Professional Documents
Culture Documents
System
Authors: Thomas J. Danielson and Quynhthy T. Bui, ConocoPhillips Co. USA
Abstract
The Lobo Gas Gathering System, owned and operated by ConocoPhillips, gathers gas in Webb
and Zapata counties (Texas) then feeds into central gathering/dehydration points which enter
Lobo Pipeline system. Lobo Pipeline System terminates at a central processing facility at King
Ranch and interstate pipelines at Agua Dulce. Many of the lines are multiphase (gas-
condensate-water/glycol or gas-condensate) due to operation upsets or low velocity due to field
depletion. As a result, system prediction and optimization is difficult. Further, significant back-
pressure is placed on the system by liquid drop out and collection in uphill sections of the
pipelines. ConocoPhillips has developed a multiphase model for these lines, tunable to SCADA
data, which respects the complexities of multiphase flow. This model has allowed ConocoPhillips
to alter operations to reduce the liquid accumulation, resulting in lower overall operating pressure
and increased production.
System Description
The Lobo Pipeline Gas Gathering system gathers natural gas from Webb and Zapata Counties
and delivers to the processing plant in Jim Wells. There are about 47 miles of 20-inch pipeline
from Laredo to Hebbronville, 10 miles of 16-inch pipeline from BMT to Vaquillas, 6 miles of 12-
inch pipeline from BMT to the 20 inch, 9 miles of 16-inch from Vaquillas to the 20-inch pipe and
47 miles of 30-inch pipeline from Vaquillas to the processing plant at King Ranch. Figure 1 gives
a diagram of this system.
A 30-inch pipeline (Vaquillas pipeline) connects Vaquillas to Hebbronville, and on to the King
Ranch gas plant. A 20-inch pipeline (Laredo pipeline) connects Laredo to Hebbronville there,
production between Vaquillas and Laredo are co-mingled, and flow through the Vaquillas pipeline
to King Ranch. Two 16-inch lines also connect the Laredo pipeline to Vaquillas. The so-called
wet 16-inch line tees off of the Laredo pipeline at 74,000 ft, passes through BMT station, and on
to Vaquillas (55,000 ft). A second dry 16-inch pipeline tees off of the Laredo line at 127,000 ft,
and on to Vaquillas (47,500 ft).
Figure 2 gives a histogram line fraction as a function of pipeline angle for the four pipelines
making up the pipeline network; the elevation profile for the 30-inch Vaquillas line is given in
Figure 3. Note from Figure 2 that the Vaquillas pipeline has, by far, the most acute angles
present in the pipeline system. These angles, combined with the low gas velocities in the 30-inch
line, lead to the largest liquid accumulations and highest pressure drops of any pipeline in the
system. Thus, the Vaquillas pipeline was the key focus of the Lobo system optimization.
Pipeline operation
This Lobo gas gathering system was designed for a much larger throughput, and therefore as
production declines, the pipeline becomes more and more inefficient for the service. The low
velocity, particularly in the 30-inch line from Vaquillas to Hebbronville, is unable to keep the line
swept clean of liquid condensate. Though the liquid loading is very low (<0.1 bbl/MMscf),
condensate, and perhaps also glycol carry-over from the dehydration unit at Vaquillas, have built
up over time, especially in the uphill section of the pipe from Vaquillas to Hebbronville. Liquid
hold-up in this section of pipeline has exerted considerable back-pressure on the system due to
liquid head. At the same time, the liquid in the line also reduces the effective diameter, causing
an increase in pressure drop due to friction. Because of this increased back-pressure, the
pipeline has, at times, spiked near the maximum allowable operating pressure limit of 945 psig.
From 1998 to 1999, the flow rate in the 30-inch pipeline from Vaquillas to Hebbronville dropped
from about 220 MMscfd to about 140 MMscfd, and as a result the pipeline loaded up with
liquids. At that time, the line experienced an 80 psi pressure drop (880 to 800 psi) between
Vaquillas and Hebbronville for a wet gas rate of 130 MMscfd, bringing it quite close to the
maximum allowable operating pressure for that pipeline. At these low gas flow rates, nearly the
entire pressure drop was estimated to be due to pressure head of the in situ liquid.
There are a very large number of wells (> 500) flowing into the Vaquillas-Laredo pipeline system
and these wells are sensitive to pipeline pressure. As a rule of thumb (formed from production
historical data of this area), for normal healthy wells, every psi of pressure decrease results in 0.2
Mscf of increase production per well. For wells operating at line pressure and near critical rate
(rate at which the wells load up), the relationship is 1.94 Mscf/psi/well. Thus, new incremental
production due to system optimization can be significant.
Thus, for both economic and safety reasons, it became necessary to remove the excess liquid
from the Vaquillas to Hebbronville line. Two multiphase flow studies were conducted in 2000
1,2
to
find a way to blow down the Vaquillas pipeline without either over-pressuring it, or flooding the
King Ranch gas plant. An OLGA
2000 over a range of flow rates for the Vaquillas 30-inch pipeline, at inlet conditions
of 80 F, 700 psia. Note that, for a given gas rate, there is a region of very low hold-up, running
from all negative angles, through horizontal, and some distance into the positive inclination
angles. Then, above a critical angle (a function of gas rate), here is an abrupt increase in hold-up
(also a function of gas rate) which then seems to remain more or less constant as angle
increases still further. The purpose of what follows is to determine:
For a given inclination angle, at what velocity does the pipeline switch from the low-hold-
up, friction-dominated, gas-like behavior to the high hold-up, gravity-dominated, liquid-
like behavior?
What is the hold-up in the pipeline when the gravity forces dominates?
High Hold-up Prediction
Figure 11 gives a plot of the gas velocity U
G
vs the mixture velocity U
M
derived from commercial
model runs at 50 through 300 MMscfd), where,
U
G
= U
SG
/(1 H
L
) (1)
It can be seen from the plot that there are two separate lines formed by the commercial model
one which trends very near the U
G
= U
M
(i.e., no-slip) line, and another one which trends
somewhat above this line. Let us focus on the higher of the two lines the high hold-up line. It
is known that slug or bubble flow will fall on a line with a characteristic slope and intercept when
plotted in this manner. Thus, the value of the gas velocity U
G
is related to the mixture velocity U
M
by:
U
G
= CU
M
+ U
o
(2)
This is the so-called drift flux model, where U
o
is the drift portion of gas velocity (bubble motion
due to pressure gradient), and C U
M
is the flux part (bubble motion due to flow). A curve fit to this
upper line gives values of C and U
o
of:
C = 0.95
U
o
= 1.6 m/s
The hold-up can obtained from this expression as
H
L
= 1 U
SG
/(CU
M
+ U
o
) (3)
where U
o
could potentially be a function of angle.
Low Hold-up Prediction
In order to formulate a model for the low hold-ups, let us begin with a model for the slip between
the oil and gas phases for horizontal pipe. We assume a model of the form:
U
S
= U
G
U
L
= AU
M
+ B (4)
Indeed, as can be seen from a plot of the slip between the phases and the mixture velocity
(Figure 12), over the range of expected mixture velocities (corresponding to 50 to 300 MMscfd),
there is a nearly perfect linear relationship, with the values of A and B given by:
A = 0.9214
B = 0.0165 m/s
With U
S
in hand, the hold-up can be derived from:
U
S
= U
G
U
L
= U
SG
/(1-H
L
) U
SL
/H
L
(5)
or
U
S
H
L
2
+ (U
M
U
S
)H
L
U
SL
= 0 (6)
The above quadratic equation can be easily solved for H
L
(taken as the largest positive root).
Figure 13 gives a plot of the model hold-up, using the values of A and B above, compared to the
OLGA-predicted hold-up. Actually, the predicted hold-up is vanishingly small in any case; most of
the liquid hold-up in the pipeline is on the inclines.
Pressure Gradient Criterion
In order to determine the switch over from the low-hold-up solution to the high hold-up solution
outlined above, we need a criterion. A reasonable first step towards such a criterion lies in the
comparison of the frictional and gravity pressure gradients in the flow as a function of angle.
Let us start with a model for pressure drop for Lobo, based on averaged or mixture
properties
3
:
M
=
L
H
L
+
G
(1-H
L
) (7a)
M
=
L
HL
G
(1-HL)
(7b)
U
M
= U
SL
+ U
SG
(7c)
D = D (7d)
where the hold-up used in the calculation is that calculated from Equation 6. Here, the
expression for mixture viscosity is that of Hagedorn and Brown.
4
Then a mixture Reynolds
number can be formulated as follows:
Re
M
=
M
U
M
D /
M
(8)
Let us use an explicit correlation for friction factor, based on these mixture properties:
f(Re) = 0.0055( 1 + (2x10
4
/D + 10
6
/Re
M
)
1/3
)
5
(9)
The frictional pressure gradient is then given by:
dp/dz
FRICTION
= f
M
U
M
2
/(2D) (10)
The gravitational pressure gradient is given by:
dp/dz
GRAVITY
=
M
gsin() (12)
where, again, the hold-up is calculated from Equation 6 rather than Equation 3. It seems
reasonable that when the frictional pressure gradient dominates the gravity pressure gradient,
then the liquid hold-up will remain low. However, when the gravity pressure gradient begins to
dominate the frictional pressure gradient, this force imbalance should give rise to a rapid increase
in hold-up, culminating in the drift-flux hold-up given by Equation 3.
By comparison to the commercial model, it is found that the critical ratio of frictional to
gravitational forces occurs when the gravity force is approximately 3 times the frictional force, or:
dp
GRAVITY
/dp
FRICTION
= gsin() / fU
M
2
/(2D) ~ 3 (13)
This implies that:
U
M-CRITICAL
= (2/3gDsin())
1/2
(14)
U
M
> U
M-CRITICAL
low hold-up solution
U
M
< U
M-CRITICAL
high hold-up solution
A comparison to the OLGA-predicted hold-up for 50-300 MMscfd is given in Figure 14. Good
agreement is obtained between the OLGA-predicted hold-ups and the model-predicted hold-ups.
Pressure Drop Determination
Total pressure gradient is now calculated from the hold-up determined above by the criterion in
Equation 14, and is given by:
dp/dz
TOTAL
= dp/dz
FRICTION
+ dp/dz
GRAVITY
(15)
Comparison of the model pressure gradients with the commercial-model-predicted pressure
gradients are given in Figure 19 (horizontal frictional pressure drop only) and Figure 15 (all
angles, from -4 to +4 degrees). Again, reasonable good agreement is obtained between the
simple model and the commercial code. The gradients at positive angles for the simple model
are somewhat higher then the commercial code, due to the slightly higher liquid hold-ups
predicted in the simple model.
It should be emphasized that the frictional pressure drop for all pipelines in the Lobo gathering
system behave as gas pipelines when the hold-ups are low (i.e., governed by Equation 6).
Although the liquid loading is exceedingly low for these pipelines, even this small amount can
build up in inclined sections over time (governed by Equation 3), putting significant back-pressure
on the system.
ConocoPhillips FIELD Pipeline Model
The equations for hold-up and pressure drop developed above constitute a multiphase point
model, that is, a model that given fluid properties, pipe diameter and inclination, and gas and
liquid flow rates at a specific point in the line produces as output a prediction of the liquid hold-
up, pressure gradient, and flow pattern.
The ConocoPhillips FIELD pipeline model is constructed from a series of point model results,
strung together. The FIELD pipeline model is a steady-state model written into Excel in Visual
Basic, and is composed of a thermal properties sheet, and a pipeline geometry sheet. The
thermal properties sheet is a look-up table of fluid properties as a function of temperature and
pressure (the same look-up table is used for the FIELD model as for the commercial simulator
OLGA
). The pipeline geometry sheet consists of pipeline lengths, elevations, diameters, and
wall roughness. Boundary conditions for the field model consist presently of a mass inlet,
pressure outlet, and U-values for heat losses to ambient (with an option for isothermal
calculations).
The FIELD pipeline model is executed as follows:
Temperatures are calculated throughout the pipe;
Conditions at the outlet (T,P) are used to determine fluid properties at that point;
Hold-ups, pressure gradients, and flow pattern are determined from local conditions;
Pressure gradient term used to step backwards into pipe, to determine new (T,P);
Model allows for condensation/evaporation;
Mass conservation is enforced as a constraint.
The model accounts for condensation/evaporation, but ignores Joule-Thompson cooling and heat
of fusion. These effects are extremely small for Lobo, and can be left out without impacting
model accuracy. However, if needed, both effects could be added into later versions of the code.
Tuning to Field Data
There are two excellent benchmarking points for the Vaquillas pipeline, given in Table 2, along
with a comparison to OLGA
Rerouted
volume
(MMscfd)
Laredo
pressure
(psia)
Vaquillas
pressure
(psia)
Laredo
(psia)
Vaquillas
(psia)
prod.
(MMscfd)
0 777.4 757.9 0 0 0.00
25 767.8 722.4 9.6 35.5 2.77
50 759.8 707.6 17.6 50.3 4.05
75 758.8 696.3 18.6 61.6 4.87
100 770.1 695.4 7.3 62.5 4.59
125 783.3 692.6 -5.9 65.3 4.39
150 801.2 692.2 -23.8 65.7 3.89
Table 4 Increase in production resulting from rerouting
of gas from Laredo to Vaquillas based on FIELD
Rerouted
volume
(MMscfd)
Laredo
pressure
(psia)
Vaquillas
pressure
(psia)
Laredo
(psia)
Vaquillas
(psia)
prod.
(MMscfd)
0 865 781 0 0 0.00
25 841.3 766.8 23.7 14.2 1.71
50 823.5 745.2 41.5 35.8 3.75
75 824.6 733.7 40.4 47.3 4.52
100 831.7 723.7 33.3 57.3 5.01
125 847.6 719 17.4 62 4.86
150 872.6 720.6 -7.6 60.4 4.00
It appears that an optimum is reached by forcing approximately 100 MMscfd of the Laredo
production to Vaquillas. This, in turn, leads to a drop in pressure at both Laredo and Vaquillas,
resulting in an increased incremental production of approximately 5 MMscfd, or an increase in
flow rate of 2.0%
Conclusions
Pipelines with even a very small amount of condensing liquid in them can exhibit significant
multiphase effects under the right circumstances. When the mixture velocity falls below a critical
mixture velocity, there will be significant liquid accumulations. The magnitude of these liquid
accumulations can be very effectively predicted using a drift-flux type model.
The vast majority of pressure loss in these systems is head loss due to gravity effects of pipeline
inclines. This effect completely dominates frictional losses, even in pipelines that are relatively
flat, such as those in the Lobo gathering system.
One of the counter-intuitive aspects of multiphase pipelines is that they can experience a
decrease in pressure drop with increasing flow rate. This is due to the fact that a higher gas
velocity will help to sweep the line free of liquids, thus lowering the head loss due to gravity
effects.
The Lobo gas gathering system can be optimized by forcing additional flow from Laredo up
through Vaquillas through the 16-inch connectors between the Laredo pipeline and Vaquillas
station. Optimum operation is achieved when total volume through Vaquillas is within the 200-
250 MMscfd range.
It is estimated that optimizing the Lobo gas gathering system has resulted in an additional 5
MMscfd, or 2.0% of the total system production.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge ConocoPhillips for permission to publish this paper. We would
also like to acknowledge our colleague Brian Dyer both for helping us getting accurate profiles of
the pipeline, and for his idea of routing the gas through Vaquillas on a permanent basis which
was applied in late 2005 resulting in the most stable pressure at Vaquillas in 8 years.
References
1. Danielson, Thomas J. and Bansal, Kris M., OLGA Simulation of Lobo Sweeping and Pigging
Operations, Internal Technical Service Report, 2000.
2. Danielson, Thomas J. and Bansal, Kris M., Lobo 30-inch Pipeline Study, Internal Technical
Service Report, 2000.
3. Danielson, Thomas J., Influence of Fluid Properties on Multiphase Flow Prediction, 11
th
International Conference on Multiphase flow, 2003, San Remo, Italy.
4. Hagedorn, A.R., and Brown, K.E., Experimental Study of Pressure Gradients Occurring
During Continuous Two-Phase Flow in Small Diameter Vertical Conduits, J. Pet. Tech. (Apr.
1965), 475-484.
5. Hall, N.A., Thermodynamics of Fluid Flow, Longmans, Green, and Co., 1957.
Figures
Figure 1 Pipeline Diagram
Vaquillas to King Ranch Pipeline
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000
distance (ft)
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
pipeline elevation Vaquillas Hebbronville King Ranch
Figure 2 Elevation profile for the 30-inch pipeline from Vaquillas to King Ranch.
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
-2 -1.8 -1.6 -1.4 -1.2 -1 -0.8 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
angle (degrees)
l
i
n
e
f
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
(
-
)
Vaquillas 30-inch Laredo 20-inch dry 16-inch wet 16-inch
Figure 3 Histogram of inclination angles for the system
Vaquillas to King Ranch Pipeline
0.00
0.10
0.20
0.30
0.40
0.50
0.60
0.70
0.80
0.90
1.00
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000
distance (ft)
h
o
l
d
-
u
p
(
-
)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
hold-up profile
Figure 4 Model prediction of liquid hold-up for the Vaquillas pipeline with 100 MMscfd from
Vaquillas with an additional 150 MMscfd added at Hebbronville.
Laredo 20-inch PIpeline
1.50E-04
2.00E-04
2.50E-04
3.00E-04
3.50E-04
4.00E-04
4.50E-04
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000
distance (ft)
h
o
l
d
-
u
p
(
-
)
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
(
f
t
)
hold-up elevation
Figure 5 Model prediction of liquid hold-up for the Laredo pipeline for 150 MMscfd wet gas rate.
Vaquillas to Hebbronville 30-inch Pipeline
660
680
700
720
740
760
780
800
820
840
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
wet gas rate (mmscfd)
v
a
q
u
i
l
l
a
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
40000
45000
l
i
q
u
i
d
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
(
b
b
l
)
inlet pressure liquid inventory
Figure 6 Model Result of Liquid Inventory and Vaquillas Pressure
Laredo 20-inch Pipeline
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
wet gas rate (mmscfd)
i
n
l
e
t
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
l
i
q
u
i
d
i
n
v
e
n
t
o
r
y
(
b
b
l
)
inlet pressure liquid inventory
Figure 7 Model Result of Liquid Inventory and Laredo Pressure
Vaquillas volume vs. Vaquillas Pressure vs. Laredo Pressure
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
1
/
1
/
9
9
5
/
1
/
9
9
9
/
1
/
9
9
1
/
1
/
0
0
5
/
1
/
0
0
9
/
1
/
0
0
1
/
1
/
0
1
5
/
1
/
0
1
9
/
1
/
0
1
1
/
1
/
0
2
5
/
1
/
0
2
9
/
1
/
0
2
1
/
1
/
0
3
5
/
1
/
0
3
9
/
1
/
0
3
1
/
1
/
0
4
5
/
1
/
0
4
9
/
1
/
0
4
1
/
1
/
0
5
5
/
1
/
0
5
9
/
1
/
0
5
1
/
1
/
0
6
5
/
1
/
0
6
9
/
1
/
0
6
1
/
1
/
0
7
5
/
1
/
0
7
9
/
1
/
0
7
V
a
q
u
i
l
l
a
s
v
o
l
u
m
e
(
m
c
f
d
)
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
(
p
s
i
a
)
Vaquillas Q Vaquillas P Laredo P
Figure 8 Lobo Gas Gathering System SCADA data
Vaquillas volume vs. Liquid Output to King Ranch
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
1
/
1
/
1
9
9
9
4
/
1
/
1
9
9
9
7
/
1
/
1
9
9
9
1
0
/
1
/
1
9
9
9
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
0
4
/
1
/
2
0
0
0
7
/
1
/
2
0
0
0
1
0
/
1
/
2
0
0
0
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
1
4
/
1
/
2
0
0
1
7
/
1
/
2
0
0
1
1
0
/
1
/
2
0
0
1
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
2
4
/
1
/
2
0
0
2
7
/
1
/
2
0
0
2
1
0
/
1
/
2
0
0
2
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
3
4
/
1
/
2
0
0
3
7
/
1
/
2
0
0
3
1
0
/
1
/
2
0
0
3
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
4
4
/
1
/
2
0
0
4
7
/
1
/
2
0
0
4
1
0
/
1
/
2
0
0
4
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
5
4
/
1
/
2
0
0
5
7
/
1
/
2
0
0
5
1
0
/
1
/
2
0
0
5
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
6
4
/
1
/
2
0
0
6
7
/
1
/
2
0
0
6
1
0
/
1
/
2
0
0
6
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
7
4
/
1
/
2
0
0
7
7
/
1
/
2
0
0
7
1
0
/
1
/
2
0
0
7
V
a
q
u
i
l
l
a
s
v
o
l
u
m
e
(
m
c
f
d
)
0
4,000
8,000
12,000
16,000
20,000
24,000
L
i
q
u
i
d
(
g
a
l
p
e
r
d
a
y
)
Vaquillas Q Liquid
Figure 9 Lobo Gas Gathering System SCADA data
Vaquillas 30-inch Line
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
angle (degrees)
h
o
l
d
-
u
p
(
-
)
50 mmscfd 100 mmscfd 150 mmscfd 200 mmscfd 250 mmscfd 300 mmscfd
Figure 10 Commercial Model hold-up vs. angle for various flow rates
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
um (m/s)
u
g
(
m
/
s
)
100 mmscfd 150 mmscfd 200 mmscfd 250 mmscfd
266 mmscfd drift-flux line no-slip line
Figure 11 Commercial model gas velocity vs. mixture velocity
y = 0.9214x + 0.0165
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
mixture velocity (m/s)
s
l
i
p
v
e
l
o
c
i
t
y
(
m
/
s
)
Figure 12 Commercial model slip velocity vs. mixture velocity
0.00000
0.00005
0.00010
0.00015
0.00020
0.00025
0.00030
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
wet gas rate (mmscfd)
h
o
l
d
-
u
p
(
-
)
olga hl model hl
Figure 13 Comparison of FIELD model to commercial OLGA
model
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
-4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4
angle (degrees)
h
o
l
d
-
u
p
(
-
)
50 mmscfd 100 mmscfd 150 mmscfd 200 mmscfd 250 mmscfd
50 mmscfd 100 mmscfd 150 mmscfd 200 mmscfd 250 mmscfd
Figure 14 Comparison of FIELD model (open points) to OLGA