oil flowrate measurement from the
multiphase flow meter (relative to the test separator reference) plotted against the gas
volume fraction. This comparison is used because normally the GVF has the biggest
influence on multiphase flow meter uncertainty, and can be seen to be true in this case
as the oil flowrate errors increase with GVF.
Figure 12.29 shows the error in the oil flowrate measurement plotted against water cut
and GVF. The error is represented by a different coloured point depending whether it
is < 10% (green), <25% (blue), < 50% (red) or >50% (black). Clearly the ideal
multiphase flow measurement behaviour would be to have entirely green points on this
plot. These plots can be useful to isolate any separate influence of water cut on the
measurement, compared to the stronger trends with GVF.
Similar plots are given for water flowrate, liquid flowrate, gas flowrate, water cut ,
GVF and GOR. For flowrates and GOR the errors are evaluated as relative percentage
errors:
Relative error = (Meter reading reference reading) / Reference reading
while for water cut and GVF the errors are expressed as absolute deviations,
Absolute error = Meter reading reference reading
Figure 12.48 shows the flowrate errors as a histogram in bands of 10%, 25%, 50% and
> 50% errors. In Figure 12.49 and Figure 12.50 the cumulative error plotted in the yaxis is the proportion of test points giving an error less than or equal to the value on
the x-axis. For example on Figure 12.49, 41% of test points had an oil flowrate error
within 10%. For the curve in Figure 12.50, RMS error is defined as:

RMS error =

Page 176/264

(relative % error in QL )2 + (relative % error in QG )2 + (absolute % error in WC)2


3

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.27: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) oil flowrate
vs. ASRC reference oil flowrate
2500
+/- 10% relative error
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: all points
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: limited operating envelope

Meter oil flowrate (stb/d)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Reference oil flowrate (stb/d)

Figure 12.28: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) oil flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: all points

40

Oil flowrate error (% relative to reference)

SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

20

40

60

80

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 177/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.29: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) oil flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70
Oil flowrate error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 12.30: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) water flowrate


vs. ASRC reference water flowrate
2500
+/- 10% relative error
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: all points
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: limited operating envelope

Meter water flowrate (stb/d)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Reference water flowrate (stb/d)

Page 178/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.31: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) water flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: all points

40

Water flowrate error (% relative to reference)

SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 12.32: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) water flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70
Water flowrate error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 179/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.33: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) liquid flowrate
vs. ASRC reference liquid flowrate
3500
+/- 5% relative error
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: all points
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: limited operating envelope

3000

Meter liquid flowrate (stb/d)

limited operating envelope

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Reference liquid flowrate (stb/d)

Figure 12.34: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) liquid flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 5% relative error
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: all points

Total liquid flowrate error (% relative to reference)

40

SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 180/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.35: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) liquid flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

Liquid flowrate error


< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 12.36: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) gas flowrate


vs. ASRC reference gas flowrate
9.0
+/- 10% relative error
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: all points

8.0

SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: limited operating envelope

Meter gas flowrate (MMscf/d)

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Reference gas flowrate (MMscf/d)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 181/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.37: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) gas flowrate error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: all points

40

Gas flowrate error (% relative to reference)

SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope
30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 12.38: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) gas flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70
Gas flowrate error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 182/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.39: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) water cut
vs. ASRC reference water cut
100
+/- 5% absolute error
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: all points
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: limited operating envelope
80

Meter water cut (%)

60

40

20

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

-20

Reference water cut (%)

Figure 12.40: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) water cut error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
25
+/- 5% absolute error
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: all points

20

Water cut error (% absolute from reference)

SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

15

10

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 183/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.41: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) water cut error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

Watercut error
< -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to -5%
-5% to +5%
+5% to +10%
+10% to +25%
> +25%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 12.42: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) GVF


vs. ASRC reference GVF
100
+/- 5% absolute error
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: all points

90

SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

80

Meter GVF (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Reference GVF (%)

Page 184/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.43: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) GVF error
vs. ASRC reference GVF
15
+/- 5% absolute error
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: all points
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: limited operating envelope

GVF error (% absolute from reference)

10

limited operating envelope

-5

-10

-15
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 12.44: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) GVF error


vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

GVF error
< -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to -5%
-5% to +5%
+5% to +10%
+10% to +25%
> +25%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 185/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.45: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) GOR
vs. ASRC reference GVF
1.0E+05
+/- 10% absolute error
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: all points
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: limited operating envelope

Meter GOR (scf/stb)

1.0E+04

1.0E+03

1.0E+02
1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.0E+05

Meter GOR (scf/stb)

Figure 12.46: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) GOR error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% absolute error
SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: all points

40

SLB-VX29 Reprocessed: limited operating envelope


limited operating envelope

GOR error (% relative from reference)

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 186/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.47: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) GOR error
vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
100

90

80

Reference watercut (%)

70

GOR error
< -50%
-50% to -25%
-25% to -10%
-10% to +10%
+10% to +25%
+25% to +50%
> +50%

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 12.48: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) statistics

100
Oil

Water

Gas

Liquid

90

Percentage of points in band

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
< -50

-50 to -25

-25 to -10

-10 to +10

+10 to +25

+25 to +50

> +50

Error band

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 187/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.49: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) cumulative curves

100

90

Cumulative number of points (%)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

Oil flowrate
Water flowrate

10

Gas flowrate
Water cut

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Error value (%)

Figure 12.50: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) cumulative curves

100

90

Cumulative number of points (%)

80

70

60

50

40

30

20
Total liquid flowrate
10

RMS error
GOR

0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Error value (%)

Page 188/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
12.6

Test results after


(repeatability)

reprocessing with correct

well

profile

data

For each of the parameters liquid flowrate, gas flowrate and water cut the repeatability
is calculated as:
repeatability =

(max imum error )- (min imum error )


number of tests

Then a combined repeatability value is calculated using:

RMS repeatability =

(repeatability of QL )2 + (repeatability of QG )2 + (repeatability of

WC

)2

The repeatability results are shown in Figure 12.51. This figure shows much better
repeatability for the reprocessed data than for the raw data shown in Figure 12.26.
Figures in brackets exclude well V-106.
Table 12.7: Repeatability results for the four multiphase flow meters

Liquid
flowrate
repeatability
6.4 (5.6)

SLB
(reprocessed)

Gas flowrate
repeatability

Water cut
repeatability

Combined
repeatability

3.1 (2.9)

4.7 (4.3)

5.5 (5.0)

Figure 12.51: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) repeatability


18
Liquid
16

Gas
Water cut

14

RMS

Repeatability (%)

12

10

0
V03

V101

V102

V103

V106

V107

Exploration & Production Technology Group

V107

V108

V109

V113

V117

V202

Average

Page 189/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Table 12.8: Schlumberger VX29 reprocessed test results (accuracy)

CONFIDENTIAL
Table 12.9: Schlumberger VX29 reprocessed test results (repeatability)

CONFIDENTIAL
12.7

Comparison of raw and reprocessed data

Figure 12.52 to Figure 12.63 show a comparison of the Schlumberger multiphase flow
meter test results before and after reprocessing for the correct well profiles
(calibrations). These generally show that an improvement with measurement accuracy
is achieved by reprocessing, as would be expected. This is of course consistent with the
improvement in overall measurement statistics shown in Table 12.1 to Table 12.3. The
measurement errors still increase with GVF, which shows that calibration is not the
principal source of measurement error at high GVF.

Page 192/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.52: Schlumberger VX29 oil flowrate
vs. ASRC reference oil flowrate
2500
+/- 10% relative error
VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003
VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed

Meter oil flowrate (stb/d)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Reference oil flowrate (stb/d)

Figure 12.53: Schlumberger VX29 oil flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003

40

Oil flowrate error (% relative to reference)

VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed


30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

20

40

60

80

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 193/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.54: Schlumberger VX29 water flowrate
vs. ASRC reference water flowrate
2500
+/- 10% relative error
VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003
VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed

Meter water flowrate (stb/d)

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Reference water flowrate (stb/d)

Figure 12.55: Schlumberger VX29 water flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
40

VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003

Water flowrate error (% relative to reference)

VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed


30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 194/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.56: Schlumberger VX29 liquid flowrate
vs. ASRC reference liquid flowrate
3500
+/- 5% relative error
VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003

Meter liquid flowrate (stb/d)

3000

VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Reference liquid flowrate (stb/d)

Figure 12.57: Schlumberger VX29 liquid flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 5% relative error

Total liquid flowrate error (% relative to reference)

40

VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003


VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed

30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 195/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.58: Schlumberger VX29 gas flowrate
vs. ASRC reference gas flowrate
9.0
+/- 10% relative error
VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003

8.0

VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed

Meter gas flowrate (MMscf/d)

7.0

6.0

5.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

Reference gas flowrate (MMscf/d)

Figure 12.59: Schlumberger VX29 gas flowrate error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
50
+/- 10% relative error
40

VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003

Gas flowrate error (% relative to reference)

VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed


30

20

10

-10

-20

-30

-40

-50
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Page 196/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.60: Schlumberger VX29 water cut
vs. ASRC reference water cut
100
+/- 5% absolute error
VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003
VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed

80

Meter water cut (%)

60

40

20

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

90

100

-20

Reference water cut (%)

Figure 12.61: Schlumberger VX29 water cut error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
25
+/- 5% absolute error
20

VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003

Water cut error (% absolute from reference)

VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed


15

10

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 197/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.62: Schlumberger VX29 GVF
vs. ASRC reference GVF
100
+/- 5% absolute error
90

VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003


VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed

80

Meter GVF (%)

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Figure 12.63: Schlumberger VX29 GVF error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
15
+/- 5% absolute error
VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003
VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed

GVF error (% absolute from reference)

10

-5

-10

-15
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Reference GVF (%)

Page 198/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.64: Schlumberger VX29 GOR
vs. ASRC reference GOR
1.0E+05
+/- 5% absolute error
VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003
VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed

Meter GOR (scf/stb)

1.0E+04

1.0E+03

1.0E+02
1.0E+02

1.0E+03

1.0E+04

1.0E+05

Reference GOR (scf/stb)

Figure 12.65: Schlumberger VX29 GOR error


vs. ASRC reference GVF
25
+/- 5% absolute error
20

VX29, Prudhoe Bay 2003


VX29, GPB, 2003, Reprocessed

GOR error (% relative from reference)

15

10

-5

-10

-15

-20

-25
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Reference GVF (%)

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 199/264

CONFIDENTIAL

Page 200/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

13

REFERENCE DATA QUALITY

Data was recorded from the ASRC reference system at 1 minute intervals throughout
the tests. For each test the oil, water, liquid and gas rates and the water cut were
plotted against time and the most appropriate portion of the data was selected for the
test period. This information is shown in Figure 13.4 to Figure 13.49. These figures
show oil, water and liquid flowrates in stb/d and gas rates in Macfd (thousand ft3 per
day, at line conditions)
For each test the statistical confidence of liquid rate, gas rate and water cut was
calculated using the CONFIDENCE function in Excel (evaluated for a 95% confidence
level), divided by the mean flowrate. The results are shown in Figure 13.1 to Figure
13.3. A line has been shown on these figures to indicate slug flow which refers to tests
with unsteady flowrates.
Figure 13.1: ASRC reference liquid rate statistical confidence

Reference liquid rate statistical confidence


(relative % of rate)

16

14

12

10

SLUG
FLOW
4

V202

V201

V117

V117

V113

V109

V109

V108

V108

V108

V107

V107

V107

V106

V106

V106

V106

V103

V102

V102

V101

V101

V03

Well test

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 201/264

Page 202/264
1.0%

SLUG
FLOW

0.0%
V117

V113

V202

1.5%

V202

2.0%
V201

2.5%

V201

Figure 13.3: ASRC reference water cut statistical confidence


V117

Well test

V117

V117

V113

0.5%
V109

V109

V108

V108

V108

V107

V107

V107

V106

V106

V106

V106

V103

V102

V102

V101

V101

V03

Reference gas rate statistical confidence


(relative % of rate)
3

V109

V109

V108

V108

V108

V107

V107

V107

V106

V106

V106

V106

V103

V102

V102

V101

V101

V03

Reference water cut statistical confidence

CONFIDENTIAL

Figure 13.2: ASRC reference gas rate statistical confidence

SLUG
FLOW

Well test

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.4: V03 2003-09-12
100%

3500
Oil rate
Water rate

90%

Liquid rate

3000

Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut

2500

Valid test period

70%

60%
2000
50%
1500
40%

30%

1000

20%
500
10%

0
04:48

07:12

09:36

12:00

14:24

16:48

19:12

0%
21:36

Figure 13.5: V03 2003-09-21


100%

2500
Oil rate
Water rate

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

2000

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

70%

60%

1500

50%

40%

1000

30%

500

20%

10%

0
07:12

09:36

12:00

14:24

Exploration & Production Technology Group

16:48

19:12

21:36

0%
00:00

Page 203/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.6: V101 2003-09-09
100%

2000
Oil rate
Water rate

1800

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

1600

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

1400

70%

1200

60%

1000

50%

800

40%

600

30%

400

20%

200

10%

0
21:36

22:48

00:00

01:12

02:24

03:36

04:48

06:00

07:12

0%
08:24

Figure 13.7: V101 2003-09-15


100%

3000
Oil rate
Water rate

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate

2500

Oil 1/2 hour

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

70%
2000
60%

50%

1500

40%
1000
30%

20%
500
10%

0
04:19

Page 204/264

04:48

05:16

05:45

06:14

06:43

07:12

07:40

08:09

0%
08:38

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.8: V101 2003-09-28
100%

5000
Oil rate
Water rate

4500

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

4000

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

3500

70%

3000

60%

2500

50%

2000

40%

1500

30%

1000

20%

500

10%

0
03:36

04:48

06:00

07:12

08:24

09:36

10:48

12:00

13:12

14:24

0%
15:36

Figure 13.9: V102 2003-09-05


3500

3000

2500

25%

Oil rate
Water rate
Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour
Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

20%

15%
2000

1500
10%

1000

5%
500

0
16:48

18:00

19:12

20:24

Exploration & Production Technology Group

21:36

22:48

00:00

0%
01:12

Page 205/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.10: V102 2003-09-08
4500

4000

3500

25%

Oil rate
Water rate
Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour
Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

20%

3000
15%
2500

2000
10%
1500

1000
5%

500

0
21:36

22:48

00:00

01:12

02:24

03:36

04:48

06:00

0%
07:12

Figure 13.11: V102 2003-09-13


100%

3000
Oil rate
Water rate

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate

2500

Oil 1/2 hour

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

70%
2000
60%

50%

1500

40%
1000
30%

20%
500
10%

0
02:24

Page 206/264

04:48

07:12

09:36

12:00

14:24

16:48

0%
19:12

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.12: V102 2003-09-24
100%

4500
Oil rate
Water rate

4000

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

3500

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

70%
3000
60%
2500
50%
2000
40%
1500
30%
1000
20%

500

0
12:00

10%

12:28

12:57

13:26

13:55

14:24

14:52

15:21

15:50

0%
16:19

Figure 13.13: V103 2003-09-09


3500

100%

Oil rate
Water rate

90%

Liquid rate
3000

Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

80%

Oil 1 hour
2500

Water cut
70%

Valid test period

60%
2000
50%
1500
40%

30%

1000

20%
500
10%

0
07:12

08:24

09:36

10:48

Exploration & Production Technology Group

12:00

13:12

14:24

0%
15:36

Page 207/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.14: V103 2003-09-13
3000

100%

Oil rate
Water rate

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate

2500

80%

Oil 1/2 hour


Oil 1 hour
Water cut

70%

Valid test period

2000

60%

1500

50%

40%
1000
30%

20%
500
10%

0
16:48

19:12

21:36

00:00

02:24

04:48

07:12

09:36

12:00

0%
14:24

Figure 13.15: V103 2003-09-24


100%

12000
Oil rate
Water rate

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate

10000

Oil 1/2 hour

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

70%
8000
60%

50%

6000

40%
4000
30%

20%
2000
10%

0
15:36

Page 208/264

16:48

18:00

19:12

20:24

21:36

0%
22:48

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.16: V106 2003-09-05
700

100%

Oil rate
Water rate
Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour
Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

600

500

90%

80%

70%

60%
400
50%
300
40%

30%

200

20%
100
10%

0
09:36

10:48

12:00

13:12

14:24

15:36

0%
18:00

16:48

Figure 13.17: V106 2003-09-07


1400

25%

Oil rate
Water rate
1200

Liquid rate
Gas rate
20%

Oil 1/2 hour


Oil 1 hour
1000

Water cut
Valid test period
15%

800

600
10%

400

5%
200

0
10:48

12:00

13:12

14:24

15:36

Exploration & Production Technology Group

16:48

18:00

19:12

20:24

21:36

0%
22:48

Page 209/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.18: V106 2003-09-14
3000

100%

Oil rate
Water rate

90%

Liquid rate
2500

Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
2000

70%

Valid test period

60%

1500

50%

40%
1000
30%

20%
500
10%

0
12:00

14:24

16:48

19:12

21:36

00:00

02:24

04:48

0%
07:12

Figure 13.19: V106 2003-09-28


100%

2500
Oil rate
Water rate

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

2000

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

70%

60%

1500

50%

40%

1000

30%

500

20%

10%

0
13:12

Page 210/264

14:24

15:36

16:48

18:00

19:12

20:24

21:36

22:48

00:00

0%
01:12

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.20: V106 2003-09-29A
100%

1000
Oil rate
Water rate

900

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

800

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

700

70%

600

60%

500

50%

400

40%

300

30%

200

20%

100

10%

0
01:12

02:24

03:36

04:48

06:00

07:12

08:24

09:36

0%
10:48

Figure 13.21: V106 2003-09-29B


100%

900
Oil rate
Water rate

800

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

700

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

70%
600
60%
500
50%
400
40%
300
30%
200
20%

100

0
09:36

10%

10:48

12:00

13:12

14:24

Exploration & Production Technology Group

15:36

16:48

18:00

19:12

20:24

0%
21:36

Page 211/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.22: V106 2003-09-30B
100%

5000
Oil rate
Water rate

4500

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

4000

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

3500

70%

3000

60%

2500

50%

2000

40%

1500

30%

1000

20%

500

10%

0
19:12

21:36

00:00

02:24

04:48

07:12

09:36

12:00

0%
14:24

Figure 13.23: V106 2003-09-30A


100%

5000
Oil rate
Water rate

4500

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

4000

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

3500

70%

3000

60%

2500

50%

2000

40%

1500

30%

1000

20%

500

10%

0
19:12

Page 212/264

21:36

00:00

02:24

04:48

07:12

09:36

12:00

0%
14:24

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.24: V107 2003-09-09
100%

3500
Oil rate
Water rate

90%

Liquid rate

3000

Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut

2500

Valid test period

70%

60%
2000
50%
1500
40%

30%

1000

20%
500
10%

0
14:24

15:36

16:48

18:00

19:12

20:24

21:36

0%
22:48

Figure 13.25: V107 2003-09-15


100%

3000
Oil rate
Water rate

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate

2500

Oil 1/2 hour

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

70%
2000
60%

50%

1500

40%
1000
30%

20%
500
10%

0
12:00

14:24

16:48

19:12

Exploration & Production Technology Group

21:36

00:00

02:24

04:48

0%
07:12

Page 213/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.26: V107 2003-09-22A
100%

10000
Oil rate
Water rate

9000

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

8000

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

7000

70%

6000

60%

5000

50%

4000

40%

3000

30%

2000

20%

1000

10%

0
12:00

13:12

14:24

15:36

16:48

18:00

19:12

20:24

21:36

22:48

0%
00:00

Figure 13.27: V107 2003-09-22B


100%

10000
Oil rate
Water rate

9000

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

8000

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

7000

70%

6000

60%

5000

50%

4000

40%

3000

30%

2000

20%

1000

10%

0
12:00

Page 214/264

13:12

14:24

15:36

16:48

18:00

19:12

20:24

21:36

22:48

0%
00:00

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.28: V107 2003-09-24
7000

100%
Oil rate
Water rate
Liquid rate

6000

Gas rate

80%

Oil 1/2 hour


Oil 1 hour
Water cut

5000

Valid test period

60%

4000
40%
3000

20%
2000

0%
1000

0
06:00

07:12

08:24

09:36

10:48

-20%
13:12

12:00

Figure 13.29: V108 2003-09-009


1800

100%

Oil rate
Water rate
1600

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

1400

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut

1200

70%

Valid test period

60%
1000
50%
800
40%
600
30%
400
20%

200

0
21:36

10%

22:48

00:00

01:12

02:24

Exploration & Production Technology Group

03:36

04:48

06:00

07:12

08:24

0%
09:36

Page 215/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.30: V108 2003-09-16
100%

2500
Oil rate
Water rate

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

2000

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

70%

60%

1500

50%

40%

1000

30%

500

20%

10%

0
06:00

07:12

08:24

09:36

10:48

12:00

13:12

14:24

0%
15:36

Figure 13.31: V108 2003-09-18


100%

2500
Oil rate
Water rate

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

2000

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

70%

60%

1500

50%

40%

1000

30%

500

20%

10%

0
19:12

Page 216/264

21:36

00:00

02:24

04:48

07:12

09:36

12:00

14:24

0%
16:48

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.32: V108 2003-09-22A
100%

1600
Oil rate
Water rate

1400

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

80%

Oil 1 hour

1200

Water cut
Valid test period

70%
1000
60%

50%

800

40%
600
30%
400
20%
200
10%

0
22:48

00:00

01:12

02:24

03:36

04:48

06:00

07:12

08:24

0%
09:36

Figure 13.33: V108 2003-09-22B


100%

1600
Oil rate
Water rate

1400

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

80%

Oil 1 hour

1200

Water cut
Valid test period

70%
1000
60%

50%

800

40%
600
30%
400
20%
200
10%

0
22:48

00:00

01:12

02:24

03:36

Exploration & Production Technology Group

04:48

06:00

07:12

08:24

0%
09:36

Page 217/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.34: V108 2003-09-22C
100%

1600
Oil rate
Water rate

1400

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

80%

Oil 1 hour

1200

Water cut
Valid test period

70%
1000
60%

50%

800

40%
600
30%
400
20%
200
10%

0
22:48

00:00

01:12

02:24

03:36

04:48

06:00

07:12

08:24

0%
09:36

Figure 13.35: V109 2003-09-10


100%

1800
Oil rate
Water rate

1600

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

1400

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

70%
1200
60%
1000
50%
800
40%
600
30%
400
20%

200

0
08:24

Page 218/264

10%

09:36

10:48

12:00

13:12

14:24

0%
15:36

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.36: V109 2003-09-19
100%

3500
Oil rate
Water rate

90%

Liquid rate

3000

Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut

2500

Valid test period

70%

60%
2000
50%
1500
40%

30%

1000

20%
500
10%

0
16:48

19:12

21:36

00:00

02:24

04:48

07:12

09:36

0%
12:00

Figure 13.37: V109 2003-09-23A


100%

2000
Oil rate
Water rate

1800

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

1600

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

1400

70%

1200

60%

1000

50%

800

40%

600

30%

400

20%

200

10%

0
19:12

20:24

21:36

22:48

00:00

Exploration & Production Technology Group

01:12

02:24

03:36

04:48

06:00

0%
07:12

Page 219/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.38: V109 2003-09-23B
100%

2000
Oil rate
Water rate

1800

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

1600

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

1400

70%

1200

60%

1000

50%

800

40%

600

30%

400

20%

200

10%

0
19:12

20:24

21:36

22:48

00:00

01:12

02:24

03:36

04:48

06:00

0%
07:12

Figure 13.39: V113 2003-09-10


1200

25%

Oil rate
Water rate
Liquid rate
1000

Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

20%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
800

Valid test period

15%

600

10%
400

5%
200

0
14:24

Page 220/264

15:36

16:48

18:00

19:12

20:24

21:36

0%
22:48

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.40: V113 2003-09-22
100%

1600
Oil rate
Water rate

1400

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

80%

Oil 1 hour

1200

Water cut
Valid test period

70%
1000
60%

50%

800

40%
600
30%
400
20%
200
10%

0
00:00

01:12

02:24

03:36

04:48

06:00

07:12

0%
08:24

Figure 13.41: V113 2003-09-27


100%

1800
Oil rate
Water rate

1600

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

1400

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

70%
1200
60%
1000
50%
800
40%
600
30%
400
20%

200

0
12:00

10%

14:24

16:48

19:12

Exploration & Production Technology Group

21:36

00:00

02:24

0%
04:48

Page 221/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.42: V117 2003-09-06
4000

100%

Oil rate
Water rate
3500

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

3000

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
70%

Valid test period


2500

60%

2000

50%

40%
1500
30%
1000
20%
500
10%

0
00:00

01:12

02:24

03:36

04:48

0%
07:12

06:00

Figure 13.43: V117 2003-09-08A


4500

100%

Oil rate
Water rate
4000

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate

3500

80%

Oil 1/2 hour


Oil 1 hour
Water cut

3000

70%

Valid test period

60%
2500
50%
2000
40%
1500
30%
1000
20%

500

0
06:00

Page 222/264

10%

07:12

08:24

09:36

10:48

12:00

13:12

14:24

0%
15:36

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.44: V117 2003-09-08B
4500

100%

Oil rate
Water rate
4000

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate

3500

80%

Oil 1/2 hour


Oil 1 hour
Water cut

3000

70%

Valid test period

60%
2500
50%
2000
40%
1500
30%
1000
20%

500

0
06:00

10%

07:12

08:24

09:36

10:48

12:00

13:12

14:24

0%
15:36

Figure 13.45: V117 2003-09-24


100%

4000
Oil rate
Water rate

3500

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

80%

Oil 1 hour

3000

Water cut
Valid test period

70%
2500
60%

50%

2000

40%
1500
30%
1000
20%
500
10%

0
21:36

22:48

00:00

01:12

Exploration & Production Technology Group

02:24

03:36

04:48

0%
06:00

Page 223/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.46: V201 2003-09-26
100%

4000
Oil rate
Water rate

3500

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

80%

Oil 1 hour

3000

Water cut
Valid test period

70%
2500
60%

50%

2000

40%
1500
30%
1000
20%
500
10%

0
21:36

00:00

02:24

04:48

07:12

09:36

12:00

0%
14:24

Figure 13.47: V202 2003-09-10


100%

1600
Oil rate
Water rate

1400

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

80%

Oil 1 hour

1200

Water cut
Valid test period

70%
1000
60%

50%

800

40%
600
30%
400
20%
200
10%

0
21:36

Page 224/264

22:48

00:00

01:12

02:24

03:36

04:48

0%
06:00

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.48: V202 2003-10-01
100%

1800
Oil rate
Water rate

1600

90%

Liquid rate
Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

1400

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut
Valid test period

70%
1200
60%
1000
50%
800
40%
600
30%
400
20%

200

10%

0
20:24

21:36

22:48

00:00

01:12

0%
03:36

02:24

Figure 13.49: V202 2003-09-30


100%

1400
Oil rate
Water rate

90%

Liquid rate

1200

Gas rate
Oil 1/2 hour

80%

Oil 1 hour
Water cut

1000

Valid test period

70%

60%
800
50%
600
40%

30%

400

20%
200
10%

0
12:00

13:12

14:24

15:36

Exploration & Production Technology Group

16:48

18:00

19:12

20:24

0%
21:36

Page 225/264

CONFIDENTIAL

Page 226/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

14

PROJECT DOCUMENTATION

14.1

Calibration procedures phase 1

The following installation requirements and start-up procedures were discussed with
representatives of Agar, FMC, and SLB on 08/27/03. Roxar was not available for this
meeting, but the pre-test calibration and data format sections were discussed with
Roxar by teleconference between Brady/Mehdizadeh/Smith and Roxar on 08/26/03.
These procedures will be used during the 2-day of preliminary tests, called Phase 1 of
the program. The procedures may be revised before the full test program, called Phase
2 will get underway.
14.1.1 Installation: meter sequence and orientation in the loop
SLB (skid) FMC (vertical up, 90 elbow in/out) Roxar ( vertical up, 90 elbow in/out)
Agar (skid) ASRC.
Agar requires dry instrument air @ 80 psig for the operation of the diverter valve.
ASRC will provide instrument air for Agar.
14.1.2 Installation: electrical power outlet for the lab
ASRC to provide 110-volt electrical outlets for vendors as follows:
Schlumberger
FMC
Roxar
Agar
Mehdizadeh

2 outlets
3
3
3
1

14.1.3 Installation: empty chamber and pressure test


Upon completion of mechanical work and loop clean up:
Roxar meter will require 30- minute empty chamber tests. Schlumberger, FMC, and
Agar do not need empty chamber test.
All meters and the loop will be subjected to pressure test with diesel @ 1000psig after
empty chamber test by Roxar is competed.
Agar requires flushing meter with lake water for 5 minutes.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 227/264

CONFIDENTIAL
14.1.4 Pre-test calibration/verification
Well fluid calibration to be conducted for density, permittivity, and conductivity:
Table 14.1: Meter fluid property calibration requirements

Vendor
Oil:

SLB
30 cc per well

Density
Permittivity
Produced Water:

Y
N
30 cc per well

Density
Conductivity

Y
N

FMC
3 litres per
horizon
N
Y
3 litres per
horizon
Y
Y

Roxar
3 litres per
horizon
Y
Y
3 litres per
horizon
Y
Y

Agar
Not
required
N
N
Not
required
N
N

Bruce Smith will provide to all vendors density data on produced water from all wells
except V-201. Well fluid samples gathered from the wells for these calibrations will be
saved and tagged in 5 gallon cans and marked for storage.
Flow test: after installation in the loop, all meters will be subjected to flowrates of 8000
and 1500 bbl/d for 5 minutes at each rate, to calibrate Venturi and PD meters. HB&R
or Little Red will supply the 200 bbl of water for this step. The loop and meters will be
flushed by diesel after the flow test.
14.1.5 Preliminary well tests
These tests will be conducted so that vendors can check the performance of the meters
under dynamic flow conditions and make appropriate revisions to their meters. This
phase is expected to last 2 days. Each test will last for 4 hours, including purge time.
ASRC will provide water cut data at 30-minute intervals. Well test data will be
provided by ASRC at the end of each test. Agar will take water cut samples at own
meter for calibration/verification and provide the data to Mehdizadeh. ASRC will
drain the test separator between each well test. This step is expected to need
approximately 30 minutes.
Table 14.2: Wells to be used for preliminary well tests

Well
V-106
V-102
V-117

Page 228/264

Liquid
bbl/day
600
2600
3000

Gas
MMscf/day
2.7
2.5
5.0

Water cut
%
30
9
60

Formation GOR
scf/stb
500
457
460

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
All test results will be compared with ASRC data and vendors will be permitted to
make documented adjustment to their meters. Each vendor will have access to their
own test data. Adjustment to the meters will be documented and will be included in
each vendors calibration procedure.
14.2

Roxar installation and start up procedures

The following installation requirements and start-up procedures were discussed with
representatives of Roxar on 09/11/03. These installation and start up and procedures
are different from the procedures used by other vendors. The previous procedures had
to be revised since Roxar is joining the test campaign at a late date. These procedures
will be used during the dynamic fluid calibration stage, currently referred to as phase
4. The procedures may be revised before the full test program, called phase 5 gets
underway.
14.2.1 Installation: meter sequence and orientation in the loop
The Roxar meter is installed in vertical up position with 90 elbow in/out.
14.2.2 Installation: electrical power outlet for the lab
Roxar would have access to 3 outlets
14.2.3 Installation
Since the Roxar meter is already installed in the loop, the following procedures will be
used:

Initial check of the data acquisition computer will be done at Price Pad.
Layout of electrical and power lines to the meter can be performed at the site
without hot work permit - no power.
Install 110/24V converter in the lab trailer at the site.
Install gamma ray source on the meter. Transportation of the nuclear source to
the site and radiation survey to be conducted by Roxar (Slavko Tosic). This
survey will be checked by ASRC and will be coordinated with Mike Schwemley
(HSE). Report submitted to HSE.
Obtain hot work permit to power up and check instruments.

14.2.4 Pre-test calibration/verification


Well fluid calibration to be conducted for density, permittivity, and conductivity. Fluid
density and water density data gathered by Schlumberger has been given to Roxar.
Bruce Smith has provided density data on produced water from all wells except V-201.
The following procedures will be provided to prepare the loop for the dynamic well test:

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 229/264

CONFIDENTIAL

Depressurise and purge the loop with diesel to clean the current content.
Allow one hour for fluid to drain from the meter into the U part of the loop.
Use vacuum truck to suction the line dry. Allow 2 hours for Roxar to conduct
empty cavity test
Fill the loop with dry crude. Allow 2 hours for Roxar to conduct permittivity
tests.
Pressurize the loop with water to 1000 psig and check for leaks. During this
step allow 30 minutes for Roxar to perform gamma calibration with water in
the loop.
Begin dynamic fluid well tests if the loop integrity is OK in the above step.

14.2.5 Dynamic fluid well tests


These tests will be conducted so that Roxar can check the performance of the meters
under dynamic flow conditions and make appropriate revisions to their meters. This
phase is expected to last 2 days. Well V-102 will be tested and the ASRC and periodic
water cut data will be given to Roxar at the end of the test. Any adjustment to the
Roxar meter will be documented and will be included in their calibration procedure.
Roxar will be asked to sign the Set-up and calibration document to declare the Roxar
meter available for normal testing and compliance evaluation. Roxar will also provide
a short procedure for set-up, start, stop, and down loading of the data to be used after
Roxar has left the premises.
14.3

Vendor requirements: Agar MPFM-401

The following procedures come as additional to the instruction in the user manual.
The following are the major items in the start up.
1.

Before powering up MPFM, check that the power to the MPFM and DAS is
within 10% of the nominal specified power.

2.

Check and/or terminate wiring between MPFM and DAS.

3.

Verify that a strainer is installed upstream of the MPFM and that it has the
proper basket.

4.

Verify that 90 psi 10 psi pneumatic dry gas/air is supplied to the MPFM.

5.

Before applying any fluid or pressure, power-up the MPFM and DAS. Booting of
DAS computer will launch MPFM software in DAS.

6.

Check for error messages. Record and acknowledge any errors.

Page 230/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
7.

Go to General Data screen.


7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
7.7
7.8

8.

Go to the RDC Data screen:


8.1
8.2

9.

Verify RDC communication by ensuring that the counter of RDC


communication errors is 0.
Verify PAMS/OWM communication by ensuring that the counter of OWM
communication errors is 0.
Check the stream and ambient temperature read normal. They should be
close to each other unless the MPFM is under direct sunlight in which case
stream temperature will be some degrees higher.
Check that all the pressure transmitters read normal.
Check that PD meter reads zero.
Check that Long Phase reads more than Short Phase.
Check that both Long and Short amplitudes are negative and Long Amp is
more negative than the Short Amp.
Check the ID sensor reads between 0.5 and 0.8 mA.

Check that the vortex flow reads zero.


Check that the absolute pressure vp0 reads normal and very close to p0.

Go to PAMS Data screen:


9.1
9.2

Check that the cycle is more than 15.


Check the PAMS temperature reads Normal.

10.

Check valve configuration of the MPFM

11.

Check operation of the 301 valve including fail safe mode.

12.

Check operation of the 401 Valve including fail safe mode.

13.

Check output of pressure transmitters. Calibrate as required.

14.

Perform calibration of
Calibration).

15.

Perform zero dry check and zero trim if required for each pressure transmitter.

16.

Purge the 301-loop transducers line with DOW CORNING 550 silicon oil. (See
user manual).

17.

Purge the 401-loop transducers line with process gas or air (see user manual).

RDC analogue to digital conversion (Electronic

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 231/264

CONFIDENTIAL
18.

Verify in the Pressure Transducer screen that the full scale (FS) errors do not
exceed 0.2% (P1, P4 and P6) or 0.1% (P2, P3, P5, VP1, VP2). Write down all the
numbers in the Static Test-Air form.

19.

Check PAMS calibration using Agar microwave attenuation kit.

20.

Perform self-verification:
20.1 Connect required pump, piping, hoses and valves required to supply and
control flow rate of water or very low viscosity oil (viscosity less the 2cP)
through the MPFM.
20.2 Select Self-Verification screen and follow on screen instructions:
20.2.1 Adjust flow rate to about 80% of the PD meter maximum flow rate.
Ensure that no gas is present. Wait for stabilized flow rate.
20.2.2 Collect High Flow data by pressing key H
20.2.3 Wait for the countdown to reach zero. Write down the final values
into the High Flow SVT log form. If the High Flow portion of the SVT
is not passed a message will appear indicating so. In that case repeat
sections 13 to 18 of this procedure. If the High flow portion of SVT is
successful a message will appear indicating so and you can proceed to
the next step.
20.2.4 Perform Low Flow SVT.
20.2.5 Adjust flow rate between 10 and 20% of the PD meter Full Scale.
Ensure that no gas is present. Wait for stabilized flow rate.
20.2.6 Start collecting Low Flow data by pressing key L.
20.2.7 Wait for the countdown to reach zero. Write down the all the final
values into the Low Flow SVT log form and sign it. If the Low Flow
portion of the SVT is not passed a message will appear indicating so.
In that case, proceed to check PD meter for internal leakage or PD
signal generation and processing failures.
20.2.8 Change screen to General Data and verify that the water cut value is
close to 100%.
20.2.9 Verify that the ID value is more than 2.0 mA.
20.2.10 Write down ambient and stream temperatures and pressures (P0 and
VP0) in the SVT log form.
20.2.11 Complete and sign the SVT log sheet.
20.2.12 Stop flow.

21.

Check the configuration following the user manual instruction. Pay attention
specifically to the 401 Parameters and to the Fluid properties parameters.
Modify these values as required according to the particular application.

Page 232/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
22.

Perform valve set-up adjustments and field water cut trim as follows:
22.1 Valve adjustments:
22.1.1 Flow the most severe slugging well and adjust Over spin delay,
Cycles to return valves to normal state, Time Constant error
and Span Control.
22.1.2 Flow the foamiest well or the lowest GVF and highest liquid in order
to obtain the minimum effective 301 GVF. Adjust 401 valve GVF
settings accordingly.
22.2 Field water cut trim (some or all of these steps can be performed with the
same wells as in the previous section):
22.2.1 Flow a dry well to collect oil samples and simultaneous diagnostics
data to perform oil field trim.
22.2.2 Flow the well with the highest water content. Collect emulsion
samples and simultaneous diagnostics data. Determine the water
content of the samples and use information to perform water field
trim.
22.2.3 Flow a well with intermediate oil continuous water content. Collect
emulsion samples and simultaneous diagnostics data. Determine the
water content of the samples and use information to perform oil
continuous field span adjustment.
22.2.4 Flow a well with intermediate water continuous water content.
Collect emulsion samples and simultaneous diagnostics data.
Determine the water content of the samples and use information to
perform water continuous field span adjustment.

14.4

Vendor requirements: FMC Flowsys

14.4.1 Installation
The TopFlow multiphase meter should be installed vertically upwards. The first
change in orientation downstream of the meter should be of elbow type. TopFlow
multiphase meter always installed vertically upwards.
The TopFlow meter was installed at BP V-Pad with a T-piece upstream of the meter
and an elbow downstream of the meter.
An 8-pair electrical cable was ran into the lab trailer and connected to a computer
interface enclosure. The computer interface enclosure is connected to a industrial PC
where the user interface software is ran. The computer interface enclosure and the PC
including monitor require 100-240VAC power supply. The PC is powered through a
UPS.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 233/264

CONFIDENTIAL
14.4.2 Input parameters
The TopFlow multiphase meter requires the following parameters as input:

Oil Density
Water Density
Gas Density
Water Conductivity or Water Salinity, required only for water-continuous flow high water cuts)
Oil Permittivity (also called Dielectric constant), required only for oil-continuous
flow (low water cuts)

Oil Density
The Oil Density is needed at operating conditions. If the Oil Density is not easily
available at operating conditions, the Oil Density can be given at stock tank conditions
and/or as API gravity.
Document received from BP gave the specific gravity at 60F for some historical well
tests/samples. The most recent one for the wells at V-Pad is given below:
Table 14.3: Oil property data from BP

Well name
V03
V101
V102
V103
V106
V107
V108
V109
V113
V117
V201
V202

Oil density
(g/cm3)
0.8944
0.9047

Test temp
F
60
60

0.9165
0.9053
0.9076
0.9285
0.9066

60
60
60
60
60

Schlumberger took samples of each individual well and the results were to be shared
with the other participants. The Schlumberger values confirmed the values received
from BP. FMC/Flowsys took samples of three wells V03, V117 and V201. The results
of the oil density values for these samples are shown in Table 14.4.

Page 234/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Table 14.4: Oil properties measured by FMC

Well name
V03
V101
V102
V103
V106
V107
V108
V109
V113
V117
V201
V202

Oil density
(API)
27.3

Test temp
F
60

26.1
22.8

60
60

The variations in the given oil densities for the individual wells were not significant
and one average oil density is used by the meter. The oil density was set as 0.904g/cm3
for all wells. The oil density is automatically corrected for changes in operating
temperature and pressure.
Water Density
Water density is required. Document received from BP gave the specific gravity of the
brine at 60F for some historical well tests/samples. The most recent one for the wells
at the V-Pad is given below:
Table 14.5: Water property data from BP

Well
name
V03
V101
V102
V103
V106
V107
V108
V109
V113
V117
V201
V202

Water density
(g/cm3)
1.0133
1.0176

Test temp
F
60
60

1.0193
1.0201
1.0200
1.1096
1.0202

60
60
60
60
60

1.0219

60

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 235/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Schlumberger was allowed to take samples of each individual well and the results were
to be shared with the other participants. The Schlumberger data was very similar to
the BP data, but reported at slightly higher temperatures.
FMC/Flowsys took samples of three wells V03, V117 and V201. The results of the
water density values for these samples are shown below:
Table 14.6: Water properties measured by FMC

Well
name
V03
V101
V102
V103
V106
V107
V108
V109
V113
V117
V201
V202

Water density
(g/cm3)
1.0156

Test temp
F
60

1.0202

60

An average water density of 1.02044 g/cm3 is used for all wells at V-Pad. The water
density is automatically corrected for changes in operating temperature and pressure.

Page 236/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Gas Density
The Gas specific gravity is required.
Table 14.7: Gas property data from BP

Well name
V03
V101
V102
V103
V106
V107
V108
V109
V113
V117
V201
V202
V-Pad average

Gas s.g.
0.7272

0.7484

0.6916

0.722

Table 14.8: Gas property data from Schlumberger

Well name
V03
V101
V102
V103
V106
V107
V108
V109
V113
V117
V201
V202
V-Pad average

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Gas s.g.
0.738
0.714
0.723
0.720
0.736
0.744
0.716
0.704
0.707
0.645
0.754
0.668
0.714

Page 237/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Water Conductivity / Salinity
If the water conductivity or salinity is not known, the water conductivity or water
salinity can be measured by the Flowsys meter by filling it with water from the well.
No brine was available to fill the meter. Salinity/conductivity was estimated based on
the water density. The salinity/conductivity is ONLY included in the Flowsys set of
equations at water-continuous flow, i.e. high water cuts. None of the wells at V-Pad is
expected to be water-continuous unless a high amount of water is injected at the well
head.
Oil Permittivity / Dielectric Constant
The oil permittivity is not normally measured by the oil field operators. It is acceptable
to use a default value for the oil permittivity of Heavy oil 2.35; Medium oil 2.25; Light
oil/condensate 2.15.
If there is an opportunity to measure the oil permittivity, the performance of the
Flowsys meter can be slightly improved. The oil permittivity can be measured by the
Flowsys multiphase meter by filling the meter with crude oil. About 2 litres of crude is
needed to fill up the 3-inch meter.
FMC took samples from three wells V03, V117 and V201.
The samples were stabilised overnight and the top portion of the samples were filled
into the Flowsys meter to measure the permittivity of the samples. Since the samples
also included produced water, the samples had to be analysed at the BP laboratory to
determine the water content. Based on this water content, FMC calculated the
individual permittivity of the three samples. The water cut values received from the
BP lab did not match very well with the Flowsys measurement when the same samples
were filled into the meter. The difference was about 2 to 5%. The Flowsys
measurement with diesel filled meter corresponded very well with the theoretical value
of the diesel permittivity and therefore the meter readings are considered correct. The
water cut readings received from the lab was disregarded and a calculated theoretical
value of the permittivity was considered to be more accurate and therefore used for
all wells at V-Pad. Therefore the laboratory results of the samples were not used to
calibrate the meter.
Fluid properties summary
It is recommended that the available density data for historical routine well samples
are used for setting up the fluid properties of the Flowsys meter. No specific samples
are required for the TopFlow meter as long as density data is available from historical
samples. It is not recommended to take samples of the wells to determine the
permittivity for future installations at BP Alaska.

Page 238/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
14.4.3 P and DP transmitter
If the transmitter is positioned lower than the Venturi tappings and temperatures
below 32F are expected, the tubing must be filled with an anti-freeze liquid to avoid
icing.
If the transmitter is positioned higher than the Venturi tappings, no anti-freeze liquid
is required.
The transmitter on the BP Alaska unit is located lower than the venture tappings. The
tubing of the dp transmitter were therefore flushed and filled with a glycol based liquid
to avoid icing in the tubing and transmitter cells. The density of the glycol based liquid
is taken into account by the meter. An estimated density of the glycol based fluid of
0.980g/cm3 is used. If there is a leakage in the Venturi tubing or the equalizer valve
has been opened, the tubing must be re-filled with an anti-freeze liquid.
14.5

Vendor requirements: Schlumberger

14.5.1 Gas Sampling


Equipment
Ranarex gas gravity meter
5 000 psi gas sampling bottle 1 litre
Procedure
Connect the gas-sampling bottle to the gas line of the separator.
Fill and purge the bottle 3 times.
Fill the bottle and connect it to the Ranarex.
Flow the gas through the Ranarex maintaining the floating ball to the expected
gravity.
Wait for the needle to stabilize before the reading.
Then take the reading.
Flush the gas left in the bottle.
Then re-do the process. If the reading is the same then the data is validated. Else redo again.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 239/264

CONFIDENTIAL
14.5.2 Atmospheric liquid sampling
If sampling from the oil line of the separator, flush the separator and wait enough to
ensure the integrity of the fluid.
Protect the place from any spill.
Flush the sampling port.
Then start to sample.
14.5.3 Processing liquid samples
Pure Oil
In our case the choice went up to the Heating process.
Basic centrifuging
Pour the sample in one centrifuge glass.
Balance the pure crude with another sample. This sample has to be cut by 50% oil
base diluents (Xylene, Super, Toluene, etc.) and few drops of emulsion breaker.
Spin the sample.
Spin until you reach the same water-cut on both tubes.
Spin 5 minutes more and cross check the readings remain the same. If it is the case
then the centrifuging is finished.
Apply the same time to the rest if the sample.
At the end take a sample of the oil and mix it with oil base diluents and few drop of
emulsion breaker and spin it to check for water contamination.
Emulsion breaker and heat
According with the laboratory the fraction of emulsion breaker to set into the sample,
e.g. for 1 litre sample, 10ml of W54 emulsion breaker.
Heat the sample to 60 C / 140 F until complete separation is done.
At the end take a sample of the oil, mix it with oil base diluents add few drop of
emulsion breaker and spin it to check for water contamination.
After the oil in situ set an oil/water mixture in the meter (same procedure as the oil in
situ but with a mix of oil and water where the BSW has been checked) and start the
reading. The BSW measured with the PhaseWatcher must match the BSW and the
GVF must be equal to 0%. Look at the triangle and ensure the measured point is well
on the oil/water line.

Page 240/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Pure Water Centrifuging
Use the same procedure as basic oil centrifuging.
With a syringe or a pipette extract the water from the sample.
Centrifuging and oil base diluents
Fill the centrifuge glasses with 50% of oil base diluents to break the emulsion.
Use the same procedure as basic oil centrifuging.
With a syringe or a pipette extract the water from the sample.
Centrifuging, oil base diluents and emulsion breaker
Fill the centrifuge glasses with 50% of oil base diluents and few small drops of
emulsion breaker.
Use the same procedure as basic oil centrifuging.
With a syringe or a pipette extract the water from the sample.
After the water in situ set an oil/water mixture in the meter (same procedure as the oil
in situ but with a mix of oil and water where the BSW has been checked) and start the
reading. The BSW measured with the PhaseWatcher must match the BSW and the
GVF must be equal to 0%. Look at the triangle and ensure the measured point is well
on the oil/water line.
BSW and mixture sample for BSW check with the meter
The sample must be homogenous. If not shake it vigorously.
Fill one centrifuge glass with 50% oil base diluents, oil and few drops of emulsion
breaker.
Save 100ml of sample.
Then fill the second centrifuge glasses as per the first one.
Spin it.
The two readings should be the same. If not, homogenise the sample and re-do the
procedure again.
Viscosity
Try to measure the oil viscosity to a temperature as close as possible to the flowing
temperature.
For BSW between 40% to 60% quality check the mixture viscosity and set the phase
inversion to fit the readings.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 241/264

CONFIDENTIAL

Page 242/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

15

PROJECT CONSULTANTS DAILY REPORTS

15.1

August 31st, 2003

15.1.1 Safety
0600 Safety meeting at ASRC unit #1: pad operation has not commenced yet.
Multiphase Metering Team meetings were held at 7:00 and 19:00. Reviewed status of
each vendor. FMC calibration complete. SLB calibration to be completed this evening,
fluid samples to BP lab, waiting for the results. SLB completed analysis of fluid
samples taken by FMC/SLB. Agar, SLB, and FMC meters are on location. Roxar
meter, without gamma source, is also on location.
15.1.2 Environmental issues (spills, releases, injuries)
None.
15.1.3 Loop and meter status
FMC meter taken to location. Groundwork and transportation of loop components
commenced.
15.1.4 Other pertinent events
None.
15.1.5 Data taken and transmitted
None.
15.1.6 Wells used in the tests
None.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 243/264

CONFIDENTIAL
15.2

September 1st, 2003

15.2.1 Safety
0600 Safety meeting at ASRC unit # 1. Safety meeting was conducted at the ASRC
trailer on V-Pad by ASRC and pad operator. Sign in/out procedure is in place at the
ASRC trailer for all personnel working on the project.
15.2.2 Environmental issues (spills, releases, injuries)
None.
15.2.3 Loop and meter status
All meters are installed. SLB requires 12 to 24 hours of additional calibration time.
Start-up procedures will be changed to get electrical hook up before leak check to allow
SLB to finish open cavity calibration. Agar to perform in situ calibration and all
vendors to complete electrical checks. Well fluid analysis by SLB completed and
density, gas s.g. data was distributed to vendors. The data will be used to develop well
profiles for the phase 1 tests as follow: Agar (1), FMC (3), SLB (12). Each vendor will
prepare a one-page training manual for the operator training to include start-up, shutdown, restart and data downloads. Phase 1 tests will begin with well V-106 when the
test loop is completed. A technical audit of ASRC test separator will be conducted on
September 3rd.
15.2.4 Other pertinent events
None.
15.2.5 Data taken and transmitted
Crude and produced water density and gas s.g. provides to all vendors from SLB
sample analysis and BP (Bruce Smith) well data.
15.2.6 Wells used in the tests
None.

Page 244/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
15.3

September 3rd, 2003

15.3.1 Safety
0600 Safety meeting at ASRC unit # 1: check in/out by all personnel at ASRC, no
recalls. Hasebe and Mehdizadeh witnessed a source and background radiation check
conducted by SLB on SLB meter. Report prepared by SLB to given to Hasebe for the
project file. Hasebe will check with BP Safety to ensure these steps meet BP
requirements. Safety engineer from ASRC is to conduct independent radiation survey
on the SLB meter tomorrow.
15.3.2 Environmental issues (spills, releases, injuries)
None
15.3.3 Loop and meter status
Lab in place, electrical power available, and vendors have installed all meter
computers. ASRC well testing, tanks and associated equipment in place. Test loop
and return line completed and connected to the header. FMC has completed the pretest checkout. Agar has also completed the pre-test check out except for the air supply
to the diverter valve, to be completed this evening. SLB has been conducting open
cavity tests to be completed this evening. All meters, ASRC test separator, and loop
components are expected to be ready for leak check tomorrow. Plan for September 4th
is to conduct a walk-through of the test facility and perform pressure integrity and leak
test at 1000 psig. A flow rate test, per previously established test procedure will then
be performed.
15.3.4 Other pertinent events
Maureen Johnson, BP HSE management, and ASRC management visited the test
facility. MPU operations personnel invited to attend walk-through tomorrow.
15.3.5 Data taken and transmitted
None.
15.3.6 Wells used in the tests
None.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 245/264

CONFIDENTIAL
15.4

September 4th, 2003

15.4.1 Safety
0600 Safety meeting at ASRC unit # 1: safety walk-through and orientation was
conducted by Jim Moore and ASRC, prior to leak check for vendors, ASRC and VECO
personnel.
15.4.2 Environmental issues (spills, releases, injuries)
None.
15.4.3 Loop and meter status
Vendors conducted an audit of the ASRC test separator and verified the equipment to
be used. Audit is documented and signed by vendors for the project file. Conducted a
leak check on the loop. Corrected leaks with Agar (3) and FMC(1) in preparation for
the flowrate tests per the Phase 1 procedures, i.e. flow rate up to 7300 bbl/d and down
to 1500 bbl/d. All vendors checked out OK on rates and accumulated flow for 21
minutes was 71.7 (tank) vs. 69.5 for all meters and ASRC. About 2 bbl variation
looks good. Following the flowrate tests the loop was purged with 30 bbl of diesel and
is ready for the well flow to begin tomorrow. Agar had to drain the gas loop and FMC
had to charge the pressure transducer reservoir with glycol in preparation for the well
tests. Well tests will commence starting at 6:00am tomorrow.
15.4.4 Other pertinent events
New day pad operator (Larry) was given orientation of the test facility. Mark OMalley
from Milne Point visited the site.
15.4.5 Data taken and transmitted
Flowrates on water tests.
15.4.6 Wells used in the tests
None.

Page 246/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
15.5

September 7th, 2003

15.5.1 Safety
0600 Safety meeting at ASRC unit # 1: safety orientation for the crew and vendors was
held on September 6th prior to well tests. Tool box meeting on waste disposal was
conducted on September 7th.
15.5.2 Environmental issues (spills, releases, injuries)
None.
15.5.3 Loop and meter status
Phase 1 tests on wells V-102, V-106, and V-117 completed and a preliminary summary
and comparison with ASRC tests was emailed to Bruce Smith for distribution. Raw
data from vendors was collated and will be sent to Bruce Smith via pouch mail. Met
with vendors to plan for additional tests. ASRC results were shared with each vendor.
Vendors have had a chance to adjust their meters. Will repeat Phase 1 tests with wells
102,106, and 117 to check for improvements. Wells 106 and 117 are being flowed to
tank for more accurate liquid measurement. The repeat tests are expected to be
complete tomorrow. Will spend tomorrow afternoon to evaluate the data and plan
Phase 2. Each vendor has prepared training sessions for 4 operating personnel to be
conducted on September 7th at 8:00 am. VECO completed the rig up of tents over the
meters.
15.5.4 Other pertinent events
Artie Soria from L-Pad visited the site.
15.5.5 Data taken and transmitted
Phase 1 tests data and preliminary summary.
15.5.6 Wells used in the tests
V-102, 106 and 117

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 247/264

CONFIDENTIAL
15.6

September 11th, 2003

15.6.1 Safety
Safety meeting at ASRC unit # 1: site orientation and ATP training for Roxar (Stig
Froyen and Slavko Tosic) and Andrew Hall were held on September 11th. Roxar and
Andrew Hall also completed HSE and vehicle driving safety orientations.
15.6.2 Environmental issues (spills, releases, injuries)
None
15.6.3 Loop and meter status
Completed tests on wells 101, 103, 107, 108, 109, and 113. Andrew Hall is in the
process of conducting analysis and summarising the test results.
Well tests were halted before well 202 could be tested due to ESD at the V-Pad. The
202 well tests will resume as soon as the situation in V-Pad is normalised.
All data and pictures taken up to September 8th, except Agar tests on 102, 106 and 117,
has been loaded on the server under the Multiphase Field Test by Hasebe. The
missing Agar data is available on diskette and will be loaded with the next batch.
SLB has informed the project team that unless they get more accurate gas composition
data, by chromatography from current sample from each well, their results will be
inaccurate for wells with GVF higher than 95%, which includes most of the wells on VPad. We currently do not have up-to-date chromatography results on all wells. SLB is
to submit a document to describe the desired accuracy of the gas composition and
implication on the performance of the meter if such gas composition accuracy is not
available.
Roxar team is on site minus the gamma source, power cable, data cable, and 110/24V
converter needed in the data acquisition computer. Site personnel are working to
provide these items to Roxar. A procedure for Roxar meter set up and calibration was
developed and will be used to proceed with Roxar tests when the equipment and
gamma source are ready to go.

Page 248/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
15.6.4 Other pertinent events
ESD on the well pad stopped the well tests.
15.6.5 Data taken and transmitted
Data up to September 8th.
15.6.6 Wells used in the tests
V-102, 103, 107, 108, 109, and 113.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 249/264

CONFIDENTIAL
15.7

September 15th, 2003

15.7.1 Safety
Safety meeting at ASRC unit # 1: held as per schedule.
15.7.2 Environmental issues (spills, releases, injuries)
None.
15.7.3 Loop and meter status
Completed well tests 202, 03, 102, 103, 106 and 101 (partial).
SLB has provided a table on the sensitivity of the meter for wells 117 and 106 fluids.
The data shows that the SLB meter is very sensitive to CO2 content of the gas, e.g. 10%
CO2 content results in 18% to 20% inaccuracy in the oil rate for 106 and 117 wells.
This implies that we have to supply accurate gas content data for individual wells as
the CO2 content can vary from 5% to 11% in V-Pad wells. SLB has also indicated that
the issue of poor initial calibration due to oil film on the gamma ray window has to be
resolved. But this can be done at the end of project and data will then be post
processed.
Roxar has checked out the flow computer. It works and was transported to the site.
Gamma source is expected to arrive here tomorrow. Roxar has also laid out the power
and communication cables. Hot work connections to be done when the source gets
here.
The temperature transmitter on the FMC meter has stopped working. The problem
was reported to FMC and they provided diagnostic and repair procedure. Repair will
be done during the hot work permit needed for the Roxar meter. We will continue to
acquire data and will correct it later for temperature.
3-inch pipe will replace the current 2-inch return line. Installation will take place on
September 15th following shutdown of the loop.
15.7.4 Other pertinent events
Andrew Hall and Roxar personnel briefed Randy Selman on the status of Roxar meter
on September 13th.

Page 250/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
15.7.5 Data taken and transmitted
Write access to the Multiphase Field Test folder on the server is not available to
Mehdizadeh/Hall. Will continue pouch mailing the data. The folder now contains all
documents and data up to September 8th.
15.7.6 Wells used in the tests
V-03, 101 (1 hour), 102, 103, 106 and 202.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 251/264

CONFIDENTIAL
15.8

September 16th, 2003

15.8.1 Safety
Safety: radiation survey was conducted at the site for the Roxar source. The ASRC
safety inspector will audit the survey and the results will be submitted to HSE
tomorrow before we start testing the Roxar meter.
15.8.2 Environmental issues (spills, releases, injuries)
None.
15.8.3 Loop and meter status
Completed well test 108 but the test was stopped after 6 hours in order to shut down
the loop and complete the Roxar meter installation. Roxar source arrived and
installed. All hot work on the Roxar meter was completed. Roxar meter calibration
will be initiated at 9:00 am tomorrow per the procedure developed previously. Andrew
Hall has completed the collation and analysis of all data up to September 16th. The
data and graphs have been loaded into the group file server. The 2-inch to 3-inch pipe
conversion on the return line was completed. Well tests 107 and 108 were conducted
with the new 3-inch return line.
15.8.4 Other pertinent events
Andrew Hall has completed his tour of duty and returned to Anchorage. Hall will brief
Bruce Smith on the status of data analysis and final report on September 17th.
15.8.5 Data taken and transmitted
Write access to the Multiphase Field Test folder on the server is now available to
Mehdizadeh and will be used to load the current data.
15.8.6 Wells used in the tests
V-107 and 108.

Page 252/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
15.9

September 18th, 2003

15.9.1 Safety
Radiation survey conducted on the Roxar source at the site by Roxar and ASRC was
submitted to Mike Schwemley. A leak in the Agar meter developed during the water
flush procedure for the Roxar meter. Ice blockage on the discharge line to the tank
resulted in a high pressure peak in the test loop exposing the Agar meter to pressures
above its ANSI rating pressure. About bbl of test water due to the leak was
contained within the bermed area and vacuumed out. A pressure protection document
and training roster on this incident is prepared by Hasebe and distributed to ASRC
personnel and posted at the site for future flushing operations.
15.9.2 Environmental issues (spills, releases, injuries)
About bbl of lake water, all contained, with no release to gravel pad or tundra.
15.9.3 Loop and meter status
Completed the diesel flush portion of the Roxar meter calibration. The calibration
procedure was aborted due to the leak in the Agar meter and will be resumed on
September 18th. A bypass loop was built around the Agar meter and pressure tested.
Calibration of the Roxar meter will continue and should be completed on September
18th. The repair to the Agar meter is to be finished by September 19th by Agar
personnel travelling to the slope today and the meter will be put back in the loop at
that time. This shut-down has also allowed SLB to change the gamma ray counter on
their meter, which had developed instability. Due to fore-mentioned activities, we
could not conduct any well tests.
15.9.4 Other pertinent events
Eric Ward visited the site on September 18th and was briefed on the status of the
testing, reviewed the operation of the ASRC test separator, and looked at the
multiphase data we have generated up to now.
15.9.5 Data taken and transmitted
None.
15.9.6 Wells used in the tests
V-108.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 253/264

CONFIDENTIAL
15.10 September 21st, 2003
15.10.1

Safety

Safety: during the pressure test of the Agar meter on 20th September, the strainer
flanges began to leak. ASRC shut down the pump, depressurised the system and
prepared to tighten the flange. Before re-torquing the flange, it was decided to sweep
the line with dry gas. During the gas sweep, mist of diesel fluid was released from the
flange. The diesel mist came in contact with the ground, outside the containment area.
ASRC immediately notified the pad operator, his immediate supervisor and the
environmental personnel. Environmental visited the site, inspected the area and
determined the incident to be a spot clean up.
15.10.2

Environmental issues (spills, releases, injuries)

Diesel mist in contact with the ground. Spot clean up.


15.10.3

Loop and meter status

Completed the calibration of the Roxar meter. The Roxar personnel made final
adjustment and declared meter ready for performance compliance phase. Repair to the
Agar meter was also completed. After initial leak check, the strainer leaked and was
removed per Agar instruction. The meter was pressure tested to 1000 psig and passed
the leak check. Agar meter was then installed into the loop; the entire loop pressure
tested to 1000 psig and put on-line. For the first time we have all four meters in the
loop producing measurement data. Test of well 109 was completed and well 03 is
ongoing and will be completed tonight. Will start on well 113 next.
15.10.4

Other pertinent events

Mehdizadeh prepared graphs on wells 107, 108, and 109. Wendy Baumeister suggests
these wells as candidates for gas optimisation study in the next phase. The graphs will
be used to discuss gas optimisation procedure with Baumeister. Roxar and Agar
personnel have completed their work and departed for Anchorage.
15.10.5

Data taken and transmitted

Data from wells 109 and 108 downloaded to the group file.
15.10.6

Wells used in the tests

V-03 and 108.

Page 254/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
15.11 September 23rd, 2003
15.11.1

Safety

No safety related incident.


15.11.2

Environmental issues (spills, releases, injuries)

None.
15.11.3

Loop and meter status

Completed tests on wells 113 and 03. Both wells were also tank tested. Completed gas
optimisation tests on wells 107 and 108. Testing on 109 was stopped due to
compressor failure at ASRC trailer. Testing to resume tonight, after the portable
compressor is hooked up to the ASRC.
15.11.4

Other pertinent events

Other pertinent events: Bruce Weiler visited the test site and was briefed on the status
of the project. Work on well 201 progressing and the well may be ready for testing
after the scheduled Pad ESD.
15.11.5

Data taken and transmitted

Data from gas optimisation phase on wells 107 and 108 was processed and will be
loaded to the group file tomorrow.
15.11.6

Wells used in the tests

V-107 and 108.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 255/264

CONFIDENTIAL
15.12 September 25th, 2003
15.12.1

Safety

Met with ASRC personnel on September 24th to review the recent Communication
Protocol for the Three Phase Metering Project developed by Hasebe. This protocol
emphasizes the need for both written and oral communication to the GPB Field Team
Lead for all activities associated with the test program.
15.12.2

Environmental issues (spills, releases, injuries)

None.
15.12.3

Loop and meter status

Completed tests wells 109, 107, 103, and 117. All wells were tank strapped to obtain
liquid measurements. The test loop was shut down on September 25th at 6:00 am due
to the Pad ESD. The loop was depressurised, flushed, and filled with methanol to
protect meters from cold weather during the anticipated 2-day ESD.
15.12.4

Other pertinent events

The following people visited the test facility and were briefed on the multiphase testing
programme:
Jane Williamson (AOGCC)
Mike Hanus (ExxonMobil)
Mike Mullaly (ExxonMobil)
Ryan Dunn (ConocoPhillips)
Dudley Platt (DOR)
Jessie Carr (BP, well optimisation engineer)
15.12.5

Data taken and transmitted

Data from wells 102, 103, 107, 108, 109, and 117 was loaded to the group file.
Prepared a list of all tests conducted up to date and each meters time in the loop. This
list will be used as the index to collate and process data for each meter. The list is also
loaded into the group file.
15.12.6

Wells used in the tests

V-102, 103, 107, 108, 109 and 117.

Page 256/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
15.13 September 28th, 2003
15.13.1

Safety

No incident.
15.13.2

Environmental issues (spills, releases, injuries)

None.
15.13.3

Loop and meter status

Resumed testing of well 201 after the Pad ESD was lifted on 26th September. Purging
of the line with well 201 was initiated at 9:00 PM on 26th September and the well was
put on test at 3:00 AM on 27th September. Sample water cut from the ASRC separator
was above 99%. It became apparent that 201 was not quite ready for test. Gas from
the pad was injected to test loop header in order to move the stream through the ASRC
and pad separators. This caused high GVF in the test loop. All multiphase meters
read water cut values well below the samples. The L-Pad shut down at 8:45 causing
pressure drop in the loop and higher GVF. As a result all meters were subjected to
high water cut and GVF tests. At 12:00 the gas to the loop was shut off. All meters
began reading correct water cut. The test on V-201 was aborted at 13:00 and V-113
was brought in to push the liquid through the separators. Testing continued with V113 and V-101. Currently we are testing V-106 and V-202, which were previously
tested without the Roxar meter in the loop, until the situation with V-201 becomes
clear.
15.13.4

Other pertinent events

Mehdizadeh gave a brief overview of the project at the Bruce Weilers toolbox meeting
on September 27th. Mehdizadeh met with Kevin Yeager and established a procedure
for demobbing of the loop, starting on October 1st. Hasebe has advised all vendors by
email of the demob date and has asked them to provide instruction for rig down and
disconnecting the instruments. Also Yeager is updating the expenses on AFE
PBS4P2136.
15.13.5

Data taken and transmitted

Data from wells 201, 106, and 113.


15.13.6

Wells used in the tests

V-106, 113 and 201.

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 257/264

CONFIDENTIAL
15.14 September 30th, 2003
15.14.1

Safety

Wrote a Control Procedure for ASRC personnel to handle control and shut down during
the high water cut/high gas volume fraction tests involving water injection from V-105
and gas from the pad header into V-106 stream. A review and training meeting was
held with ASRC personnel prior to the test.
15.14.2

Environmental issues (spills, releases, injuries)

None.
15.14.3

Loop and meter status

V-201 was not available for testing during this reporting period. Testing continued
with V-106 in preparation for the high water cut tests involving this well. We assessed
various schemes to develop a virtual high water cut well by injecting produced water
in to the V-106 stream. Settled for injecting water from V-105 into V-106 stream
through an S-riser to S-riser jumper. Also prepared procedure to adjust the GVF in the
stream with gas injection from the pad header. As it turned out this was not
necessary. The water injection scheme produced water cuts ranging from 45% to 95%.
The high water cut tests were completed last night. The high water cut tests are the
last phase of the project. With the completion of these tests the project is concluded
and the demobbing of the equipment will begin on October 1st.
15.14.4

Other pertinent events

Other pertinent events: discussed demobbing of Roxar, Agar, SLB and FMC with
vendors. The assistance of the Pad operator (Charlie Geoff) and crew in rigging the
water injection jumper was crucial in completing this phase of the project.
15.14.5

Data taken and transmitted

Data from well V-106


15.14.6

Wells used in the tests

V-106

Page 258/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL

16

FIGURES AND TABLES

16.1

List of figures

Figure 4.1: Schematic diagram of Agar MPFM-400 series multiphase flow meter .......................................16
Figure 4.2: Photograph of the Agar-401 multiphase flow meter at the test site ............................................17
Figure 4.3: Photograph of the Flowsys multiphase flow meter at the test site..............................................18
Figure 4.4: Photograph of the Roxar MPFM 1900VI multiphase flow meter at the test site (centre meter,
prior to installation of radioactive source)..............................................................................................19
Figure 4.5: Photograph of the Schlumberger multiphase flow meter at the test site ....................................20
Figure 5.1: Location of the field test site..........................................................................................................21
Figure 5.2: Schematic of multiphase flow meter installation..........................................................................22
Figure 5.3: Photograph of multiphase flow meter installation .......................................................................22
Figure 5.4: Photograph of meter protection .....................................................................................................23
Figure 5.5: Simplified ASRC Separator Schematic .........................................................................................24
Figure 6.1: Agar 401 liquid flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF..............................................................35
Figure 6.2: Agar 401 gas flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF..................................................................36
Figure 6.3: Agar 401 water cut error vs. ASRC reference GVF ......................................................................36
Figure 6.4: FMC Flowsys liquid flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF ......................................................37
Figure 6.5: FMC Flowsys gas flowrate error....................................................................................................38
Figure 6.6: FMC Flowsys water cut error ........................................................................................................38
Figure 6.7: Roxar MPFM 1900VI liquid flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF .........................................39
Figure 6.8: Roxar MPFM 1900VI gas flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF .............................................40
Figure 6.9: Roxar MPFM 1900VI water cut error vs. ASRC reference GVF ..................................................40
Figure 6.10: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) liquid flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF ...................41
Figure 6.11: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) gas flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF .......................42
Figure 6.12: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) water cut error vs. ASRC reference GVF ...........................42
Figure 6.13: Liquid flowrate repeatability for the four meters .......................................................................44
Figure 6.14: Gas flowrate repeatability for the four meters............................................................................44
Figure 6.15: Water cut repeatability for the four meters ................................................................................45
Figure 6.16: Oil flowrate from the 4 multiphase flow meters vs. ASRC reference oil flowrate.....................46
Figure 6.17: Oil flowrate error from the 4 multiphase flow meters vs. ASRC reference GVF ......................46
Figure 6.18: Water flowrate from the 4 multiphase flow meters vs. ASRC reference water flowrate ..........47
Figure 6.19: Water flowrate error from the 4 multiphase flow meters vs. ASRC reference GVF .................47
Figure 6.20: Liquid flowrate from the 4 multiphase flow meters vs. ASRC reference liquid flowrate .........48
Figure 6.21: Liquid flowrate error from the 4 multiphase flow meters vs. ASRC reference GVF.................48
Figure 6.22: Gas flowrate from the 4 multiphase flow meters vs. ASRC reference gas flowrate ..................49
Figure 6.23: Gas flowrate error from the 4 multiphase flow meters vs. ASRC reference GVF .....................49
Figure 6.24: Water cut from the 4 multiphase flow meters vs. ASRC reference water cut ...........................50
Figure 6.25: Water cut error from the 4 multiphase flow meters vs. ASRC reference GVF..........................50
Figure 6.26: GVF from the 4 multiphase flow meters vs. ASRC reference GVF............................................51
Figure 6.27: GVF error from the 4 multiphase flow meters vs. ASRC reference GVF ..................................51
Figure 6.28: GOR from the 4 multiphase flow meters vs. ASRC reference GOR...........................................52
Figure 6.29: GOR error from the 4 multiphase flow meters vs. ASRC reference GVF..................................52
Figure 6.30: Venturi pressure drop for 29mm Venturi throat ........................................................................53
Figure 7.1: Schematic of tank test installation................................................................................................55
Figure 7.2: View of the tank test location ........................................................................................................56
Figure 7.3: Schlumberger oil flowrate vs. reference oil flowrate.....................................................................59
Figure 7.4: Schlumberger oil flowrate error vs. reference GVF ......................................................................59
Figure 7.5: Schlumberger water flowrate vs. reference water flowrate..........................................................60
Figure 7.6: Schlumberger water flowrate error vs. reference GVF.................................................................60
Figure 7.7: Schlumberger liquid flowrate vs. reference liquid flowrate..........................................................61
Figure 7.8: Schlumberger liquid flowrate error vs. reference GVF.................................................................61
Figure 7.9: Schlumberger gas flowrate vs. reference gas flowrate..................................................................62
Figure 7.10: Schlumberger gas flowrate error vs. reference GVF...................................................................62
Figure 7.11: Schlumberger water cut vs. reference water cut.........................................................................63
Figure 7.12: Schlumberger water cut error vs. reference GVF .......................................................................63

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 259/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 7.13: Schlumberger GVF vs. reference GVF ........................................................................................64
Figure 7.14: Schlumberger GVF error vs. reference GVF ...............................................................................64
Figure 7.15: Roxar oil flowrate vs. reference oil flowrate................................................................................66
Figure 7.16: Roxar oil flowrate error vs. reference GVF .................................................................................66
Figure 7.17: Roxar water flowrate vs. reference water flowrate .....................................................................67
Figure 7.18: Roxar water flowrate error vs. reference GVF ............................................................................67
Figure 7.19: Roxar liquid flowrate vs. reference liquid flowrate.....................................................................68
Figure 7.20: Roxar liquid flowrate error vs. reference GVF ............................................................................68
Figure 7.21: Roxar gas flowrate vs. reference gas flowrate.............................................................................69
Figure 7.22: Roxar gas flowrate error vs. reference GVF ................................................................................69
Figure 7.23: Roxar water cut vs. reference water cut......................................................................................70
Figure 7.24: Roxar water cut error vs. reference GVF ....................................................................................70
Figure 7.25: Roxar GVF vs. reference GVF......................................................................................................71
Figure 7.26: Roxar GVF error vs. reference GVF ............................................................................................71
Figure 7.27: FMC oil flowrate vs. reference oil flowrate .................................................................................73
Figure 7.28: FMC oil flowrate error vs. reference GVF ...................................................................................73
Figure 7.29: FMC water flowrate vs. reference water flowrate ......................................................................74
Figure 7.30: FMC water flowrate error vs. reference GVF..............................................................................74
Figure 7.31: FMC liquid flowrate vs. reference liquid flowrate ......................................................................75
Figure 7.32: FMC liquid flowrate error vs. reference GVF .............................................................................75
Figure 7.33: FMC gas flowrate vs. reference gas flowrate ..............................................................................76
Figure 7.34: FMC gas flowrate error vs. reference GVF .................................................................................76
Figure 7.35: FMC water cut vs. reference water cut .......................................................................................77
Figure 7.36: FMC water cut error vs. reference GVF ......................................................................................77
Figure 7.37: FMC GVF vs. reference GVF .......................................................................................................78
Figure 7.38: FMC GVF error vs. reference GVF ..............................................................................................78
Figure 7.39: Repeatability of Schlumberger VX multiphase flow meters.......................................................80
Figure 7.40: Repeatability of Roxar MPFM1900VI multiphase flow meters .................................................80
Figure 8.1: GPB well test map ..........................................................................................................................82
Figure 8.2: GPB well test map, showing Agar-401 qualified operating envelope ..........................................83
Figure 8.3: GPB well test map, showing FMC-Flowsys qualified operating envelope...................................83
Figure 8.4: GPB well test map, showing Roxar MPFM1900VI .......................................................................84
Figure 8.5: GPB well test map, showing Schlumberger VX29 qualified operating envelope ........................84
Figure 8.6: Overall score for portable well testing (Assuming majority of wells lie in meter operating
range)........................................................................................................................................................92
Figure 8.7: Overall score for well pad separator new build (Assuming majority of wells lie in meter
operating range).......................................................................................................................................92
Figure 8.8: Overall score for well pad separator replacement (Assuming majority of wells lie in meter
operating range).......................................................................................................................................93
Figure 8.9: Overall score for well pad separator augmentation (Assuming majority of wells lie in meter
operating range).......................................................................................................................................93
Figure 8.10: Best fit to Agar and Schlumberger liquid flowrate measurement data.....................................94
Figure 9.1: Schematic diagram of Agar MPFM-400 series multiphase flow meter .......................................97
Figure 9.2: Photograph of the Agar-401 multiphase flow meter at the test site ............................................98
Figure 9.3: Agar 401 oil flowrate vs. ASRC reference oil flowrate................................................................102
Figure 9.4: Agar 401 oil flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF .................................................................102
Figure 9.5: Agar 401 oil flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut .........................................103
Figure 9.6: Agar 401 water flowrate vs. ASRC reference water flowrate.....................................................103
Figure 9.7: Agar 401 water flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF............................................................104
Figure 9.8: Agar 401 water flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut ....................................104
Figure 9.9: Agar 401 liquid flowrate vs. ASRC reference liquid flowrate.....................................................105
Figure 9.10: Agar 401 liquid flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF..........................................................105
Figure 9.11: Agar 401 liquid flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut..................................106
Figure 9.12: Agar 401 gas flowrate vs. ASRC reference gas flowrate...........................................................106
Figure 9.13: Agar 401 gas flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF..............................................................107
Figure 9.14: Agar 401 gas flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut ......................................107
Figure 9.15: Agar 401 water cut vs. ASRC reference water cut....................................................................108
Figure 9.16: Agar 401 water cut error vs. ASRC reference GVF ..................................................................108
Figure 9.17: Agar 401 water cut error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut ..........................................109

Page 260/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 9.18: Agar 401 GVF vs. ASRC reference GVF....................................................................................109
Figure 9.19: Agar 401 GVF error vs. ASRC reference GVF ..........................................................................110
Figure 9.20: Agar 401 GVF error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut ..................................................110
Figure 9.21: Agar 401 GOR vs. ASRC reference GOR...................................................................................111
Figure 9.22: Agar 401 GOR error vs. ASRC reference GVF..........................................................................111
Figure 9.23: Agar 401 GOR error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut ..................................................112
Figure 9.24: Agar 401 statistics ......................................................................................................................112
Figure 9.25: Agar 401 cumulative curves.......................................................................................................113
Figure 9.26: Agar 401 cumulative curves.......................................................................................................113
Figure 9.27: Agar 401 repeatability................................................................................................................114
Figure 10.1: Photograph of the Flowsys multiphase flow meter at the test site..........................................117
Figure 10.2: FMC Flowsys oil flowrate vs. ASRC reference oil flowrate ......................................................121
Figure 10.3: FMC Flowsys oil flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF........................................................121
Figure 10.4: FMC Flowsys oil flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut................................122
Figure 10.5: FMC Flowsys water flowrate vs. ASRC reference water flowrate ...........................................122
Figure 10.6: FMC Flowsys water flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF ..................................................123
Figure 10.7: FMC Flowsys water flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut ..........................123
Figure 10.8: FMC Flowsys liquid flowrate vs. ASRC reference liquid flowrate ...........................................124
Figure 10.9: FMC Flowsys liquid flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF ..................................................124
Figure 10.10: FMC Flowsys liquid flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut ........................125
Figure 10.11: FMC Flowsys gas flowrate vs. ASRC reference gas flowrate .................................................125
Figure 10.12: FMC Flowsys gas flowrate error..............................................................................................126
Figure 10.13: FMC Flowsys gas flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut ............................126
Figure 10.14: FMC Flowsys water cut............................................................................................................127
Figure 10.15: FMC Flowsys water cut error ..................................................................................................127
Figure 10.16: FMC Flowsys water cut error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut.................................128
Figure 10.17: FMC Flowsys GVF ...................................................................................................................128
Figure 10.18: FMC Flowsys GVF error ..........................................................................................................129
Figure 10.19: FMC Flowsys GVF error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut.........................................129
Figure 10.20: FMC Flowsys GOR ...................................................................................................................130
Figure 10.21: FMC Flowsys GOR error vs. ASRC reference GVF ................................................................130
Figure 10.22: FMC Flowsys GOR ...................................................................................................................131
Figure 10.23: FMC Flowsys statistics ............................................................................................................131
Figure 10.24: FMC Flowsys cumulative curves .............................................................................................132
Figure 10.25: FMC Flowsys cumulative curves .............................................................................................132
Figure 10.26: FMC Flowsys repeatability ......................................................................................................133
Figure 11.1: Photograph of the Roxar MPFM 1900VI multiphase flow meter at the test site (centre meter,
prior to installation of radioactive source)............................................................................................137
Figure 11.2: Roxar MPFM 1900VI oil flowrate vs. ASRC reference oil flowrate .........................................141
Figure 11.3: Roxar MPFM 1900VI oil flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF ...........................................141
Figure 11.4: Roxar MPFM 1900VI oil flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut ...................142
Figure 11.5: Roxar MPFM 1900VI water flowrate vs. ASRC reference water flowrate ..............................142
Figure 11.6: Roxar MPFM 1900VI water flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF......................................143
Figure 11.7: Roxar MPFM 1900VI water flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut..............143
Figure 11.8: Roxar MPFM 1900VI liquid flowrate vs. ASRC reference liquid flowrate ..............................144
Figure 11.9: Roxar MPFM 1900VI liquid flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF .....................................144
Figure 11.10: Roxar MPFM 1900VI liquid flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut............145
Figure 11.11: Roxar MPFM 1900VI gas flowrate vs. ASRC reference gas flowrate ....................................145
Figure 11.12: Roxar MPFM 1900VI gas flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF .......................................146
Figure 11.13: Roxar MPFM 1900VI gas flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut................146
Figure 11.14: Roxar MPFM 1900VI water cut vs. ASRC reference water cut .............................................147
Figure 11.15: Roxar MPFM 1900VI water cut error vs. ASRC reference GVF ............................................147
Figure 11.16: Roxar MPFM 1900VI water cut error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut ....................148
Figure 11.17: Roxar MPFM 1900VI GVF.......................................................................................................148
Figure 11.18: Roxar MPFM 1900VI GVF error vs. ASRC reference GVF ....................................................149
Figure 11.19: Roxar MPFM 1900VI GVF error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut ............................149
Figure 11.20: Roxar MPFM 1900VI GOR ......................................................................................................150
Figure 11.21: Roxar MPFM 1900VI GOR error vs. ASRC reference GVF....................................................150
Figure 11.22: Roxar MPFM 1900VI GOR error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut............................151
Figure 11.23: Roxar MPFM 1900VI statistics................................................................................................151

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 261/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 11.24: Roxar MPFM 1900VI cumulative curves ................................................................................152
Figure 11.25: Roxar MPFM 1900VI cumulative curves ................................................................................152
Figure 11.26: Roxar MPFM 1900VI repeatability .........................................................................................153
Figure 12.1: Photograph of the Schlumberger multiphase flow meter at the test site ................................157
Figure 12.2: Schlumberger VX29 oil flowrate vs. ASRC reference oil flowrate............................................161
Figure 12.3: Schlumberger VX29 oil flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF .............................................161
Figure 12.4: Schlumberger VX29 oil flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut .....................162
Figure 12.5: Schlumberger VX29 water flowrate vs. ASRC reference water flowrate.................................162
Figure 12.6: Schlumberger VX29 water flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF........................................163
Figure 12.7: Schlumberger VX29 water flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut................163
Figure 12.8: Schlumberger VX29 liquid flowrate vs. ASRC reference liquid flowrate ................................164
Figure 12.9: Schlumberger VX29 liquid flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF........................................164
Figure 12.10: Schlumberger VX29 liquid flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut..............165
Figure 12.11: Schlumberger VX29 gas flowrate vs. ASRC reference gas flowrate.......................................165
Figure 12.12: Schlumberger VX29 gas flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF..........................................166
Figure 12.13: Schlumberger VX29 gas flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut..................166
Figure 12.14: Schlumberger VX29 water cut vs. ASRC reference water cut................................................167
Figure 12.15: Schlumberger VX29 water cut error vs. ASRC reference GVF ..............................................167
Figure 12.16: Schlumberger VX29 water cut error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut ......................168
Figure 12.17: Schlumberger VX29 GVF vs. ASRC reference GVF ...............................................................168
Figure 12.18: Schlumberger VX29 GVF error vs. ASRC reference GVF ......................................................169
Figure 12.19: Schlumberger VX29 GVF error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut ..............................169
Figure 12.20: Schlumberger VX29 GOR vs. ASRC reference GOR...............................................................170
Figure 12.21: Schlumberger VX29 GOR error vs. ASRC reference GVF......................................................170
Figure 12.22: Schlumberger VX29 GOR error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut..............................171
Figure 12.23: Schlumberger VX29 statistics..................................................................................................171
Figure 12.24: Schlumberger VX29 cumulative curves ..................................................................................172
Figure 12.25: Schlumberger VX29 cumulative curves ..................................................................................172
Figure 12.26: Schlumberger VX29 repeatability ...........................................................................................173
Figure 12.27: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) oil flowrate vs. ASRC reference oil flowrate...................177
Figure 12.28: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) oil flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF ....................177
Figure 12.29: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) oil flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
................................................................................................................................................................178
Figure 12.30: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) water flowrate vs. ASRC reference water flowrate........178
Figure 12.31: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) water flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF ...............179
Figure 12.32: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) water flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water
cut ...........................................................................................................................................................179
Figure 12.33: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) liquid flowrate vs. ASRC reference liquid flowrate........180
Figure 12.34: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) liquid flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF ...............180
Figure 12.35: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) liquid flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water
cut ...........................................................................................................................................................181
Figure 12.36: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) gas flowrate vs. ASRC reference gas flowrate................181
Figure 12.37: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) gas flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF ...................182
Figure 12.38: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) gas flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut
................................................................................................................................................................182
Figure 12.39: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) water cut vs. ASRC reference water cut.........................183
Figure 12.40: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) water cut error vs. ASRC reference GVF .......................183
Figure 12.41: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) water cut error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut184
Figure 12.42: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) GVF vs. ASRC reference GVF.........................................184
Figure 12.43: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) GVF error vs. ASRC reference GVF ...............................185
Figure 12.44: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) GVF error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut........185
Figure 12.45: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) GOR vs. ASRC reference GVF ........................................186
Figure 12.46: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) GOR error vs. ASRC reference GVF ...............................186
Figure 12.47: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) GOR error vs. ASRC reference GVF and water cut .......187
Figure 12.48: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) statistics ...........................................................................187
Figure 12.49: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) cumulative curves............................................................188
Figure 12.50: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) cumulative curves............................................................188
Figure 12.51: Schlumberger VX29 (reprocessed) repeatability.....................................................................189
Figure 12.52: Schlumberger VX29 oil flowrate vs. ASRC reference oil flowrate..........................................193

Page 262/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 12.53: Schlumberger VX29 oil flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF ...........................................193
Figure 12.54: Schlumberger VX29 water flowrate vs. ASRC reference water flowrate...............................194
Figure 12.55: Schlumberger VX29 water flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF......................................194
Figure 12.56: Schlumberger VX29 liquid flowrate vs. ASRC reference liquid flowrate ..............................195
Figure 12.57: Schlumberger VX29 liquid flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF......................................195
Figure 12.58: Schlumberger VX29 gas flowrate vs. ASRC reference gas flowrate.......................................196
Figure 12.59: Schlumberger VX29 gas flowrate error vs. ASRC reference GVF..........................................196
Figure 12.60: Schlumberger VX29 water cut vs. ASRC reference water cut................................................197
Figure 12.61: Schlumberger VX29 water cut error vs. ASRC reference GVF ..............................................197
Figure 12.62: Schlumberger VX29 GVF vs. ASRC reference GVF ...............................................................198
Figure 12.63: Schlumberger VX29 GVF error vs. ASRC reference GVF ......................................................198
Figure 12.64: Schlumberger VX29 GOR vs. ASRC reference GOR...............................................................199
Figure 12.65: Schlumberger VX29 GOR error vs. ASRC reference GVF......................................................199
Figure 13.1: ASRC reference liquid rate statistical confidence.....................................................................201
Figure 13.2: ASRC reference gas rate statistical confidence.........................................................................202
Figure 13.3: ASRC reference water cut statistical confidence ......................................................................202
Figure 13.4: V03 2003-09-12 ...........................................................................................................................203
Figure 13.5: V03 2003-09-21 ...........................................................................................................................203
Figure 13.6: V101 2003-09-09 .........................................................................................................................204
Figure 13.7: V101 2003-09-15 .........................................................................................................................204
Figure 13.8: V101 2003-09-28 .........................................................................................................................205
Figure 13.9: V102 2003-09-05 .........................................................................................................................205
Figure 13.10: V102 2003-09-08 .......................................................................................................................206
Figure 13.11: V102 2003-09-13 .......................................................................................................................206
Figure 13.12: V102 2003-09-24 .......................................................................................................................207
Figure 13.13: V103 2003-09-09 .......................................................................................................................207
Figure 13.14: V103 2003-09-13 .......................................................................................................................208
Figure 13.15: V103 2003-09-24 .......................................................................................................................208
Figure 13.16: V106 2003-09-05 .......................................................................................................................209
Figure 13.17: V106 2003-09-07 .......................................................................................................................209
Figure 13.18: V106 2003-09-14 .......................................................................................................................210
Figure 13.19: V106 2003-09-28 .......................................................................................................................210
Figure 13.20: V106 2003-09-29A ....................................................................................................................211
Figure 13.21: V106 2003-09-29B ....................................................................................................................211
Figure 13.22: V106 2003-09-30B ....................................................................................................................212
Figure 13.23: V106 2003-09-30A ....................................................................................................................212
Figure 13.24: V107 2003-09-09 .......................................................................................................................213
Figure 13.25: V107 2003-09-15 .......................................................................................................................213
Figure 13.26: V107 2003-09-22A ....................................................................................................................214
Figure 13.27: V107 2003-09-22B ....................................................................................................................214
Figure 13.28: V107 2003-09-24 .......................................................................................................................215
Figure 13.29: V108 2003-09-009 .....................................................................................................................215
Figure 13.30: V108 2003-09-16 .......................................................................................................................216
Figure 13.31: V108 2003-09-18 .......................................................................................................................216
Figure 13.32: V108 2003-09-22A ....................................................................................................................217
Figure 13.33: V108 2003-09-22B ....................................................................................................................217
Figure 13.34: V108 2003-09-22C ....................................................................................................................218
Figure 13.35: V109 2003-09-10 .......................................................................................................................218
Figure 13.36: V109 2003-09-19 .......................................................................................................................219
Figure 13.37: V109 2003-09-23A ....................................................................................................................219
Figure 13.38: V109 2003-09-23B ....................................................................................................................220
Figure 13.39: V113 2003-09-10 .......................................................................................................................220
Figure 13.40: V113 2003-09-22 .......................................................................................................................221
Figure 13.41: V113 2003-09-27 .......................................................................................................................221
Figure 13.42: V117 2003-09-06 .......................................................................................................................222
Figure 13.43: V117 2003-09-08A ....................................................................................................................222
Figure 13.44: V117 2003-09-08B ....................................................................................................................223
Figure 13.45: V117 2003-09-24 .......................................................................................................................223
Figure 13.46: V201 2003-09-26 .......................................................................................................................224
Figure 13.47: V202 2003-09-10 .......................................................................................................................224

Exploration & Production Technology Group

Page 263/264

CONFIDENTIAL
Figure 13.48: V202 2003-10-01 .......................................................................................................................225
Figure 13.49: V202 2003-09-30 .......................................................................................................................225

16.2

List of tables

Table 5.1: Well specific fluid property data......................................................................................................25


Table 5.2: Well test schedule ............................................................................................................................28
Table 6.1: Summary scores for multiphase flow meter 5% criteria ................................................................32
Table 6.2: RMS average multiphase flow meter deviations ............................................................................32
Table 6.3: proportion of points within range....................................................................................................33
Table 6.4: Summary scores for multiphase flow meter 5% criteria ................................................................34
Table 6.5: RMS average multiphase flow meter deviations ............................................................................34
Table 6.6: proportion of points within range....................................................................................................34
Table 6.7: FMC Flowsys vendor uncertainty specification..............................................................................37
Table 6.8: Roxar MPFM 1900VI vendor uncertainty specification .................................................................39
Table 6.9: Schlumberger VX29 vendor uncertainty specification ...................................................................41
Table 6.10: Repeatability results for the four multiphase flow meters ..........................................................43
Table 7.1: Tank Tests and corrections for the ASRC liquid volumes..............................................................57
Table 8.1: Multiphase meter evaluation criteria weighting .........................................................................90
Table 8.2: Multiphase meter evaluation meter performance .......................................................................91
Table 9.1: Summary scores for multiphase flow meter 5% criteria ................................................................99
Table 9.2: RMS average multiphase flow meter deviations ............................................................................99
Table 9.3: proportion of points within range..................................................................................................100
Table 9.4: Repeatability results for the Agar 401 multiphase flow meter....................................................114
Table 9.5: Agar-401 test results (accuracy) ....................................................................................................115
Table 9.6: Agar-401 test results (repeatability) .............................................................................................116
Table 10.1: Summary scores for multiphase flow meter 5% criteria ............................................................118
Table 10.2: RMS average multiphase flow meter deviations ........................................................................118
Table 10.3: proportion of points within range................................................................................................119
Table 10.4: Repeatability results for the four multiphase flow meters ........................................................133
Table 10.5: FMC Flowsys test results (accuracy)...........................................................................................134
Table 10.6: FMC Flowsys test results (repeatability)....................................................................................135
Table 11.1: Summary scores for multiphase flow meter 5% criteria ............................................................138
Table 11.2: RMS average multiphase flow meter deviations ........................................................................138
Table 11.3: proportion of points within range................................................................................................139
Table 11.4: Repeatability results for the four multiphase flow meters ........................................................153
Table 11.5: Roxar MPFM 1900VI test results (accuracy)..............................................................................154
Table 11.6: Roxar MPFM 1900VI test results (repeatability) .......................................................................155
Table 12.1: Summary scores for multiphase flow meter 5% criteria ............................................................158
Table 12.2: RMS average multiphase flow meter deviations ........................................................................159
Table 12.3: proportion of points within range................................................................................................159
Table 12.4: Repeatability results for the four multiphase flow meters ........................................................173
Table 12.5: Schlumberger VX29 test results (accuracy) ................................................................................174
Table 12.6: Schlumberger VX29 test results (repeatability) .........................................................................175
Table 12.7: Repeatability results for the four multiphase flow meters ........................................................189
Table 12.8: Schlumberger VX29 reprocessed test results (accuracy)............................................................190
Table 12.9: Schlumberger VX29 reprocessed test results (repeatability).....................................................191
Table 14.1: Meter fluid property calibration requirements...........................................................................228
Table 14.2: Wells to be used for preliminary well tests .................................................................................228
Table 14.3: Oil property data from BP ...........................................................................................................234
Table 14.4: Oil properties measured by FMC ................................................................................................235
Table 14.5: Water property data from BP ......................................................................................................235
Table 14.6: Water properties measured by FMC ...........................................................................................236
Table 14.7: Gas property data from BP..........................................................................................................237
Table 14.8: Gas property data from Schlumberger........................................................................................237

Page 264/264

Exploration & Production Technology Group