OTC 19152

Evaluation of PhaseWatcher Multiphase Flow Meter (MPFM)

Performance in Sour Environments
Mohammed N. Al-Khamis and Abdulaziz F. Al-Bassam, Saudi Aramco; Zaki Bakhteyar and Muhammad N. Aftab,
Schlumberger
Copyright 2008, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2008 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 5–8 May 2008.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper have not been
reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to
reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract to the detector at two different photon energy

Accurate oil, water and gas flow rate measurements from levels (the high energy level is used to measure the
individual wells are essential in order to properly manage density of the mixture, while the low energy level
both the wells and reservoirs, as well as to obtain reliable is used to calculate the water-oil ratio).
data for production performance monitoring, ƒ Process fluid temperature transducers, which
optimization, allocation and simulation models1, 2, 3, 4, 5. measure the fluid temperature upstream of the
Over the past three decades, there has been great Venturi section and the ambient temperature.
advancement in the multiphase metering technology. ƒ A Blind Tee Static Mixer, used to homogenize the
These advancements have resulted in a significant flow stream ahead of the Venturi meter.
improvement in measurement accuracy as well as in ƒ A process flow computer used to manipulate the
reducing the physical size of these meters which is a measured data.
crucial element in limited-space environments as in
offshore platforms.

The intent of this paper is to present results of a compact

Multiphase Flow Meter (MPFM) “PhaseWatcher” based
on information gathered from Saudi Arabia, where more
than one hundred meters have been installed so far in
several fields covering wide ranges of fluid properties and
operating conditions. Moreover, the paper will discuss in
detail the effect of crude sourness (H2S concentration) and
pressure on the meter’s measurement accuracy.

Multiphase Flow Meter (MPFM) Design

The PhaseWatcher is designed to measure the total Figure 1. PhaseWatcher MPFM components.
volumetric flow rates of oil, water and gas at line
conditions. These flow rates are converted to standard PhaseWatcher Operating Principle
conditions via a pressure-volume-temperature (PVT) A radioactive source installed at the meter throat (Barium
package, which can be either the default Black Oil Model 133), emits γ-rays (gamma rays) which are attenuated due
or a specific model derived using a client supplied PVT to the presence of well effluents across the Venturi
data. section of the meter. The non-attenuated γ-rays are
detected by a scintillation detector located on the other
The meter comprises of five basic components, Fig. 1: side of the meter. Across the Venturi meter, three basic
ƒ A Venturi meter with pressure transducers across it sets of measurements are taken by the PhaseWatcher.
to measure the differential pressure between the
inlet and throat of the Venturi. I. The Dual Energy Fraction Meter
ƒ A nuclear dual energy fraction meter consisting of This meter is used to estimate the following in the flow
a Smart Detector and Barium Source, measures the stream:
count range of photons transmitted from the source
2 OTC 19152
ƒ Mixture Density (oil, gas and water)
ƒ Phase Holdups (phase fractions)
Calculations of oil, water and gas fractions are based on
the attenuation of two different gamma energy levels of
fluid phases when exposed to a radioactive source
emission. The gamma ray attenuation contains different
energy levels which can be transformed into fluid volume
fractions (oil, water and gas) using mathematical models.
The attenuation of gamma rays is dependent on the
density and the mass attenuation coefficient of the
penetrated material which can be related by the following
physical relation:
N = N 0 e − xρυ
Where
N Count rate from gamma ray detector
No Empty pipe count rate
X Gamma path length
ρ Density of the penetrate material
υ Mass attenuation coefficient of the penetrated
material
The high energy fraction is associated with the mixture
density while the low energy fraction is associated with
the composition or fluid holdups. The following set of
equations relates the fluid densities and fractions at the
two energy levels:
) = c(α oυ ole ρ o + α wυ wle ρ w + α gυ gle ρ g )
N le
− Ln(
N 0le
− Ln( he ) = c(α oυ ohe ρ o + α wυ whe ρ w + α gυ ghe ρ g )
N requirement in order to set up the meter accurately. There
N 0 he
Where
N Number of γ-photons at the detector at any time
N0 Number of γ-photons at the detector in a vacuum
ρ The density of the fluid
α The fluid phase fraction
υ The mass attenuation coefficient
c Constant
The subscripts “le” and “he” denote low energy and high
energy fractions, respectively. Similarly, the subscripts (o,
g and w) denote the fluid phases for oil, gas and water,
respectively.
II. The Venturi Meter
The Venturi Meter estimates the total mass flow rate
using the following relations (assuming no slip):
Qm = k ( ρ m .∆Pv )
ρm = α o ρo + α w ρ w + α g ρ g
Where
Qm Total mass flow rate
ρm Mixture density
∆Pv Differential pressure across the Venturi meter
α Fraction of each phase (oil, water and gas)
ρ Density of each phase (oil, water and gas)
k Constant
III. Line Pressure and Temperature
Since meters are in line, flow rates are measured at
MPFM process operating conditions. In order to convert
these rates from line conditions to standard conditions, a
(1) set of PVT relationships based on the Equation of State
(EOS), empirical correlations, and/or client supplied PVT
data are being used. These relations will require basic
fluid properties of the flow stream, and the line pressure
and temperature in order to accurately covert the MPFM
flow rate measurements from line to standard condition.
The aforementioned three measurements form the basis of
the PhaseWatcher operating principle. In addition to
these, a few other aspects of the measurement principle
also require an introduction. Those are briefly explained
in the following sections.
Mass Attenuation Coefficients
The degree of attenuation of the Gamma Ray emitted
from the Barium Source is an indication of the type of
fluid it encountered while traveling through the Venturi
throat. As such, the accurate determination of the mass
attenuation coefficient for each fluid phase is a key
are two ways to determine the mass attenuation
coefficients of different fluid components (oil, water and
(2)
gas).
A. In-situ Reference Mass Attenuation
The in-situ mass attenuations are determined by real-time
measuring the attenuation of the Gamma Ray beams
passing through the Venturi throat due to the presence of
fluid nuclei from a representative sample of individual
component of fluid effluent (oil, water and gas). The
single-phase fluid sample is placed in the Venturi throat
of the meter using a special sample insertion tool.
B. Theoretical Mass Attenuation
Theoretical mass attenuations are also computed from the
composition of individual components of the fluid
effluent at a given operational condition of the meter.
Therefore, an accurate fluid compositional analysis at the
operating range of the meter is required. For fluids
bearing high percentages of H2S or CO2, this is the
(3) preferred method, as the in-situ method may not always
be safe and practical.
(4)
OTC 19152 3

The Solution Triangle

True triangle Meter’s triangle
The Solution Triangle represents the linear attenuation of
the individual phases and, along with the empty pipe, is a
key parameter to be set up in order to ensure accurate
meter performance. Using one of the methods from the
preceding section, the mass attenuation coefficient for
each of the phases is determined defining the limits of the
Solution Triangle. Figure 2 shows a depiction of the
PhaseWatcher solution triangle as a function of high and
low energy attenuations. The limits of the triangle
represent the oil, water and gas fluid reference points. For
a stream consisting of a mixture of oil, water and gas, the
operating point should always be inside the triangle. If the
operating point falls outside the solution triangle, then the Figure 3. Error in WLR due to incorrect gas reference.
crude PVT properties will need to be reconfigured to
reflect the actual properties of the stream. True triangle

Low Energy Attenuation Meter’s triangle

Gas
High Energy Attenuation

Operating Point
WLR=63%
GVF=24%

αo Figure 4. Error in WLR due to incorrect oil reference.

αw The red dots in Figs. 3 and 4 indicate the operating points

Oil
Water αg
Figure 2. PhaseWatcher Solution Triangle.
Sour Environment Effect
The presence of heavy components like H2S or CO2 in the
well stream results in a mass transfer of components
between the different phases of the fluid effluent due to
the changes in pressure and temperature. A Solution
Triangle defined using the in-situ or the Theoretical Mass
Attenuation Method will therefore no longer be
representative due to the dynamic behavior of the well
effluents. Consequently, the vertices of the Solution
Triangle as defined by the single phase compositions of
the fluids will therefore no longer be corresponding to the
actual gas and oil being metered due to the mass transfer
between the phases taking place.
In order to understand the effect of this mass transfer on
the Solution Triangle, consider the black triangle shown
in Figs. 3 and 4. Once the sour effluent passes through the
meter, the true gas point and/or the true oil point will be
shifted (red triangle) based on the direction of the mass
transfer taken place.
and the black horizontal lines under the red dots indicate
lines of constant Water Liquid Ratio (WLR). In Fig. 3, at
0% GVF (bottom of the triangle) the red operating point
is indicating almost 25% WLR on both the red as well as
the black triangle. The same point, at almost 75% GVF,
indicates the same 25% WLR on the red triangle but the
black triangle, which has been defined based on constant
composition (no mass transfer), indicates almost 100%
WLR.
The same goes for Fig. 4, where the oil reference point
has been affected as a result of the mass transfer. At 75%
GVF, the WLR on the red triangle is zero with the black
triangle showing a minimal reading. Although, at 0%
GVF, the black triangle shows almost 16% WLR.
The above effect has been studied in detail in labs and a
correction model has been developed, labeled as the
Dynamic Mu, which accurately predicts the mass transfer
behavior of the different components as a function of
pressure and temperature changes. Figures 5 (for gas
point) and 6 (for oil point) below show the results of the
prediction model for one such case.
4 OTC 19152
Figure 5. Error in WLR due to incorrect gas reference.
The error in WLR, as shown in Fig. 5, due to an
erroneous H2S concentration, is constant along the WLR
range but is sensitive to the GVF percentage. It can be
almost 5% at 80% GVF. The source of error in H2S
concentration could be either due to the mass transfer or
the accuracy of measurement in the PVT lab.
Figure 6. Error in WLR due to incorrect oil reference.
The error in WLR due to the incorrect oil point, as shown
in Fig. 6, is constant along the GVF range but is more
sensitive to changes in WLR.
H2S Effect on Water Cut Measurements
The photoelectric attenuation of elements is a function of
their atomic weight. Therefore, heavier elements than
Hydrogen, Oxygen and Carbon will have greater mass
attenuation for a given energy fraction. This means that,
for a given point on the solution triangle, any change in
composition or density will have an impact on the
attenuation and consequently the position and shape of the
solution triangle, Figs. 3 and 4. Since the atomic weight
of sulfur (32) is larger than oxygen (16) and carbon (12),
the effect of dissolved sulfur in produced sour crude will
therefore shift the oil limit in the solution triangle to the
left towards the water limit.
This shift in the oil point greatly impacts the water liquid
ratio (WLR) measurements and will tend to overestimate
the water production. Assuming that there is no slip
between the oil and the water, the water liquid ratio is
given by
αw
WLR = (5)
αo + αw
On the solution triangle, an increase in H2S concentration
will therefore shift the oil limit towards the left,
underestimating the length of the oil-water line
(denominator in equation 5) and consequently resulting in
over estimating the water production (WLR).
In order to establish the magnitude of the correction factor
of this effect, accurate estimation of H2S solubility in
tested crude will need to be determined. Therefore,
detailed PVT data describing the behavior of H2S in crude
oils as a function of both pressure and temperature is
required in order to accurately estimate the water liquid
ratio.
Pressure Effect on Water Cut Measurements
At standard conditions, H2S concentration in oil tends to
be lower than in gas. Although, as pressure increases and
at a constant temperature, more H2S is absorbed in oil
making it heavier, and as a result the operating point on
the solution triangle will also therefore tend to shift
towards the water reference limit resulting in an over
estimation of WLR. To gain a better understanding of the
impact of variable pressure profile on the water cut
measurements obtained form the PhaseWatcher, field
tests were gathered from three wells where operating
pressure have been varied while the temperature of the
flow stream remained constant. Results of these tests are
presented in Figs. 7, 8 and 9 where the light blue curve
represents the WLR before correction for pressure effect
and the dark blue curve after the correction.
80 6
4
P r e s (b a r ), T e m p (d e g C )
60
P=700psi 2
W L R (% )
40 0
P=490psi -2
20
P=322psi P=283psi -4
P=223psi
0 -6
5/15/2006 10:33 5/15/2006 11:02 5/15/2006 11:31 5/15/2006 12:00 5/15/2006 12:28 5/15/2006 12:57 5/15/2006 13:26
Temp Pres WLRwith DynMu cor WLR init
Figure 7. Variation of WLR with pressure (Well A).
 OTC 19152 5

Total Liquid Rate: 650 to 12,330 STBD

8080 5 5 Gas Rate: 0.91 to 8.9 MMSCFD
4 4
3
Water Cut: 0% to 95%
6060 3
TT ee mm pp ((dd eegg CC ) )
PP rree ss ((bb aa rrss)), ,

2 2

W L R (% )
Figures 10, 11 and 12 show comparisons between the

W L R (% )
P=588psi
1 1
4040 0 0 PhaseWatcher measurements for total liquid rate, water
P=466psi -1 -1 cut, and gas rate and the corresponding figures obtained
2020 P=338psi -2 -2
by the in line test separator along with error bands of
P=230psi -3 -3
±10% for total liquid rates, ±5% for water cut and ±15%
00 -4 -4
5/16/2006
5/16/20069:36
9:36 5/16/2006
5/16/200610:48
10:48 5/16/2006 12:00
5/16/2006 12:00 5/16/2006 13:12
5/16/2006 13:125/16/2006 14:2414:245/16/2006
5/16/2006 15:3615:365/16/2006
5/16/2006 16:4816:48
5/16/2006
for GOR.

Temp Pres Temp

WLR Pres WLRdynMu from 294Compo
WLR with 14000
+/-10%
12000 Non-Sour
Figure 8. Variation of WLR with pressure (Well B). Sour

PW Liquid Rate..
10000

(STBD)
8000
80 4
6000
P re s (b a r ), T e m p (d e g C )

3
60 4000
2

W L R (% )
P=590psi 2000
40 1
0
0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
20
-1
P=226psi TS Liquid Rate (STBD)
0 -2
5/17/2006 5:31 5/17/2006 6:28 5/17/2006 7:26 5/17/2006 8:24 5/17/2006 9:21 5/17/2006 10:19
Figure 10. Comparison of total liquid rate measurements.
Temp Pres WLR WLR DynMu

100
Figure 9. Variation of WLR with pressure (Well C). +/-5%
Non-Sour
80
Sour
PW Water Cut..

The results of these tests indicated the following: 60

(%)

1. A 290 psi pressure increase generates about 2%-3% 40

WLR variation.
2. If pressure variation is less that 100 psi, then no 20
significant impact on the WLR measurement is
observed. 0
0 20 40 60 80 100
In reality, the pressure at the unit is generally governed by
TS Water Cut (%)
the test line pressure which normally does not vary
widely.
Figure 11. Comparison of water cut measurements.
Meter Performance
10
In order to verify the PhaseWatcher multiphase meter +/-15%
9
performance, the meter has been tested along with a inline Sour
8
test separator (TS) in a series. The referenced test
PW Gas Rate..

7
separator utilizes proven Coriolis Mass Flow Meters
(MMSCFD)

technology6, 7, 8, 9 to estimate the flow rates of the three 6

5
phases. It is worth mentioning here that for the non-sour
4
crude tests the gas rate meter in the reference test
separator was not operational. 3
2

A total of 214 rate tests were conducted on 91 producers 1

located in both onshore and offshore environments with 0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
crude containing trace amounts of sand and H2S content
reaching 16% by mole. The meter was tested in the TS Gas Rate (MMSCFD)
following operating ranges: Figure 12. Comparison of gas rate measurements.
6 OTC 19152

In summary, these Figures indicate an excellent match
between the results of the PhaseWatcher, and the
corresponding Figures obtained by the in line test
separator with about 94% of the total liquid rate, 91% of
the water cut and 75% of the gas rate measurements
falling within the error bands.
Conclusions
An extensive number of rate tests have been performed
using a compact MPFM PhaseWatcher and results were
compared with corresponding figures obtained by a in line
test separator. The tests covered wide ranges of operating
condition with both sour and non-sour crude in onshore
and offshore environments. The results of these tests
indicated the following:
1. About 94% of the total liquid rate, 91% of the water
cut and 75% of the gas rate measurements provided
by the PhaseWatcher were found falling within the
standard acceptable error bands.
2. The presence of H2S in the crude will cause
overestimation of the measured WLR. Although it
can be corrected using accurate PVT data or initial
accurate WLR reference values.
3. Increasing the test line pressure by more than 290 psi
could cause a variance of about 2% - 3% in the
measured WLR. The measured WLR can be
corrected further by adjusting the amount of H2S
absorbed in crude due to an increase in line pressure.
Optimization,” SPE 77893, SPE Asia Pacific Oil
and Gas Conference and Exhibition, Melbourne,
Australia, October 8-10, 2002.
5. Hassan, M.M. and Bekkoucha, M., ADCO and
Abukhader, M., Schlumberger: “Production Well
Testing Optimization Using Multiphase Flow
Meters (MPFM),” SPE 101475, Abu Dhabi
International Petroleum Exhibition and
Conference, Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., November 5-8,
2006.
6. Liu, K.T. and Kouba, G.E.: “Coriolis-Based Net
Oil Computers Gain Acceptance at the
Wellhead,” Oil & Gas Journal, June 27, 1994.
7. Henry, M.: “Self-Validation Improves Coriolis
Flow Meter,” Control Engineering, May 1995.
8. Al-Mubarak, A.M.: “A New Method in
Calculating Water Cut and Oil and Water
Volumes Using Coriolis Meter,” SPE 38786,
SPE Conference, San Antonio, Texas, October
5-8, 1997.
9. Al-Khamis, M., Almarhoun, M. and Al-Nojaim,
A.: “Performance Evaluation of Coriolis Mass
Flow Meters,” Journal of Energy Resources
Technology, June 2002, pp. 90-93.

Acknowledgment
Appreciation is expressed to the Northern Area Producing
Engineering management of Saudi Aramco for their
support and permission to publish the results of this study.

References
1. Retnanto, A. SPE, Schlumberger and Azim, A.,
Schlumberger: “Monitoring Well Performance
using Multiphase Flow Meter,” SPE 68718
prepared for SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Jakarta, Indonesia,
April 17-19, 2001.
2. Theuveny, B.C., SPE, Segeral, G., SPE and
Pinguet, B., SPE, Schlumberger Oilfield
Services: “Multiphase Flow Meters in Well
Testing Applications,” SPE 71475, SPE annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, September 30 - October 3,
2001.
3. Atkinson, D.I., Pinguet, B., Segeral, G.,
Theuveny, B.C., Schlumberger Oilfield Services:
“Field Implications of Uncertainties in
Multiphase Flow Measurements,” SPE 77403,
SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition, San Antonio, Texas, September 29 -
October 2, 2002.
4. Kettle, R.J. and Ross, D., SPE, Schlumberger
and Deznan, D., Apache Energy Limited: “The
Multiphase Flow Meter, a Tool for Well
Performance Diagnostics and Production