Pipeline Transient Study PS 00000 1163 0105 E - PDF

REGGANE NORD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SURFACE
FACILITIES
CONTRACT No. : PP-1160-001
PETROFAC JOB NO. : JI–2026
PIPELINE TRANSIENT STUDY / SURGE ANALYSIS REPORT
DOCUMENT NO : PS-00000-1163-0105-E
B 16/06/15 Re-Issued for Approval AV VMK KRM/DT RS
A 13/01/15 Issued for Approval DK VMK RVP/DT RS
REV DATE REASON FOR ISSUE PREPARED BY CHECKED BY APPROVED BY PROJECT APPROVAL
STANDARD
DOCUMENT TYPE L-3 WBS F-WBS SEQUENCE NO REV
SIZE OF DOC
PS 00000 1163 0105 E B

DOCUMENT DESCRIPTION
PIPELINE TRANSIENT STUDY / SURGE

ANALYSIS REPORT
Document No. Revision
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
REVISION HISTORY
Rev. Clause Description of Revision
A - Issued for Approval
B - Re-Issued for Approval
CHANGE SUMMARY
Reference
Page No. Section Description of Change
Documents
- - OLGA simulations updated based -
on revised Pipeline profile and
respective results updated
- - Reggane and AZSE well details -
updated
- - Well fluid compositions (saturated -
with water and appended with
formation water) are revised in line
with Heat & Material Balance
HYSYS simulations.
HOLDS
Rev. Section Description of Hold
Page 2 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY ............................................................................................................................... 5
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 6
1.1 Study Objectives ......................................................................................................... 6
1.2 Study Scope ................................................................................................................ 6
1.3 Results ........................................................................................................................ 7
1.3.1 Ramp-up Operations .................................................................................................. 7
1.3.2 Pigging Operations ................................................................................................... 10
1.3.3 Flowline and Trunkline Depressurization ................................................................. 13
1.3.4 Steady State Operations ........................................................................................... 15
1.3.5 Slugging Potential during Normal Operations .......................................................... 18
1.3.6 Shutdown Conditions ................................................................................................ 20
2 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 22
2.1 Project Overview ....................................................................................................... 22
2.2 Study Objective ......................................................................................................... 22
2.3 Purpose of the Document ......................................................................................... 23
2.4 Order of Precedence ................................................................................................ 23
3 BASIS FOR DESIGN ............................................................................................... 25
3.1 Process Description .................................................................................................. 25
3.2 Boundary Conditions ................................................................................................ 26
3.3 Environmental Data .................................................................................................. 26
3.4 Pipeline Data ............................................................................................................. 27
3.5 Fluid Composition ..................................................................................................... 38
3.6 Slug Catcher Data..................................................................................................... 42
3.7 Flare Header and KOD Design Data ........................................................................ 44
3.8 Software used ........................................................................................................... 44
4 APPROACH TO WORK ........................................................................................... 45
4.1 Pipelines Modeled..................................................................................................... 45
4.2 Steady State Hydraulic Calculation .......................................................................... 46
4.2.1 Operating Conditions for Materials Assessment ...................................................... 46
4.2.2 Maximum Arrival Temperature ................................................................................. 46
4.2.3 Operating Conditions for Hydrate Assessment ........................................................ 46
4.2.4 Export Gas Pipeline .................................................................................................. 47
Page 3 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
4.3 Transient Operating Scenarios Modeled .................................................................. 47

4.3.1 Shutdown Operations ............................................................................................... 51
4.3.2 Depressurization Operations .................................................................................... 52
4.3.3 Pigging Operations ................................................................................................... 53
4.3.4 Ramp-up / Rate Change Operations (Trunk lines only) ........................................... 54
4.3.5 Slugging Potential during Normal Operations .......................................................... 55
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .............................................................................. 57
5.1 Steady State Hydraulic Calculations .................................................................... 57
5.2 Slugging Potential during Normal Operations .......................................................... 62
5.2.1 AZSE ......................................................................................................................... 63
5.2.2 Reggane.................................................................................................................... 68
5.2.3 Kahlouche and Kahlouche South ............................................................................. 74
5.3 Pigging Operations ................................................................................................... 79
5.3.1 AZSE ......................................................................................................................... 79
5.3.2 Reggane.................................................................................................................... 85
5.3.3 Kahlouche and Kahlouche South ............................................................................. 91
5.4 Ramp-up / Rate Change Operations (Trunk lines Only) .......................................... 99
5.4.1 AZSE ......................................................................................................................... 99
5.4.2 Reggane.................................................................................................................. 101
5.4.3 Kahlouche and Kahlouche South ........................................................................... 104
5.5 Depressurization Operations .................................................................................. 107
5.5.1 Flow lines ................................................................................................................ 107
5.5.2 Trunk lines / Export Gas Pipeline ........................................................................... 121
5.6 Shutdown Operations ............................................................................................. 134
6 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 144
Page 4 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
GLOSSARY
AZSE Azrafil South East

CGR Condensate Gas Ratio
ESD Emergency Shut Down
EVR Erosion Velocity Ratio
FEED Front End Engineering Design
GLR Gas Liquid Ratio
GRN Groupement Reggane
GTP Gas Treatment Plant
H&MB Heat and Material Balance
HP High Pressure
KL Kahlouche
KLS Kahlouche Sud (South)
LGR Liquid Gas Ratio
LP Low Pressure
MEG Mono-Ethylene Glycol
RG Reggane
WGR Water Gas Ratio
WHFP Wellhead Flowing Pressure
WHFT Wellhead Flowing Temperature
Page 5 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Study Objectives
The objectives of this transient analysis study is to carry out transient simulation
modelling on a gas gathering system to transport gas from the four fields (Azrafil,
Reggane, Kahlouche and Kahlouche South) to Gas Treatment Plant (GTP). A gas export
pipeline transports the conditioned gas from the field to the Sonatrach gas transport
system with the Reggane Nord Project in order to develop a high level operating strategy
for intermittent operations on each system such as shutdown, pigging, depressurisation,
production restart and ramp-up.
1.2 Study Scope
Transient analysis is carried out for the following systems:
• Azrafil Trunk line (AZSE to GTP – One Trunk line)
• Reggane Trunk line (RG2 to RG1 & RG1 to GTP – Two Trunk lines)
• Kahlouche and Kahlouche South Trunk line (KL1 to KL2, KL2 to KL+KLS, KLS to
KL+KLS & KL+KLS to GTP – Four Trunk lines)
• Export Gas Pipeline (GTP to Sonatrach Pipeline – One Pipeline)
The following unsteady state, intermittent operations are considered for transient
analysis:
• Shutdown
• Pigging
• Depressurisation
• Slugging Potential
• Ramp-up
Further details explaining the study scope and the methodology for carrying out each
transient scenario can be found within section 4.0 of this report.
Page 6 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
The Reggane Nord Project requires the transport gas from the four fields (Azrafil,
Reggane, Kahlouche and Kahlouche South) to the Central Processing Facility and a gas
export pipeline to transport the processed gas from the field to the Sonatrach gas
transport system.
OLGA models are constructed for the Azrafil field (AZSE), the Reggane field (RG2 and
RG1) and the Kahlouche and Kahlouche South fields (KL1, KL2 and KLS), every trunk
line and flow line are included as shown in Figure 1.1
Figure 1-1 Trunk line and Flow line Gathering Schematic
1.3 Results
1.3.1 Ramp-up Operations
Ramp-up operations for Trunklines are modelled under transient conditions by simulating
turndown following a period of stable continuous flow followed by subsequent ramp-up to
re-establish the required production rate conditions.
Page 7 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
OLGA simulations are performed for the Three Trunklines AZSE to GTP, RG1 to GTP
and KL+KLS to GTP for Instantaneous Ramp-up case (40% to 0% to 40% and 20% to
0% to 20%) and the results are tabulated below.
Table 1.3.1.1 Instantaneous Ramp-up Results for AZSE to GTP Trunkline
Max. accumulated
Drain rate
Case Ramp-up case 3 liquid in Slug catcher
(m /d) 3
(m )
40% to 0% to 40% 115.04 0.14

HP Summer
20% to 0% to 20% 95.02 42.01
40% to 0% to 40% 115.04 0.16

HP Winter
20% to 0% to 20% 95.02 38.87
40% to 0% to 40% 108.50 0.04

LP Summer
20% to 0% to 20% 91.80 2.64
40% to 0% to 40% 108.50 0.05

LP Winter
20% to 0% to 20% 91.80 17.91
Table 1.3.1.2 Instantaneous Ramp-up Results for RG1 to GTP Trunkline
Max. accumulated
Drain rate
(m /d) 3
(m )
40% to 0% to 40% 158.1 0.21

HP Summer
20% to 0% to 20% 116.6 7.54
40% to 0% to 40% 158.1 0.14

HP Winter
20% to 0% to 20% 116.6 8.24
40% to 0% to 40% 147.20 0.10

LP Summer
20% to 0% to 20% 111.10 2.13
LP Winter 40% to 0% to 40% 147.20 0.12
Page 8 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Max. accumulated
Drain rate
(m /d) 3
(m )
20% to 0% to 20% 111.10 2.94
Table 1.3.1.3 Instantaneous Ramp-up Results for KL+KLS to GTP Trunkline
Max. accumulated
Drain rate
Case Ramp-up case liquid in Slug catcher
(m3/d)
(m3)
40% to 0% to 40% 145.0 21.67

HP Summer
20% to 0% to 20% 110.0 34.77
40% to 0% to 40% 145.0 25.22

HP Winter
20% to 0% to 20% 110.0 57.71
40% to 0% to 40% 125.40 2.63

LP Summer
20% to 0% to 20% 100.20 46.81
40% to 0% to 40% 125.40 9.67

LP Winter
20% to 0% to 20% 100.20 31.78
Based on above results, it can be concluded that
• It is possible to Ramp-up the AZSE and RG1 Trunkline throughout the field life
instantaneously (40% to 0% to 40% and 20% to 0% to 20%) to the flowrate at which
the Trunkline was operating before shut-in without exceeding the liquid handling
capacity of Slug catcher.
• Similarly, it is possible to Ramp-up the KL+KLS to GTP Trunkline instantaneously to

the flowrate at which the Trunkline was operating before shut-in without exceeding
the liquid handling capacity of the slug catcher except for 20% Ramp-up (HP Winter).
During Instantaneous Ramp-up 20% case in HP Winter, the maximum accumulated
liquid at the end of the Trunkline is 57.71 m3 while the water handling capacity of the
slug catcher is 50 m3 and mitigation measures are detailed in Section 5.4.3.
Page 9 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
1.3.2 Pigging Operations
Pigging scenarios are modelled dynamically for the purpose of liquid inventory control.
Liquid content of AZSE and Reggane Trunklines are full of formation water while the
liquid content of KL+KLS trunkline is condensate and formation water. OLGA simulations
are performed for Trunklines (AZSE to GTP, KL+KLS to GTP and RG1 to GTP) which
are directly linked to the Slug catcher for various design flowrates (both Without
Formation Water and With Formation Water) to evaluate the total liquid content in the
pipeline (LIQC) against the liquid handling capacity of the Slug catcher. Typical
recommended pigging velocities are 0.5 to 5 m/s. The minimum and maximum gas
velocities have been extracted from the steady state OLGA simulations to establish the
flow rates at which the pig can be launched for each field. Below 0.5 m/s there is a risk
of the pig getting stuck, and above 5 m/s there is a risk of the pig being damaged.
The Results of Pigging Frequency calculation for Three Trunklines (AZSE to GTP,
KL+KLS to GTP and RG1 to GTP) Without Formation Water and With Formation Water
are tabulated below.
Without Formation Water:
Table 1.3.2.1 Pigging frequency estimation for AZSE Trunkline – Without Formation
Water
Steady State Gas Required Pigging

Flowrate as % of
Case Velocity Interval
Design Capacity
(m/s) (hrs.)
100% 4.80 No Pigging required
HP Winter 40% 1.96 No Pigging required
LP Winter 40% 3.96 No Pigging required
Page 10 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Table 1.3.2.2 Pigging frequency estimation for Reggane Trunkline – Without Formation
Water
Flowrate as % of
Design Capacity
(m/s) (hrs.)
Table 1.3.2.3 Pigging frequency estimation for KL+KLS Trunkline – Without Formation
Water
Required Pigging
Steady State Gas
Flowrate as % of Interval
Case Velocity
Design Capacity (hrs.)
(m/s)
(Note 1)
HP Winter 40% 2.02 45.0
20% 1.03 90.0
LP Winter 40% 3.71 62.0
20% 1.83 130.0
Note 1: Pigging interval for KL+KLS Trunkline is governed by Total Oil content in
trunkline exceeding the oil handling capacity of the slug catcher (25 m3) compared to the
total water content in the trunkline.
With Formation Water:
Table 1.3.2.4 Pigging frequency estimation for AZSE Trunkline – With Formation Water

Flowrate as % of
Design Capacity
(m/s) (hrs.)
Page 11 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B

Flowrate as % of
Design Capacity
(m/s) (hrs.)
40% 2.89 31.0
20% 1.91 64.0
20% 2.99 70.0
Table 1.3.2.5 Pigging frequency estimation for Reggane Trunkline– With Formation
Water

Flowrate as % of
Design Capacity
(m/s) (hrs.)
20% 2.16 44.0
20% 2.92 64.0
Table 1.3.2.6 Pigging frequency estimation for KL+KLS Trunkline– With Formation Water
Required Pigging
Steady State Gas
Flowrate as % of Interval
Case Velocity
Design Capacity (hrs.)
(m/s)
(Note 1)
100% 6.24 6.5
HP Winter 40% 3.24 16.0
20% 2.13 32.0
100% 9.93 9.0
LP Winter 40% 4.81 23.0
20% 3.04 46.0
Page 12 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Note 1: Pigging interval for KL+KLS Trunkline is governed by total water content in
trunkline exceeding the water handling capacity of the slug catcher (50 m3) compared to
the total oil content in the trunkline.
Pigging is not considered viable if significant formation water is produced.
1.3.3 Flowline and Trunkline Depressurization
Flowlines
All the Flowlines are manually depressurised to the collection pit. Limiting Cv for the
Manual depressurising valves are standardised across all fields. KL22 well is the longest
Flowline with Highest operating pressure governs the valve Cv selection (i.e.) to limit the
maximum flow of 40,000 kg/h to the collection pit for which the Tail pipe / Collection
header Mach number does not exceed 0.7. Depressurization rate for other wells are
lower for the selected Cv due to their lower start pressure. The summary of HP Winter
case depressurization (governing case) results for Flowlines are tabulated below.
Table 1.3.3.1 HP Winter case Depressurization results for Flowlines
Shut time Leakage Min. Fluid Min. Fluid Acc. Liquid

Manual Depress.
Pipeline before total mass Temp. D/S Temp. U/S volume D/S
Vent line Time
Detail Depress. flow rate of Leak of Leak of Leak
Destn. (hr.) 3
(hr.) (kg/h) (deg C) (deg C) (m )
AZSE-4 Collection
8 1 21550 -24.0 11.77 0.290
6" Flowline pit
KL-3 Collection
2 1 28355 -42.84 2.34 0.059
8" Flowline pit
KL-22 Collection
2 2 39833 -43.79 6.69 0.837
8" Flowline pit
KL-5 Collection
2 2 33886 -34.41 2.25 0.426
8" Flowline pit
KL-24 Collection
2 2 34303 -37.39 5.19 0.901
8" Flowline pit
RG-12 Collection
8 1 19051 -13.93 15.70 0.219
8" Flowline pit
RG-6 Collection
8 1 20810 -13.95 15.25 0.261
8" Flowline pit
KLS-4 Collection
8 1 29470 -36.30 7.55 0.020
8" Flowline pit
Page 13 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Trunklines and Gas Export Line
The summary of HP Summer and HP Winter case depressurization results for Trunklines
and Gas Export line are tabulated below. All the Trunklines and Gas Export line are
manually depressurized to the HP Flare. As the operating pressure of all Trunklines are
different, manual depressurization valve Cv for each Trunkline are varied to arrive at
maximum peak flowrate of 14000 kg/h for which tail pipe Mach number does not exceed
0.7.
Similarly, Manual depressurization valve Cv for Gas export line is varied to arrive at
maximum peak flowrate of 42000 kg/h for which tail pipe Mach number does not exceed
0.7
Table 1.3.3.2 HP Winter case Depressurization results for Trunklines and Gas Export
line
Manual Shut time Leakage Min. Fluid Min. Fluid Acc. Liquid
Depress.
Pipeline Vent before total mass Temp. D/S Temp. U/S volume D/S
Time
Detail line Depress. flow rate of Leak of Leak of Leak
(hr.)
Destn. (hr.) (kg/h) (deg C) (deg C) (m3)
KL-1 HP
16 12 13641 -44.50 12.26 0.2218
8" Trunkline Flare
KL-2 HP
16 52 9790 -40.71 13.88 0.3482
12" Trunkline Flare
KLS HP
2 30 13932 -37.21 14.71 0.011
8" Trunkline Flare
KL+KLS HP
16 80 9945 -31.01 14.78 0.6416
16" Trunkline Flare
AZSE HP
16 56 12795 -22.78 17.11 0.2496
12" Trunkline Flare
RG-2 HP
2 12 13723 -35.46 22.24 0.1181
12" Trunkline Flare
RG-1 HP
4 20 13893 -15.50 21.34 0.4661
16" Trunkline Flare
24" Gas HP
24 110 41536 -26.02 15.97 NA
Export Line Flare
Page 14 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Table 1.3.3.3 HP Summer case Depressurization results for Trunklines and Gas Export
line
Manual Shut time Leakage Acc. Liquid

Depress.
Pipeline Vent before total mass volume D/S
Time
Detail line Depress. flow rate of Leak
(hr.) 3
Destn. (hr.) (kg/h) (m )
KL-1 HP
16 12 12208 0.1599
8" Trunkline Flare
KL-2 HP
16 52 13926 0.3166
12" Trunkline Flare
KLS HP
2 30 12734 0.0120
8" Trunkline Flare
KL+KLS HP
16 80 13659 0.4625
16" Trunkline Flare
AZSE HP
16 56 12895 0.2682
12" Trunkline Flare
RG-2 HP
2 12 12922 0.1191
12" Trunkline Flare
RG-1 HP
2 20 12425 0.4105
16" Trunkline Flare
24" Gas HP
16 110 40422 NA
Export Line Flare
1.3.4 Steady State Operations
Steady state hydraulic calculations for all the pipelines are simulated separately as it
provides greater flexibility when running parametric analyses. Steady state calculation
results for Farthest Flowlines (8Nos) and all Trunklines (7Nos) for governing HP Summer
and LP Summer mode of operation are tabulated below.
Table 1.3.4.1 Flowline and Trunkline HP Summer case Steady State (100%) Hydraulic
results
Max. Max.
Design Inlet Outlet Water
Pipeline Gas Erosional
From To Flowrate Press. Press. rate
Description 3 Velocity Velocity 3
(MMSm /d) (bara) (bara) (m /d)
(m/s) Ratio
6" Flowline AZSE-4 AZSE 0.550 82.89 80.30 4.86 0.312 25.20
Page 15 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Max. Max.
(m/s) Ratio
8" Flowline KL-3 KL-1 0.990 107.32 107.15 3.41 0.230 48.62
8" Flowline KL-22 KL-1 0.990 109.51 107.15 3.96 0.273 45.26
8" Flowline KL-5 KL-2 0.990 101.84 100.23 4.00 0.237 48.86
8" Flowline KL-24 KL-2 0.990 102.66 100.23 4.19 0.283 45.42
8" Flowline RG-12 RG-1 0.990 74.48 73.04 5.08 0.291 48.08
8" Flowline RG-6 RG-2 0.990 79.25 77.95 4.74 0.281 47.96
8" Flowline KLS-4 KLS 0.990 96.60 95.01 4.75 0.305 46.63
8" Trunkline KL-1 KL-2 1.201 107.15 100.23 4.59 0.340 55.80
KL+ KLS
12" Trunkline KL-2 3.221 100.23 84.83 6.07 0.422 150.00
Junction
KL+ KLS
8" Trunkline KLS 0.875 95.01 84.83 4.52 0.276 41.57
Junction
KL+
16" Trunkline KLS GTP 4.014 84.83 70.00 6.69 0.354 187.45
Junction
12" Trunkline AZSE GTP 2.296 80.30 70.00 5.26 0.325 105.15
12" Trunkline RG-2 RG-1 3.190 77.95 73.04 7.08 0.415 154.49
16" Trunkline RG-1 GTP 4.766 73.04 70.00 7.59 0.439 232.23
Table 1.3.4.2 Flowline and Trunkline LP Summer case Steady State (100%) Hydraulic
results
Max. Max.
Description Velocity Velocity
(MMSm3/d) (bara) (bara) (m3/d)
(m/s) Ratio
Page 16 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Max. Max.
(m/s) Ratio
8" Flowline KL-3 KL-1 0.990 63.69 63.48 5.01 0.268 37.78
8" Flowline KL-22 KL-1 0.990 66.16 63.48 5.56 0.297 37.90
8" Flowline KL-5 KL-2 0.990 63.06 60.46 6.18 0.325 45.83
8" Flowline KL-24 KL-2 0.990 64.51 60.46 6.51 0.368 45.83
8" Flowline RG-12 RG-1 0.990 39.05 36.09 10.13 0.412 42.95
8" Flowline RG-6 RG-2 0.990 42.85 40.56 8.57 0.369 41.06
8" Flowline KLS-4 KLS 0.990 58.36 56.16 7.80 0.400 49.54
8" Trunkline KL-1 KL-2 0.697 63.48 60.46 4.74 0.217 26.73
KL+ KLS
12" Trunkline KL-2 2.306 60.46 45.80 8.47 0.422 106.61
Junction
KL+ KLS
8" Trunkline KLS 0.582 56.16 45.80 5.74 0.246 29.70
Junction
KL+
16" Trunkline KLS GTP 2.888 45.80 31.00 10.27 0.392 136.69
Junction
12" Trunkline RG-2 RG-1 2.093 40.56 36.09 9.59 0.396 94.29
16" Trunkline RG-1 GTP 4.138 36.09 31.00 14.73 0.573 187.04
Steady state hydraulic calculation for Gas Export line is performed for the design
capacity of 8.6 MMSm³/d with an inlet pressure to the Sonatrach pipeline network of 71
bara without exceeding the maximum allowable inlet pressure of 81.0 bara.
The velocity of the gas at the design flow rate of 4.73 m/s is within acceptable limits and
the pipeline will operate in a single phase under all conditions.
Page 17 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Table 1.3.4.3 Gas Export Pipeline Steady State Hydraulic result
Max.
Design Inlet Outlet Max. Gas
Pipeline Erosional
From To Flowrate Pressure Pressure Velocity
Description 3 Velocity
(MMSm /d) (bara) (bara) (m/s)
Ratio
24" Gas Export

GTP TIE-IN 8.600 80.41 71.00 4.73 0.294
pipeline
1.3.5 Slugging Potential during Normal Operations
Slugging potential during normal operating conditions are simulated in OLGA for all the
Trunklines and slugging potential details are reported for Trunklines (AZSE to GTP,
KL+KLS to GTP and RG1 to GTP) which are directly linked to the Slug catcher and slugs
arriving at the outlet are identified when the liquid flow rate exceeds the average steady
state liquid flow rate by a significant amount.
The calculation results for the Three Trunklines during HP and LP mode of operation
considering Summer and Winter cases at different flowrates (100%, 40% and 20% of the
design capacity) and maximum accumulated liquid volume at the last segment of the
pipeline (i.e.) at the Slug catcher are tabulated below.
Table 1.3.5.1 Slugging potential during Normal operation for AZSE Trunkline
Flowrate as Drain rate Max. accumulated

Pressure Mode Season percentage of (m3/d) liquid in Slug catcher
3
Design Capacity (Note 1) (m )
100% 105.15 0.01539
HP Summer 40% 42.05 0.04735
20% 21.02 0.4877
100% 95.64 0.4360
HP Winter 40% 38.26 3.0701
20% 19.13 9.5472
100% 88.64 0.0

LP Summer
40% 35.44 0.0725
Page 18 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B

3
Pressure Mode Season percentage of (m /d) liquid in Slug catcher
Design Capacity (Note 1) (m3)
20% 17.72 0.6034
100% 85.22 0.0
LP Winter 40% 34.09 0.0575
20% 17.05 0.2279
Table 1.3.5.2 Slugging potential during Normal operation for Reggane Trunkline

3
100% 232.23 0.0
HP Summer 40% 93.75 0.3716
20% 47.09 0.8251
100% 200.29 0.002
HP Winter 40% 80.11 0.1129
20% 40.02 1.0548
100% 187.04 0.0
LP Summer 40% 75.38 0.0842
20% 37.92 0.5882
100% 183.45 0.0
LP Winter 40% 73.39 0.1713
20% 36.69 1.5748
Table 1.3.5.3 Slugging potential during Normal operation for KL+KLS to GTP Trunkline

3
3
100% 210.28 0.6297
HP Summer
40% 83.90 3.7792
Page 19 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B

3
20% 41.90 4.9518
100% 215.24 0.7747
HP Winter 40% 85.43 3.4870
20% 42.63 4.3365
100% 154.80 0.0870
LP Summer 40% 61.64 0.0943
20% 30.79 5.0809
100% 152.85 0.0290
LP Winter 40% 60.82 0.1902
20% 30.37 5.3107
Note 1: Drain rate considered is the Total Liquid Volumetric flowrate calculated at the
end of the last pipe segment during Steady State flow.
Based on above results, it can be concluded that Maximum slug volume expected is well
within the liquid handling capacity of the Slug Catcher during Normal operations.
1.3.6 Shutdown Conditions
Shutdown scenarios are modelled dynamically for the purpose of assessing cool down
rate, change in overall pipeline liquid hold-up and any hydrate formation risk. A 2-hrs
shutdown has been considered for shorter trunk lines RG2 and RG1 while a 12-hrs
shutdown has been selected to represent the longest anticipated period of pressurized
shut-in conditions for Trunklines KL1, KL2, KLS, KL+KLS and AZSE.
As per Basis of Design (Ref 2), the winter case minimum ambient temperature is 17
degC while hydrate formation temperature is approximately 12 degC for AZSE and RG
well fluids and 15 degC for KL well fluids. During normal operation, the well head
temperature downstream of choke valve is relatively higher than minimum ambient
Page 20 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
temperature and hence the fluid is outside the hydrate region. In case of occasional
lower temperature anticipated from any of the well during winter conditions, the well fluid
will gain heat from surroundings and reach the ambient temperature of 17 degC. Hence
all the Flowlines and Trunklines from AZSE, Reggane, Kahlouche and Kahlouche south
are outside the hydrate region and hence mobile hydrate inhibitor package common to
all filed is provided in case of low temperature experienced during start-up.
Additionally, a sensitivity case study of 15 days maintenance shutdown for Trunklines

AZSE to GTP, RG1 to GTP and KL+KLS to GTP is performed to verify the pipeline
temperature and its gap from hydrate formation temperature. Subsequently, Shutdown
simulation is performed in OLGA for HP Winter case with closure of both inlet and outlet
isolation valves at either end of the pipeline following a period of stable continuous flow.
This resulted in complete pipeline reaches settle out pressure and approached the
minimum ambient temperature of 17 degC after 5 days (approx.). As the system reaches
an equilibrium temperature of 17 degC, it is evident that all the pipelines will exhibit same
behaviour and reaches the ambient temperature. Hence, 15 days maintenance
shutdown for other Trunklines is not performed. Similarly, the 15 days maintenance
shutdown proved that the worst possible temperature, the system could reach is the
minimum ambient temperature of 17 degC which is greater than Hydrate formation
temperature (approx. 12 degC for AZSE and RG well fluids and 15 degC for KL Well
fluids) which is evident that complete Flowline and Trunklines AZSE, Reggane,
Kahlouche and Kahlouche south are outside the hydrate region.
Page 21 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
2 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Project Overview
Groupement Reggane (GRN), comprising Sonatrach, Repsol Exploración Argelia S.A.,

RWE Dea AG and Edison International are developing the Reggane Nord Project
located in the Reggane Basin, approximately 1,500 km southwest of Algiers.
The Surface Facilities include a gas gathering system connecting widely dispersed wells
to a Central Processing Facility where the gas will be processed to sales specification.
The gas will then be compressed, metered and exported via a pipeline to a tie-in on the
main gas transport system in the region.
The Reggane Nord Surface Facilities will be located in a desert region, but near to an
oasis area and some highly populated centres. Livelihood of local inhabitants depends
largely on agricultural activities and herding. The protection of the resources on which
these communities depend is of utmost importance.
2.2 Study Objective
A flow assurance study is carried out by Petrofac covering steady state and transient
analysis work on the four fields (Azrafil, Reggane, Kahlouche and Kahlouche South) to
the Central Processing Facility and a gas export pipeline to transport the processed gas
from the field to the Sonatrach gas transport system associated with the Reggane Nord
Project and as part of the EPC phase.
The principal aim of this scope of work is to carry out pipeline transient analysis for
unsteady state intermittent operations on trunk lines within Azrafil, Reggane, Kahlouche
and Kahlouche South facilities.
Transient analysis is carried out in order to assess hydrodynamic, terrain slugging

behaviour and pigging operations have been separately covered and reported in below
section.
In this report, the following intermittent modes of operations are considered for transient
pipeline analysis;
Page 22 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
• Shutdown operations,
• Pigging operations,
• Depressurisation operations,
• Slugging potential during normal operations,
• Ramp-up operations (flow rate change).
Objective of steady state analysis is to evaluate:
• Trunk line / Flow line total pressure drop (back pressure at the choke valve)
• Slugging potential
• Total liquid hold-up
• Maximum gas velocity
• Maximum Erosional velocity ratio and
• Water rate at the end of the pipeline.
2.3 Purpose of the Document
The purpose of this document is to present the results and conclusions from the pipeline
simulations for transient analysis for unsteady state intermittent operations on trunk lines
within Azrafil, Reggane, Kahlouche and Kahlouche South facilities and steady state
multiphase flow analysis of the flow lines (between wells and manifolds), trunk lines
(between manifolds and the GTP) and the gas export pipeline.
The reader is referred to the Flow Assurance Philosophy (Ref.1) for a detailed
description of the overall basis of design for flow assurance.
2.4 Order of Precedence
In case of conflict between documents, the following order of precedence should be

taken:
1. Algerian legal requirements (Algerian laws, edicts, regional or local regulations, etc.)
Page 23 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
2. The data sheets / drawings (where applied)
3. Project design philosophies
4. Primary project specifications
5. Referenced project specifications.
6. Project documents approved by the CLIENT.
7. Repsol / Sonatrach general procedures and specifications.
8. CONTRACTOR specifications and standards approved by OWNER
9. International Codes and Standards.
Page 24 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
3 BASIS FOR DESIGN

Unless stated otherwise, the majority of the design information used for the dynamic
analysis work has been taken from the Basis of Design document compiled for Reggane
Nord Project [Ref. 2]. The key data has been extracted and reported here for ease of
reference.
3.1 Process Description
The well fluid entering the GTP will be conditioned to meet sales gas and condensate
specification. The processing facilities are shown in Figure 3-1.
Figure 3-1 General Block Diagram
At first gas, all trunk lines operate at high pressure (70 bara), the feed will enter via the
HP manifold and HP Slug catcher. Free and condensed water are separated and sent to
the Water Treatment Unit. Wet acid gas flows to the amine unit and hydrocarbon liquids
are routed to the condensate stabiliser train. During future low pressure trunk line
operating conditions (31 bara), well fluids will be routed to LP manifold and LP Slug
catcher. Free and condensed water are separated and sent to the Water Treatment Unit.
Wet acid gas flows to the Inlet Booster Compressor and hydrocarbon liquids are routed
to the condensate stabiliser train. The gas will be compressed to a level suitable to co-
mingle into the process downstream of the HP Slug catcher gas outlet.
Page 25 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
The LP manifold will be designed to be installed at first gas. The LP Slug catcher and
Inlet Booster Compressor will be assumed to be installed at a future date.
As it is unclear as to what year the Inlet Booster Compressors will first be required, gas
turbine drivers are envisaged to ensure maximum flexibility. The compressors will be
configured as 2 x 50%.
A slug volume of 50 m3 water and 25 m3 condensate shall be considered for the inlet
facilities.
After gas processing to control the acid gas content and reduce water and hydrocarbon
dew points, the treated gas is compressed up to sales gas delivery pressure for export.
Delivery point is to the new Sonatrach pipeline located approximately 75 km from the
GTP.
3.2 Boundary Conditions
For dynamic modelling, the boundary conditions used for each system are the pipeline
fluid inlet temperatures and trunk line /flow line outlet pressures.
The gathering system are designed considering two operating pressure levels, the higher
working level based on 70 bara inlet pressure initially and the lower working level with 31
bara at GTP inlet. On a conservative basis, the Maximum flowing well head temperature
is considered as inlet temperature for the Trunklines for Summer case while temperature
calculated by choking production from WHFP and WHFT down to Flowline inlet pressure
is considered as basis for Winter case.
3.3 Environmental Data
Ambient Temperature and Air Velocity
Average ambient temperature conditions for both summer and winter periods are
presented in Table 3.3.1.
Page 26 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Table 3.3.1 – External air velocity and temperature
Velocity Temperature at
External Fluid
(m/s) 1 m depth (°C)
6.2 (Annual 17º C (Winter) min.

Air
Average) 30ºC (Summer) max.
Material & Soil Properties
The trunk lines & the flow lines are modelled surrounded by air at a temperature equal to
the ambient summer temperature at a depth of 1 metre. Summer conditions are used for
pipeline sizing as this will result in the highest back-pressures and be the governing case
for size selection but winter conditions are simulated to determine the hydrate risk
through the system. Property data for the materials are presented in Table 3.3.2.
Table 3.3.2 –Materials Properties
Thermal
Specific Heat Capacity Density
Material Conductivity
J/kgK kg/m³
W/mK
Carbon steel 485 45 7800
3LPP 2000 0.22 900
3LPE 1260 0.22 700
Sand 800 2 1280
3.4 Pipeline Data
Pipeline alignment sheets for relevant Pipelines /Trunk lines / Flow lines used to
generate elevation profile data in OLGA from Pipeline Schedule (Ref.8).
The length of all Flowlines and Trunklines extracted from Pipeline alignment sheets
which are used for the Steady state and Transient analysis are tabulated below.
Page 27 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Table 3.4.1 – Trunkline and Flowline Lengths
Trunkline Length (m) Flowline Length (m)

RG-8 1423
RG-5 842
RG1 to GTP 5950
RG-12 3237
RG-11 2547
RG-6 3155
RG-16 434
RG2 to RG1 8583
RG-9 1886
RG-13 3123
KLS-4 2040
KLS to KL+KLS 24867
KLS-1 1336
KL-22 4975
KL-1 to KL-2 10698 KL-3 511
KL-29 3791
KL-7 3659
KL-39 4383
KL-2 3802
KL-5 4799
KL-2 to KL
26264 KL-24 5210
junction
KL-25 3557
KL-26 1120
KL-28 2211
KL-27 2773
KL+KLS to
38515 - -
GTP
AZSE-6 1482
AZSE-21 2467
AZSE to GTP 28509
AZSE-3 1636
AZSE-4 3239
Gas Export
73979 - -
Pipeline
The design information of all Flowlines and Trunklines such as Pipe diameter, wall
thickness and external coating details extracted from Pipeline schedule document are
tabulated below.
Page 28 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Table 3.4.2 – Flowline and Trunkline dimensional details
Pipeline OD Wall Thickness External Installation

From To
Description (mm) Zone III Zone Ia Coating of Pipeline
6" Flowline AZSE-3 AZSE 168.3 11.8 13.7 3LPE Buried

8" Flowline KL-3 KL-1 219.1 3.9 6.2 3LPP Buried
8" Flowline KL-22 KL-1 219.1 13.6 16.6 3LPE Buried
8" Flowline KLS-1 KLS 219.1 13.6 16.6 3LPE Buried
8" Flowline KLS-4 KLS 219.1 13.6 16.6 3LPE Buried
8" Flowline RG-5 RG-1 219.1 3.2 4.5 3LPP Buried
8" Trunkline KL-1 KL-2 219.1 13.6 16.6 3LPE Buried
KL+ KLS
8" Trunkline KLS 219.1 13.6 16.6 3LPE Buried
Junction
KL+ KLS
12" Trunkline KL-2 323.8 15.7 20.2 3LPE Buried
Junction
Page 29 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Pipeline OD Wall Thickness External Installation

From To
Description (mm) Zone III Zone Ia Coating of Pipeline
KL+ KLS
16" Trunkline GTP 406.4 16.5 21.8 3LPE Buried
Junction
12" Trunkline AZSE GTP 323.8 14.3 17.9 3LPE Buried
12" Trunkline RG-2 RG-1 323.8 4.2 6.7 3LPE Buried
16" Trunkline RG-1 GTP 406.4 14.4 18.2 3LPE Buried
24" Gas
GTP TIE-IN 609.6 10.1 15.9 3LPE Buried
Export pipeline
The elevation profile of all Trunklines and longest Flowlines in each field are plotted
below to understand the routing.
Figure 3.4.1 – AZSE 4 Flowline Elevation profile
AZSE4 Flowline Elevation profile

285.0
284.0
Line Elevation (m)
283.0
282.0
281.0
280.0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0
Line Length (m)
Page 30 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 3.4.2 – KL3 Flowline Elevation profile
KL3 Flowline Elevation profile

190.0
189.0
188.0
187.0
Line Elevation (m)
186.0
185.0
184.0
183.0
182.0
181.0
180.0
0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0
Line Length (m)

200.0
195.0
190.0
Line Elevation (m)
185.0
180.0
175.0
170.0
165.0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 4500.0 5000.0
Line Length (m)
Page 31 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B

190.0
185.0
Line Elevation (m)
180.0
175.0
170.0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 4500.0 5000.0
Line Length (m)

195.0
190.0
Line Elevation (m)
185.0
180.0
175.0
170.0
0.0 500.0 1000.0 1500.0 2000.0 2500.0 3000.0 3500.0 4000.0 4500.0 5000.0 5500.0
Line Length (m)
Page 32 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 3.4.6 – RG12 Flowline Elevation profile
RG12 Flowline Elevation profile

290.0
285.0
280.0
Line Elevation (m)
275.0
270.0
265.0
260.0
0.0 400.0 800.0 1200.0 1600.0 2000.0 2400.0 2800.0 3200.0 3600.0
Line Length (m)
Figure 3.4.7 – RG6 Flowline Elevation profile
RG6 Flowline Elevation profile

275.0
270.0
Line Elevation (m)
265.0
260.0
0.0 400.0 800.0 1200.0 1600.0 2000.0 2400.0 2800.0 3200.0
Line Length (m)
Page 33 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 3.4.8 – KLS4 Flowline Elevation profile
KLS4 Flowline Elevation profile

275.0
270.0
265.0
260.0
255.0
Line Elevation (m)
250.0
245.0
240.0
235.0
230.0
225.0
220.0
215.0
0.0 200.0 400.0 600.0 800.0 1000.0 1200.0 1400.0 1600.0 1800.0 2000.0 2200.0
Line Length (m)
Figure 3.4.9 – KL1 Trunkline Elevation profile
KL1 Trunkline Elevation profile

200.0
190.0
Line Elevation (m)
180.0
170.0
160.0
0.0 1000.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0 5000.0 6000.0 7000.0 8000.0 9000.0 10000.0 11000.0
Line Length (m)
Page 34 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 3.4.10 – KL2 Trunkline Elevation profile
KL2 Trunkline Elevation profile

190.0
185.0
180.0
175.0
Line Elevation (m)
170.0
165.0
160.0
155.0
150.0
145.0
0.0 3000.0 6000.0 9000.0 12000.0 15000.0 18000.0 21000.0 24000.0 27000.0
Line Length (m)
Figure 3.4.11 – KLS Trunkline Elevation profile
KLS Trunkline Elevation profile

280.0
270.0
260.0
250.0
240.0
230.0
Line Elevation (m)
220.0
210.0
200.0
190.0
180.0
170.0
160.0
150.0
140.0
0.0 5000.0 10000.0 15000.0 20000.0 25000.0
Line Length (m)
Page 35 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 3.4.12 – KL+KLS Trunkline Elevation profile
KL+KLS Trunkline Elevation profile

275.0
265.0
255.0
245.0
235.0
Line Elevation (m)
225.0
215.0
205.0
195.0
185.0
175.0
165.0
155.0
145.0
0.0 5000.0 10000.0 15000.0 20000.0 25000.0 30000.0 35000.0 40000.0
Line Length (m)
Figure 3.4.13 – AZSE Trunkline Elevation profile
AZSE Trunkline Elevation profile

290.0
285.0
280.0
Line Elevation (m)
275.0
270.0
265.0
260.0
255.0
250.0
0.0 5000.0 10000.0 15000.0 20000.0 25000.0 30000.0
Line Length (m)
Page 36 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 3.4.14 – RG2 Trunkline Elevation profile
RG2 Trunkline Elevation profile

290.0
285.0
280.0
Line Elevation (m)
275.0
270.0
265.0
260.0
255.0
250.0
0.0 1075.0 2150.0 3225.0 4300.0 5375.0 6450.0 7525.0 8600.0
Line Length (m)
Figure 3.4.15 – RG1 Trunkline Elevation profile
RG1 Trunkline Elevation profile

290.0
285.0
280.0
Line Elevation (m)
275.0
270.0
265.0
260.0
255.0
250.0
0.0 1000.0 2000.0 3000.0 4000.0 5000.0 6000.0
Line Length (m)
Page 37 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 3.4.16 – Export Gas Pipeline Elevation profile
Export Gas Pipeline Elevation profile

315.0
310.0
305.0
300.0
295.0
Line Elevation (m)
290.0
285.0
280.0
275.0
270.0
265.0
260.0
0.0 10000.0 20000.0 30000.0 40000.0 50000.0 60000.0 70000.0 80000.0
Line Length (m)
3.5 Fluid Composition
The original dry fluid compositions provided for the study [Ref. 1] have been
characterised in PVTSIM using the Peng Robinson Equation of State. The fluids were
entered in PVTSIM as ‘No-Plus fluids’.
Each composition for flow lines and trunk lines is saturated with water at reservoir
conditions. The resulting composition, which is used for simulations, are shown in Table
3.5.1 & Table 3.5.2 for flow lines & trunk lines. The fluid composition for the Gas Export
Pipeline has been provided from the H&MB Scenario 10 with highest molecular weight
(Table 3.5.3).
Table 3.5.2 shows the fluid composition prorated to adjust the total design water rate of
375 m3/d. Water is allocated to each field in proportion to that field’s share of the total
gas production volumetric flow rate. This will be used as basis for sizing the trunk lines.
For the flow lines, the water flow rate will also be split equally by pro-rating the water rate
between the flow lines at the same ratios as gas production rate.
Page 38 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Table 3.5.1 Characterised Fluid compositions for flow lines & Trunk lines
Mole %
Component Reggane KL Carb KL Devo KLS AZSE

H2O 0.2213 0.0229 0.0189 0.0342 0.05753
N2 0.3490 0.7597 0.0304 0.2245 0.2684
CO2 4.2090 0.4592 5.7571 4.0828 4.1359
H2S Note 1 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
C1 93.6877 91.2513 92.4642 94.5139 93.4359
C2 1.3270 5.3806 1.1545 1.0248 1.8255
C3 0.1664 1.2279 0.2548 0.0995 0.2369
iC4 0.0132 0.1398 0.0204 0.0102 0.0061
nC4 0.0142 0.2595 0.0204 0.0102 0.0152
2,2-dim-C3 0.001 0.01 - - 0.0081
iC5 0.003 0.0799 0.0051 - 0.0051
nC5 0.002 0.0699 - - -
C6 0.002 0.0898 - - 0.0031
m-c-C5 - 0.01 - - -
c-C6 - 0.01 - - -
m-c-C6 - 0.02 - - -
Toluene - - - - 0.0020
C7* 0.001 0.0399 - - -
C8* 0.002 0.0399 - - -
C9* 0.001 0.0299 - - -
C10* - 0.0299 - - -
C11* - 0.02 - - -
C12* - 0.02 - - -
C13* - 0.01 - - -
C14* - 0.01 - - -
C15* - 0.01 - - -
Note 1: The RG-6 Gedinian A well experienced H2S levels of up to 5 ppm (mol), as per
report OLG-476. This will be used as the basis.
Page 39 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Table 3.5.2 Fluid compositions for flow lines & Trunk lines with Formation Water
Mole %
KL
KL Carb
Component Reggane KL Carb Devo KLS AZSE +Dev KL+KLS
H2O 5.241 5.649 5.655 5.233 5.224 5.650 5.649
N2 0.331 0.717 0.287 0.213 0.255 0.631 0.548
CO2 4.000 0.433 5.444 3.876 3.927 1.435 1.913
H2S 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
C1 88.972 86.117 87.241 89.593 88.601 86.341 86.905
C2 1.260 5.078 1.089 0.971 1.731 4.280 3.627
C3 0.158 1.159 0.240 0.094 0.225 0.975 0.801
iC4 0.013 0.132 0.019 0.010 0.006 0.109 0.090
nC4 0.013 0.245 0.019 0.010 0.014 0.200 0.162
2,2-dim-C3 0.001 0.009 - - - 0.008 0.006
iC5 0.003 0.072 0.005 - 0.008 0.061 0.049
nC5 0.002 0.066 - - 0.005 0.053 0.042
C6 0.002 0.085 - - 0.003 0.068 0.054
m-c-C5 - 0.009 - - - 0.008 0.006
c-C6 - 0.009 - - - 0.008 0.006
m-c-C6 - 0.019 - - - 0.015 0.012
Toluene - - - - 0.002 - -
C7 0.001 0.038 - - - 0.030 0.024
C8 0.002 0.038 - - - 0.030 0.024
C9 0.001 0.028 - - - 0.023 0.018
C10 - 0.028 - - - 0.023 0.018
C11 - 0.019 - - - 0.015 0.012
C12 - 0.019 - - - 0.015 0.012
C13 - 0.009 - - - 0.008 0.006
C14 - 0.009 - - - 0.008 0.006
C15 - 0.009 - - - 0.008 0.006
Page 40 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Table 3.5.3 Fluid composition for Export Gas Pipeline
Component Mol %
Nitrogen 0.76
CO2 0.46
H2S 0.00
Methane 91.51
Ethane 5.38
Propane 1.22
i-Butane 0.14
n-Butane 0.25
Mcyclopentan 0.01
Cyclohexane 0.01
Mcyclohexane 0.01
22-Mpropane 0.01
i-Pentane 0.07
n-Pentane 0.06
n-Hexane 0.07
Benzene 0.00
n-Heptane 0.02
Toluene 0.00
n-Octane 0.01
E-Benzene 0.00
m-Xylene 0.00
p-Xylene 0.00
o-Xylene 0.00
n-Nonane 0.00
n-Decane 0.00
n-C11 0.00
n-C12 0.00
n-C13 0.00
n-C14 0.00
n-C15 0.00
H2O 0.00
124-MBenzene 0.00
Page 41 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
3.6 Slug Catcher Data
A slug catcher design volume of 50 m³ water and 25 m³ condensate is considered for

inlet facilities [Ref. 2].
The design inlet flow rate to the produced water facilities is 375 m³/d which accounts for
condensed water and free water production. A 20% design margin has been added for
equipment sizing [Ref.2] therefore a water drain rate of 450 m³/d has been used for this
analysis. The minimum capacity of the condensate stabilisation unit, processing liquid
hydrocarbons from Kahlouche and Kahlouche South, is 79.6 m³/d [Ref.2].
Table 3.6.1 Water drain rate in each field during Normal operation and Ramp-up
Water drain rate Produced Water drain

available during Condensate
water at rate available
normal operation drain rate
Field design during ramp available
(m³/d) flowrate up (m³/d)
(Note 2) (m³/d)
(Note 1) (m³/d)
Azrafil 93.2 100.1 175.1 N/A
Reggane 193.6 207.8 282.8 N/A
Kahlouche and
163.1 175.0 250.0 79.6
Kahlouche South
Note 1: Drain rate is based on design water rate of 375 m3/d which is prorated to each
field based on its maximum gas rate with 20% additional margin.
Note 2: Drain rate during Ramp-up operation is calculated as below.
Table 3.6.2 Estimation of Water drain rate available in Slug catcher during Ramp-up of
AZSE Trunkline
Description Value Unit
Total Gas Capacity 8.60 MMSm3/d
Produced water facility capacity 375.0 m3/d
Design capacity of AZSE Trunkline 2.296 MMSm3/d
Produced water in AZSE Trunkline at its Design capacity 100.12 m3/d
Page 42 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
3
20% Design margin available in Equipment sizing 75.0 m /d
3
Total drain rate available in Slug catcher during Ramp-up 175.12 m /d
Table 3.6.3 Estimation of Water drain rate available in Slug catcher during Ramp-up
of RG1 Trunkline
3
Total Gas Capacity 8.60 MMSm /d
3
Produced water facility capacity 375.0 m /d
3
Design capacity of Reggane Trunkline 4.766 MMSm /d
3
Produced water in Reggane Trunkline at its Design capacity 207.8 m /d
3
3
Table 3.6.4 Estimation of Water drain rate available in Slug catcher during Ramp-up
of KL+KLS Trunkline
3
Total Gas Capacity 8.60 MMSm /d
3
Produced water facility capacity 375.0 m /d
3
Design capacity of KL+KLS Trunkline 4.014 MMSm /d
3
Produced water in KL+KLS Trunkline at its Design capacity 175.0 m /d
3
3
The available surge volumes between critical level set points for the slug catcher are:
Water level
NLL to HLL – 56.01 m3
Page 43 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
NLL to HHLL – 62.22 m3

Hydrocarbon level
NLL to HLL – 30.69 m3
NLL to HHLL – 31.77 m3
3.7 Flare Header and KOD Design Data
The design temperatures of the HP flare & LP flare systems and liquid drain rates for the
HP flare knock-out drums at the GTP and Trunk lines are listed as below,
Design Temperature
HP Flare header : minus (-) 45°C / 210°C
LP Flare header : minus (-) 29°C / 210°C
Liquid Drain Capacity

HP Flare KOD pump : 27.17 m3/h (2 x 100% - Note 1)
HP Flare KOD working volume : 9.43 m3 (low level to high high level)
LP Flare KOD pump : 20.9 m3/h (2 x 100% - Note 1)
LP Flare KOD working volume : 8.92 m3 (low level to high high level)
Note 1: The sizing is based on a pump outlet flow rate required to empty the HHLL to
LLL of HP & LP Flare Drum liquid hold up in 30 minutes. Pump 1 starts at HLL & Pump 2
starts at HHLL.
Flare Package Capacity

HP Flare : 726980 kg/h
LP Flare : 60922 kg/h
3.8 Software used
OLGA version 7.2 is used for the Steady state (with time=0) and Transient simulations.
PVTSim version 20 is used to generate the .CTM compositional table files required
for the OLGA simulations
Page 44 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
4 APPROACH TO WORK
The following section describes the scope of work for transient modelling, identifying the
pipelines considered and the scenarios modelled. The methodology for representing
each transient scenario is also provided together with an explanation of the scenario
objectives. The results obtained from each scenario investigated are presented in
section 5.0.
The overall design basis for all flow assurance work including the chosen software
platform, fluid characterization and build methodology for each pipeline system is
reported within the following documents previously issued as part of the flow assurance
study scope ;
• Flow Assurance Philosophy (Ref.1)
4.1 Pipelines Modeled
The scope of work for this Steady state (with Time=0) and Transient analysis report
covers the following pipeline and flowline sections which form part of the Reggane Nord
Project field gathering system. Each line is modelled individually as a single branch
system;
• Azrafil Trunkline (AZSE to GTP – One Trunkline)
• Reggane Trunkline (RG2 to RG1 & RG1 to GTP – Two Trunk lines)
• Kahlouche and Kahlouche South Trunk line (KL1 to KL2,KL2 to KL+KLS, KLS to
KL+KLS & KL+KLS to GTP – Four Trunk lines)
• Gas Export Pipeline (GTP to Sonatrach Pipeline – One Pipeline)
• Azrafil, Reggane & Kahlouche Flow lines (8 longest flow lines)
The chosen boundary locations, conditions and all pipeline material and topographic
data for each of these pipelines are presented in the Flow Assurance philosophy (Ref.
1).
Page 45 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
4.2 Steady State Hydraulic Calculation
4.2.1 Operating Conditions for Materials Assessment
A range of operating conditions has been simulated to determine the operating

conditions along the flow lines and trunk lines during summer operation for use in the
materials assessment. It is not reasonable to base the materials assessment on the
worst case operating conditions since these will not be present throughout field life.
Instead, a somewhat conservative but realistic set of average operating conditions have
been simulated as follows for operation at both 70 bara and 31 bara arrival pressure at
the GTP:
Trunk lines
• Each trunk line inlet temperature is assumed to be maximum flowing wellhead

temperature on a conservative basis (assuming no temperature drop in Flowlines).
• 100%, 40% and 20% of the design flow rate
• Operating conditions reported at several points along the trunk line
• Summer ambient temperature.
4.2.2 Maximum Arrival Temperature
The maximum possible arrival temperature to the GTP was simulated from Reggane for
operation at both 70 bara and 31 bara arrival pressure to the GTP using the following
assumptions:
• Reggane 1 trunk line at design flow rate

• Trunk line inlet temperature is assumed to be equal to maximum wellhead flowing
temperature on a conservative basis (assuming no temperature drop in flowlines)
• Summer ambient conditions.
4.2.3 Operating Conditions for Hydrate Assessment
A range of operating conditions has been simulated to determine the operating

conditions along the flow lines and trunk lines during winter operation for use in
developing the hydrate management philosophy.
Page 46 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
PVTSim version 20 has been used to generate the hydrate curves. A design margin of
3°C has been added (unless noted otherwise) to account for uncertainties in fluid
composition and modelling. Each fluid was saturated at reservoir conditions and the total
expected formation water was proportionally distributed between fields.
The following cases have been simulated for operation at both 70 bara and 31 bara
arrival pressure at the GTP:
Trunk lines
• Each trunk line inlet temperature is assumed to be average Flowline temperature

calculated by choking production from WHFP and WHFT down to Flowline inlet
pressure
• 100%, 40% and 20% of the design flow rate
• Operating conditions reported along the length of the trunk line
• Winter ambient temperature.
4.2.4 Export Gas Pipeline
The gas export system has been designed to transport 8.6 MMSm3/d of dry gas into the
Sonatrach gas pipeline network at 71 bara. The maximum allowable inlet pressure to the
pipeline is 81 bara. Steady state hydraulic calculation is performed in OLGA (with time
=0) to arrive at the maximum back pressure at GTP. The Inlet temperature in the Gas
export pipeline for hydraulic calculation is assumed from the discharge temperature of
the export compressor discharge cooler. The calculations results are reported in Section
5.0.
4.3 Transient Operating Scenarios Modeled
The following agreed suite of operating scenarios shall be considered for transient
modelling analysis. A scenario matrix has been developed to illustrate the scope for
transient analysis work as presented in Table 4.3.1, 4.3.2 & 4.3.3.
1. Shutdown Operations
o 2-hr period for shorter Trunklines RG1 and RG2.
Page 47 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
o 12-hr period for longer Trunklines KL1, KL2, KLS, KL+KLS and AZSE.
Additionally, a sensitivity study of 15 days maintenance shutdown is performed for
Trunklines AZSE to GTP, RG1 to GTP and KL+KLS to GTP to check the system
temperature and pressure after shutdown.
2. Depressurization Operations
o From normal operating initial conditions (following a 2-hr shutdown period for
shorter Trunklines RG1 and RG2)
o From normal operating initial conditions (following a 12-hr shutdown period for
longer Trunklines KL1, KL2, KLS, KL+KLS and AZSE)
3. Pigging Operations
Calculations are made for each field of how often the Trunklines will require pigging for
liquid inventory control. Controlling liquid inventory enables ramp-up over short periods
regardless of flowrate. OLGA simulations are performed for Trunklines (AZSE to GTP,
KL+KLS to GTP and RG1 to GTP) which are directly linked to the Slug catcher for the
below detailed flowrates considering two scenarios (with formation water and without
formation water) to evaluate the total liquid content in the pipeline (LIQC) against the
liquid handling capacity of the Slug Cather.
o To full production (100 % sustainable flow rate)
o Turndown production (40 % of design flow rate)
o Turndown production (20 % of design flow rate)
4. Ramp-up Operations
o Ramp-up instantaneously to 40% flow after shut in at 40% steady state

conditions.
o Ramp-up instantaneously to 20% flow after shut in at 20% steady state
conditions.
5. Slugging potential during Normal operations
Page 48 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Below matrix details the list of scenarios considered for the Steady state and Transient
analysis for the Trunklines.
Table 4.3.1 Steady state and Transient Analysis (Trunklines) – Scenario Matrix
Page 49 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Notes:
1. Steady state (100%, 40% & 20%) simulations are performed for both HP/LP mode of
operation considering summer and winter cases as back pressure details are required
for all the scenarios.
2. Transient state (100%, 40% & 20%) simulations are performed for both HP/LP mode
of operation considering summer and winter cases as liquid hold-up volume and
accumulated liquid surge details at slug catcher are required for all the scenarios.
3. Pigging (100%, 40% & 20%) and Ramp-up (40% & 20%) simulations are performed
only for the Trunklines KL+KLS, RG1 and AZSE which terminates at GTP and directly
linked to the slug catcher.
4. Pigging simulations for 100%, 40% and 20% are performed only for HP/LP Winter
case as the largest liquid accumulations are expected during winter.
5. Ramp-up (40% & 20%) simulations are performed for both HP/LP mode of operation
considering summer and winter cases to investigate the accumulated liquid surge details
at the slug catcher for all scenarios.
6. Shutdown and Depressurization simulations are performed only for HP Summer and
Winter cases as the higher operating pressure results in larger pressure drop across
depressurization valve which subsequently results in higher peak flowrate and minimum
fluid temperature both upstream and downstream of leakage.
analysis for the farthest Flowlines in each field.
Table 4.3.2 Steady state and Transient Analysis (Flowlines) – Scenario Matrix
Page 50 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Notes:
1. Steady state (100%) simulations are performed for both HP/LP mode of operation
considering summer and winter cases as back pressure details are required for all the
scenarios.
2. Shutdown and Depressurization simulations are performed for HP Summer and

Winter cases only as the higher operating pressure results in larger pressure drop across
depressurization valve which subsequently results in higher peak flowrate and minimum
fluid temperature both upstream and downstream of leakage.
analysis for the Gas export line.
Table 4.3.3 Steady state and Transient Analysis (Gas Export Line) – Scenario Matrix
4.3.1 Shutdown Operations
Shutdown scenarios are modelled dynamically for the purpose of assessing cool down
rate, change in overall pipeline liquid hold-up and any hydrate formation risk. The overall
assessment provides the operator with a clear indication of ‘survival time’ during a period
of planned or unplanned shutdown. The survival time is the time duration where the
system pressure/temperature conditions have encroached into the hydrate formation
region following an unplanned or planned shutdown and without recourse to operator
intervention. The change in overall pipeline liquid hold-up and operating pressure due to
gas shrinkage are also important parameters to assess for subsequent re-start.
The various pipelines are modelled under transient shutdown conditions by simulating
the closure of both inlet and outlet isolation valves at either end of the pipeline following
Page 51 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
a period of stable continuous flow. A 2-hrs shutdown has been considered for shorter
trunk lines RG2 and RG1 while a 12-hrs shutdown has been selected to represent the
longest anticipated period of pressurized shut-in conditions for Trunklines KL1, KL2,
KLS, KL+KLS and AZSE.
WHFT for Flowlines in AZSE, KLS and Reggane are relatively higher than KL wells.
Hence, shutdown time for these wells are increased to 8 hrs to allow sufficient cool down
time for these wells.
Additionally, a 15 days maintenance shutdown scenario is modelled for Trunklines AZSE

to GTP, RG1 to GTP and KL+KLS to GTP for HP Winter case to check the system
Pressure and Temperature after shutdown.
4.3.2 Depressurization Operations
Depressurisation scenarios are modelled dynamically for the purpose of assessing

operation times and low temperature risk. Peak liquids sweep-out, surge volume
requirements and peak gas rates are monitored against the current Collection pit/flare
system design capacities.
A number of possible depressurization orifice sizes are modelled in order to establish the
optimum size, minimizing depressurization times whilst operating within the disposal
system design limitations.
The various pipeline systems are modelled under transient depressurization conditions
by simulating the closure of both inlet and outlet isolation valves at either end of the
pipeline following a period of stable continuous flow. A small bore orifice is utilized to
depressurize the pipeline to its associated disposal system.
• The Trunk lines are depressurized to the HP flare system at GTP
• Flow lines are depressurized manually to the burn pit / collection pit system at the
respective wells.
• Gathering are depressurized manually to the burn pit / collection pit system at the
respective gathering system.
Page 52 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
For depressurisation simulations via flare systems, the downstream pressure was set at
slightly above atmospheric pressure.
Key parameters to be monitored are the pipe wall temperatures upstream and
downstream of the depressurising orifice and the liquid sweep-out volume into the flare
KO Drum/collection pit.
As all the Flowlines, Trunklines and Gas export lines are manually depressurized to their
respective disposal systems, different operating scenarios such as HP Summer and HP
Winter cases are modelled in which depressurization is initiated following the shutdown
period (2 hr for the trunk lines RG2 and RG1 and 12 hr for the Trunklines KL1, KL2, KLS,
KL+KLS and AZSE). Calculation approach involves varying the leak hole diameter until
the peak total leak flowrate is equal to the maximum allowable limit through the tail pipe
for which calculated Mach number does not exceed 0.7. Subsequently, the
depressurization time is varied until the system pressure reaches the back pressure of
the disposal system.
To assess low temperature risks along the aboveground pipeline and the flare header
piping during blow down, simulations have been performed at two ambient air
temperatures during winter i.e. average shade temperature of 30°C and extreme
minimum ambient temperature of 17°C.
4.3.3 Pigging Operations
Controlling liquid inventory enables ramp up over short periods regardless of flow rate.
Pigging frequency estimation calculation is performed for Two operating scenarios (viz.)
a. Without formation water:
Dry Well fluid composition is saturated with water and OLGA simulation model is
generated to allow the wet gas to flow through the pipeline. Liquid condensation in
pipeline is expected from wet gas due to lower ambient temperature and Total Liquid
content (LIQC) in the pipeline is monitored to evaluate liquid handling capacity of slug
catcher.
Page 53 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
b. With formation water:
Dry Well fluid composition is saturated with water and appended with free water prorated
from produced water facility capacity 375 m3/d at the same ratio as gas production rate.
OLGA simulations are performed for Trunklines (AZSE to GTP, KL+KLS to GTP and
RG1 to GTP) which are directly linked to the Slug catcher for the below detailed
flowrates (both HP/LP winter cases) to evaluate the total liquid content in the pipeline
(LIQC) against the liquid handling capacity of the Slug catcher. This is conservative
calculation of the required pigging frequency as it does not account for the drain rate.
Typical recommended pigging velocities are 0.5 to 5 m/s. The minimum and maximum
gas velocities have been extracted from the steady state OLGA simulations to establish
the flow rates at which the pig can be launched for each field. Below 0.5 m/s there is a
risk of the pig getting stuck, and above 5 m/s there is a risk of the pig being damaged.
• To full production (100 % sustainable flow rate)
• Turndown production (40 % of design flow rate)
• Turndown production (20 % of design flow rate)
4.3.4 Ramp-up / Rate Change Operations (Trunk lines only)
Ramp-up scenarios are modelled dynamically for the purpose of establishing liquid surge
volumes generated from ramp-up operations (from minimum flow to profile target rate).
The ramp-up operations for trunk lines are modelled under transient by simulating
turndown following a period of stable continuous flow followed by subsequent ramp-up to
re-establish full production rate conditions.
Following cases and approach are considered for Ramp-up scenario analysis.
1. Instantaneous Ramp-up 40%:
a. Stable continuous 40% flow in the system from 0 hrs up to 1 hr.
b. Instantaneous shutdown of the system (40% flow to 0% flow) at end of first

hour and shut-in condition from 1 hr to 12 hrs.
Page 54 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
c. Instantaneous Ramp-up (from 0% flow to 40% flow) at 13th hour.
d. Study the liquid surge expected at the slug catcher from 12 hrs to 24 hrs by
allowing the system to stabilize for another 12 hrs.
2. Instantaneous ramp-up 20%:
b. Instantaneous shutdown of the system (20% flow to 0% flow) at end of first

hour and shut-in condition from 1 hr to 12 hrs.
4.3.5 Slugging Potential during Normal Operations
Slugging potential during Normal operation is investigated by creating the OLGA

simulation model for all Trunklines and allowing the source flowrate (100%, 40% & 20%)
to flow along the complete length of the pipeline by varying the Integration time from 2
hrs to 24 hrs until steady flow profile is attained. This analysis is performed for both
HP/LP mode of operation considering summer and winter cases. Subsequently, the
Slugs arriving at the last pipe segment (i.e.) at the Slug catcher for AZSE, RG1 and
KL+KLS trunkline are calculated when the liquid flowrate exceeds the average steady
state liquid flowrate by a significant amount.
The liquid content of the AZSE trunk lines is all water; therefore the results in this section
are evaluated using a slug catcher design capacity of 50 m³, with an available drain rate
of 105.2 m³/d during 100% design flowrate.
The liquid content of the Reggane trunk lines is all water, therefore the results in this
section have been evaluated using a slug catcher design capacity of 50 m³, with an
available drain rate of 232.2 m³/d during 100% design flowrate. Slugs arriving at the
outlet are identified by the liquid flow rate exceeding the average liquid flow rate by a
significant amount.
Page 55 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
The liquid content of the Kahlouche and Kahlouche South trunk lines is water and
condensate, therefore the results have been evaluated using a slug catcher design
capacity of 50 m³ water and 25 m³ condensate, with an available water drain rate of
187.5 m³/d and condensate drain rate of 79.6 m³/d during 100% design flowrate.
Page 56 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

5.1 Steady State Hydraulic Calculations
Flow lines and Trunk lines
The flow lines and trunk lines for the Reggane development have been selected to
balance the desire to minimise the back-pressure at the wellheads while providing a
reasonable ability to turndown production without large volumes of liquid accumulating in
the pipelines. The significant tie-back lengths, particularly to the Kahlouche field, make this
a particular challenge.
The maximum operating pressures at the inlet to the Azrafil, Reggane and Kahlouche flow
lines are 82.89, 79.25 and 109.51 bara respectively. These maximum operating pressures
can be used to set the design pressures for the three gathering systems.
All the pipelines were simulated separately as it provides greater flexibility when running
parametric analyses. The steady state analysis evaluated the pressure drop, liquid hold-
up, erosional velocity, arrival temperature achievable with various pipeline sizes and from
this a suitable recommended pipe size was verified. Each pipeline is analysed at varying
flow rates including peak (100%) and turndown (40% & 20%) rates.
The simulation models were run using an iterative process to calculate the pressure
backwards through the system from the GTP and temperature feeding forwards from the
wells. The pressure, liquid hold-up, and EVR are reported for the runs for arrival pressures
at the GTP of 70 bara (HP operation) and 31 bara (LP operation).
Flow lines and trunk lines were verified using the following criteria:
• Minimizing back-pressure in the pipeline when producing at the design flow rate;
• Providing a reasonable operating envelope so that flow is stable at turndown flow rates;
• Operating below the allowed velocity to prevent erosion.
Steady state calculation results for longest Flowlines (8 Nos) and all Trunklines (7 Nos) for
HP and LP mode of operation including Summer and Winter cases are tabulated below.
Page 57 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Table 5.1.1 Flowline and Trunkline HP Summer case Steady State (100%) Hydraulic
results
Max. Max.
(m/s) Ratio
8" Flowline KL-3 KL-1 0.990 107.32 107.15 3.41 0.230 48.62
8" Flowline KL-22 KL-1 0.990 109.51 107.15 3.96 0.273 45.26
8" Flowline KL-5 KL-2 0.990 101.84 100.23 4.00 0.237 48.86
8" Flowline KL-24 KL-2 0.990 102.66 100.23 4.19 0.283 45.42
8" Flowline RG-12 RG-1 0.990 74.48 73.04 5.08 0.291 48.08
8" Flowline RG-6 RG-2 0.990 79.25 77.95 4.74 0.281 47.96
8" Flowline KLS-4 KLS 0.990 96.60 95.01 4.75 0.305 46.63
8" Trunkline KL-1 KL-2 1.201 107.15 100.23 4.59 0.340 55.80
KL+ KLS
12" Trunkline KL-2 3.221 100.23 84.83 6.07 0.422 150.00
Junction
KL+ KLS
8" Trunkline KLS 0.875 95.01 84.83 4.52 0.276 41.57
Junction
KL+ KLS
16" Trunkline GTP 4.014 84.83 70.00 6.69 0.354 187.45
Junction
12" Trunkline RG-2 RG-1 3.190 77.95 73.04 7.08 0.415 154.49
16" Trunkline RG-1 GTP 4.766 73.04 70.00 7.59 0.439 232.23
Page 58 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Table 5.1.2 Flowline and Trunkline HP Winter case Steady State (100%) Hydraulic
calculation results
Max. Max.
(m/s) Ratio
8" Flowline KL-3 KL-1 0.990 103.51 103.35 3.00 0.205 45.02
8" Flowline KL-22 KL-1 0.990 105.51 103.35 3.72 0.250 44.98
8" Flowline KL-5 KL-2 0.990 98.96 97.50 3.43 0.218 45.37
8" Flowline KL-24 KL-2 0.990 99.71 97.50 3.82 0.261 45.27
8" Flowline RG-12 RG-1 0.990 74.01 72.71 4.54 0.275 47.96
8" Flowline RG-6 RG-2 0.990 78.34 77.16 4.27 0.266 40.94
8" Flowline KLS-4 KLS 0.990 95.98 94.41 3.95 0.268 41.11
8" Trunkline KL-1 KL-2 1.201 103.35 97.50 3.99 0.317 50.22
KL+ KLS
12" Trunkline KL-2 3.221 97.50 84.22 5.46 0.400 146.26
Junction
KL+ KLS
8" Trunkline KLS 0.875 94.41 84.22 3.89 0.254 36.54
Junction
KL+ KLS
16" Trunkline GTP 4.014 84.22 70.00 6.24 0.340 182.14
Junction
12" Trunkline RG-2 RG-1 3.190 77.16 72.71 6.34 0.393 133.65
16" Trunkline RG-1 GTP 4.766 72.71 70.00 6.80 0.417 200.29
Page 59 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Table 5.1.3 Flowline and Trunkline LP Summer case Steady State (100%) Hydraulic
calculation results
Max. Max.
(m/s) Ratio
8" Flowline KL-3 KL-1 0.990 63.69 63.48 5.01 0.268 37.78
8" Flowline KL-22 KL-1 0.990 66.16 63.48 5.56 0.297 37.90
8" Flowline KL-5 KL-2 0.990 63.06 60.46 6.18 0.325 45.83
8" Flowline KL-24 KL-2 0.990 64.51 60.46 6.51 0.368 45.83
8" Flowline RG-12 RG-1 0.990 39.05 36.09 10.13 0.412 42.95
8" Flowline RG-6 RG-2 0.990 42.85 40.56 8.57 0.369 41.06
8" Flowline KLS-4 KLS 0.990 58.36 56.16 7.80 0.400 49.54
8" Trunkline KL-1 KL-2 0.697 63.48 60.46 4.74 0.217 26.73
KL+ KLS
12" Trunkline KL-2 2.306 60.46 45.80 8.47 0.422 106.61
Junction
KL+ KLS
8" Trunkline KLS 0.582 56.16 45.80 5.74 0.246 29.70
Junction
KL+ KLS
16" Trunkline GTP 2.888 45.80 31.00 10.27 0.392 136.69
Junction
12" Trunkline RG-2 RG-1 2.093 40.56 36.09 9.59 0.396 94.29
16" Trunkline RG-1 GTP 4.138 36.09 31.00 14.73 0.573 187.04
Page 60 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Table 5.1.4 Flowline and Trunkline LP Winter case Steady State (100%) Hydraulic
calculation results
Max. Max.
(m/s) Ratio
8" Flowline KL-3 KL-1 0.990 62.30 62.13 4.21 0.242 36.56
8" Flowline KL-22 KL-1 0.990 64.70 62.13 5.33 0.290 36.71
8" Flowline KL-5 KL-2 0.990 61.46 59.22 5.49 0.296 44.15
8" Flowline KL-24 KL-2 0.990 63.08 59.22 6.23 0.359 44.38
8" Flowline RG-12 RG-1 0.990 38.04 35.53 8.69 0.382 43.95
8" Flowline RG-6 RG-2 0.990 41.10 39.22 7.22 0.334 40.61
8" Flowline KLS-4 KLS 0.990 57.54 55.59 6.75 0.370 44.08
8" Trunkline KL-1 KL-2 0.697 62.13 59.22 4.45 0.208 25.76
KL+ KLS
12" Trunkline KL-2 2.306 59.22 45.53 7.98 0.409 102.88
Junction
KL+ KLS
8" Trunkline KLS 0.582 55.59 45.53 5.37 0.238 25.86
Junction
KL+ KLS
16" Trunkline GTP 2.888 45.53 31.00 9.93 0.386 128.47
Junction
12" Trunkline RG-2 RG-1 2.093 39.22 35.53 8.21 0.362 91.84
16" Trunkline RG-1 GTP 4.138 35.53 31.00 13.14 0.541 183.45
Page 61 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Export Gas Pipeline
The simulations of the gas export pipeline are somewhat simpler than the trunk lines and
flow lines because the gas export pipeline is a single pipeline transporting dry gas. A
single pipeline model was used to calculate the pressure drop at the design flow rate to
verify 24”NB diameter of pipeline is found to be adequate.
This pipeline size meets the design capacity of 8.6 MMSm³/d with an inlet pressure to the
Sonatrach pipeline network of 71 bara without exceeding the maximum allowable inlet
pressure of 81.0 bara.
The velocity of the gas at the design flow rate of 4.73 m/s is within acceptable limits and
the pipeline will operate in a single phase under all conditions.
Table 5.1.5 Gas Export Pipeline Steady State Hydraulic result
Max.
Design Inlet Outlet Max. Gas
Pipeline Erosional
From To Flowrate Pressure Pressure Velocity
Description Velocity
(MMSm3/d) (bara) (bara) (m/s)
Ratio
24" Gas Export

GTP TIE-IN 8.600 80.41 71.00 4.73 0.294
pipeline
5.2 Slugging Potential during Normal Operations
Slugging potential during Normal operation is investigated by creating the OLGA

simulation model for all Trunklines and allowing the source flowrate (100%, 40% & 20%) to
flow along the complete length of the pipeline by varying the Integration time from 2 hrs to
24 hrs until steady flow profile is attained. This analysis is performed for both HP/LP mode
of operation considering summer and winter cases. Subsequently, the Slugs arriving at the
last pipe segment (i.e.) at the Slug catcher for AZSE, RG1 and KL+KLS trunkline are
calculated when the liquid flowrate exceeds the average steady state liquid flowrate by a
significant amount.
Page 62 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
5.2.1 AZSE
The liquid content of the AZSE Trunkline is all water and therefore the results in this
section have been evaluated using a slug catcher design capacity of 50 m³. Slugs arriving
at the outlet are identified when the liquid flow rate exceeds the average steady state liquid
flow rate by a significant amount.
Transient OLGA simulations are performed for the AZSE Trunkline for both HP and LP
mode of operation considering Summer and Winter cases at different flowrates (100%,
40% and 20% of the design capacity) and maximum accumulated liquid volume at the last
segment of the pipeline (i.e.) at the Slug catcher are tabulated below.
Table 5.2.1.1 Slugging potential during Normal operation for AZSE Trunkline during HP
case (70 bara arrival pressure)

3
100% 105.15 0.01539
HP Summer 40% 42.05 0.04735
20% 21.02 0.4877
100% 95.64 0.4360
HP Winter 40% 38.26 3.0701
20% 19.13 9.5472
Note 1: Drain rate quoted above includes the free water rate which is prorated from 375
m3/d based on respective maximum gas rate with 20% additional margin and condensed
water across pipeline due to low ambient temperature.
Table 5.2.1.2 Slugging potential during Normal operation for AZSE Trunkline during LP

3
LP Summer 100% 88.64 0.0
Page 63 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B

3
40% 35.44 0.0725
20% 17.72 0.6034
100% 85.22 0.0
LP Winter 40% 34.09 0.0575
20% 17.05 0.2279
Based on the above tables, the maximum expected slug at the Slug catcher from AZSE
trunk line is 9.5472 m3 during LP Summer case which is lower than the liquid handling
capacity of the slug catcher.
Figure 5.2.1.1 – AZSE Trunkline HP Summer Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total mass
flowrate
Page 64 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.2.1.2 – AZSE Trunkline HP Summer Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total Liquid
content in branch
Figure 5.2.1.3 – AZSE Trunkline HP Winter Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total mass
flowrate
Page 65 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.2.1.4 – AZSE Trunkline HP Winter Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total Liquid
content in branch
Figure 5.2.1.5 – AZSE Trunkline LP Summer Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total mass
flowrate
Page 66 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.2.1.6 – AZSE Trunkline LP Summer Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total Liquid
content in branch
Figure 5.2.1.7 – AZSE Trunkline LP Winter Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total mass
flowrate
Page 67 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.2.1.8 – AZSE Trunkline LP Winter Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total Liquid
content in branch
5.2.2 Reggane
The liquid content of the Reggane trunk lines is all water, therefore the results in this
section have been evaluated using a slug catcher design capacity of 50 m³. Slugs arriving
at the outlet are identified by the liquid flow rate exceeding the average liquid flow rate by
a significant amount.
Transient OLGA simulations are performed for the Reggane Trunkline for both HP and LP
mode of operation considering Summer and Winter cases at different flowrates (100%,
40% and 20% of the design capacity) and maximum accumulated liquid volume at the last
segment of the pipeline (i.e.) at the Slug catcher are tabulated below.
Table 5.2.2.1 Slugging potential during Normal operation for Reggane Trunkline during HP

3
HP Summer 100% 232.23 0.0
Page 68 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B

3
40% 93.75 0.3716
20% 47.09 0.8251
100% 200.29 0.002
HP Winter 40% 80.11 0.1129
20% 40.02 1.0548
Table 5.2.2.2 Slugging potential during Normal operation for Reggane Trunkline during LP

3
100% 187.04 0.0
LP Summer 40% 75.38 0.0842
20% 37.92 0.5882
100% 183.45 0.0
LP Winter 40% 73.39 0.1713
20% 36.69 1.5748
Based on the above tables, the maximum expected slug at the Slug catcher from Reggane
trunk line is 1.5748 m3 during LP Winter case which is lower than the liquid handling
capacity of the slug catcher.
Page 69 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.2.2.1 – Reggane Trunkline HP Summer Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total
mass flowrate
Figure 5.2.2.2 – Reggane Trunkline HP Summer Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total
Liquid content in branch
Page 70 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.2.2.3 – Reggane Trunkline HP Winter Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total mass
flowrate
Figure 5.2.2.4 – Reggane Trunkline HP Winter Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total Liquid
content in branch
Page 71 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.2.2.5 – Reggane Trunkline LP Summer Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total
mass flowrate
Figure 5.2.2.6 – Reggane Trunkline LP Summer Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total
Page 72 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.2.2.7 – Reggane Trunkline LP Winter Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total mass
flowrate
Figure 5.2.2.8 – Reggane Trunkline LP Winter Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total Liquid
content in branch
Page 73 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
5.2.3 Kahlouche and Kahlouche South
condensate, therefore the results have been evaluated using a slug catcher design
capacity of 50 m³ water and 25 m³ condensate. Slugs arriving at the outlet are identified by
the liquid flow rate exceeding the average liquid flow rate by a significant amount.
Transient OLGA simulations are performed for the KL+KLS Trunkline to GTP for both HP
and LP mode of operation considering Summer and Winter cases at different flowrates
(100%, 40% and 20% of the design capacity) and maximum accumulated liquid volume at
the last segment of the pipeline (i.e.) at the Slug catcher are tabulated below
during HP case (70 bara arrival pressure)

3
100% 210.28 0.6297
HP Summer 40% 83.90 3.7792
20% 41.90 4.9518
100% 215.24 0.7747
HP Winter 40% 85.43 3.4870
20% 42.63 4.3365
during LP case (31 bara arrival pressure)

3
LP Summer 100% 154.80 0.0870
Page 74 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B

3
40% 61.64 0.0943
20% 30.79 5.0809
100% 152.85 0.0290
LP Winter 40% 60.82 0.1902
20% 30.37 5.3107
Based on the above tables, the maximum expected slug at the Slug catcher from KL+KLS
trunk line to GTP is 5.3107 m3 during LP Winter case which is lower than the liquid
handling capacity of the slug catcher.
Figure 5.2.3.1 – KL+KLS Trunkline HP Summer Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total mass
flowrate
Page 75 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.2.3.2 – KL+KLS Trunkline HP Summer Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total
Figure 5.2.3.3 – KL+KLS Trunkline HP Winter Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total mass
flowrate
Page 76 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.2.3.4 – KL+KLS Trunkline HP Winter Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total Liquid
content in branch
Figure 5.2.3.5 – KL+KLS Trunkline LP Summer Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total mass
flowrate
Page 77 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.2.3.6 – KL+KLS Trunkline LP Summer Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total Liquid
content in branch
Figure 5.2.3.7 – KL+KLS Trunkline LP Winter Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total mass
flowrate
Page 78 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.2.3.8 – KL+KLS Trunkline LP Winter Transient 100% - Trend plot for Total Liquid
content in branch
The slug catcher has sufficient liquid handling capacity to handle the slug and maximum
slug volume recorded from AZSE, Reggane, Kahlouche and Kahlouche South fields,
throughout field life for all flow rates considered.
Slugging is not expected to be a problem as the slug catcher size and drain rates are
adequate throughout field life for the slugging characteristics anticipated from AZSE,
Reggane, Kahlouche and Kahlouche South.
5.3 Pigging Operations
5.3.1 AZSE
OLGA simulations are performed for AZSE Trunkline (both Without Formation Water and
With Formation Water) to evaluate the total liquid content in the pipeline (LIQC) against the
liquid handling capacity of the Slug catcher.
Page 79 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Dry Well fluid composition is saturated with water and OLGA simulation model is generated
to allow the wet gas to flow through the pipeline. Liquid condensation in pipeline is
expected from wet gas due to lower ambient temperature and Total Liquid content (LIQC)
in the pipeline is monitored to evaluate liquid handling capacity of slug catcher.
The results of OLGA simulation for AZSE trunkline Without Formation water are tabulated
below.
Table 5.3.1.1 Pigging frequency estimation for AZSE Trunkline – Without Formation Water
Total Liquid content in Branch

Flowrate as 3
(m )
Case % of Design
Capacity 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
day day day days days days days days days days days
100% 0.0 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
HP
40% 0.0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Wint.
20% 0.0 0.01 0.03 0.09 0.15 0.21 0.26 0.32 0.36 0.41 0.45
100% 0.0 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.17
LP
40% 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Wint.
20% 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.13 0.18 0.23 0.30 0.37 0.44 0.52
Based on the above result, it can be concluded that
• The Total liquid hold-up volume of the Trunkline for 100%, 40% and 20% of design
flowrate during both HP/LP Winter case are well within the liquid handling capacity (50
m3) of the slug catcher. Hence No Pigging is required for AZSE Trunkline when the well
fluid is Without Formation Water.
The liquid content of the Azrafil trunkline is all water; therefore the results have been
calculated using a slug catcher design capacity of 50 m³. This is conservative calculation of
the required pigging frequency, as it does not account for the drain rate.
Page 80 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
The results of OLGA simulation for AZSE trunkline With Formation water are tabulated
below.
Table 5.3.1.2 Pigging frequency estimation for AZSE Trunkline – With Formation Water
Steady Total Liquid content in Branch

Flowrate
as % of
State (m3)
Case Gas
Design 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Velocity
Capacity day day days days days days days days days days
(m/s)
100% 5.18 37.8 37.9 37.7 38.0 37.8 38.0 38.1 38.1 37.9 37.9
HP
40% 2.89 19.0 38.3 57.4 76.1 95.0 108 108 108 108 108
Wint.
20% 1.91 9.09 18.5 27.7 37.0 46.3 55.7 64.9 74.0 83.1 92.2
100% 9.94 26.4 26.5 26.5 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6 26.6
LP
40% 4.89 16.5 33.0 38.8 38.9 39.0 39.0 39.1 39.1 39.1 39.1
Wint.
20% 2.99 8.5 17.1 25.6 34.0 42.7 51.3 59.7 68.4 76.7 85.3
Based on the above table, it can be concluded that
• The Steady state gas velocities for 100% design flowrate (both HP and LP Winter case)
are greater than maximum allowable pig velocity of 5 m/s and hence it is proposed to
perform Pigging operation below 85 % of Design flowrate for HP Winter case and 40%
of Design flowrate for LP Winter case.
• The Total liquid hold-up volume of the Trunkline for 100% design flowrate during HP
Winter case is well within the liquid handling capacity (50 m3) of the slug catcher. Hence
No Pigging required for the 100% design flowrate.
• The Total liquid hold-up volume of the Trunkline for 40% of design flowrate during HP
Winter case exceeds the liquid handling capacity (50 m3) of the slug catcher. Hence
Pigging is required to be performed every 31 hrs during HP Winter mode of operation.
• The Total liquid hold-up volume of the Trunkline for 20% of design flowrate during HP
Page 81 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Pigging is required to be performed every 64 hrs during 20% HP Winter mode of

operation.
• The Total liquid hold-up volume of the Trunkline for 100% & 40% design flowrate during
LP Winter case is well within the liquid handling capacity (50 m3) of the slug catcher.
Hence No Pigging required for the 100% and 40% of design flowrate.
• The Total liquid hold-up volume of the Trunkline for 20% of design flowrate during LP
Pigging is required to be performed every 70 hrs during 20% LP Winter mode of
operation.
The Total liquid content (LIQC) of the Trunkline AZSE to GTP during HP and LP winter
cases – with formation water are plotted below.
content in branch for Pigging frequency estimation – With Formation Water
Page 82 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Page 83 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Page 84 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
5.3.2 Reggane
OLGA simulations are performed for Reggane Trunkline (both Without Formation Water
and With Formation Water) to evaluate the total liquid content in the pipeline (LIQC) against
the liquid handling capacity of the Slug Cather.
The results of OLGA simulation for Reggane Trunkline Without Formation Water are
tabulated below.
Page 85 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Table 5.3.2.1 Pigging frequency estimation for Reggane Trunkline – Without Formation
Water
Total Liquid content in Branch

Flowrate as (m3)
Case % of Design
Capacity 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
100% 0.0 0.14 0.15 0.17 0.18 0.18 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.19
HP
40% 0.0 0.60 1.49 2.20 2.21 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.45
Wint.
20% 0.0 0.48 1.0 1.52 1.99 2.44 2.94 3.46 3.93 4.43 4.96
100% 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
LP
40% 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Wint.
20% 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.13 0.22 0.32
• The Total liquid hold-up volume of the Trunkline for 100%, 40% and 20% of design
flowrate during both HP/LP Winter case are well within the liquid handling capacity (50
m3) of the slug catcher. Hence No Pigging is required for Reggane Trunkline when the
well fluid is Without Formation Water.
The liquid content of the Reggane trunk lines is all water; therefore results have been
calculated using a slug catcher design capacity of 50 m³. This is a conservative calculation
of the required pigging frequency, as it does not account for drain rate. The results of
OLGA simulation for Reggane Trunkline With Formation Water are tabulated below.
Table 5.3.2.2 Pigging frequency estimation for Reggane Trunkline – With Formation Water

Flowrate 3
State (m )
as % of
Case Gas
Design 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Velocity
(m/s)
HP
100% 6.33 11.2 11.2 11.2 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3 11.3
Wint.
Page 86 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B

Flowrate
as % of
State (m3)
Case Gas
Design 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Velocity
(m/s)
40% 3.47 25.5 25.7 25.8 25.9 26.0 26.1 26.1 26.1 26.1 26.1
20% 2.16 13.5 26.9 40.4 53.8 67.3 80.8 94.2 107.5 120.8 125.3
100% 8.24 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7
LP
40% 4.71 17.9 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.4 23.7 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8
Wint.
20% 2.92 9.2 18.6 27.6 37.1 46.2 56.1 65.2 74.3 83.6 92.8
perform Pigging operation below 75 % of Design flowrate for HP Winter case and 45%
of Design flowrate for LP Winter case.
• The Total liquid hold-up volume of the Trunkline for 100% and 40% of design flowrate
(both HP and LP Winter case) are well within the liquid handling capacity (50 m3) of the
slug catcher. Hence No Pigging required for the 100% and 40% of design flowrate.
• The Total liquid hold-up volume of the Trunkline for 20% of design flowrate (both HP
and LP Winter case) exceeds the liquid handling capacity (50 m3) of the slug catcher.
Hence Pigging is required to be performed every 44 hrs during HP Winter mode of
operation. Similarly, Pigging is required to be performed every 64 hrs during LP Winter
mode of operation.
The Total liquid content (LIQC) of the Reggane Trunkline during HP and LP winter cases –
With Formation Water are plotted below.
Page 87 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Page 88 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Page 89 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Page 90 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
OLGA simulations are performed for KL+KLS Trunkline (both Without Formation Water and
With Formation Water) to evaluate the liquid content in the pipeline against the liquid
handling capacity of the Slug Cather
The results of OLGA simulation for KL+KLS Trunkline Without Formation Water are
tabulated below.
Table 5.3.3.1 Pigging frequency estimation of OIL for KL+KLS Trunkline – Without
Formation Water
Total OIL Liquid content in Branch (OILC)

Flowrate as 3
(m )
Case % of Design
Capacity 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
100% 0.0 16.1 17.1 17.1 17.1 17.0 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9 16.9
HP
40% 0.0 6.7 13.3 19.7 26.4 32.9 39.2 45.7 52.0 58.2 65.0
Wint.
20% 0.0 3.55 6.94 10.2 13.6 16.8 20.1 23.3 26.6 29.7 32.9
100% 0.0 9.1 9.3 9.5 9.9 10.1 10.1 11.0 10.5 10.7 10.7
LP
40% 0.0 4.6 9.2 14.1 18.8 23.3 28.8 32.9 37.4 41.9 46.3
Wint.
20% 0.0 2.4 4.6 7.0 9.4 11.8 14.3 16.6 18.9 21.4 23.8
Page 91 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Table 5.3.3.2 Pigging frequency estimation of WATER for KL+KLS Trunkline – Without
Formation Water
Total WATER Liquid content in Branch (WATC)

Flowrate as (m3)
Case % of Design
Capacity 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
100% 0.0 0.06 0.12 0.18 0.23 0.29 0.35 0.42 0.47 0.53 0.58
HP
40% 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
Wint.
20% 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.07
100% 0.0 1.32 2.69 4.02 5.29 6.64 7.93 9.07 10.2 10.0 10.0
LP
40% 0.0 0.48 0.97 1.48 1.97 2.50 3.0 3.48 3.91 4.44 4.94
Wint.
20% 0.0 0.25 0.49 0.75 1.0 1.24 1.49 1.74 2.01 2.24 2.48
• The Total water hold-up volume (WATC) of the Trunkline for 100%, 40% and 20% of
design flowrate during both HP/LP Winter case are well within the water handling
capacity (50 m3) of the slug catcher. However, condensate is expected in KL+KLS
Trunkline and pigging frequency is based on total oil hold-up volume (OILC) in the
Trunkline with the Oil handling capacity of the Slug catcher (25 m3).
• During HP/LP Winter 100% flowrate, the total oil hold-up volume (OILC) is well within
the Oil handling capacity of Slug catcher (25 m3). Hence pigging is not required when
well fluid is without formation when operated at HP/LP Winter 100% flowrate.
• During HP/LP Winter 40% flowrate, the total oil hold-up volume (OILC) exceeds the Oil
handling capacity of Slug catcher (25 m3). Hence pigging is required every 45 hrs during
HP Winter 40% flowrate and every 62 hrs during LP Winter 40% flowrate.
• During HP/LP Winter 20% flowrate, the total oil hold-up volume (OILC) exceeds the Oil
handling capacity of Slug catcher (25 m3). Hence pigging is required every 90 hrs during
HP Winter 20% flowrate and every 130 hrs during LP Winter 20% flowrate.
Page 92 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
The liquid content of the Kahlouche South trunk lines is water and condensate; therefore
results have been calculated using a slug catcher design capacity of 50 m³ for water and
25 m³ for condensate. This is a conservative calculation of the required pigging frequency,
as it does not account for drain rate. The liquid content of KL+KLS trunkline is water and
condensate (oil), the pigging frequency is assessed by reviewing the oil (OILC) and water
(WATC) pigging volumes separately and taking the most frequent requirement of Pigging
scenario. The results of OLGA simulation for KL+KLS Trunkline With Formation Water are
tabulated below.
Table 5.3.3.3 Pigging frequency estimation of OIL for KL+KLS to GTP Trunkline – With
Formation Water
Steady Total Oil content in Branch (OILC)

Flowrate 3
State (m )
as % of
Case Gas
Design 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Velocity
(m/s)
100% 6.24 15.6 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7
HP
40% 3.24 6.6 13.1 17.9 25.6 32.0 38.2 44.6 51.0 57.6 64.0
Wint.
20% 2.13 3.3 6.5 9.8 12.9 16.0 19.4 22.4 25.4 28.7 31.9
100% 9.93 9.3 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9 9.0 8.9 8.9 8.9 8.9
LP
40% 4.81 4.5 9.4 14.0 19.1 23.9 28.4 30.5 33.0 32.6 32.6
Wint.
20% 3.04 2.3 4.6 7.0 9.4 11.8 14.0 16.6 18.9 21.4 23.8
Table 5.3.3.4 Pigging frequency estimation of WATER for KL+KLS to GTP Trunkline – With
Formation Water
Steady Total Water content in Branch (WATC)

Flowrate 3
State (m )
as % of
Case Gas
Design 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Velocity
(m/s)
HP
100% 6.24 91.0 149. 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
Wint.
Page 93 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Steady Total Water content in Branch (WATC)

Flowrate
as % of
State (m3)
Case Gas
Design 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Velocity
(m/s)
40% 3.24 36.4 72.8 109 145 182 218 255 291 328 364
20% 2.13 18.3 36.5 54.8 73.1 91.3 109 128 146 164 182
100% 9.93 64.3 85.8 86.1 86.4 86.1 86.1 86.3 86.3 86.4 86.3
LP
40% 4.81 25.8 51.9 77.2 103 129 154 180 206 231 257
Wint.
20% 3.04 13.0 25.6 38.6 51.6 64.4 77.2 90.2 103 115 128
perform Pigging operation below 70% of Design flowrate for HP Winter case and 40% of
Design flowrate for LP Winter case.
• During HP Winter 100% flowrate, the total oil hold-up volume (OILC) in the Trunkline is
lower than Oil handling capacity of Slug catcher (25 m3). However, the total water hold-
up volume (WATC) exceeds the water handling capacity of the slug catcher (50 m3) at
6.5 hrs. Hence pigging is required to be performed every 6.5 hrs during HP Winter
100% flowrate operating condition.
• During HP Winter 40% flowrate, the total oil hold-up volume (OILC) in the Trunkline
exceeds Oil handling capacity of Slug catcher (25 m3) at 47 hrs. However, the total
water hold-up volume (WATC) exceeds the water handling capacity of the slug catcher
(50 m3) at 16 hrs. Hence pigging is required to be performed every 16 hrs during HP
Winter 40% flowrate operating condition.
• During HP Winter 20% flowrate, the total oil hold-up volume (OILC) in the Trunkline
Page 94 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
(50 m3) before 32 hrs. Hence pigging is required to be performed every 32 hrs during
HP Winter 20% flowrate operating condition.
• During LP Winter 100% flowrate, the total oil hold-up volume (OILC) in the Trunkline is
up volume (WATC) exceeds the water handling capacity of the slug catcher (50 m3) at 9
hrs. Hence pigging is required to be performed every 9 hrs during LP Winter 100%
flowrate operating condition.
• During LP Winter 40% flowrate, the total oil hold-up volume (OILC) in the Trunkline
(50 m3) at 23 hrs. Hence pigging is required to be performed every 23 hrs during LP
Winter 40% flowrate operating condition.
• During LP Winter 20% flowrate, the total oil hold-up volume (OILC) in the Trunkline is
up volume (WATC) exceeds the water handling capacity of the slug catcher (50 m3) at
46 hrs. Hence pigging is required to be performed every 46 hrs during LP Winter 20%
flowrate operating condition.
The Total liquid content (LIQC) of the Trunkline KL+KLS to GTP during HP and LP winter
cases – With Formation Water are plotted below.
Page 95 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Page 96 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Page 97 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Page 98 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
5.4 Ramp-up / Rate Change Operations (Trunk lines Only)
5.4.1 AZSE
The liquid content of the AZSE trunk lines is all water, therefore the results have been
calculated using a slug catcher design capacity of 50 m³, assuming a drain rate of
175.1 m³/d is available for the AZSE 100% field production. This is conservative as it
assumes other fields are producing significant formation water volumes.
Following cases and approach are considered for Ramp-up scenario analysis for AZSE
Trunkline.
b. Instantaneous shutdown of the system (40% flow to 0% flow) at end of first hour
and shut-in condition from 1 hr to 12 hrs.
The drain rate (including design capacity and 20% excess margin) available in the slug
catcher during Ramp-up operation of 40% and 20% are detailed below.
Page 99 of 144

ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Table 5.4.1.1 Estimation of Water drain rate available in Slug Catcher during 40% Ramp-up
HP LP
Description Unit
Operation Operation
Total Gas Capacity 8.60 8.60 MMSm3/d
Produced water facility capacity 375.0 375.0 m3/d
Design capacity of AZSE Trunkline 2.296 1.922 MMSm3/d
Produced water in AZSE Trunkline at its Design capacity 100.12 83.80 m3/d
Produced water in AZSE Trunkline at 40% Ramp-up rate 40.04 33.50 m3/d
20% Design margin available in Equipment sizing 75.0 75.0 m3/d
Total drain rate available in Slug catcher during 40% Ramp-up 115.04 108.5 m3/d
HP LP
Description Unit
Operation Operation
Design capacity of AZSE Trunkline 2.296 1.922 MMSm3/d
Produced water in AZSE Trunkline at its Design capacity 100.12 83.80 m3/d
Produced water in AZSE Trunkline at 20% Ramp-up rate 20.02 16.80 m3/d
OLGA simulations are performed for AZSE to GTP trunkline for the Instantaneous Ramp-
up case (40% & 20%) based on the steps detailed earlier and the results are tabulated
below.
Page 100 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Table 5.4.1.3 Instantaneous Ramp-up Results for AZSE to GTP Trunkline
Max. accumulated
Drain rate
(m3/d) 3
(m )
40% to 0% to 40% 115.04 0.14

HP Summer
20% to 0% to 20% 95.02 42.01
40% to 0% to 40% 115.04 0.16

HP Winter
20% to 0% to 20% 95.02 38.87
40% to 0% to 40% 108.50 0.04

LP Summer
20% to 0% to 20% 91.80 2.64
40% to 0% to 40% 108.50 0.05

LP Winter
20% to 0% to 20% 91.80 17.91
Based on above results, it can be concluded that it is possible to Ramp-up the AZSE to
GTP Trunkline instantaneously to the flowrate at which the Trunkline was operating before
shut-in without exceeding the liquid handling capacity of the slug catcher.
5.4.2 Reggane
The liquid content of the Reggane trunk lines is all water; therefore the results have been
calculated using a slug catcher design capacity of 50 m³. A drain rate of 282.8 m³/d is
available for the Reggane 100% field production. This is conservative as it assumes other
fields are producing significant formation water volumes.
Following cases and approach are considered for Ramp-up scenario analysis for Reggane
Trunkline.
Page 101 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
allowing the system to stabilize for another 3 hrs (being a shorter Trunkline).
allowing the system to stabilize for another 3 hrs (being a shorter Trunkline).
catcher during Ramp-up operation of 40% and 20% are tabulated below.
HP LP
Description Unit
Operation Operation

3
Design capacity of Reggane Trunkline 4.766 4.138 MMSm /d
3
Produced water in Reggane Trunkline at its Design capacity 207.8 180.40 m /d
3
Produced water in Reggane Trunkline at 40% Ramp-up rate 83.12 72.20 m /d
3
20% Design margin available in Equipment sizing 75.0 75.0 m /d
3
Total drain rate available in Slug catcher during 40% Ramp-up 158.1 147.20 m /d
HP LP
Description Unit
Operation Operation
Page 102 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
HP LP
Description Unit
Operation Operation
Design capacity of Reggane Trunkline 4.766 4.138 MMSm3/d
Produced water in Reggane Trunkline at its Design capacity 207.8 180.40 m3/d
Produced water in Reggane Trunkline at 20% Ramp-up rate 41.56 36.10 m3/d
Total drain rate available in Slug catcher during Ramp-up 116.6 111.10 m3/d
OLGA simulations are performed for RG1 to GTP trunkline for the Instantaneous Ramp-up
case (40% & 20%) based on the steps detailed earlier and the results are tabulated below.
Table 5.4.2.3 Instantaneous Ramp-up Results for RG1 to GTP Trunkline
Max. accumulated
Drain rate
(m3/d) 3
(m )
40% to 0% to 40% 158.1 0.21

HP Summer
20% to 0% to 20% 116.6 7.54
40% to 0% to 40% 158.1 0.14

HP Winter
20% to 0% to 20% 116.6 8.24
40% to 0% to 40% 147.20 0.10

LP Summer
20% to 0% to 20% 111.10 2.13
40% to 0% to 40% 147.20 0.12

LP Winter
20% to 0% to 20% 111.10 2.94
Based on above results, it can be concluded that it is possible to Ramp-up the RG1 to GTP
Trunkline instantaneously to the flowrate at which the Trunkline was operating before shut-
in without exceeding the liquid handling capacity of the slug catcher.
Page 103 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
condensate; therefore the results have been calculated using a slug catcher design
capacity of 50 m³ water and 25 m³ condensate. A drain rate of 250 m³/d for water and
79.6 m³/d for condensate is available for the Kahlouche and Kahlouche South 100% field
production.
Following cases and approach are considered for Ramp-up scenario analysis for Reggane
Trunkline.


catcher during Ramp-up operation of 40% and 20% are detailed below.
HP LP
Description Unit
Operation Operation
Page 104 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
HP LP
Description Unit
Operation Operation
Design capacity of KL+KLS Trunkline 4.014 2.888 MMSm3/d
Produced water in KL+KLS Trunkline at its Design capacity 175.0 125.90 m3/d
Produced water in KL+KLS Trunkline at 40% Ramp-up rate 70.0 50.40 m3/d
HP LP
Description Unit
Operation Operation
3
Total Gas Capacity 8.60 8.60 MMSm /d
Design capacity of KL+KLS Trunkline 4.014 2.888 MMSm3/d
Produced water in KL+KLS Trunkline at its Design capacity 175.0 125.90 m3/d
Produced water in KL+KLS Trunkline at 20% Ramp-up rate 35.0 25.20 m3/d
Total drain rate available in Slug catcher during Ramp-up 110.0 100.20 m3/d
OLGA simulations are performed for KL+KLS to GTP trunkline for the Instantaneous Ramp-
up case (40% & 20%) based on the steps detailed earlier and the results are tabulated
below.
Table 5.4.3.3 Instantaneous Ramp-up Results for KL+KLS to GTP Trunkline
Max. accumulated
Drain rate
(m3/d) 3
(m )
40% to 0% to 40% 145.0 21.67

HP Summer
20% to 0% to 20% 110.0 34.77
HP Winter 40% to 0% to 40% 145.0 25.22
Page 105 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Max. accumulated
Drain rate
(m3/d) 3
(m )
20% to 0% to 20% 110.0 57.71
40% to 0% to 40% 125.40 2.63

LP Summer
20% to 0% to 20% 100.20 46.81
40% to 0% to 40% 125.40 9.67

LP Winter
20% to 0% to 20% 100.20 31.78
Based on above results, it can be concluded that it is possible to Ramp-up the KL+KLS to
GTP Trunkline instantaneously to the flowrate at which the Trunkline was operating before
shut-in without exceeding the liquid handling capacity of the slug catcher except for 20%
Ramp-up (HP Winter). During Instantaneous Ramp-up 20% case in HP Winter, the
maximum accumulated liquid at the end of the Trunkline is 57.71 m3 while the water
handling capacity of the slug catcher is 50 m3. Hence during this scenario, it is proposed to
perform Linear Ramp-up to required capacity of 20% or initiate production through 2” ESD
valve to minimise the ‘blow out’ of liquid as the pipeline depressurize from the shut-in settle
out pressure so as to facilitate Ramp-up operation without flooding the slug catcher. Figure
5.4.3.1 shows a simplified process flow diagram of the inlet facilities.
Figure 5.4.3.1 – Sketch of the Inlet facility
Page 106 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
5.5 Depressurization Operations
5.5.1 Flow lines
Depressurisation scenarios for both HP summer and winter cases are modelled using a
number of orifice dimensions in order to establish the orifice size required to stay within the
maximum handling limit of 40,000 kg/hr in the manual depressurisation line for AZSE,
Reggane, Kahlouche and Kahlouche South flow line to limit the Mach number below 0.7 for
the tail pipe. Table 5.5.1.1 and 5.5.1.2 presents the results summary from the
depressurisation scenarios.
Table 5.5.1.1 HP Winter case Depressurization results for Flowlines
Shut time Leakage Min. Fluid Min. Fluid Acc. Liquid

Manual Depress.
Pipeline before total mass Temp. D/S Temp. U/S volume D/S
Vent line Time
Detail Depress. flow rate of Leak of Leak of Leak
Destn. (hr.)
(hr.) (kg/h) (deg C) (deg C) (m3)
AZSE-4 Collection
8 1 21550 -24.0 11.77 0.290
6" Flowline pit
KL-3 Collection
2 1 28355 -42.84 2.34 0.059
8" Flowline pit
KL-22 Collection
2 2 39833 -43.79 6.69 0.837
8" Flowline pit
KL-5 Collection
2 2 33886 -34.41 2.25 0.426
8" Flowline pit
KL-24 Collection
2 2 34303 -37.39 5.19 0.901
8" Flowline pit
RG-12 Collection
8 1 19051 -13.93 15.70 0.219
8" Flowline pit
RG-6 Collection
8 1 20810 -13.95 15.25 0.261
8" Flowline pit
KLS-4 Collection
8 1 29470 -36.30 7.55 0.020
8" Flowline pit
Note 1: WHFT for Flowlines in AZSE, KLS and Reggane are relatively higher than KL wells.
Page 107 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Note 2: Limiting Cv for the Manual depressurising valves are standardised across all fields.
KL22 well is the longest Flowline with Highest operating pressure governs the valve Cv
selection. Depressurization rate for other wells are lower for the selected Cv due to low
start pressure.
Table 5.5.1.2 HP Summer case Depressurization results for Flowlines
Shut time Leakage Acc. Liquid

Manual Depress.
Pipeline before total mass volume D/S
Vent line Time
Detail Depress. flow rate of Leak
Destn. (hr.)
(hr.) (kg/h) (m3)
AZSE-4 Collection
8 1 20345 0.287
6" Flowline pit
KL-3 Collection
2 1 20711 0.0
8" Flowline pit
KL-22 Collection
2 2 37340 0.492
8" Flowline pit
KL-5 Collection
2 2 28520 0.324
8" Flowline pit
KL-24 Collection
2 2 34095 0.752
8" Flowline pit
RG-12 Collection
8 1 17495 0.166
8" Flowline pit
RG-6 Collection
8 1 19151 0.234
8" Flowline pit
KLS-4 Collection
2 1 23150 0.0
8" Flowline pit
Note 1: WHFT for Flowlines in AZSE, KLS and Reggane are relatively higher than KL wells.
The Trend profiles (Total flowrate across leak, Pressure in the system and Accumulated
liquid volume D/S of leakage) from OLGA simulation for all the Flowlines are plotted below.
Page 108 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.5.1.1 – AZSE4 Flowline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Total mass
flowrate across leak
Figure 5.5.1.2 – AZSE4 Flowline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Flowline
Pressure
Page 109 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.5.1.3 – AZSE4 Flowline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Accumulated
Liquid volume D/S of Leak
Figure 5.5.1.4 – KL3 Flowline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Total mass
Page 110 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.5.1.5 – KL3 Flowline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Flowline
Pressure
Figure 5.5.1.6 – KL3 Flowline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Accumulated
Page 111 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Pressure
Page 112 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Page 113 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Pressure
Page 114 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Pressure
Page 115 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.5.1.16 – RG12 Flowline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Total mass
Page 116 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.5.1.17 – RG12 Flowline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Flowline
Pressure
Figure 5.5.1.18 – RG12 Flowline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Accumulated
Page 117 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.5.1.19 – RG6 Flowline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Total mass
Figure 5.5.1.20 – RG6 Flowline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Flowline
Pressure
Page 118 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.5.1.21 – RG6 Flowline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Accumulated
Figure 5.5.1.22 – KLS4 Flowline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Total mass
Page 119 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.5.1.23 – KLS4 Flowline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Flowline
Pressure
Figure 5.5.1.24 – KLS4 Flowline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Accumulated
Page 120 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
5.5.2 Trunk lines / Export Gas Pipeline
Manual Depressurisation following normal shutdown (2 hr for the trunk lines RG2 and RG1
and 12 hr for the Trunklines KL1, KL2, KLS, KL+KLS and AZSE) for pipeline
depressurisation case is considered following a period of normal continuous flow. An
isolation valve closure is simulated at either end of the pipeline and the depressurisation
sequence is initiated after shutdown. Once again a small bore orifice is utilized to
depressurize the pipeline to the HP flare system at the GTP whilst ensuring that resultant
peak liquid and gas rates are below 14000 kg/h for which the resultant backpressure
generated are within the design handling limits of the tail pipe and calculated Mach number
does not exceed 0.7. For liquid surge checks, two HP Flare KO Drum pumps are assumed
to be in operation to ensure maximum liquids drainage capacity of 27.17m³/hr.
With relatively low initial shut-in pressures in this instance, the amount of liquids removed is
also limited with the majority of liquids being left within the pipeline and therefore final
settle-out pressures will be different for each trunk line. Line pigging would be required
following depressurisation in order to hydrocarbon free prior to any pipeline intervention
requirements. The peak gas and liquid blow down flow rates based on orifice size are now
within design handling limits of the HP flare system with respect to flare header back-
pressure.
The gas export system has been designed to transport 8.6 MMSm3/d of dry gas into the
Sonatrach gas pipeline network at 71 bara. The maximum allowable inlet pressure to the
pipeline is 81 bara.
Table 5.5.2.1 and 5.6.2.2 presents the result summary from the depressurisation scenarios
of Trunklines and Gas Export line.
Table 5.5.2.1 HP Winter case Depressurization results for Trunklines and Gas Export line
Depress.
Time
(hr.) 3
Destn. (hr.) (kg/h) (deg C) (deg C) (m )
KL-1 HP
16 12 13641 -44.50 12.26 0.2218
8" Trunkline Flare
Page 121 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Depress.
Time
(hr.) 3
Destn. (hr.) (kg/h) (deg C) (deg C) (m )
KL-2 HP
16 52 9790 -40.71 13.88 0.3482
12" Trunkline Flare
KLS HP
2 30 13932 -37.21 14.71 0.011
8" Trunkline Flare
KL+KLS HP
16 80 9945 -31.01 14.78 0.6416
16" Trunkline Flare
AZSE HP
16 56 12795 -22.78 17.11 0.2496
12" Trunkline Flare
RG-2 HP
2 12 13723 -35.46 22.24 0.1181
12" Trunkline Flare
RG-1 HP
4 20 13893 -15.50 21.34 0.4661
16" Trunkline Flare
24" Gas HP
24 110 41536 -26.02 15.97 NA
Export Line Flare
Note1: Manual depressurization valve Cv for each Trunkline are varied to arrive at
maximum peak flowrate of 14000 kg/h for which tail pipe Mach number is below 0.7.
Note 2: Manual depressurization valve Cv for Gas export line is varied to arrive at
maximum peak flowrate of 42000 kg/h for which tail pipe Mach number is below 0.7
Note 3: Three manual depressurization provisions are provided. One for AZSE trunkline,
One common in RG1 for Reggane Trunklines and One common in KL+KLS for KL
Trunklines.
Table 5.5.2.2 HP Summer case Depressurization results for Trunklines and Gas Export line

Depress.
Time
(hr.)
Destn. (hr.) (kg/h) (m3)
KL-1 HP
16 12 12208 0.1599
8" Trunkline Flare
KL-2 HP
16 52 13926 0.3166
12" Trunkline Flare
Page 122 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B

Depress.
Time
(hr.) 3
Destn. (hr.) (kg/h) (m )
KLS HP
2 30 12734 0.0120
8" Trunkline Flare
KL+KLS HP
16 80 13659 0.4625
16" Trunkline Flare
AZSE HP
16 56 12895 0.2682
12" Trunkline Flare
RG-2 HP
2 12 12922 0.1191
12" Trunkline Flare
RG-1 HP
2 20 12425 0.4105
16" Trunkline Flare
24" Gas HP
16 110 40422 NA
Export Line Flare
The Trend profiles (Total flowrate across leak, Pressure in the system and Fluid
Temperature U/S & D/S of the Leak) from OLGA simulation for all the Trunklines and Gas
Export line are attached below.
Figure 5.5.2.1 – KL1 Trunkline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Total mass
Page 123 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.5.2.2 – KL1 Trunkline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Flowline
Pressure
Figure 5.5.2.3 – KL1 Trunkline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Fluid
Temperature U/S & D/S of the Leak
Page 124 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.5.2.4 – KL2 Trunkline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Total mass
Figure 5.5.2.5 – KL2 Trunkline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Fluid
Page 125 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.5.2.6 – KLS Trunkline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Total mass
Figure 5.5.2.7 – KLS Trunkline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Fluid
Page 126 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.5.2.8 – KL+KLS Trunkline HP Summer Depressurization - Trend plot for Total
mass flowrate across leak
Figure 5.5.2.9 – KL+KLS Trunkline HP Summer Depressurization - Trend plot for Flowline
Pressure
Page 127 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.5.2.10 – KL+KLS Trunkline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Fluid
Figure 5.5.2.11 – AZSE Trunkline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Total mass
Page 128 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.5.2.12 – AZSE Trunkline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Flowline
Pressure
Figure 5.5.2.13 – AZSE Trunkline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Fluid
Page 129 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.5.2.14 – RG2 Trunkline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Total mass
Figure 5.5.2.15 – RG2 Trunkline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Flowline
Pressure
Page 130 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.5.2.16 – RG1 Trunkline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Total mass
Figure 5.5.2.17 – RG1 Trunkline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Flowline
Pressure
Page 131 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.5.2.18 – RG1 Trunkline HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Fluid
Figure 5.5.2.19 – Gas Export Line HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Total mass
Page 132 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.5.2.20 – Gas Export Line HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Flowline
Pressure
Figure 5.5.2.21 – Gas Export Line HP Winter Depressurization - Trend plot for Fluid
Page 133 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
5.6 Shutdown Operations
Two hours for the trunk lines RG2 and RG1 and 12 hr for the Trunklines KL1, KL2, KLS,
KL+KLS and AZSE pressurised shutdown scenarios are used to establish starting
conditions for depressurisation operations, consistent with the analysis of the main transfer
pipelines. Graphical output for these scenarios is shown below.
As per Basis of Design (Ref 2), the winter case minimum ambient temperature is 17 degC
while hydrate formation temperature is approximately 12 degC for AZSE and RG well fluids
and 15 degC for KL well fluids. During normal operation, the well head temperature
downstream of choke valve is relatively higher than minimum ambient temperature and
hence the fluid is outside the hydrate region. In case of occasional lower temperature
anticipated from any of the well during winter conditions, the well fluid will gain heat from
surroundings and reach the ambient temperature of 17 degC. Hence all the Flowlines and
Trunklines from AZSE, Reggane, Kahlouche and Kahlouche south are outside the hydrate
region and hence mobile hydrate inhibitor package common to all filed is provided in case
of low temperature experienced during start-up.
Additionally, a sensitivity case study of 15 days maintenance shutdown for Trunklines

AZSE to GTP, RG1 to GTP and KL+KLS to GTP is performed to verify the pipeline
temperature and its gap from hydrate formation temperature. Subsequently, Shutdown
simulation is performed in OLGA for HP Winter case with closure of both inlet and outlet
isolation valves at either end of the pipeline following a period of stable continuous flow.
This resulted in complete pipeline reaches settle out pressure and approached the
minimum ambient temperature of 17 degC after 5 days (approx.) (Refer Fig 5.6.1, 5.6.2 &
5.6.3 for details). As the system reaches an equilibrium temperature of 17 degC, it is
evident that all the pipelines will exhibit same behaviour and reaches the ambient
temperature. Hence, 15 days maintenance shutdown for other Trunklines is not performed.
Similarly, the 15 days maintenance shutdown proved that the worst possible temperature,
the system could reach is the minimum ambient temperature of 17 degC which is greater
than Hydrate formation temperature (approx. 12 degC for AZSE and RG well fluids and 15
degC for KL well fluids) which is evident that complete Flowline and Trunklines AZSE,
Reggane, Kahlouche and Kahlouche south are outside the hydrate region.
Page 134 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.6.1 – RG1 Trunkline HP Winter Shutdown (15 days) – Profile plot for Fluid Temp.
and Difference b/w hydrate formation Temp. and Fluid Temp.
Figure 5.6.2 – KL+KLS Trunkline HP Winter Shutdown (15 days) – Profile plot for Fluid
Temp. and Difference b/w hydrate formation Temp. and Fluid Temp.
Page 135 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.6.3 – AZSE Trunkline HP Winter Shutdown (15 days) – Profile plot for Fluid Temp.
and Difference b/w hydrate formation Temp. and Fluid Temp.
Figure 5.6.4 – AZSE4 Flowline HP Shutdown – Profile plot for Fluid Temp. and Difference
b/w hydrate formation Temp. and Fluid Temp.
Page 136 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.6.5 – KL3 Flowline HP Shutdown – Profile plot for Fluid Temp. and Difference b/w
hydrate formation Temp. and Fluid Temp.
Figure 5.6.6 – KL22 Flowline HP Shutdown – Profile plot for Fluid Temp. and Difference
Page 137 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.6.7 – KL5 Flowline HP Shutdown – Profile plot for Fluid Temp. and Difference b/w
hydrate formation Temp. and Fluid Temp.
Figure 5.6.8 – KL24 Flowline HP Shutdown – Profile plot for Fluid Temp. and Difference
Page 138 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.6.9 – RG12 Flowline HP Shutdown – Profile plot for Fluid Temp. and Difference
Figure 5.6.10 – RG6 Flowline HP Shutdown – Profile plot for Fluid Temp. and Difference
Page 139 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.6.11 – KLS4 Flowline HP Shutdown – Profile plot for Fluid Temp. and Difference
Figure 5.6.12 – KL1 Trunkline HP Shutdown – Profile plot for Fluid Temp. and Difference
Page 140 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.6.13 – KL2 Trunkline HP Shutdown – Profile plot for Fluid Temp. and Difference
Figure 5.6.14 – KLS Trunkline HP Shutdown – Profile plot for Fluid Temp. and Difference
Page 141 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.6.15 – KL+KLS Trunkline HP Shutdown – Profile plot for Fluid Temp. and
Difference b/w hydrate formation Temp. and Fluid Temp.
Figure 5.6.16 – AZSE Trunkline HP Shutdown – Profile plot for Fluid Temp. and Difference
Page 142 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
Figure 5.6.17 – RG2 Trunkline HP Shutdown – Profile plot for Fluid Temp. and Difference
Figure 5.6.18 – RG1 Trunkline HP Shutdown – Profile plot for Fluid Temp. and Difference
Page 143 of 144


ANALYSIS REPORT
PS-00000-1163-0105-E B
6 REFERENCES
1. Flow Assurance Philosophy, Doc.No # PS-0000-1163-0014-E
2. Basis of Design, Doc.No # PS-0000-1153-300-E
3. Hydrate Management Report, Doc.No # PS-1410-1153-471-E
4. Process Design Philosophy, Doc.No # PS-1410-1153-468-E
5. Process Data Sheet - HP Slug Catcher (1411-V-101), Doc No # PH-14111-1163-0001-E
6. Process Data Sheet - HP Flare Drum (1417-V-103), Doc No # PH-14171-1163-0003-E
7. Process Data Sheet - HP Flare Drum Pump (1417-P-103 A/B), Doc No # PH-14171-
1163-0004-E
8. Pipeline Schedule, PD-00000-1166-0102-D
Page 144 of 144

Pipeline Transient Study PS 00000 1163 0105 E - PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pipeline Transient Study PS 00000 1163 0105 E - PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REGGANE NORD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT SURFACE

CONTRACT No. : PP-1160-001

PETROFAC JOB NO. : JI–2026

PIPELINE TRANSIENT STUDY / SURGE ANALYSIS REPORT

B 16/06/15 Re-Issued for Approval AV VMK KRM/DT RS

A 13/01/15 Issued for Approval DK VMK RVP/DT RS

PS 00000 1163 0105 E B

PIPELINE TRANSIENT STUDY / SURGE

Document No. Revision

PIPELINE TRANSIENT STUDY / SURGE

Document No. Revision

PIPELINE TRANSIENT STUDY / SURGE

Document No. Revision

4.3 Transient Operating Scenarios Modeled .................................................................. 47

PIPELINE TRANSIENT STUDY / SURGE

Document No. Revision

AZSE Azrafil South East

PIPELINE TRANSIENT STUDY / SURGE

Document No. Revision

1.2 Study Scope

Transient analysis is carried out for the following systems:

• Azrafil Trunk line (AZSE to GTP – One Trunk line)

• Export Gas Pipeline (GTP to Sonatrach Pipeline – One Pipeline)

PIPELINE TRANSIENT STUDY / SURGE

Document No. Revision

Figure 1-1 Trunk line and Flow line Gathering Schematic

1.3.1 Ramp-up Operations

PIPELINE TRANSIENT STUDY / SURGE

Document No. Revision

Table 1.3.1.1 Instantaneous Ramp-up Results for AZSE to GTP Trunkline

40% to 0% to 40% 115.04 0.14

40% to 0% to 40% 115.04 0.16

40% to 0% to 40% 108.50 0.04

40% to 0% to 40% 108.50 0.05

Table 1.3.1.2 Instantaneous Ramp-up Results for RG1 to GTP Trunkline

40% to 0% to 40% 158.1 0.21

40% to 0% to 40% 158.1 0.14

40% to 0% to 40% 147.20 0.10

LP Winter 40% to 0% to 40% 147.20 0.12

PIPELINE TRANSIENT STUDY / SURGE

Document No. Revision

20% to 0% to 20% 111.10 2.94

Table 1.3.1.3 Instantaneous Ramp-up Results for KL+KLS to GTP Trunkline

40% to 0% to 40% 145.0 21.67

40% to 0% to 40% 145.0 25.22

40% to 0% to 40% 125.40 2.63

40% to 0% to 40% 125.40 9.67

Based on above results, it can be concluded that

• Similarly, it is possible to Ramp-up the KL+KLS to GTP Trunkline instantaneously to

PIPELINE TRANSIENT STUDY / SURGE

Document No. Revision

1.3.2 Pigging Operations

Without Formation Water:

Steady State Gas Required Pigging

PIPELINE TRANSIENT STUDY / SURGE

Document No. Revision

With Formation Water:

Steady State Gas Required Pigging

PIPELINE TRANSIENT STUDY / SURGE

Document No. Revision

Steady State Gas Required Pigging

Steady State Gas Required Pigging

PIPELINE TRANSIENT STUDY / SURGE