Student name: Kiyuga, Nyorobi Busanda

TPG4530: Reservoir Engineering, Specialization Project

Field Development Studies of an Offshore

Gas Asset in Tanzania
Case study: Block 2 Offshore Tanzania

Dar es Salaam, 6th January, 2016

NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology
Department of Petroleum Engineering and Applied Geophysics
Abstract
Development of new gas field involves multiple disciplines and requires immense knowledge,
extensive experience and expertise, in order to come up with a feasible planning and strategy
for gas production. The aim of this project was to perform Field Development Studies of an
offshore Gas Field in Tanzania using reservoir and surface network simulations. The study
was specifically done on Block 2 offshore which is operated by Statoil Tanzania in
partnership with ExxonMobil Exploration and Production Tanzania Limited.

Block 2 is the new Gas field in Tanzania which is still under development; Statoil Tanzania
has proposed the initial production strategy (In this context referred as phase I) of three
reservoirs which are Zafarani, Lavani Main and Lavani Deep. The study was performed using
few published data, engineering calculations and reasonable assumptions, because most of the
data were sensitive and not yet been disclosed.

By using Excel model, a simple material balance for dry gas reservoir combined with
depletion studies and hydrostatic calculations were performed to determine the production
plateau length of the production system. In order to prolong the plateau length, economic
sensitivity analysis on increasing number of wells was then performed. This analysis yielded
the best case scenario which was able to extend the plateau length by 8.7 years.

HYSYS simulator was used to evaluate details of multiphase flow in the main transportation
pipeline, and compare the main pipeline pressure drop results obtained using HYSYS and
those obtained using Excel calculations.

Results showed that, estimated plateau rate of 13.6MMSCMD could be produced for 31.35
years, after increasing 2 wells in each reservoir the production plateau length was increased to
39 years with the added profit of 169,417 Million USD. The pressure drop obtained using
HYSYS simulator was higher compared to that of simple Excel calculations. The liquid
holdup was very low with the flow regime changing from vapour flow, stratified flow and
ending up to wavy flow. HYSYS indicated risk of hydrate formation in the main transport
pipeline, gas stream and liquid stream.

i
Acknowledgment
I would like to express special thanks to my supervisor Professor Stanko Milan, for his
continuous support, motivation and immense knowledge that he has been providing me in
order to accomplish my project. His guidance is highly appreciated.

I would also like to thank other co-supervisors Professor Richard Rwechungura, Dir. Ambrose
Itika and Miss Ghati Mwita for their support and insightful comments for my project.

My sincere thanks also go to Statoil, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

(NTNU) and University of Dar es Salaam (UDSM) for their financial support and facilitating
my project.

Unique gratitude goes to my lovely mother, Miss Mary Mhango, my friends and relatives for
their moral support throughout my project and life in general. You are all appreciated.

ii
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ i
Acknowledgment ........................................................................................................................ ii
List of Figure ............................................................................................................................. vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................ vii
List of Equations ...................................................................................................................... viii
Nomenclature............................................................................................................................. ix
Greek ......................................................................................................................................... xi
Units .......................................................................................................................................... xi
Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
1.0 Introduction and Background ........................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Objectives ............................................................................................................. 2
1.1.0 Main objective ........................................................................................................... 2
1.1.1 Specific objectives ..................................................................................................... 2
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ 3
2.0 Natural Gas Reservoirs ..................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Natural Gas Classifications, Components and Properties ................................................ 3
2.2 Natural Gas Mixtures ....................................................................................................... 5
2.2.0 Gas Volumetric Properties ........................................................................................ 5
2.2.1 Ideal Gas Equation..................................................................................................... 5
2.2.2 Real Gas Equation ..................................................................................................... 5
2.2.3 Gas Formation Volume factor (𝐵𝑔).......................................................................... 5
2.2.4 Z-factor ...................................................................................................................... 6
2.2.5 Gas Pseudo Critical Properties .................................................................................. 7
2.2.6 Gas Specific Gravity.................................................................................................. 8
2.2.7 Gas Viscosity ............................................................................................................. 8
2.3 Block 2 Natural Gas in Tanzania ...................................................................................... 9
2.4 Gas Field Development .................................................................................................. 11
2.4.1 Life Cycle of Gas Field ........................................................................................... 11
2.4.2 Development Concept ............................................................................................. 12
2.4.3 Gas Field Modeling ................................................................................................. 16
2.4.4 Gas Well Deliverability ........................................................................................... 18

iii
 2.4.5 IPR Concept for Gas Reservoir ............................................................................... 18
2.4.6 Gas Flow in Well Tubing, Flowlines and Pipelines ................................................ 20
2.4.7 Flow Control and Conditioning ............................................................................... 22
2.4.8 Flow Equilibrium Analysis ...................................................................................... 23
2.4.9 Production Scheduling............................................................................................. 26
2.4.10 Surface Networks and Gathering Systems ............................................................ 29
2.4.11 Common kind of Gathering System ...................................................................... 29
2.4.12 Network Solving .................................................................................................... 29
2.4.13 Field Flow Assurance Issues ................................................................................. 30
2.5 Economic Analysis ......................................................................................................... 33
3.3.1 NPV ......................................................................................................................... 34
3.3.2 Payback .................................................................................................................... 34
3.3.3 IRR .......................................................................................................................... 35
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 36
3.0 Literature Survey ............................................................................................................ 36
3.1 Consultations .................................................................................................................. 37
3.3 Plateau Rate Estimation .................................................................................................. 37
3.2 Excel Model.................................................................................................................... 37
3.4 The Pressure used in Backpressure Equation ................................................................. 37
3.5 Tubing, Flowline and Pipeline Calculations .................................................................. 38
3.6 The 𝐶𝑅 Estimate ............................................................................................................ 39
3.7 Production Plateau Duration ........................................................................................... 41
3.8 Prolonging the Plateau .................................................................................................... 43
3.9 Economic Model ............................................................................................................ 43
3.10 HYSYS Simulator ........................................................................................................ 44
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION............................................................... 46
4.0 Production Plateau Profile .............................................................................................. 46
4.1 Prolonging the Plateau .................................................................................................... 48
4.2 HYSYS Results .............................................................................................................. 49
4.2.1 Comparison of Pressure Drops in the Main Transportation Pipe ............................ 49
4.2.2 Details of Multiphase Flow in the Main Transportation Pipeline ........................... 50
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................... 56
5.0 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 56

iv
 5.5 Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 56
Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 57
Appendix A: Information of Block 2, Phase I Production ................................................... 57
Appendix B: Pseudo Pressure Function Calculations .......................................................... 57
Appendix C: 𝐶𝑇 𝐶𝐹𝐿 and 𝐶𝑃𝐿 Calculations ........................................................................ 59
Appendix D: 𝐶𝑅 Estimates ................................................................................................... 65
Appendix E: Graphs for Prolonging the Plateau Length ...................................................... 67
Appendix F: HYSYS Model ................................................................................................ 68
References ................................................................................................................................ 75

v
List of Figure
Figure 1: Gas Reservoirs discoveries in Block 2. Courtesy of Statoil Tanzania ........................ 2
Figure 2: Standing and Katz Z-factor chart (Gudmundsson, 2012) ........................................... 7
Figure 3: Seabed topography of Tanzania Gas Project (Holm, 2015)...................................... 10
Figure 4: Subsea Layout (Holm, 2015) .................................................................................... 10
Figure 5: Evolution of Gas field ............................................................................................... 11
Figure 6: Field development alternatives, courtesy of Statoil .................................................. 13
Figure 7: (a) Configuration of well in a template/cluster (b) Configuration of satellite wells . 14
Figure 8: Offshore structures with their water depths (Diego Vannucci, 2011) ...................... 15
Figure 9: Natural gas transportation technologies (Dale, 2013) ............................................... 16
Figure 10: Heat transfer in a pipeline (Guðmundsson, 2011) .................................................. 22
Figure 11: Natural Gas Products (Gudmundsson, 2012).......................................................... 23
Figure 12: Schematic view of the flow equilibrium calculation .............................................. 24
Figure 13: Available and required curves during equilibrium analysis (Hossain, 2008) ......... 24
Figure 14: Nodes in the production system (Hossain, 2008). .................................................. 25
Figure 15: Possible pressure losses in a production system, courtesy of Rawlins and Shellhardt
.................................................................................................................................................. 25
Figure 16: Schematic production patterns of the gas reservoir (A. Rojey, 1997). ................... 26
Figure 17: Gathering networks courtesy of Szilas (1975) ........................................................ 29
Figure 18: Gas hydrate structure (Schulumberger , 2010) ....................................................... 31
Figure 19: Hydrate phase diagram (Bokin, et al., 2010) .......................................................... 31
Figure 20: Flow patterns in horizontal and vertical components (Stopford, 2011) .................. 32
Figure 21: Cash flow versus time during field development (Svalheim, 2005) ....................... 34
Figure 22: Production strategy principles proposed by Statoil (Holm, 2015) .......................... 36
Figure 23: Layouts of production system (a) only Zafarani is producing (b) all reservoirs are
connected .................................................................................................................................. 39
Figure 24: Configuration of DST to estimate 𝐶𝑅 for Zafarani ................................................. 40
Figure 25: Configuration to estimate 𝐶𝑅 for Lavani Main and Lavani Deep .......................... 41
Figure 26 : Flow equilibrium calculation to determine plateau length .................................... 42
Figure 27: HYSYS Setup ......................................................................................................... 45
Figure 28: Production Plateau Profile ...................................................................................... 46
Figure 29: Pressure Evolution during plateau .......................................................................... 47
Figure 30: Best Case, Prolonged Plateau Length ..................................................................... 49
Figure 31: Temperature and Pressure Profiles for the HYSYS First Case ............................... 50
Figure 32: Temperature and Pressure Profiles for the HYSYS Second Case .......................... 51
Figure 33: Temperature, Pressure and Liquid Holdup Profiles for the HYSYS First Case ..... 51
Figure 34: Temperature, Pressure and Liquid Holdup Profiles for the HYSYS Second Case 52
Figure 35: Liquid Holdup Profiles against Elevation for the HYSYS First Case .................... 52
Figure 36: Liquid Holdup Profiles against Elevation for the HYSYS Second Case................ 53

vi
List of Tables
Table 1: Typical chemical composition of natural gas (Demirbas, 2010).................................. 4
Table 2: Typical combustion properties of natural gas (Demirbas, 2010) ................................. 4
Table 3: Example of field development plan matrix (Rodriguez-Sanchez*, et al., 2012) ....... 12
Table 4 : Cases for Wells Addition .......................................................................................... 43
Table 5: Economic analysis on added wells ............................................................................. 48
Table 6: Pressure Drop Comparison......................................................................................... 50
Table 7: Flow Patterns for HYSYS First Case ......................................................................... 53
Table 8: Flow Patterns for HYSYS Second Case .................................................................... 53
Table 9: Hydrate Formation in the Main Pipelines for HYSYS First Case ............................. 54
Table 10: Hydrate Formation in the Main Pipelines for HYSYS Second Case ....................... 54
Table 11: Hydrate Formation in the Streams for HYSYS First Case ....................................... 54
Table 12: Hydrate Formation in the Streams for HYSYS Second Case .................................. 55

vii
List of Equations
2- 1 .............................................................................................................................................. 5
2- 2 .............................................................................................................................................. 5
2- 3 .............................................................................................................................................. 5
2- 4 .............................................................................................................................................. 6
2- 5 .............................................................................................................................................. 6
2- 6 .............................................................................................................................................. 6
2- 7 .............................................................................................................................................. 7
2- 8 .............................................................................................................................................. 8
2- 9 .............................................................................................................................................. 8
2- 10 ............................................................................................................................................ 8
2- 11 ............................................................................................................................................ 8
2- 12 ............................................................................................................................................ 8
2- 13 ............................................................................................................................................ 9
2- 14 ............................................................................................................................................ 9
2- 15 .......................................................................................................................................... 17
2- 16 .......................................................................................................................................... 17
2- 17 .......................................................................................................................................... 17
2- 18 .......................................................................................................................................... 18
2- 19 .......................................................................................................................................... 18
2- 20 .......................................................................................................................................... 19
2- 21 .......................................................................................................................................... 19
2- 22 .......................................................................................................................................... 19
2- 23 .......................................................................................................................................... 19
2- 24 .......................................................................................................................................... 20
2- 25 .......................................................................................................................................... 20
2- 26 .......................................................................................................................................... 20
2- 27 .......................................................................................................................................... 20
2- 28 .......................................................................................................................................... 21
2- 29 .......................................................................................................................................... 21
2- 30 .......................................................................................................................................... 21
2- 31 .......................................................................................................................................... 22
2- 32 .......................................................................................................................................... 27
2- 33 .......................................................................................................................................... 27
2- 34 .......................................................................................................................................... 33
2- 35 .......................................................................................................................................... 33
2- 36 .......................................................................................................................................... 34
2- 37 .......................................................................................................................................... 35
3- 1…………………………………………………………………………………………….43

viii
Nomenclature

∆𝑃𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑘𝑒 Pressure drop across the choke

∆𝑃𝑡 Total pressure drop

𝐵𝑔 Formation volume factor of gas

𝐵𝑔𝑖 Initial formation volume factor of gas

𝐵𝑤 Formation volume factor of water

𝐵𝑤𝑖 Initial formation volume factor of water

𝐶1 Methane

𝐶2 Ethane

𝐶3 Propane

𝐶4 Butane

𝐶5 Pentane

𝐶𝐹𝐿 Flowline Coefficient

𝐶𝑃𝐿 Pipeline Coefficient

𝐶𝑇 Tubing Coefficient

𝐶𝑇𝑛𝑒𝑤 New tubing Coefficient

𝐶𝑇𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 Present tubing Coefficient

𝐶𝑝 Specific heat capacity at constant pressure

𝐺𝑖 Initial gas in place

𝐺𝑝 Cumulative produced gas

𝐺𝑝𝑢 Ultimate cumulative produce gas

𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑟 Air molecular weight

𝑀𝑔 Gas molecular weight

𝑀𝑤 Molecular weight

𝑀𝑤𝑖 Molecular weight of an individual component

𝑃𝑖𝑛 Pressure at the inlet of the pipe

𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 Pressure at the outlet of the pipe

ix
𝑃𝑤𝑓 Flowing bottomhole pressure

𝑆𝑤𝑖 Irreducible water saturation

𝑇𝑅 Temperature at reservoir conditions

𝑇𝑐 Critical temperature

𝑇𝑝𝑐 Pseudo critical temperature

𝑇𝑟 Pseudo reduce temperature

𝑇𝑠𝑐 Temperature at standard conditions

𝑉𝑅 Gas volume at reservoir conditions

𝑉𝑠𝑐 Gas volume at standard conditions

𝑊𝑒 Water influx

𝑊𝑖 Injected water

𝑊𝑝 Produced water

𝑍𝑅 Gas deviation factor at reservoir conditions

𝑍𝑖 Initial gas deviation factor

𝑍𝑠𝑐 Gas deviation factor at standard conditions

𝑐𝑓 Fluid compressibility

𝑐𝑡 Total compressibility

𝑐𝑤 Water compressibility

𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) Pseudo reduced reservoir pressure function

𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 ) Pseudo reduced bottomhole pressure function
𝑞𝑔𝑠𝑐 Gas rate at standard conditions

𝑝𝑅 Pressure at reservoir conditions

𝑝𝑐 Critical pressure

𝑝𝑖 Initial pressure

𝑝𝑜 Reference pressure

𝑝𝑝𝑐 Pseudo critical pressure

𝑝𝑟 Pseudo reduce pressure

𝑝𝑠𝑐 Pressure at standard conditions

𝑦𝑖 Mole fraction of an individual component

x
𝐷 Pipe diameter

𝐺 Gas volume

𝐿 Pipe length

𝑈 Overall Heat transfer Coefficient

𝑍 Gas deviation factor

𝑘 Permeability

𝑚 Mass

𝑛 Number of moles

𝑟 Radius

𝑦 Reduced-density parameter

Greek
𝛾𝑔 Gas specific gravity

𝜇𝑔 Gas viscosity

𝜌𝑔 Gas density

𝜋 Pie

𝜙 Porosity

Units
Bara Absolute bar

℃ Degree Celsius
cP Centipoise
K Kelvin
Kg-mole/hr Kilogram mole per hour
m/s meter per second
mg/m3 milligram per cubic meters
MJ/m3 Mega Joule per cubic meters
Sm3 Standard cubic meters
Sm3/Bara2 Standard cubic meters per squared absolute bar

xi
Abbreviations
AOF Absolute Open Flow potential

CAPEX Capital Expenditures

CF Cash Flow
CMG Computer Modelling Group
CNG Compressed Natural Gas
Drillex Drilling Expenditures
DST Drill Stem Test
EOS Equation of State
Eq. Equation
FPSO Floating, Production Storage
HC Hydrocarbon
HSE Health Safety and Environment
HTC Heat transfer Coefficient
IGIP Initial Gas in Place
IRR Internal Rate of Return
LD Lavani Deep
LM Lavani Main
LNG Liquefied Natural Gas
LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas
MEG Mono Ethelyne Glycol
NGLs Natural Gas liquids
NPV Net Present Value
NTNU Norwegian University of Science and Technology
OPEX Operating Expenditures
PVT Pressure Volume and Temperature
qFieldLD Lavani Deep Field Rate
qFieldLM Lavani Main Field Rate
qFieldZ Zafarani Field Rate

xii
qT Total Field Rate
R.F Recovery Factor
SPAR Seagoing Platform for Acoustic Research
STP Standard Temperature and Pressure
TLP Tension Leg Platforms
TRR Total Recoverable Reserves
U.S United State
USD United State Dollar
VBA Visual Basic for Applications

xiii
 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.0 Introduction and Background

Hydrocarbon explorations both offshore and onshore in Tanzania have been underway since
1952, whereby numerous multinational oil and gas companies have been involved in these
activities. Up to date, there is no oil reserve has been found, only natural gas estimated to
1.557 Trillion cubic meter has been discovered. Five onshore discoveries in total have been
made including, Songo Songo, Mnazi Bay, Mkuranga, Kiliwani-North and Ntorya of which
only two discoveries (Songo Songo and Mnazi Bay) are currently commercially exploited.
Other significant discoveries are found in the deep sea offshore at Block 1, 2, 3 and 5.

The field development study in this project was based on the Block 2 Gas field of an offshore
in Tanzania. Statoil Tanzania is currently operating Block 2 with 65% interest and
ExxonMobil Exploration and Production Tanzania Limited as a partner having 35% interests.
Block 2 comprises of eight discoveries which are Zafarani, Lavani, Tangawizi, Mronge,
Mdalasini, Giligiliani and Piri as mapped in Figure 1 (Holm, 2015). The good reservoir
quality was confirmed after a drill stem test (DST) on Zafarani reservoir (Michelsen, 2014) .

Gas field development planning involves multiple disciplines to bring out a field development
plan process which should be technically feasible as well as economically viable. The
production capacity and the production plateau length are necessary components for the
development.

The study in this project was primarily done using simple Excel calculations and HYSYS
Simulator. The study contains more or less information from the real field data and other
information are reasonably assumed. This study was interested in the phase I of natural gas
production strategy proposed by Statoil which involves three reservoirs named Zafarani,
Lavani Main and Lavani Deep. The study included gas production from the reservoir
combined with surface networks simulations, as well as performing analysis on flow
assurance during a life time of gas production.

1
 Figure 1: Gas Reservoirs discoveries in Block 2. Courtesy of Statoil Tanzania

1.1 Project Objectives

1.1.0 Main objective

To perform a field development study on an offshore Tanzania gas asset using reservoir and
surface network simulations

1.1.1 Specific objectives

i. To determine the production profile of the field using the production system and
strategy proposed by Statoil
ii. To explore potential modifications and additions to the production system in order to
prolong the plateau
iii. To evaluate potential field flow assurance issues on hydrates and slugging during the
life of the asset

2
 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Natural Gas Reservoirs

Natural Gas is a combustible fossil fuel predominantly composed of methane. It also contains
small amount of other gases such as ethane, propane, butane and pentane. Natural gas is
found in the subsurface porous and permeable reservoir rock.

The porous and permeable subsurface rock at elevated temperature and pressure is called
reservoir, in other theory is referred as the high temperature and pressure reactor used to
slowly convert deposited organic matter into oil and gas. Reservoir compositions and nature
depends on depositional environment and geologic maturation of the formation. Typically
speaking of gas reservoirs, the fluid compositions of such reservoir is of low complexity as it
contains fluids of low-molecular weights. In the order of increasing complexity, gas reservoir
fluids can be arranged as follows: dry gas, wet gas and gas condensate (Curtis H. Whiston,
2000).

2.1 Natural Gas Classifications, Components and Properties

Natural gas may either occur together with oil or with no underlying oil column; the former
occurrence is given by name as associated gas which could be gas cap or gas dissolved in oil,
the latter occurrence is called non associated gas. Natural gas is also divided into sour and
sweet gas, this division depends on the hydrogen Sulfide and carbon dioxide content. The gas
with high content of either mentioned component is considered sour gas (Johansen, 2011).

Natural gas contains both simple hydrocarbon compounds and one or more non hydrocarbon
compounds. Based on the amount and content, natural gas is named differently. When natural
gas contains almost 95% of methane (C1) and other compounds like propane and butane, the
mixture gas is called dry natural gas because at standard temperature and pressure (STP) there
will be no liquid content. When the mixture is contained with heavier liquids such as pentane,
Natural gas will contain what is called Natural Gas liquids (NGLs) because heavier
components are liquid at STP. Lastly, when natural gas is comprised with non-hydrocarbon
compounds such as carbon dioxide, water vapour and hydrogen Sulfide, the mixture formed is
called wet natural gas, (Pratte, 2004). Typical compositions of natural gas are shown in Table
1.

3
 Table 1: Typical chemical composition of natural gas (Demirbas, 2010)

Component Typical analysis (volume %) Range (volume %)

Methane 94.9 87.0–96.0
Ethane 2.5 1.8–5.1
Propane 0.2 0.1–1.5
Isobutene 0.03 0.01–0.3
n-Butane 0.03 0.01–0.3
Isopentane 0.01 Trace to 0.14
n-Pentane 0.01 Trace to 0.14
Hexane 0.01 Trace to 0.06
Nitrogen 1.6 1.3–5.6
Carbon dioxide 0.7 0.1–1.0
Oxygen 0.02 0.01–0.1
Hydrogen Trace Trace to 0.02

Natural gas has different chemical and physical properties Table 2 shows typical combustion
properties of natural gas. These properties are not guaranteed to be the same, may change
from region to region.

Table 2: Typical combustion properties of natural gas (Demirbas, 2010)

Ignition point 876 K

Flammability limits 4–16 volume% (in air)
Theoretical flame temperature (stoichiometric air-to-fuel ratio) 2,233 K
Maximum flame velocity 0.3 m/s
Specific gravity (relative density) 0.583
Water vapor content 16–32 mg/m3
Sulfur content 5.5 mg/m3
Higher heating value (dry basis) 36.0–40.2 MJ/m3

4
2.2 Natural Gas Mixtures

2.2.0 Gas Volumetric Properties

Volumetric behaviour of gas reservoirs is described by a standard equation of real gas law
(Eq. (2-2)). All properties of gas such as; gas density (𝜌𝑔 ), gas specific gravity (𝛾𝑔 ) and gas
molar volume are derived from this equation.

2.2.1 Ideal Gas Equation

Boyles and Charles performed experiment at low pressure which led to the ideal gas law (Eq.
(2-1)). This equation relates the volume, moles of gas and pressure at given temperature. The
equation is derived by assuming that, gas molecules are not interacted and their sizes are
negligible. The gas equation can be expressed at standard conditions when pressure equals to
1 Bara and temperature equals to 15.56 ℃.

2- 1
𝑝𝑉 = 𝑛𝑅𝑇

Whereby, 𝑝 is the pressure, 𝑉 is the volume, 𝑛 is the number of moles, 𝑇 is the temperature
and 𝑅 is the universal gas constant.

2.2.2 Real Gas Equation

At relatively high pressure and low temperature real gas law holds, the ideal gas equation is
then modified by introducing a dimensionless quantity Z called gas deviation factor. This
introduction yielded an equation of state for gases (EOS) (Eq. (2-2)).

𝑝𝑉 = 𝑍𝑛𝑅𝑇 2- 2

2.2.3 Gas Formation Volume factor (𝑩𝒈 )

This factor provides the relation between the gas volumes of in the reservoir conditions to the
volume of produced gas at standard conditions. The expression is given as shown on Eq. 2-3

𝑉𝑅 𝑝𝑠𝑐 𝑍𝑅 𝑇𝑅 2- 3
𝐵𝑔 = =
𝑉𝑠𝑐 𝑇𝑠𝑐 𝑍𝑠𝑐 𝑝𝑅

5
Whereby, parameters with subscript 𝑅 are expressed at reservoir conditions, and those with
subscript 𝑠𝑐 are expressed at standard conditions.

2.2.4 Z-factor
Gas deviation factor is the useful thermodynamic property which relates the molar volume of
real gas to that of ideal gas, at the same temperature and pressure. For an Ideal gas, Z-factor is
unity. Generally, Z-factor to predict the gas behaviour is presented by Standing and Katz Z-
factor chart (Figure 2). However, some authors have empirically generated equations which fit
to the original Standing-Katz chart. Hall and Yarborough present an accurate empirical
expression of the Standing- Katz chart using Carnahan-Starling hard-sphere EOS (Eq. 2-4).

𝑝𝑝𝑟 2- 4
𝑍 = 𝛼
𝑦
Whereby,
𝛼 = 0.06125𝑡𝑒𝑥𝑝[−1.2(1 − 𝑡)2 ], 𝑡 = 1⁄𝑇 ,
𝑝𝑟

𝑦 is the reduced-density parameter which is solved as;

𝑦 + 𝑦2 + 𝑦3 − 𝑦4
𝑓(𝑦) = 0 = −𝛼𝑝𝑝𝑟 + − (14.76𝑡 − 9.76𝑡 2 + 4.58𝑡 3 )𝑦 2
(1 − 𝑦)3
+ (90.7𝑡 − 242.2𝑡 2 + 42.4𝑡 3 )𝑦 2.18+2.82𝑡 2- 5

Derivative of Eq. 2-5 yields Eq. 2-6,

𝑑𝑓(𝑦) 𝑦 + 4𝑦 + 4𝑦 2 + 4𝑦 3 − 𝑦 4
= − (29.52𝑡 − 19.52𝑡 2 + 9.16𝑡 3 )𝑦
𝑑𝑦 (1 − 𝑦)4
+ (2.18 + 2.82𝑡)(90.7𝑡 − 242.2𝑡 2 + 42.4𝑡 3 )𝑦 2.18+2.82𝑡 2- 6

The expression is solved by Newton-Raphson procedure with initial seed of 𝑦 = 0.001, the
convergence to obtain a solution is always between 3 to 10 iterations (Curtis H. Whiston,
2000).

6
 Figure 2: Standing and Katz Z-factor chart (Gudmundsson, 2012)

2.2.5 Gas Pseudo Critical Properties

In multicomponent systems normalization of pressure and temperature to pseudo reduced
pressure and temperature is usually done, the use of normalized parameters makes the gas
properties to be similar even if the composition is changed. The pseudo reduced pressure (𝑝𝑟 )
and pseudo reduce pressure (𝑇𝑟 ) are expressed as 𝑝𝑟 = 𝑝/𝑝𝑐 and 𝑇𝑟 = 𝑇/𝑇𝑐 respectively.
Where 𝑝𝑐 and 𝑇𝑐 are critical pressure and temperature respectively. 𝑇𝑐 and 𝑝𝑐 are valid for
most pure components, the same relation can be used for gas mixture when mixture pseudo
properties (𝑇𝑝𝑐 and 𝑝𝑝𝑐 ) are used.

Pseudo critical properties for hydrocarbon mixtures (HC) as suggested by Sutton are given in
Eq. 2-7 and Eq. 2-8.

2
𝑇𝑝𝑐HC = 169.2 + 349.5𝛾𝑔HC − 74.0 𝛾𝑔HC 2- 7

7
 2
𝑃𝑝𝑐HC = 756.8 − 131𝛾𝑔HC − 3.6𝛾𝑔HC
2- 8
Z-factor, viscosity and other gas properties have been correlated accurately with the reduced
pressure and temperature (Curtis H. Whiston, 2000).

2.2.6 Gas Specific Gravity

The gas gravity is defined as the ratio of the molecular weight of a natural gas (𝑀𝑤 ) to that of
air (𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑟 ). For single component 𝛾𝑔 is expressed using Eq. 2-9, and for more than one
component in the system Eq. 2-10 is used.

𝑀𝑤
𝛾𝑔 =
𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑟 2- 9

∑ 𝑀𝑤𝑖 𝑦𝑖
𝛾𝑔 =
𝑀𝑎𝑖𝑟 2- 10
Whereby, 𝑦𝑖 is the mole fraction of an individual component and 𝑀𝑤𝑖 is the molecular
weight of an individual component.

The gravity of the pure methane is equal to 0.55. But if the gas reservoir contains heavy gases
the gravity may be equal to 0.75 or, rarely higher than 0.9 (Michael J. Economides, 1994).

2.2.7 Gas Viscosity

The typical viscosity range for reservoir gas is from 0.01 to 0.03cP at both surface and
reservoir conditions. Gas viscosities are mostly predicted using graphical correlation rather
than being measured in laboratories (Curtis H. Whiston, 2000). Different reliable correlations
have been developed to estimate gas viscosities such as Dempsey, Lucas and Lee Gonzalez.

Lee Gonzalez correlation

𝜇𝑔 = 𝐴1 𝑥10−4 exp(𝐴2 𝜌𝑔 𝐴3 ) 2- 11
Where,

(9.379 + 0.01607𝑀𝑔 )𝑇 1.5

𝐴1 =
209.2 + 19.26𝑀𝑔 + 𝑇 2- 12
8
 986.4
𝐴2 = 3.448 + ( ) + 0.01009𝑀𝑔
𝑇 2- 13

𝐴3 = 2.447 − 0.2224𝐴2 2- 14

Whereby, 𝜇𝑔 is expressed in cP, 𝜌𝑔 in g/cm3 and 𝑇 in oR

The accuracy of this correlation is from 0.02 to 0.04 for gas specific gravity less than 1.0 and
with errors up to 0.2 for gas condensates with specific gravity greater than 1.5.

2.3 Block 2 Natural Gas in Tanzania

Statoil operates the licence of Block 2 in offshore Tanzania with co-venture Exxon Mobil
Exploration and Production Tanzania Limited. Exploration program started in 2012, and up to
date total of thirteen (13) wells has been drilled, of which eight (8) were successful including
Zafarini-1, Lavani-1, Lavani-2, Tangawizi-1, Giligiliani-1, Mronge-1, Piri-1 and Mdalasini-1
(Maden, 2015). Block 2 covers the area of approximately 5,500 Km2, lying in water depths
between 1,500 to 3,000 m, and the combined discoveries sum up to 0.623 Trillion cubic
meters of Initial Gas in Place (IGIP) (Statoil, 2015).

The good reservoir quality and connectivity was confirmed after the DST test operation on
Zafarani-2. The well was flowed at maximum of 1.869MMSCMD, constrained by equipment.
The obtained production rate of the well is estimated to be higher than the rate obtained during
the test (Michelsen, 2014).

The seabed is characterised with large canyons, and steep inclination of +40 to +50 towards the
shore. The steep escarpment near onshore are 20 to 30 degrees are also observed. The sea
water surface temperature may be approximated to 30 ℃, while that in deep water is +3 to
+4 ℃. The development concept chosen is the subsea tie back to the onshore Liquefied
Natural Gas plant. The large scale seabed topography and the field layout are illustrated in
Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively. However, the subsea layout and concept are still under
development with the production capacity still being evaluated. Discovered reservoir fluids

9
are very dry, and according flow assurance risk study, the presence of low liquid conditions
was indicated, in which multiple holdup solutions exist (Holm, 2015).

Figure 3: Seabed topography of Tanzania Gas Project (Holm, 2015)

Figure 4: Subsea Layout (Holm, 2015)

10
2.4 Gas Field Development
The Development of gas field is a complex task which involves multiple disciplines, these
disciplines include, Seismic–Reservoir, Drilling, reservoir engineering, Metocean data,
Seabed survey, production engineering, Facilities, Pipelines Flow assurance/fluids Process,
Subsea, HSE &Cost estimation. All of them working together to develop a field plan which is
capable of exploiting the gas resource optimally, by considering different criteria such as
safety, cost, accessibility and maintenance issues.

2.4.1 Life Cycle of Gas Field

Evolution of a gas field involves five crucial stages from exploration stage to abandonment
stage, as illustrated on Figure 5. Each stage has its own activities, risks, cost and time
duration. Lifespan of a gas field generally ranges from 15 to 30 years and can go up to 50
years or more for giant reserves (Planete Energies, 2015).

Exploration Appraisal Development Production Abandonment

Figure 5: Evolution of Gas field

Before exploration activities specific company is awarded with prospecting license, afterwards
exploration takes place, whereby several geological and geophysical surveys are done to
identify the prospect. Drilling of the exploration well is then done to obtain further data and
see if the prospect exists. When the drilling activities are accomplished and the results
encountered a potential reservoir, further appraisal drilling is undertaken to see if the
discovery is commercial.

Development stage starts once, after the prospect has been approved to be both technically and
economically viable. The following activities are accounted during production stages

 Detailed engineering (number of wells, production plateau)

 Construction and installation
 Commissioning

Issues addressed during production include maintaining of the plateau, additional of new wells
if necessary, maintenance of the facilities, transportation of the gas, possibilities to improve
recovery.

11
The final stage of the gas field is abandonment, this happens when the reservoir is no longer
economical (the production has reached to the tail) issue addressed includes plugging wells,
dismantling of the facilities and decommissioning.

2.4.2 Development Concept

During field development plan processes, it is important to identify development concepts, in
a technical feasible manner and in the best economic performance manner. The main objective
is to maximize the revenue of the given investment. Conveniently, all possible concepts are
identified, resulting in a field development plan matrix which is comprised of decision
variables such as type of exploited hydrocarbon, hub concept, and well type and transport
options (Rodriguez-Sanchez*, et al., 2012). Table 3 shows three examples of field
development plan matrix.

The technical part is crucial in defining the objectives and strategies of the project, thereafter
technical screening processes is done with a combination of economical evaluation, by
discarding concepts with no value and accepting concepts which have value to come up with
the best case concept.

Table 3: Example of field development plan matrix (Rodriguez-Sanchez*, et al., 2012)

Hydrocarbon Hub Well Transport

Oil Semi-Submersible Vertical Tanker
Oil & Gas Fixed Platform Directional Pipe
Gas TLP Horizontal
FPSO Multi-Lateral
SPAR

2.4.2.1 Field Development Layout Alternatives

A number of subsea layout systems are opted during the development stages of the natural
gas. And based on technological, environmental and safety factors, the layout alternatives are
screened and the best layout system which secures economic benefits is selected. Some of the
field development layouts are shown on Figure 6.

12
 Figure 6: Field development alternatives, courtesy of Statoil

2.4.2.2 Wells Configurations

The major expenditures in developing gas field are occupied by well costs. Therefore is better
to decide how the construction of wells is going to be, location of wells and the optimum
number of wells

In the offshore gas field, the subsea wells are constructed in two ways. The first way is
satellite way, these wells are typically vertical wells drilled above the area of interests; the
wells are then connected to the manifold. The second way is when the wells are a clustered on
templates (cluster manifold) and then the cluster manifold is joined to the main manifold.
Figure 7 shows the configuration of wells; Clustered wells are usually deviated/inclined to
reach different parts of the reservoir, each way has advantage over one another, where by the
former way is cheaper than the later way.

13
 Figure 7: (a) Configuration of well in a template/cluster (b) Configuration of satellite wells

2.4.2.3 Hub
There are different offshore structures technologies, these structures can be either fixed or
floating systems. Fixed platforms involve of Jacket Structure, Gravity based, Compliant
Structures and Guyed towers while floating systems involve of Floating Production, Storage
and Offloading (FPSO), Semi-submersible platforms, SPAR platforms and Tension Leg
Platforms (TLPs). Types of platforms and their applicability water depth are shown in Figure
8.

14
 Figure 8: Offshore structures with their water depths (Diego Vannucci, 2011)

3.2.2.4 Transportation
After gas is produced, it has to reach consumers. Transportation of the natural gas begins at
the production well to the end consumer. Natural gas transportation consists of complex
pipeline transportation system consisting of gathering system, interstate and intrastate pipeline
and distribution system.

Transportation of natural gas over long distances can either be done via pipelines when the gas
is in gaseous state, or being transported in special tankers when gas is liquefied (Babies,
2012). LNG technology is becoming potential compared to the traditional transportation of
natural gas via pipelines. Other potential transport options such as natural gas in form of CNG
and micro-LNG may also be opted (Dale, 2013). Figure 9 shows feasible natural gas
transportation technologies in terms of gas volume and travel distance.

15
 Figure 9: Natural gas transportation technologies (Dale, 2013)

2.4.3 Gas Field Modeling

Analysis of gas reservoir behaviour can be done by several approaches; there are mainly three
options that can be used for such analysis, which are, material balance method, and decline
curve analysis and reservoir simulation. The first two are classical reservoir engineering
techniques and the last one is the modern approach used. The methods can be used
independently or in combination to provide more confidence in the results obtained, for
example, reservoir simulation can be used in with decline curve analysis, these methods vary
in terms of accuracy and complexity.

2.4.3.1 Reservoir Modeling

During development of new field reservoir model are used. Building of reliable models is both
time consuming and expensive. There are several reservoir software that has been developed
including Eclipse, MBAL and CMG, these software are capable of dealing with complex
reservoir characteristics. Simple models can be performed using Excel, a tool incorporated in
Microsoft Office Package.

2.4.3.2 Material Balance Equation (MBE)

The material balance method is usually employed for predictions of gas production when the
reservoir is depleted, as materials are withdrawn from the reservoir. This method assumes a
tank model and presents the relation of mass and pressure. The tank model assumption is
limited to some reservoir properties such as low permeability and compartmentalization.
However, this model can be used when there is little reservoir data and when reservoir
uncertainties are large (Baker Hughes, 2010).

16
How the model is set, it depends on the drive mechanism, type of fluids and other properties
of the reservoir. The general material balance equation for gas reservoir is shown in Eq. 2-15.

𝐶𝑓 + 𝐶𝑤 𝑆𝑤𝑖
𝐺(𝐵𝑔 − 𝐵𝑔𝑖 ) + 𝐺𝐵𝑔𝑖 ( ) ∆𝑝𝑡 + 𝑊𝑒 + 𝑊𝑖 𝐵𝑤𝑖 + 𝐺𝑖 𝐵𝑔𝑖
1 − 𝑆𝑤𝑖 2- 15
= 𝐺𝑝 𝐵𝑔 + 𝑊𝑝 𝐵𝑤

For the closed gas reservoir, with both water and rock compressibilities neglected, Eq. 2-15
can be reduced to Eq. 2-16

𝐺(𝐵𝑔 − 𝐵𝑔𝑖 ) = 𝐺𝑝 𝐵𝑔
2- 16

𝑍
Again, for real gas at constant temperature 𝐵𝑔 = (𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑡) 𝑝 by substituting 𝐵𝑔 expression
𝑝
into Eq. 2-16, Eq.2-17 which gives linear relationship on against 𝐺𝑝 plot is obtained.
𝑍

𝑝 𝑝𝑖 𝐺𝑃
= (1 − )
𝑍 𝑍𝑖 𝐺 2- 17

Eq. 2-15 can be manipulated by neglecting some of the terms, depending on the reservoir
conditions. Some cases which gives nonlinear relationship can be considered, these cases
includes, gas material balance by considering water drive, gas reservoirs with abnormally
high-pressure, and low permeability gas reservoirs.

2.4.3.3 Decline Curve Analysis (DCA)

Decline curve analysis is used in forecasting gas and oil production, and is applied on matured
fields. In order to predict the probable future of the field R.E. Allen described four simple
mathematical models. This model includes constant decrement decline, constant rate decline,
harmonic or isothermal decline (the more general model) and fractional power decline
(J.J.ARPS, 1944).

17
2.4.3.4 Reservoir Simulation
Reservoir simulation modeling deals with the reservoir performance and forecasting of
production. The good thing with reservoir simulation is the capability of dealing with complex
reservoir characteristics. Mainly, commercial tools are used for reservoir simulation in the
petroleum industry.

2.4.4 Gas Well Deliverability

Gas well deliverability describes the gas well production capabilities against the wellbore and
system in which the gas must flow. The productivity capacity of the well is determined by
performing different deliverability tests. The main productivity indicator is called Absolute
Open Flow (AOF) potential. Another application for performing such tests is to generate the
reservoir Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR).

Several tests have been developed for gas wells, including flow after flow tests, isochronal
and modified isochronal test. The flow after flow test is primarily limited to long time
required for stabilization in low permeability reservoirs. Consequently, isochronal and
modified isochronal tests were developed for short time tests (Johnston, et al., 1991)

2.4.5 IPR Concept for Gas Reservoir

The Inflow Performance Relationship (IPR) for a well describes the relationship between the
well flow rate and the flowing bottomhole pressure of the well, when the fluid is flowing
through porous and permeable media. This mathematical model is applicable for the stabilized
flow in the reservoir. The IPR equation is originated from the diffusivity equation which
combines continuity equation, Darcy equation and EOS. The radial flow geometry is the most
interested geometry for calculations, however the diffusivity equation can be written in any
geometry. The diffusivity equation for the real gas can be presented in either pressure squared
function Eq. 2- 18 or pseudo pressure function Eq. 2-19 (PetroWiki, 2015).

1𝜕 𝜕𝑝2 𝜙𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝜕𝑝2 2- 18

(𝑟 )=
𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝑘 𝜕𝑡

1𝜕 𝜕𝑚(𝑝) ∅𝜇𝑐𝑡 𝜕𝑚(𝑝) 2- 19

(𝑟 )=
𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝜕𝑟 𝑘 𝜕𝑡

18
Analytical solutions of the stabilized flow in SI units are given as follows;

For single phase, radial flow and steady state (when the pressure change with respect to time
at any location of the reservoir is zero), the pressure squared function and the pseudo pressure
function are expressed by Eq. 2-20 and 2-21 respectively. The steady state is never achieved at
natural production; unless pressure is supported, for example during injection.

2
7.7𝑘ℎ(𝑃𝑅2 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 ) 2- 20
𝑞𝑔 =
𝑟 1
𝑇𝑅 𝜇𝑧(ln( 𝑒 ) − + 𝑠)
𝑟𝑤 2

7.7𝑘ℎ(𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 )) 2- 21
𝑞𝑔 =
𝑟 1
𝑇𝑅 (ln(𝑟 𝑒 ) − 2 + 𝑠)
𝑤

For single phase (gas), radial flow and pseudo steady state (when the pressure change with
respect to time is a constant), expressions in Eq. 2-22 and Eq. 2-23 are used.

The pressure squared function expression,

2
7.7𝑘ℎ(𝑃𝑅2 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 ) 2- 22
𝑞𝑔 =
𝑟 3
𝑇𝑅 𝜇𝑧(ln(𝑟 𝑒 ) − 4 + 𝑠)
𝑤

The pseudo pressure function expression,

7.7𝑘ℎ(𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 )) 2- 23
𝑞𝑔𝑠𝑐 =
𝑟 3
𝑇𝑅 (ln(𝑟 𝑒 ) − 4 + 𝑠)
𝑤

Rawlins and Shellhardt after interpreting hundred multi-rate gas well tests, they developed
equation called back pressure equation (IPR) in terms of pressure squared function Eq. 2-24.
However, this equation applies only for low reservoir pressures. For high pressure reservoir
the appropriate way is to use pseudo pressure function Eq. 2-25. The back pressure
Coefficient (𝐶𝑅 ) in the equation accounts for the rock and fluid properties, transient effects
and flow geometry while accounts for high velocity flow. (Michael & Whitson, 1991)

19
Different cases should be considered as to how and when back pressure equation should be
applied by adjusting parameters incorporated in the equation. For example, Eq. 2-24 is
applicable when non-Darcy flow is evident in the reservoir, and when Darcy flow is assumed
Eq. 2-24 is reduced to Eq. 2-25.

2 𝑛
𝑞𝑔𝑠𝑐 = 𝐶𝑅 (𝑃𝑅2 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 ) 2- 24

2
𝑞𝑔𝑠𝑐 = 𝐶𝑅 (𝑃𝑅2 − 𝑃𝑤𝑓 ) 2- 25
Where 𝑛 value ranges from 0.5 to 1

𝑞𝑔𝑠𝑐 = 𝐶𝑅 (𝑚(𝑃𝑅 ) − 𝑚(𝑃𝑤𝑓 ))𝑛 2- 26

𝐶𝑅 can be obtained by performing reservoir deliverability tests.

Al-Hussainy and Ramey developed better solution for real gas pseudo-pressure function 𝑚(𝑝)
, when reservoir pressure is greater than 173 Bara, the solution is more accurate and difficult
to calculate and need more computational time compared to pressure squared approach. This
function is properly adjusted from the viscosity and gas deviation factor (Michael J.
Economides, 1994).

𝑚(𝑝) for real gas is defined as,

𝑝
𝑝
𝑚(𝑝) = 2 ∫ 𝑑𝑝
𝑝𝑜 𝜇𝑍 2- 27
Arbitrary, 𝑝𝑜 is the reference pressure which is always set to zero.

2.4.6 Gas Flow in Well Tubing, Flowlines and Pipelines

After the gas has reached to the wellbore, it has to be delivered to the surface. There are series
of equations (models) from the well bottomhole to the wellhead (tubing equation), from
wellhead to the gathering line (flowline equation), and then from gathering point to the main
pipeline (pipeline equation) which is connected to the separator. These equations relate gas
production in terms of rate and pressure changes.

20
2.4.6.1 Gas Flow in Well Tubing
Pressure drop in the wellbore is the function of gravity term, friction term and acceleration
term. The general tubing equation (Eq. (2-28)) gives the relation of the well rate with the
pressure drop.

2
𝑃𝑖𝑛 2
2- 28
𝑞𝑔𝑠𝑐 = 𝐶𝑇 ( − 𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 )0.5
𝑒𝑠

𝐶𝑇 is the function of temperature and pressure at standard conditions, inner diameter of the
pipe, average compressibility factor, friction factor, length of the pipe, average temperature of
the fluid in the pipe and the elevation constant.

When the flow string diameter is changed, the new 𝐶𝑇 can be obtained using Eq. 2-29.

𝐶𝑇𝑛𝑒𝑤 𝐷2.612 𝑛𝑒𝑤 2- 29

=
𝐶𝑇𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝐷2.612 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡

Eq. 2-29 can be used to obtain new 𝐶𝐹𝐿 and 𝐶𝑃𝐿 when changing pipe diameters.

2.4.6.2 Pressure Drop in a Pipeline

Unlike well tubing equation, gathering line and pipeline equation do not include elevation as
shown in Eq. 2-30.

2 2
𝑞𝑔𝑠𝑐 = 𝐶𝐹𝐿 (𝑃𝑖𝑛 − 𝑃𝑜𝑢𝑡 )0.5 2- 30

𝐶𝐹𝐿 is the function of temperature and pressure at standard conditions, inner diameter of the
pipe, average compressibility factor, friction factor, length of the pipe and average
temperature of the fluid in the pipe.

2.4.6.3 Temperature in a Pipeline

The temperature drops quickly with distance, in gas lines cooling of gas is done by two
mechanisms which are heat losses and gas expansions. In gas lines the gas can cool to a
temperature below the sea temperature due to Joule Thompson effect. The relationship
between the temperature of flowing fluid (inside the pipe) and surrounding temperature (sea

21
temperature) is presented by a general Eq. 2-31, and Figure 10 illustrates the temperature loss
inside the pipeline.

Figure 10: Heat transfer in a pipeline (Guðmundsson, 2011)

−𝑈𝜋𝐷 2- 31
𝑇2 = 𝑇 + (𝑇1 − 𝑇)exp( 𝐿)
𝑚𝐶𝑝
Whereby, 𝑇2 is the final fluid temperature, 𝑇1 is the initial fluid temperature, 𝐿 is the
pipelength, 𝑈 is the overall heat transfer, 𝐶𝑝 is the specific heat at constant pressure 𝑇 is the
surrounding temperature and 𝐷 is the pipe diameter.

The heat transfer Coefficient depends on the type of pipe used, based on experience 𝑈 ranges
are given as; for insulated pipeline on seafloor 1<𝑈 (W/m2. K) <2 and for non-insulated
pipeline on seafloor 15<𝑈 (W/m2.K) <25.

(Guðmundsson, 2011)

2.4.7 Flow Control and Conditioning

i. Flow Control

Almost all flowing wells rates are controlled with wellhead choke; this valve is placed to
restrict flow in flow lines. Restricting the flow is essential as it helps to meet limitations of the
rate or pressure imposed by surface facilities, obtaining the desirable rate as well as prevention
of coning and sand production (Michael J. Economides, 1994).

A number of valves are installed in a gas production system

ii. Gas Separation

In petroleum industry, separation is usually done to separate gas wells fluids into gaseous and
liquid components. Separation is done by using pressure vessel called separator which can be

22
vertical, horizontal or spherical. The products of gas separator include heavier hydrocarbon
liquid water gases and solids. Extraction of heavier hydrocarbons is vital due to their added
value.

Based on the content and treatment processes natural gas products can be named in various
ways such as; NGL (Natural Gas Liquids), LPG (Liquefied Petroleum Gas), LNG (Liquefied
Natural Gas), CNG (Compressed Natural Gas), Condensate (liquid). Figure 11 depicts natural
gas names in terms of constituents contained.

NGLs are produced within gas stream when producing natural gas reservoirs and they are
used in petrochemical feedstocks, cooking and for gasoline blending used as vehicle fuel, LPG
is NGL consisting of propane and butane (U.S Energy Information Administration , 2012).

LNG is predominated with methane, the gas is cooled at approximately to -162℃ at pressure
close to atmospheric pressure, and CNG is methane compressed at high pressure of 200-250
Bara.

Figure 11: Natural Gas Products (Gudmundsson, 2012)

2.4.8 Flow Equilibrium Analysis

Flow equilibrium addresses the calculation of pressure against gas rate in the reservoir, wells
gathering system and the main production line, and ends at the separator.

The pressure drop in the piping systems depends on the amount of fluid flowing. This kind of
system analysis is done by analysing the entire production system as a single unit (Hossain,
2008). The approach on performing equilibrium flow calculations can be done choosing two
terminal nodes source (reservoir) and sink (separator), and then specifying a reference node or

23
point as shown in Figure 12, this is nodal analysis. The reference point preferred is either the
bottomhole or the wellhead.

Figure 12: Schematic view of the flow equilibrium calculation

Concurrent pressure calculations from source node to the reference node are made to generate
the availability curve (inflow), while counter-current pressure calculation from sink node to
the reference node generates required/demand curve (outflow). Figure 13 depicts the
availability and required curve. The nodes in the production system are illustrated in Figure
14.

Figure 13: Available and required curves during equilibrium analysis (Hossain, 2008)

24
 Figure 14: Nodes in the production system (Hossain, 2008).

From this calculation one can be able to determine the pressure drop at the meeting point, if
the pressure drop is zero; this means that, the obtained rate is the natural flow rate of the well
(intersection point of the curves), when the pressure drop is positive then the flow is restricted
with the adjusting element (usually a choke valve), and if the pressure drop is negative value,
this means that, the reservoir pressure is not able to deliver the specified rate.

The availability curve keeps reduced as gas is produced while the required curve remains
fixed as time goes. At each production time a new pressure drop is obtained. The possible
pressure drops in the production system are shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15: Possible pressure losses in a production system, courtesy of Rawlins and Shellhardt

25
2.4.9 Production Scheduling
Production scheduling describes how the offtake of the gas from the reservoir is going to be
(production rate with time). In field development, production profile has to be calculated to
estimate the income due to hydrocarbon sales); therefore, production profile is vital factor
during economic evaluation of the field (Rodriguez-Sanchez*, et al., 2012).

Gas production involves three stages, the first stages is the build-up stage whereby the
production increases gradually with the increase of drilled wells, the second stage is the period
of stabilized production called production plateau, and the last stage is the decline stage
whereby the production decreases as more gas is withdrawn from the reservoir. Figure 16
shows the schematic production patterns of the gas reservoir (production rate against time).

Reservoir offtake could be done in two modes in this context named as mode A and mode B.
Mode A is run in a constant rate-pressure declines mode while mode B is run in a constant
pressure-rate decline mode, mode A is done when the field is a stand-alone field where there
is no infrastructure. Mode B is done on a satellite field using an existing infrastructure.

During production scheduling of the gas reservoirs, production plateau rate and plateau length
are the most related issues which should be addressed. How much gas will be produced and
for how long gas should be produced, it depends on the sales contract between a buyer and
producer, and sometimes is constrained with production facilities such as flow lines, pipelines
and separator.

Figure 16: Schematic production patterns of the gas reservoir (A. Rojey, 1997).

26
2.9.4.1 Estimation of the Plateau
As the rule of thumb, the first approximation of the production plateau rate is given by Eq. 2-
32. The Total Recoverable Reserves (𝑇𝑅𝑅) explained in the equation stands for the ultimate
cumulative gas production (𝐺𝑝𝑢 ) obtained by multiplying the initial gas in place (𝐼𝐺𝐼𝑃) with
the ultimate recovery factor (R.F) as shown in the Eq. 2-33.

𝐴𝑛𝑛𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒 = 0.035 − 0.05(𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑟𝑣𝑒𝑠) 2- 32

𝐺𝑝𝑢 = 𝑅. 𝐹𝑥𝐼𝐺𝐼𝑃 2- 33
𝐺𝑝𝑢 and 𝐼𝐺𝐼𝑃 are expressed at standard conditions.

2.9.4.2 How to Prolong the Plateau

Prolonging the plateau provides the value of the gas field by increasing recovery, and hence,
increasing the revenue of the field from added production. Techniques to prolong the plateau
as highlighted by Professor Michael Golan, during field development course at NTNU
(Michael, 2015) are pressure maintenance, productive and efficient well completion,
stimulation, increasing number of wells and boosting of the flow. All the techniques measures
increase the available pressure in the equilibrium analysis.

a) Pressure Maintenance

For gas reservoir pressure maintenance could be done with carbon dioxide injection, this
method has not yet been recognized and has not been practiced economically (Chawarwan
Khana, 2013).

b) Productive and Efficient Well Completion

Well completion is done by horizontal well completion and by making of the tubing to be
even larger. The advantage of horizontal completion of the well is that, it increases well
production by enlarging the contact with the reservoir.

Another issue on well completion is to increase tubing size which consequently changes the
𝐶𝑇 in the Eq. 2-28, and then enhances well production.

27
 c) Well Stimulation

Stimulation of the well technique involves fracturing and acidizing. Stimulation eases the
fluid flow by altering the outside wellbore permeability. In case of fracturing, the surface area
of the formation is increased by injecting fluids at high pressure, while acidizing dissolves
rock formation so that the gas can be easily accessed. Fracturing and acidizing can also be
combined to increase acid rock contact.

Predominantly, as a general case, stimulation had great influence on changing the 𝐶𝑅 in the
back pressure equation, therefore enhances well production.

d) Increasing Number of Wells

Provided that the amount of gas (plateau rate) drained from the reservoir to the surface is the
same, drilling of more wells create paths to the surface. Therefore, well rates and pressure
drop are reduced; as a result, the same rate is reduced for more time.

(Michael, 2015) Described the concept of wells in parallel and well in series trying to explain
the concept that; “more wells with less rate per well provides higher available pressure at the
wellhead, then provides less pressure loss in the reservoir and in the tubing per well”. In
parallel wells the total rate is equal to the summation of individual’s well rate, whereas the
total pressure drop and pressure drops of the individual wells are equal; the concept of parallel
wells is other way around true for series arrangement, for example in ESP stages in series.

e) Boosting of the Flow

Boosting of the gas flow is mainly done by installing of wellhead compressor. For the purpose
of boosting and sustaining gas production in order to achieve high recovery, subsea gas
compression is essential. The way it works, is by creating pressure drop through reduction of
the pressure at the production well thus, influencing reservoir gas expansion and hence the gas
flow to the production well (A. Muggeridge, 2013).

Other measures can be used which are necessary for reducing required pressure; these are
reducing separator pressure and increasing the size of flow line.

2.9.4.3 How to Control the Plateau Rate

In order to deliver the desired plateau rate for the specified duration, it is necessary to control
the plateau rate as initially the natural flowing of the well can be greater than the desired rate.
28
The rate is controlled by installing a choke at the wellhead; choke provides restriction of the
flow. There will be the pressure drop at the restriction; this pressure drop decreases as the
reservoir pressure declines, when gas is produced from the reservoir. Subsequently,
bottomhole and well head pressure decline. As time goes, in order to maintain the same rate,
the choke should be adjusted (opened) more. It will reach a time where the choke is full open,
at this point defines the end of plateau.

2.4.10 Surface Networks and Gathering Systems

Network refers to the piping system which takes well production to the processing facilities.
Production facility for gas production may be a compressor station, a gas plant, or simply a
pipeline. Networks may be described in two forms, the first one being the commingled
network and the second being the distribution network (Michael J. Economides, 1994).
Commingled network is kind of gathering network, where the production flow of wells are
mixed at the manifold or common pipeline. For the distribution network, the flow from one
source is spread into different streams; the good example is during injection.

2.4.11 Common kind of Gathering System

(Szilas, 1975) Illustrated two types of common gathering systems as shown in Figure 17, First
gathering system is when all the flow lines are joined at a common point (junction) (Figure 17,
left). The second gathering system when individual wells are joined at common pipeline
(Figure 17, right).

Figure 17: Gathering networks courtesy of Szilas (1975)

2.4.12 Network Solving

Solving networks may be done when the network has no adjustable (controlling) element, or
in another way when the adjustable element is included in calculations. Controlling element
may be chokes, pumps or compressors. The network solving procedures is done by
performing equilibrium analysis in the production system.

29
When the controlling element, let say choke is included in the system, equilibrium analysis is
done by considering the choke as equilibrium point. Thereafter, the choke position is
optimized (determining the pressure drop across the choke) with respect to the amount of gas
flow delivered.

When no adjustable element included in production system, and more than one wells are
producing and commingled to the common junction. Concurrent calculations from the
reservoir to the common junction and then counter current calculations from the separator to
the common junctions are done. Thereafter the pressure at the common junctions is adjusted
to have the same value. There are two approaches which can be considered during calculation,
the first is by assuming rates and performing calculations to adjust the pressure, the second
approach is by assuming the common pressure at the junction, and then adjust the sum of
individual rates to be the same as the rate of the main production pipe, in which there
connected (this calculation involves solving of linear equations).

2.4.13 Field Flow Assurance Issues

During production of gas from a gas reservoir, gas is usually produced along with
accompanying products such as condensate (oil), solids and water. Flow assurance in well
tubing, flowlines and pipelines is addressed to ensure successful and economical production
and transportation of the natural gas (Irmann-Jacobsen, 2012). Addressing flow assurance
problems is vital, as may lead to drastic effects which can affect the production plateau. In
natural gas production, some of the flow assurance problems are slugging, formation of
hydrates, liquid loading and corrosion phenomena.

Diverse commercial software may be used to perform flow assurance analysis, these software
include; HYSYS Simulator, PIPESIM steady-state, multiphase flow simulator and OLGA
dynamic multiphase flow simulator.

2.4.13.1 Gas Hydrates

Gas hydrate is formed when liquid water is in contact with natural gas at low temperature and
high pressure. Normally, gas molecules typically at 20℃ and 100 Bara stabilize water
molecules, this process is physical (Guðmundsson, 2011). Figure 18 depicts the stabilized gas
hydrate structure.

30
There are two common gas hydrate structures which are Type I and Type II, with the third
structure recently reported which is Type H. Type I are formed with simple molecules like
methane, ethane and hydrogen Sulfide while Type II are formed by larger molecules like
propane, and butane when combine with water to form diamond lattice structure (Covington,
et al., 1999).

Figure 18: Gas hydrate structure (Schulumberger , 2010)

Several methods can be done to suppress hydrate formation such as, keeping the temperature
higher, lowering pressure or dilution of water, the most effective way used is the injection of
Monoethylene Glycol (MEG) solution into a pipeline (Bokin, et al., 2010). Figure 19
illustrates zones of hydrate formation in the temperature-pressure curves, and how MEG
inhibits the hydrate formation in the system.

Figure 19: Hydrate phase diagram (Bokin, et al., 2010)

31
2.4.13.2 Flow Regimes
Several multiphase flow patterns are experienced in vertical, inclined and horizontal
components of the gas production system, as in Figure 20. Flow patterns transition depends on
topography fluid properties, pipe size, flow rates and corresponding pressure drop
(Ehizoyanyan, et al., 2015).

The following regimes are observed depending on the gas –liquid velocity and gas –liquid
ratio as described by (Multiphase Technology, Inc, 2015)

 Dispersed bubble flow is observed at high velocity and low gas/liquid ratio
 Smooth or wavy stratified flow is observed for low flow rates of liquid and gas
 Rolling waves of liquids are formed for intermediate liquid velocities which eventually
increase to the point of forming plug and slug flow.
 Annular flow is expected for very high gas velocities

Figure 20: Flow patterns in horizontal and vertical components (Stopford, 2011)

2.4.13.3 Liquid Holdup

Liquid holdup is the condition which happens in two phase flow, it is referred as the fraction
of the pipe occupied by liquid. Liquid holdup is expressed with symbol 𝑦𝑙 calculated as
shown in Eq. 2-34 sometime the phenomenon may be expressed in terms of gas holdup 𝑦𝑔
calculated as shown in Eq. 2-35

32
 𝑉𝑙 2- 34
𝑦𝑙 =
𝑉

𝑉𝑔 2- 35
𝑦𝑔 =
𝑉

For the complete pipe occupied by two phases this expression is valid; 𝑦𝑔 = 1 − 𝑦𝑙

Liquid holdup is influenced by two mechanisms which are multiphase flow dynamics and
mass transfer between the two moving phases (gas and liquid). For the case of flow
dynamics, when gas and liquid are flowing along the pipeline, slippage will occur as the
consequence of gas travelling at faster velocity than liquid. In low points of the pipelines
liquid accumulations occurs since liquid is heavier than gas. For the case of mass transfer
between two moving phases, evaporation of fluids and condensation of gases are essential
circumstances to describe holdup.

2.4.13.4 Corrosion
Corrosion in pipeline system is very common, the problem is associated with the presence of
water and corrosive materials such as carbon dioxide (CO2) and hydrogen Sulfide (H2S).
Corrosion of steel is the electrochemical process which depends on the partial pressure of the
component, pH, temperature and concentration of corrosion products (Bokin, et al., 2010).
This kind of problem can be removed by controlling the variables that govern corrosion
occurrence, for example, removal of sour gases.

2.5 Economic Analysis

Economic analysis is important during field development of the gas field; the economy of the
field is regarded as the main investment decision. In natural gas production, economic analysis
describes the relationship between the net cash flow of the field and the revenues obtain from
producing the natural gas. Figure 21 depicts the cash flow versus time during field
development.

33
 Figure 21: Cash flow versus time during field development (Svalheim, 2005)

The mostly incurred costs are Capital Expenditures (CAPEX), Operating Costs (OPEX),
Transport costs, and General Administration expenses. There are several methods which can
be used for evaluation of the project. These methods include Net Present Value (NPV),
Internal Rate of Return (IRR), and payback

3.3.1 NPV
The 𝑁𝑃𝑉 can be calculated using Eq. 2-36, and on decision making the project with the
biggest 𝑁𝑃𝑉 results is selected.

𝑛 𝐶𝐹𝑛 2- 36
𝑁𝑃𝑉 = ∑ 𝑛
𝑛=1 (1 + 𝑟)

𝐶𝐹 = (𝐺𝑎𝑠 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 ∗ 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑑𝑢𝑐𝑒𝑑 𝐺𝑎𝑠) − (𝑂𝑃𝐸𝑋 + 𝐶𝐴𝑃𝐸𝑋 + 𝑇𝑎𝑥𝑒𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑅𝑜𝑦𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑖𝑒𝑠)

Where, 𝑟 is the discount rate, 𝑛 is the number of years and 𝐶𝐹𝑛 Stands for the cash flow

3.3.2 Payback
This refers to the time to recover the invested money in the first year. This is the traditional
method that does not consider the time value. An exclusive criterion of decision is to select
the project with the shortest time of period in recovering the invested money (OH, 2004).

34
3.3.3 IRR
The 𝐼𝑅𝑅 may be defined as the discount rate that makes the 𝑁𝑃𝑉 equals to zero (0).
Calculations of internal rate of return do not incorporate environmental factors, such as
interest rate and inflation. Eq. 2-35 can be used to calculate 𝐼𝑅𝑅, by making 𝐼𝑅𝑅 the subject
of the formula.

𝑛 𝐶𝐹𝑛 2- 37
∑ 𝑛
=0
𝑛=1 (1 + 𝐼𝑅𝑅)

The project with the big IRR result is selected.

35
 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

3.0 Literature Survey

Books, journals, articles and internet publications were used as a source of information for the
study. Literature review contributed, on obtaining substantive findings, as well as analytical
and numerical calculations for the study.

Statoil has proposed the production strategy to produce the gas from Block 2 reservoirs as
shown in Figure 22. Three reservoirs which are Zafarani, Lavani Deep and Lavani Main have
been considered as per initial Statoil mode.

The mode of production is that, Zafarani will start producing with the plateau rate for almost
¼ of the total plateau length, thereafter Zafarani plateau rate will be reduced to 0.375 of the
total plateau rate. At the time when Zafarani plateau rate is reduced, Lavani Main and Lavani
Deep are put into production with the rates of 0.375 and 0.25 respectively, as fractions of the
total plateau rate in order to sustain the plateau rate.

According to the schematic production layout in (Holm, 2015), the initial production indicated
that, Zafarani will have five (5) wells, Lavani Main will have four (4) wells and, Lavani Deep
will have two (2) wells.

Figure 22: Production strategy principles proposed by Statoil (Holm, 2015)

36
The field development study of the offshore Block 2 was done using few published data,
engineering calculations and reasonable assumptions. Detailed information about these three
reservoirs is given in Appendix A.

3.1 Consultations
Technical advices received from main supervisor and co-supervisors were useful for the study,
in which the guidance on how to perform calculations, information about the study and how to
write the report were provided.

3.3 Plateau Rate Estimation

As a rule of thumb, with the given IGIP, estimation of the plateau rate was calculated using
Eq. 2-32. The R.F was assumed to be 0.7 and the maximum factor of 0.05 in the equation was
used.

The above estimate was made for Zafarani only. The same approach could be used for Lavani
Main and Lavani Deep; on the contrary, as per mode proposed by Statoil, Zafarani reservoir
was reduced to 0.375 of the initial plateau rate. Thereafter, Lavani Main and Lavani Deep
were both added into production with their rates fractioned into 0.375 and 0.25 of the plateau
rate respectively.

3.2 Excel Model

Microsoft excel was used to generate models for the field development study as well as
economical model.

Engineering calculations was done using Microsoft excel. A built in Visual Basic for
Applications (VBA), was used for writing simple applications which facilitated
implementation of function into the worksheet to ease calculations. In addition, solver was
used solving of independent variables iteratively.

3.4 The Pressure used in Backpressure Equation

Block 2 reservoirs are high-pressure reservoirs, the pressure exceeds 170Bara, and therefore
the pseudo pressure function was used instead of pressure squared function.

Pseudo pressure function calculations require PVT data, which was numerically used to
generate a table and a plot to obtain the general model, which relates the normal pressure and
pseudo pressure functions.

37
By using Lee Gonzalez correlation the gas viscosity was found, the gas was assumed to be
pure methane with the specific gravity of 0.55. The 𝑚(𝑝) was obtained by performing
numerical calculations and generating a table with the pressure interval of 50Bara. The
𝑚 (𝑝) vs 𝑝 curve behaves linearly for the pressure greater than 170Bara. The linear equation
obtained, is the general equation (model) to convert normal pressure to pseudo pressure
function.

3.5 Tubing, Flowline and Pipeline Calculations

Using excel model prepared by Professor Stanko Milan, The 𝐶𝑇 𝐶𝐹𝐿 and 𝐶𝑃𝐿 for this study
were obtained by specifying respective conduit lengths, and then observe the new calculated
Coefficient resulting from new input diameter. The Eq. 2-27 was used to obtain new
diameters.

The 𝐶𝑃𝐿 for Zafarani was calculated using two different approaches; the first approach was
configured in Figure 23(a) (when only Zafarani is producing and it was regarded as Zlong
(Zafarani long pipe)). The second approach was configured as in Figure 23(b) (when all
reservoirs are connected and it was regarded as Zshort (Zafarani short pipe)).

(a)

38
 (b)

Figure 23: Layouts of production system (a) only Zafarani is producing (b) all reservoirs are
connected

3.6 The 𝑪𝑹 Estimate

The 𝐶𝑅 estimate was important for determining the drawdown of the reservoir, the estimation
of the 𝐶𝑅 for Zafarani reservoir was slightly different to that of Lavani Deep and Lavani Main,
depending on the present available data.

i. For Zafarani Reservoir

Zafarani reservoir had a DST rate of 1.869MMSCMD, according to Statoil, it was not possible
to test the full potential of the well, the DST rate reported obtained was constrained to
production facilities.

In this analysis, in order to have some sort of reality the factor of 1.3 was multiplied to the
reported DST rate, and the resulting rate was assumed to be unchoked full open flow potential
of the well.

39
Therefore, by assuming a single well model with the combination of the IPR and Tubing
(drilling string length which combined the formation depth plus water depth) as shown on
Figure 24. The bottomhole equilibrium calculations with a separator pressure of 30 Bara was
performed, and the bottomhole pressure was chosen as the equilibrium point for network
solving. The concurrent calculations from the reservoir pressure(𝑃𝑅 ) to the flowing bottom
pressure (𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑢 ) upstream together with counter current pressure calculations from the
separator pressure (𝑃𝑠𝑒𝑝 ) to the flowing bottomhole pressure (𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑑 )downstream were then
performed.

Initially, the 𝐶𝑅 value guessed to be 0.31 𝑆𝑚3 ⁄𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑎2 . Thereafter the excel solver was ran to
adjust the value of 𝐶𝑅 while setting (𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑑 ) and (𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑢 ) to be equal. For (𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑢 ) and (𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑑 ) to
be equal their difference should be equal to zero.

Figure 24: Configuration of DST to estimate 𝐶𝑅 for Zafarani

ii. For Lavani Deep and Lavani Main Reservoirs

There was no information about DST rate for Lavani Main and Lavani Deep. However, by
using rule of thumb (Eq. 2-32) their rates were obtained. The configuration of the single well
model (Figure 25) was made, this time including IPR, tubing equation, flowline and pipeline
equation. Consequently, with the separator pressure of 30 Bara and their respective reservoir

40
pressures, the bottomhole flow equilibrium calculation was done by adjusting 𝐶𝑅 while setting
(𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑢 )= (𝑃𝑤𝑓𝑑 ) using excel solver.

Initial guesses of 𝐶𝑅 values for Lavani Main and Lavani Deep were 0.3 and 0.25
𝑆𝑚3 ⁄𝐵𝑎𝑟𝑎2 respectively.

Figure 25: Configuration to estimate 𝐶𝑅 for Lavani Main and Lavani Deep

3.7 Production Plateau Duration

The excel model was used to perform simulation of the plateau length was done by
considering the following assumptions:

 All the wells are identical (symmetric system)

 The natural gas is dry (only methane)
To simulate the plateau duration in this studies following approaches were considered,

1. Material Balance Equation (MBE) for the tank model with dry gas
Having IGIP, initial pressure and temperature of the reservoir, simple dry gas MBE was used
for reservoir pressure decline calculations, as the reservoir was depleted with yearly based
time step.

2. Flow equilibrium analysis

Flow equilibrium involves calculation of the pressure losses in reservoir, tubing and conduits
(flowline and pipeline). The flow equilibrium was done at the wellhead whereby the choke
was chosen as the point for performing equilibrium analysis.

41
The layout for performing equilibrium analysis is shown on Figure 26, where the system had 5
pressure points. The equilibrium analysis procedures were performed as follows;

 To obtain the flowing bottomhole pressure the backpressure equation (IPR) was used.
 To obtain wellhead pressure the tubing equation was used.
 And for the flowline and pipeline the pipeline equation was used.

During simulation of plateau duration, the initial estimated 𝐶𝑅 value was adjusted to give the
reasonable plateau length which in this study was given a range of 20-40 years. Therefore
concurrent calculation of pressure losses from 𝑃𝑅 downstream to 𝑃𝑤ℎ and then counter current
calculations from 𝑃𝑠𝑒𝑝 upstream to the 𝑃𝑓𝑙 (entry of the flowline), the resulting pressure drop
(∆𝑃𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑘𝑒 ) between 𝑃𝑤ℎ and 𝑃𝑓𝑙 was optimized to maintain the plateau.

The simulation ran yearly from year zero (0) as time went on the ∆𝑃𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑘𝑒 kept reduced until
the value become negative. At this point, it indicated that, with the given rate the present
pressure could no longer produce the desired plateau rate. Using excel solver the (∆𝑃𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑘𝑒)
was set to zero (full open mode of the choke) while iterating with flowing bottomhole pressure
of the well. Iterations were done repeatedly with the degree of tolerance equals to 0.00001. On
iterating with 𝑃𝑤𝑓 , the well rate was reduced because the new 𝑃𝑤𝑓 was obtained, the reservoir
rates were then manipulated accordingly so that the ultimate production plateau could be kept
constant.

Figure 26 : Flow equilibrium calculation to determine plateau length

42
3.8 Prolonging the Plateau
The plateau length was prolonged by increasing the number of wells as shown in Table 4,
whereby four (4) sensitivity analyses on the revenue of the produced gas was done to decide
the optimum number of wells to be added.

Table 4 : Cases for Wells Addition

Cases Zafarani (added wells) LM (added Wells) LD (added Wells)

1 0 1 1
2 0 2 2
3 1 2 2
4 2 2 2

3.9 Economic Model

Assumptions made on the economic analysis were:

1. Only Drillex (drilling expenditures) cost was used for the analysis
2. There was 5 % annual increase in the rig daily rate
3. The discount rate was assumed to be 8%.
4. The spread rate was roughly double the rig daily rate.

The drive decision model used was 𝑁𝑃𝑉 presented on Eq. 3-1.

𝑛 𝐺𝑎𝑠 𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒 − 𝐷𝑟𝑖𝑙𝑙𝑒𝑥 3- 1

𝑁𝑃𝑉 = ∑
𝑛=1 (1 + 𝑟)𝑛

The daily rig rate used was 590000 USD; this information was obtained from data published
by (IHS, 2015), whereby the maximum cost between February and November of 2015 was
taken. The presented daily rig rate was for water depth of greater than 2286 m.

The average natural gas price of 65.16 USD/Sm3 obtained used from January 2015 to July
2015 was used. This information was published by (U.S. Energy Information Administration,
2015).

43
3.10 HYSYS Simulator
HYSYS was mainly done to compare pressure drop obtained in HYSYS and the pressure drop
obtained with excel calculations. Also, to evaluate details of multiphase flow in the main
transportation pipeline such as; temperature, pressure, liquid holdup, and flow pattern
distribution and asses hydrate formation.

Assumptions made:

 No network solving included.

 Analysis was done from the PLEM to the separator.
 Since Block 2 natural gas compositions have not been disclosed, therefore natural gas
composition from Songo Songo field was used as the base for analysis. The values are
not hundred percent similar, since were adjusted to include water fraction. The water
percentage was assumed to be 0.15%.
 Insulated mild steel transportation pipe with the overall heat transfer Coefficient
(HTC/U) equals to 1.5 W/ (m2 ℃) was used.

The HYSYS simulation was done in two difference cases, the first case was when only
Zafarani is producing and the second case was when all the three reservoirs are connected.
The setup was the same for both cases; the only difference was the length of the main
transportation pipeline. The former case had the length of 100 Km and the later had 90 Km.

The HYSYS setup (Figure 27) was a single pipeline and separator, together with the single
adjust, by specifying the inlet conditions and gas properties to the inlet stream of the main
pipeline, as well as the pipeline parameters (steps are shown on Appendix F), the simulation
was then ran, and the single pressure adjust imposed the inlet pressure to obtain the separator
pressure equal to 30 Bara.

The inlet specified rate was the plateau rate (13.6MMSCMD) which was converted to
2.39x104 Kg-mole/hr, and then inlet temperature of 40 ℃ was specified, these specifications
were similar for both cases. The inlet pressure was specified differently for the first case and
the second whereby 49.85 Bara and 48.29 Bara were specified respectively.

44
Figure 27: HYSYS Setup

45
 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.0 Production Plateau Profile

Production plateau profile for the phase I production of Block 2 is indicated in Figure 28. The
total plateau length of 31.35 years was achieved with the plateau rate 13.6MMSCMD. After
31.35 years of production, all reservoirs came to an end (all chokes are full open). This means
that, the reservoirs are depleted to the extent that, no more pressures to produce the desired
plateau rate.

Figure 28: Production Plateau Profile

Zafarani reservoir was able to produce 13.6MMSCMD rate for only 7 years, and beyond that,
this rate could not be produced since Zafarani reservoir pressure has declined to the point that,
the remaining pressure is not able to push the same gas rate out of the reservoir.

After initial 7 years of production, the total plateau rate was sustained by adding productions
from Lavani Deep and Lavani Main reservoirs. The magnitude between lines (Figure 28)
indicates the amount of gas produced by each reservoir.

In Figure 28, it is observed that, after 27 years of production from all the three reservoirs;
Lavani Deep came to end, and its field rate (qFieldLD) was reduced to a natural flow rate. At
this year, Zafarani rate (qFieldZ) was increased to sustain the plateau. In year 29, Lavani Main
reached the end, and its field rate (qFieldLM) was reduced to a natural flow rate, while
qFieldZ further increased to sustain the plateau.

46
Figure 29 illustrates how pressure declined with time, when natural gas was withdrawn from
reservoirs. The 𝑃𝑠𝑒𝑝 , 𝑃𝑓𝑙 and 𝑃𝑝𝑙 𝑜𝑟 𝑃𝑗 are constant with time, as the same plateau rate was
produced throughout the plateau length while the 𝑃𝑅 , 𝑃𝑤𝑓 and 𝑃𝑤ℎ were reduced with time.
The gaps between consecutive pressure points indicate the pressure drops between two
respective points. For example 𝑃𝑅 and 𝑃𝑤𝑓 indicated the drawdown, while 𝑃𝑓𝑙 and 𝑃𝑤ℎ
indicated pressure drop across the choke (∆𝑃𝑐ℎ𝑜𝑘𝑒). The drawdown pressure as well as
pressure drops in the tubing and across the choke kept reduced, Pressure drop reduction across
the choke represents opening of the choke valve in order to maintain the plateau. When the
choke position was zero (full open), this labels the end of plateau (𝑃𝑤ℎ =𝑃𝑓𝑙 ). In Figure 29 this
point is when the wellhead pressure (𝑃𝑤ℎ ) line intersects the inlet flowline pressure (𝑃𝑓𝑙 )
line.

Figure 29: Pressure Evolution during plateau

47
4.1 Prolonging the Plateau
Table 5 presents the results on ploronging the plateau length by additional of new wells. The
general observation for all four cases was that, when the number of wells were increased, the
plateau rate also increased. This was due to increase of the available pressure to push more gas
out of the reservoir.

Table 5: Economic analysis on added wells

Cases Addded wells Added Gpu Added NPV Years Extended Added Profit
[Sm3] [USD] LM LD Zafarani Initial Zafarani Plateau [USD]
1 1 well each (LM and LD) 1.71E+10 86,880,245,496.29 3.1 3.1 3.5 7 86,498,358,441.58
2 2 wells each (LM and LD) 2.92E+10 134,973,236,792.01 7 7 5.7 7 134,209,462,682.59
3 1 well Zafarani 2wells each(LD LM) 3.09E+10 42,723,644,051.71 5 5 6.7 9 41,412,674,706.87
4 2 well Zafarani 2wells each(LD LM) 3.59E+10 170,979,353,050.12 4 4 8.7 11 169,416,637,179.83

In all cases, the Zafarani reservoir came to end sooner than the other reservoirs, for that
reason, qFieldZ was reduced to the natural field flow rate (uchoked) while qFieldLD was
increased to sustain the total field plateau rate (qFieldT). This observation was different in the
last year of the production plateau, whereby qFieldLM was increased while the qFieldLD
decreased to counterbalance the rates, in order to maintain the qFieldT (Figure 30).

Increasing number of wells to Lavani Main and Lavani Deep reservoirs, led to the increase of
Lavani Main and Lavani Deep plateau lengths, with a small increase qFieldT. Increasing
wells on Zafarani resevoir, influenced the initial Zafarani production plateau length. The
plateau length extended by 2 years for case 3, and 4 years for case 4 (Table 5).

The best case was the one which gave the highest profit when combined with economical
mode. In this study, case 4 was the best with profit of USD 169,416,637,179.83. The highest
amount of money compared to other cases. The best case prolonged plateau length by 8.7
years more, yielding the total plateau length of 39 years (as illustrated in Figure 30).

48
 Figure 30: Best Case, Prolonged Plateau Length

4.2 HYSYS Results

In order to match separator pressure equals to 30 Bara, for the first case, HYSYS was run for
88 iterations giving a targeted value (separator pressure) of 30.06 Bara while adjusting the
inlet pipeline pressure to 58.93 Bara. For the second case, HYSYS was run for 91 iterations
giving a targeted value (separator pressure) of 30.04 Bara while adjusting the inlet pipeline
pressure to 57.34 Bara.

4.2.1 Comparison of Pressure Drops in the Main Transportation Pipe

The pressure drop alongside the main transportation pipe obtained using simple excel
calculations was less compared to the pressure obtained by HYSYS simulation as illustrated in
Table 6. For the first case and second case the pressure was less by 9.05 and 9.02 Bara
respectively. This difference was due to two different components used during excel
calculations and HYSYS simulations, whereby for excel calculation methane was the only
component flowing in the pipeline. And for HYSY simulations, other natural gas components
including water were considered. When multiple components are considered, the density of
the natural gas increases which accompanied the pressure loss.

49
 Table 6: Pressure Drop Comparison

Pressure Drop along the Main Pipeline

Cases Pressure Drop[Bara]
First Case_HYSYS 28.90
Second Case_HYSYS 27.31
First Case_Excel 19.85
Second Case_Excel 18.29

4.2.2 Details of Multiphase Flow in the Main Transportation Pipeline

4.2.2.1 Temperature and Pressure

As depicted in Figure 31 and Figure 32, the temperature and pressure of the flowing fluid
inside the pipe dropped with the distance. The small disturbances on the pressure and
temperature profiles are due to pipe inclinations, both pressure and temperature are drops
quicker with elevations.

The temperature decline indicated heat loss to the surroundings (sea) when natural gas was
transported along the pipe. The pressure drop was influenced with pipeline length, friction loss
and gravity. For elevated segment of the pipe, gravitational acceleration had much influence
on pressure drop.

Figure 31: Temperature and Pressure Profiles for the HYSYS First Case

50
 Figure 32: Temperature and Pressure Profiles for the HYSYS Second Case

4.2.2.2 Temperature, Pressure and Liquid Holdup

As shown on Figure 33 and Figure 34, liquid holdup in the transportation line was very low
(maximum fraction of 3.16x10-4). The liquid holdup increased with distance, this increase
was influenced by mass transfer between the moving fluids. When temperature was decreased
below hydrocarbon dew point, gas condensation occurred at pipeline pressure.

Figure 33: Temperature, Pressure and Liquid Holdup Profiles for the HYSYS First Case

51
 Figure 34: Temperature, Pressure and Liquid Holdup Profiles for the HYSYS Second Case

4.2.2.3 Liquid Holdup with Elevation

For gas-liquid flow in a horizontal pipeline segment liquid holdup occurred due to flow
dynamics of multiphase flow, at this point gas flow faster than liquids. For downhill lines the
liquid holdup became small, as liquid flow faster than gas due to effect of gravity (liquid is
denser than gas). For uphill lines gas flow faster than liquid, as liquid was held back due to
density, this led to increase of liquid holdup.

Figure 35: Liquid Holdup Profiles against Elevation for the HYSYS First Case

52
 Figure 36: Liquid Holdup Profiles against Elevation for the HYSYS Second Case

4.2.2.4 Flow Patterns

Table 7 and Table 8 illustrate the HYSYS results; for both cases of simulation run, there was
the same transition of flow patterns inside the pipeline. The flow patterns changed from single
gas flow (vapour), then to stratified flow and finally to stratified wavy. The most part of the
pipeline was dominated with stratified flow. Stratified flow described smooth interface
between phases because of the low rates travelled by both phases, with high rate travel, the
interface became wavy, and hence wave flow was detected.

Table 7: Flow Patterns for HYSYS First Case

Length Interval [m] 0-1800 2250-97680 97760-100000

Flow Regime Vapour Only Stratified Wave Flow

Table 8: Flow Patterns for HYSYS Second Case

Length Interval [m] 0-3000 3300-88290 88380-90000

Flow Regime Vapour Only Stratified Wave Flow

53
 4.2.2.5 Hydrate Formation
HYSYS Simulation indicated the formation of the hydrates in the main transportation
pipeline, gas stream and liquid stream. For all cases gas hydrate Type II was formed, this was
due to combination of natural gas larger molecules with “free” water present, as the
temperature decreases along the main pipeline. The results for hydrate formation are presented
in Table 9, Table 10, Table 11 and Table 12.

Table 9: Hydrate Formation in the Main Pipelines for HYSYS First Case

Distance, [m] 0-95280 95360-10000

Formation Will NOT Form Will Form
Hydrate Type No Types Type II
Temperature [℃] 6.51

Table 10: Hydrate Formation in the Main Pipelines for HYSYS Second Case

Distance, [m] 0-86940 87030-9000

Formation Will NOT Form Will Form
Hydrate Type No Types Type II
Temperature [℃] 6.21

Table 11: Hydrate Formation in the Streams for HYSYS First Case

Hydrate Formation Formation Hydrate

Stream Name Formation Flag Temperature [℃] Pressure[℃] Formation Type
InletSeparator Will Form 5.69 20.42 Type II
Gas Will Form 3.97 25.26 Type II
Liquid Will Form 8.88 18.51 Type II
InletPipeline Will Not Form - - -

54
 Table 12: Hydrate Formation in the Streams for HYSYS Second Case

Hydrate
Hydrate Formation Formation Formation
Stream Name Formation Flag Temperature[℃] Pressure[℃] Type
InletSeparator Will Form 5.69 23.42 Type II
Gas Will Form 5.11 25.46 Type II
Liquid Will Form 5.81 22.08 Type II
InletPipeline Will Not Form - - -

55
 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.0 Conclusion
Based on the simple approximated Excel model, when Zafarani, Lavani Main and Lavani
Deep were connected, the total plateau rate of 13.6MMSCMD could be produced for 31.35
years.

Initial addition of 2 wells to Zafarani, Lavani Deep and Lavani Main, will prolong the plateau
length for 8.7 years more giving the total plateau length of 39 years, with the additional profit
of 169,417 Million USD.

The HYSYS simulation indicated that; the pipeline system contained low liquid holdup which
increases gradually as temperature decreases, the phenomenon associated with condensation.
The flow regime obtained was dominated with stratified flow which later changes to stratified
wave flow, and there was formation of hydrates in the main transportation pipe, gas stream
and liquid stream.

The difference of the pressure drop results obtained in HYSYS and that obtained using simple
excel calculations indicates that the excel assumptions was not good to approximation.

5.5 Recommendations
 It is recommended that; more detailed reservoir evaluation models should be used, as
material balance has several limitations. For example, MBE assumes reservoir as a
tank, and does not include spatial distribution of pressures and saturations.
 It is recommended to account for all natural gas components to perform simulation
analysis, as well as including other expenditures in the economic model for realistic
calculations.
 It is recommended to include network solving for HYSYS simulations and look for
hydrate formation mitigation measures.
 It is also recommended that; analysis should be done in order to find ways to mitigate
hydrate formation in the production systems.

56
 Appendices

Appendix A: Information of Block 2, Phase I Production

Parameters Zafarani Lavani Main Lavani Deep
Number of wells 5 4 2
IGIP (Sm3) 1.42E+11 1.13E+11 5.66E+10
Net Pay (m) 120 95 95
Water Depth (m) 2582 2400 2600
Total Depth (m) 5150 3700 5385
Reservoir Pressure (Bara) 415 360 520
Reservoir Temperature 69 60 67
Gas Type Dry Gas Dry Gas Dry Gas
Tubing Internal Diameter (m) 0.1016 0.1016 0.1016

The data in black colour were published by Statoil and are found in the Statoil website, (press
release) data in purple colour have been reasonably assumed. The reservoir pressures were
assumed with respect to their depths.

Appendix B: Pseudo Pressure Function Calculations

 Table for numerical calculation for 𝒎(𝒑)

a b
p ρ µ Z 2p/µZ 2p/µZav delta P a*b m(p)
[Bara] [g/cm3] [cP] [-] [Bara/cP] [Bara/cP] [Bara] [Bara2/cP] [Bara2/cP]
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00E+00 0.00E+00
50 0.028122 1.37E-02 0.951229 7676.20 3838.10 50 1.92E+05 1.92E+05
100 0.056244 1.48E-02 0.915991 14783.04 11229.62 50 5.61E+05 7.53E+05
150 0.084366 1.61E-02 0.898944 20697.14 17740.09 50 8.87E+05 1.64E+06
200 0.112488 1.78E-02 0.902385 24956.31 22826.72 50 1.14E+06 2.78E+06
250 0.140611 1.97E-02 0.924364 27444.95 26200.63 50 1.31E+06 4.09E+06
300 0.168733 2.20E-02 0.960289 28393.16 27919.05 50 1.40E+06 5.49E+06
350 0.196855 2.47E-02 1.005569 28178.31 28285.73 50 1.41E+06 6.90E+06
400 0.224977 2.79E-02 1.0568 27162.76 27670.53 50 1.38E+06 8.29E+06
450 0.253099 3.16E-02 1.111741 25635.38 26399.07 50 1.32E+06 9.61E+06
500 0.281221 3.59E-02 1.168974 23809.60 24722.49 50 1.24E+06 1.08E+07
550 0.309343 4.10E-02 1.227603 21837.71 22823.66 50 1.14E+06 1.20E+07

57
 The 𝒎(𝒑) vs 𝒑 curve

 Linearized 𝒎(𝒑) vs 𝒑 curve

58
Appendix C: 𝑪𝑻 𝑪𝑭𝑳 and 𝑪𝑷𝑳 Calculations
 𝑪𝑻 𝑪𝑭𝑳 and 𝑪𝑷𝑳 for Lavani Deep

CALCULATION OF TUBING FLOW CONSTANT FOR LD

Internal Diameter [m] 0.15
Gas gravity [-] 0.55
Line length [m] 2690
Inlet temperature [K] 333.15
Outlet temperature [K] 328.15
Inlet pressure [Bara] 360
Outlet pressure [Bara] 333
Elevation Coefficient, S 0.155
Ave. Temperature [K] 330.65
Ave. Pressure [Bara] 346.5
Ave. Compressibility factor [-] 0.99173792
Friction factor [-] 0.01177731
Piping constant [Sm^3/Bara] 3.64E+04

DIAMETER CHANGE
New diameter [m] 0.1016
New piping constant [Sm^3/Bara] 2.66E+04

CALCULATION OF FLOWLINE CONSTANT FOR LD

Internal Diameter [m] 0.355
Gas gravity [-] 0.55
Line length [m] 3000
Inlet temperature [K] 328.15
Outlet temperature [K] 323.15
Inlet pressure [Bara] 82
Outlet pressure [Bara] 75
Ave. Temperature [K] 325.65
Ave. Pressure [Bara] 78.5
Ave. Compressibility factor [-] 0.91247613
Friction factor [-] 0.00971045
Piping constant [Sm^3/Bara] 3.57E+05

DIAMETER CHANGE
New diameter [m] 0.3048
New piping constant [Sm^3/Bara] 3.28E+05

59
 CALCULATION OF PIPING FLOW CONSTANT FOR LD
Internal Diameter [m] 0.68
Gas gravity [-] 0.55
Line length [m] 6200
Inlet temperature [K] 313.15
Outlet temperature [K] 303.15
Inlet pressure [Bara] 75
Outlet pressure [Bara] 35
Ave. Temperature [K] 308.15
Ave. Pressure [Bara] 55
Ave. Compressibility factor [-] 0.91893754
Friction factor [-] 0.00839477
Piping constant [Sm^3/Bara] 1.39E+06

DIAMETER CHANGE
New diameter [m] 0.6604
New piping constant [Sm^3/Bara] 1.37E+06

 𝑪𝑻 𝑪𝑭𝑳 and 𝑪𝑷𝑳 calculations for Lavani Main

CALCULATION OF TUBING FLOW CONSTANT FOR LM

Internal Diameter [m] 0.15
Gas gravity [-] 0.55
Line length [m] 1204
Inlet temperature [K] 333.15
Outlet temperature [K] 328.15
Inlet pressure [Bara] 360
Outlet pressure [Bara] 333
Elevation Coefficient, S 0.155
Ave. Temperature [K] 330.65
Ave. Pressure [Bara] 346.5
Ave. Compressibility factor [-] 0.99173792
Friction factor [-] 0.01177731
Tubing constant [Sm^3/Bara] 5.44E+04

DIAMETER CHANGE
New diameter [m] 0.1016
New tubing constant [Sm^3/Bara] 4.38E+04

60
 CALCULATION OF FLOWLINE CONSTANT FOR LM
Internal Diameter [m] 0.355
Gas gravity [-] 0.55
Line length [m] 5000
Inlet temperature [K] 328.15
Outlet temperature [K] 323.15
Inlet pressure [Bara] 82
Outlet pressure [Bara] 75
Ave. Temperature [K] 325.65
Ave. Pressure [Bara] 78.5
Ave. Compressibility factor [-] 0.91247613
Friction factor [-] 0.00971045
Flowline constant [Sm^3/Bara] 2.77E+05

DIAMETER CHANGE
New diameter [m] 0.3048
New flowline constant [Sm^3/Bara] 2.54E+05

CALCULATION OF PIPING FLOW CONSTANT FOR LM

Internal Diameter [m] 0.68
Gas gravity [-] 0.55
Line length [m] 90000
Inlet temperature [K] 313.15
Outlet temperature [K] 303.15
Inlet pressure [Bara] 75
Outlet pressure [Bara] 35
Ave. Temperature [K] 308.15
Ave. Pressure [Bara] 55
Ave. Compressibility factor [-] 0.91893754
Friction factor [-] 0.00839477
Piping constant [Sm^3/Bara] 3.65E+05

DIAMETER CHANGE
New diameter [m] 0.6604
New piping constant [Sm^3/Bara] 3.59E+05

61
 𝑪𝑻 𝑪𝑭𝑳 and 𝑪𝑷𝑳 For Zafarani

CALCULATION OF TUBING FLOW CONSTANT FOR ZAFARANI

(DST CONFIGURATION)
Internal Diameter [m] 0.15
Gas gravity [-] 0.55
Line length [m] 5150
Inlet temperature [K] 342.15
Outlet temperature [K] 337.15
Inlet pressure [Bara] 415
Outlet pressure [Bara] 388
Elevation Coefficient, S 0.155
Ave. Temperature [K] 339.65
Ave. Pressure [Bara] 401.5
Ave. Compressibility factor [-] 1.05695252
Friction factor [-] 0.01177731
Tubing constant [Sm^3/Bara] 2.52E+04

DIAMETER CHANGE
New diameter [m] 0.1016
New tubing constant [Sm^3/Bara] 2.02E+04

CALCULATION OF TUBING FLOW CONSTANT FOR

ZAFARANI (PRODUCTION TUBING)
Internal Diameter [m] 0.15
Gas gravity [-] 0.55
Line length [m] 2568
Inlet temperature [K] 342.15
Outlet temperature [K] 337.15
Inlet pressure [Bara] 415
Outlet pressure [Bara] 388
Elevation Coefficient, S 0.155
Ave. Temperature [K] 339.65
Ave. Pressure [Bara] 401.5
Ave. Compressibility factor [-] 1.05695252
Friction factor [-] 0.01177731
Piping constant [Sm^3/Bara] 3.56E+04

DIAMETER CHANGE
New diameter [m] 0.1016
New piping constant [Sm^3/Bara] 2.86E+04

62
 CALCULATION OF FLOWLINE CONSTANT FOR ZAFARANI
Internal Diameter [m] 0.355
Gas gravity [-] 0.55
Line length [m] 10000
Inlet temperature [K] 318.15
Outlet temperature [K] 313.15
Inlet pressure [Bara] 82
Outlet pressure [Bara] 75
Ave. Temperature [K] 315.65
Ave. Pressure [Bara] 78.5
Ave. Compressibility factor [-] 0.90042696
Friction factor [-] 0.00971045
Piping constant [Sm^3/Bara] 2.00E+05

DIAMETER CHANGE
New diameter [m] 0.3048
New piping constant [Sm^3/Bara] 1.84E+05

CALCULATION OF PIPING FLOW CONSTANT FOR Zlong

Internal Diameter [m] 0.68
Gas gravity [-] 0.55
Line length [m] 100000
Inlet temperature [K] 313.15
Outlet temperature [K] 303.15
Inlet pressure [Bara] 75
Outlet pressure [Bara] 35
Ave. Temperature [K] 308.15
Ave. Pressure [Bara] 55
Ave. Compressibility factor [-] 0.91893754
Friction factor [-] 0.00839477
Piping constant [Sm^3/Bara] 3.46E+05

DIAMETER CHANGE
New diameter [m] 0.6604
New piping constant [Sm^3/Bara] 3.41E+05

63
 CALCULATION OF PIPING FLOW CONSTANT FOR ZShort
Internal Diameter [m] 0.68
Gas gravity [-] 0.55
Line length [m] 5000
Inlet temperature [K] 313.15
Outlet temperature [K] 303.15
Inlet pressure [Bara] 75
Outlet pressure [Bara] 35
Ave. Temperature [K] 308.15
Ave. Pressure [Bara] 55
Ave. Compressibility factor [-] 0.91893754
Friction factor [-] 0.00839477
Piping constant [Sm^3/Bara] 1.55E+06

DIAMETER CHANGE
New diameter [m] 0.6604
New piping constant [Sm^3/Bara] 1.52E+06

64
 Appendix D: 𝑪𝑹 Estimates
 Zafarani 𝑪𝑹

Bottomhole network solving

Psep Pwfd PR Pwfu CR (Pwfu-Pwfd) Constraints
[Bara] [Bara] [Bara] [Bara] Sm3/Bara^2 [Bara] [Bara]
30 134.02 415.00 134.02 0.324762 0.00 280.98

 Lavani Main 𝑪𝑹

Bottomhole network solving

(Pwfu-
PR qwell Pwfu Pwfd Psep qF Pplem Pfl qfl Pwh CR Pwfd) Constraints

[Bara] [Sm3/D] [Bara] [Bara] [Bara] [Sm3/D] [Bara] [Bara] [Sm3/D] [Bara] Sm3/Bara^2 [Bara] [Bara]

360 1.90E+06 69.58 69.58 30 7.60E+06 36.21 46.99 7.60E+06 47.57 0.2457 0.00 154262.59

 Lavani Deep 𝑪𝑹

Bottomhole network solving

PR qwell Pwfu Pwfd Psep qF Pplem Pfl qfl Pwh CR (Pwfu-Pwfd) Constraints
[Bara] [Sm3/D] [Bara] [Bara] [Bara] [Sm3/D] [Bara] [Bara] [Sm3/D] [Bara] Sm3/Bara^2 [Bara] [Bara]
520 1.90E+06 85.65 85.65 30 3.80E+06 31.77 33.81397 3.80E+06 3.43E+01 0.1643 0.00 154262.58

 Adjusted 𝑪𝑹 in Sm3/Bara2

Zafarani Lavani Main Lavani Deep

0.639 0.349 0.555

 Supporting Equations

Radius of drainage area

𝐴
𝑟𝑒 =
𝜋 ∗ 𝑛𝑤𝑒𝑙𝑙

Piping constant horizontal

𝐶𝐹𝐿 = (1.14 ∗ 10 ^ 6 ∗ (𝑇𝑠𝑐 / 𝑃𝑠𝑐) ∗ (𝐷 ^ 5 / (𝐺𝑎𝑠𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 ∗ 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟

∗ 𝑍𝑎𝑣 ∗ 𝑇𝑎𝑣 ∗ 𝐿)) ^ 0.5) ∗ 10 ^ 5

65
 Piping constant vertical

𝐶𝑇 = ((1.14 ∗ 10 ^ 6 ∗ (𝑇𝑠𝑐 / 𝑃𝑠𝑐) ∗ (𝐷 ^ 5 / (𝐺𝑎𝑠𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑣𝑖𝑡𝑦 ∗ 𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟

∗ 𝑍𝑎𝑣 ∗ 𝑇𝑎𝑣 ∗ 𝐿)) ^ 0.5) ∗ 10 ^ 5) ∗ ((𝑆 / (𝐸𝑥𝑝(𝑆) − 1)) ^ 0.5)

 Example of Applied Solver Interface

This was taken during estimation of Zafarani 𝐶𝑅

66
Appendix E: Graphs for Prolonging the Plateau Length
 First case

 Second Case

67
  Third case

Appendix F: HYSYS Model

 Inputs

Pout (Psep) 30 Bara

Tin 313.15 K 40 ℃
Flowrate (plateau rate) 1.36E+07 Sm^3/D
Sea Temperature (Tsea) 4 ℃
Pipe ID 26 Inch 660.4 mm
Pipe OD ( including insulation) 29.3 Inch 0.74422 mm
Pipe length first case 100 Km
Pipe length second case 92 Km
Inclination 4-8. degrees
Pin for first case 49.85 Bara
Pin for second case 48.29 Bara
W/(m^2
Overall Heat Transfer (HTC or U) 1.5 ℃)

̇ )
Conversion of Std Volumetric Flow (qg) to Molar flow (𝐧𝐠
3
qg 1.36E+07 Sm /day
RTsc/Psc 23.689 Sm3/kgmol
nġ 5.73E+05 Kg-mole/day
nġ 2.39E+04 Kg-mole/hr

68
 Compositions Used for HYSYS Simulation

Component Percentage (%) Fractions

Nitrogen 0.71 0.0071
CO2 0.37 0.0037
Methane 97 0.97
Ethane 1.03 0.0103
Propane 0.31 0.0031
i-Butane 0.07 0.0007
n-Butane 0.09 0.0009
i-Pentane 0.03 0.0003
n-Pentane 0.03 0.0003
n-Hexane 0.03 0.0003
n-Heptane 0.11 0.0011
n-Octane 0.05 0.0005
n-Nonane 0.02 0.0002
H2O 0.15 0.0015
Summation 100 1

 Elevations Profiles

First Case

69
Second Case

70
Procedures in HYSYS Simulation

 Component list

71
 Fluid Package

72
 Inlet Stream, Inputs Specifications

 Correlations

73
 Heat Transfer

 Segments

74
References
1. A. Muggeridge, A. K. W. T. P., 2013. Recovery rates, enhanced oil recovery and
technological limits. [Online]
Available at: http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/372/2006/20120320
[Accessed 6 November 2015].

2. A. Rojey, C. J. S. G. B. S. M., 1997. NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION PROCESSING

TRANSPORT. Paris: Editions Technip.

3. Babies, J. M. a. G., 2012. Transport of Natural Gas, Dundee: POLINARES

Consortium.

4. Baker Hughes, 2010. Reservoir Performance Analysis and Prediction, Houston: Baker
Hughes incorporated.

5. Bokin, E., Febrianti, F., Khabibullin, E. & Perez, C. E. S., 2010. Flow assuarance and
Sour Gas in Natural Gas Production, Trondheim: NTNU.

6. Chawarwan Khana, R. A. G. M., 2013. Carbon dioxide injection for enhanced gas
recovery and storage (reservoir simulation). Egyptian Journal of Petroleum, 22(2), pp.
225-240.

7. Covington, K. C., III, J. T. C. & D., S. D. B., 1999. Selection of Hydrate Suppression
Methods for Gas Streams. in Proceedings of the Seventy-Eight GPA Annual
Convention, Nashvile, TN: Gas processors Association, pp.46-52.. Texas, Bryan
Research and Engineering, Inc..

8. Curtis H. Whiston, M. R. B., 2000. Phase Behaviour. Texas: Society of Petroleum

Engineers.

9. Dale, E. K., 2013. Design of Gas Transport Systems. Trondheim, NTNU.

10. Demirbas, A., 2010. Natural Gas, s.l.: Springer 2010.

11. Diego Vannucci, R., 2011. Platform Technologies for Offshore Renewable Energy
Conversion. Milan, IWES.

12. Ehizoyanyan, O., Appah, D. & Sylvester, O., 2015. Estimation of Pressure Drop,
Liquid Holdup and Flow Pattern in a Two Phase Vertical Flow. International Journal
of Engineering and Technology , V(4), pp. 241-253.

13. Guðmundsson, J. S., 2011. TPG 4140 - NATURAL GAS at NTNU. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.ipt.ntnu.no/~jsg/undervisning/naturgass/lysark/LysarkGudmundssonFlow
Assurance2011.pdf
[Accessed 7 November 2015].

75
14. Gudmundsson, J. S., 2012. Produced and Processed Natural Gas. [Online]
Available at:
http://www.ipt.ntnu.no/~jsg/undervisning/naturgass/lysark/LysarkGudmundssonProdu
cedProcessed2012.pdf
[Accessed 13 10 2015].

15. Gudmundsson, J. S., 2012. PROPERTIES OF NATURAL GAS. [Online]

Available at:
http://www.ipt.ntnu.no/~jsg/undervisning/naturgass/lysark/LysarkGudmundssonProper
tiesNaturalGas2012.pdf
[Accessed 14 October 2015].

16. Holm, H., 2015. Tanzania gas development – flow assurance challenges. s.l., BHR
Group.

17. Hossain, M. S., 2008. Production Optimization and Forecasting. Dhaka, BUET.

18. IHS, 2015. IHS Petrodata Offshore Rig Day Rate Trends. [Online]
Available at: https://www.ihs.com/products/oil-gas-drilling-rigs-offshore-day-
rates.html
[Accessed 2 December 2015].

19. Irmann-Jacobsen, T. B., 2012. Flow Assuarance- a system perspective. MEK4450

Offshore Technology Course. Oslo, Universitet i Oslo, Matematisk Institutt.

20. J.J.ARPS, 1944. Analysis Of Decline Curves, Houston: A.I.M.E.

21. Johansen, G. R., 2011. Optimization of offshore natural gas, Trondheim: NTNU.

22. Johnston, J., Lee, W. & Blasingame, T., 1991. Estimating the Stabilized Deliverability
of a Gas Well Using the Rawlins and Schellhardt Method: Analytical Approach. Paper
SPE 23440 presented at Eastern Regional Meeting held in Lexington, Kentucky.
Texas, Society of Petroleu Engineers.

23. Maden, N., 2015. Statoil Official Website. [Online]

Available at:
http://www.statoil.com/en/NewsAndMedia/News/2015/Pages/30Mar_Tanzania.aspx
[Accessed 4 December 2015].

24. Michael J. Economides, A. D. H. C. E.-E., 1994. Petroleum Production Systems.

United States of America: Prentice Hall.

25. Michael, G., 2015. TPG 4230 Spring 2015, Field Development course at NTNU.
[Online]
Available at:
https://files.itslearning.com/File/Download/GetFile.aspx?FileName=20150202.pdf&Pa
th=TCbN%2focWp6s2ioagXmZgSls3e8oAKMvp7JKj9HDHuVeNM3hVNkvI%2fzo2

76
 25ysXytq7bKt4i1hNHl%2f2NX01t3lc1zbM0VAE8Z7a9TV0TNYrTPcvQ5BZ12hGg
dHiZLrdT82ann9pAVi7Du7Pgsf7ioWYgDJGgHLVOLGCTVcq
[Accessed 6 November 2015].

26. Michael, G. & Whitson, C. H., 1991. Well Performance. 2nd ed. Trondheim: Prentice
Hall.

27. Michelsen, O., 2014. Statoil Official Website. [Online]

Available at:
http://www.statoil.com/en/NewsAndMedia/News/2014/Pages/03Mar_Tazania.aspx
[Accessed 4 December 2015].

28. Multiphase Technology, Inc, 2015. Introduction on Multiphase Flow. [Online]

Available at: http://www.cortest.com/multiphase.htm
[Accessed 15 December 2015].

29. OH, S. H., 2004. Petroleum Economic Evaluation, Ulsan: Korea Nationa Oil
Company.

30. PetroWiki, 2015. PetroWiki Website. [Online]

Available at: http://petrowiki.org/Reservoir_inflow_performance
[Accessed 12 November 2015].

31. Planete Energies, 2015. Planete Energies. [Online]

Available at: http://www.planete-energies.com/en/medias/close/life-cycle-oil-and-gas-
fields
[Accessed 8 November 2015].

32. Pratte, J. M., 2004. Environmental Science Activities for the 21st-Century, s.l.: John M.
Pratte,.

33. Rawlins, E. a. S. M., 1935. Backpressure Data on Natural Gas Wells and Their
Apllication to Production Practices. 7. Monograph Series ed. U.S: Brue of Mines .

34. Rodriguez-Sanchez*, J. E., Godoy-Alcantar, J. M. & Ramirez-Antonio, I., 2012.

Concept Selection for Hydrocarbon Field Development Planning, Mexico: Scientific
Research.

35. Schulumberger , 2010. Developments in Gas Hydrates, Paris: Schulumberger .

36. Statoil, 2015. Statoil Website. [Online]

Available at: http://www.statoil.com/en/about/worldwide/tanzania/pages/default.aspx
[Accessed 10 October 2015].

37. Stopford, P., 2011. Flow Assurance and Separation for the Oil & Gas Industry.
Pennsylvania, ANSYS, Inc.

77
38. Svalheim, M. S., 2005. Petroleum Economics. Stavanger, Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate.

39. Szilas, A., 1975. Production and Transport of Oil and Gas. Amsterdam : Elsevier.

40. U.S Energy Information Administration , 2012. TODAY IN ENERGY. [Online]

Available at: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=5930
[Accessed 31 October 2015].

41. U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2015. eia website. natural gas weekly
update. [Online]
Available at: http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/
[Accessed 3 December 2015].

78