ADIPEC 2013 Technical Conference Manuscript

Name: Florian Hollaender

Company: Schlumberger
Job title: Global Multiphase Domain Champion
Address: 1, rue Becquerel, 92142 Clamart Cedex - France
Phone number: +33 6 21 46 13 61
Email: FHollaender@slb.com
Category: Session 22: GOFD4

Abstract ID: 691

Title: Field Testing Multiphase Flow Meters: Lessons Learned and Best Practices

Author(s): Florian Hollaender

This manuscript was prepared for presentation at the ADIPEC 2013 Technical Conference, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 10-13 November 2013.
This manuscript was selected for presentation by the ADIPEC 2013 Technical Committee Review and Voting Panel upon online submission of an
abstract by the named author(s).

Abstract:

Since multiphase flow meters (MPFM) were introduced to the oilfield industry in the early 1990s, operators have shown a significant
interest in the technology for its operational benefits, which include ease of use, compactness, remote data retrieval, low associated
field personnel, and decreased OPEX.

Nevertheless, most operators first want to qualify the technology considered to ensure that it will provide accurate data to meet
their requirements under their own production conditions (e.g., fluid types, GOR, water cut, operating pressure). While most
multiphase flow meters have been tested under controlled environments in flow loops, those results are not truly representative of
field conditions. The true qualification is thus generally performed through trials or comparative tests of one or several MPFM
technologies against a reference measurement, typically a test separator.

This paper will present lessons learned from several such field trials, showing the implications of the selection of a reference
measurement system, the definition of evaluated quantities, and the definition of acceptance criteria that considers the uncertainty
of both systems. It will also highlight some verification methods based not only on measurements but also on well performance
modelling or using PVT sampling and analysis methods to better characterize well effluents. While some of the cases will show good
practices, some attention is paid to conditions leading to inconclusive results.

Those observations will then lead to the definition of best practices when preparing such qualification tests; selection of a reference
measurement system, preparation and validation of both the evaluated multiphase flow meter and the reference system, definition
of quantities to be evaluated, and acceptance criteria are all considered. Of particular interest is the proper planning of such trials,
including clear procedures on data delivery and accessibility to the meter for configuration, which ensures representative results
before future field deployment.

1
Introduction

Since the start of field introduction of multiphase flow metering (MPFM) technologies in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s the
demonstration of flow meters performances has been of paramount interest to operators and regulators alike. The evaluation of
MPFM performances has most often been performed through comparison of MPFM readings against a known reference, either
[9]
under laboratory conditions using test loops or through end-user field testing as discussed in API publication 2566 . Flow-loop
testing, either sponsored by manufacturers or conducted independently by third parties have often been considered as the “proper”
way of performing such technology benchmarking since the accuracy of permanent or temporary field installations are not always
[18]
optimal or even well understood. As mentioned by Hatlo and Sørensen : “A full verification [of an MPFM] can only be done based
on special designed reference measurement system with the required stability and repeatability”, in other words, adapting field
measurement systems to the purpose of flow metering system verification is at least challenging, if not inadequate and unlikely to
yield truly reliable results.

Historically, many operators have been evaluating MPFM on the basis of flow-loop tests. This has been a standard practice since the
[23]
early introduction of multiphase flow meters as illustrated by Mehdizadeh and Farchy for instance, using not just one series of
flow-loop tests but four tests, some driven by the manufacturer and others managed by third-party to provide a proper coverage of
flow conditions and fluid types. As discussed in their paper, flow loop tests were preferred to evaluate the meter in order to
minimize the in-built uncertainty of field installations. The practice remains active today even though the track record in MPFM has
been well established, and many recent installations still rely on flow-loop performance tests for MPFM technology selection, in
[20]
particular for subsea installations where field testing is not possible (see for instance Jackson et al. ). This verification remains the
[8]
key metrological validation step recommended by the API’s latest MPMS .

With several thousands of meters deployed worldwide in many different applications, subsea and at surface, in fluids from heavy oil
[33]
to wet gas wells, for usage ranging from conventional well testing to use as a fiscal measurement (Syre ), it could be expected that
[29]
further field demonstration of established MPFM technologies would not be required. Paraphrasing Ross and Stobie many
operators’ flow measurement engineers see little value in comparing readings from well-understood and extensively studied MPFM
against “a field system that has many (potential) problems with fluids, system control and flow measurement”. In fact, some
operators, acknowledging that MPFM may in fact be more reliable that conventional equipment after an “era of persuasion”, have
[4]
started using them as references against test separators (Al-Hammadi et al. ). Regulators have also been accepting MPFM for fiscal
[15] [16]
measurements such as allocation for over a decade (DECC , Alberta’s Energy Resources Conservation Board , Alaska Oil & Gas
[2]
Conservation Commission ) given a proper definition of the application and an adequate validation program.

Multiphase flow meters provide numerous distinct advantages: unmanned operations, smaller size and weight, reduced footprint,
low maintenance, high measurement repeatability and resolution, increased frequency of testing (see reference [5] for instance) to
name a few and it is often for that combination of operational and metrological benefits that operators are considering MPFM for
their new installations or for facilities upgrades. In order to properly select and assess the suitable technology many operators have
[24]
undergone field trials of meters (as illustrated in most references inside this paper as well as listed by Mohamed et al. and in API
[9]
Publication 2566 ). Such field tests are typically motivated by a number of reasons, primarily the fact that “the direct application of
[flow loop test results] to the field may be limited” as highlighted in reference [9].

A primary concern from end-users is that fluids used in laboratory conditions cannot usually reproduce field conditions and that
there are limitations in terms of operating pressure, temperatures and flow regimes (Norwegian Society for Oil and Gas
[25]
Measurement ). More importantly, such field testing campaigns are also undertaken to ensure that the deployment of MPFM
would help address measurement issues, generally highlighted by poor reconciliation factors negatively impacting the operator’s
[17]
ability to properly manage and optimize production. This was the case brought by Hassan who, having observed a significant
difference between actual export production and that monitored through well test results obtained from test separators, wanted
both to evaluate alternative technology but also obtain a better understanding of actual production through a proper production

2
testing campaign. Since the selection of a metering solution is of paramount importance for proper reservoir and production
management, technology validation under actual field conditions is worth performing as multiphase flow meters do not always
[5]
perform as expected. This was highlighted by Al-Hosani et al. who stated that two previous unsuccessful evaluation campaigns had
[27]
been performed before obtaining reliable results, but also by Ojukwu, and Edwards , who illustrated that after having selected a
MPFM technology on the sole basis of flow loop tests found production metering quality to actually degrade and not improve
following field deployment of the selected MPFM technology, showing the inadequacy of this particular MPFM under actual field
conditions.

Overall, there remains a justified desire by operators to ensure that a given MPFM can provide an adequate answer to their
metering requirements. Accuracy tends to be the standard metric of evaluation but other parameters such as repeatability,
equipment reliability, consistency, sensitivity to changes in fluid properties or flow conditions and rangeability are also integral parts
of a comprehensive evaluation. There is certainly no need to test MPFM for any single installation. As mentioned by the Alaska Oil &
[2]
Gas Conservation Commission , there is usually no need to re-test an already accepted technology when considering small changes
in meter size, minor upgrades or when performances have already been proven in similar field conditions. However, re-testing may
be warranted when significant variations in gas volume fraction (GVF) or water cut are observed. Sadly, there are no “commonly
[9]
accepted protocol and standards” for such performance assessments , and likely will never be owing to the impossibility of
adapting a single recipe to widely-varying field conditions. Nevertheless, this paper aims at providing a number of practical
considerations and hints to perform such field tests, as well as offering a workflow to properly design a testing campaign that would
yield useable and conclusive results.

The meaning of flow-rates and their integration

Before evaluating a flow metering technology it is very important to understand what would be the application(s) of the flow data.
This is not only important to define requirements in terms of measurement accuracy, repeatability and resolution but also to
properly define the quantities of interest that will actually be used for production reporting, reservoir or production management or
production optimization work intended based on the acquired data. For illustration purposes, pump performance analysis and
optimization is best performed on the basis of total mass rate, reservoir numerical modelling makes use of sandface flow-rates at
reservoir pressure and temperature conditions, while production allocation is based on individual phase flow-rates at export
conditions following a given fluid processing path.

Flow-rates can have different meaning depending on the point considered in the production system and on whether volumetric and
mass flows are considered. In most cases the values used in engineering calculations is precluded from historical testing methods,
typically flow-rates obtained from a test separator. Those provide:

 liquid rates normalized to pre-defined pressure-temperature conditions following gas/liquid separation at the separator
pressure and temperature and
 free gas rate at the separator operating pressure and temperature converted to standard conditions.

Such results are near-systematically reported in volumetric terms and are specific to the particular separator pressure and
temperature.

It is thus very important to properly assess the actual metering requirements before evaluating a flow metering technology since
multiphase flow meters are typically more versatile than conventional metering systems and can provide data under various forms,
not always achievable when using conventional systems. Properly defining the application is also at times required to obtain the
[2]
adequate regulatory approval .

3
Applications of production measurements

In the field of flow measurements there often seems to be a disconnection between various groups focused on flow metering
technologies (instrumentation engineers, flow metering engineers, field operations, manufacturers) and the actual end users of flow
data (production engineers, reservoir engineers, flow assurance engineers, …). When discussing the need for multiphase flow
metering and in particular its evaluation, proper understanding of the requirements from the end-user’s perspective is extremely
important, albeit not always properly tackled.

When asking a facilities or measurement engineer the application of multiphase flow measurements the answer is often “for well
testing” or “for well monitoring” or even sometimes “for production measurements”. While those descriptions do indeed represent
applications in the sense of how and where a multiphase flow metering system would be deployed, it does not address the question
of how the end users would use the data and, as a consequence, of the qualities expected of those measurements.

Let us consider for instance the needs that a production engineer would have of flow-rate data:

 Production allocation. This is the process through which the overall quantities of produced and injected fluids into a
production system are distributed to individual wells. This is typically a non-continuous process using only sporadic
measurements at the level of individual wells that has to be reconciled against a global high-accuracy measurement such as
that performed at the production sales point. Various quantities may be allocated, following various reporting methods as
[34]
discussed by Theuveny and Mehdizadeh . The closeness between total production obtained from reference
measurements and the cumulation of production from individual wells estimated from well tests, continuous metering or
well performance models is often used as a proxy indicator of the quality of metering at the well level. For such an
application, measurement accuracy is key but consistency also matters as it affect the quality of well performances models.
 Production management. An important part of a production engineer’s work is to ensure that the production system is
used optimally to maximize hydrocarbon (typically oil) production while remaining within the limits of the system. A typical
cause for concern can be related to water production, with production facilities having a limit on how much water can be
produced. For such applications, a proper trending of water production is required in order to identify the main water
producers, who may be choked back to open further good oil producers. Reliability of measurements and consistency then
becomes critical, more than accuracy itself.
 Production optimization. In order to meet target production objectives it is important to maximize the production
behaviour of individual wells. This can include identifying unstable wells (ref [17] or [29]) to stabilize production, optimizing
artificial lift systems (see [28] for ESP or [20] for gas lift optimization for instance) or build a representative well
performance model/inflow performance relationship (IPR) curves (e.g. [4]) to identify the optimal operating point of a well
or identify performance losses. In those applications consistency and reliability of measured rates is more important than
accuracy itself, to properly assess variations in flow rates over time and under different flow conditions.

The requirements for reservoir engineers may be slightly different however. The main priority of reservoir engineers is to properly
characterize the reservoir through a reservoir model that is then used to set the production strategy (definition of acceptable flow-
rates and flowing pressure), design secondary and tertiary recovery strategies (injection wells location, type of fluids injected,
injection rates), identify the optimal location of infill wells, or forecast well, sector and field production and recovery. Flow-rates
have a role in several stages of the reservoir description effort:


[35]
Used for pressure transient analysis (PTA) or production data analysis (PDA) as illustrated by Tosic et al. where
consistency of measured rates over time is critical to assess long-term variations in formation responses.
 Positive identification of water/gas breakthrough to assess fluid movements inside the reservoir, evaluate the efficiency of
pressure support strategies and overall use changes in produced fluids over time to properly characterize the reservoir as
[3]
illustrated by Al Hajeri et al. .

4
 
[20]
Use of allocated production data for reservoir model validation and updates, as well as mass balance calculations

More importantly, reservoir engineers are typically interested in flow data at reservoir and not surface conditions. This disconnect is
typically addressed through the use of a formation volume factor to convert flow-rates from a given set of standard pressure and
temperature conditions to reservoir conditions, but this does not usually address the effect of fluid processing, which can lead to
some discrepancies. In that sense, considering conservative values such as mass rate would be more adequate.

Other quantities may be of interest to end-users, for instance flow assurance engineers dealing with subsea installations may be
particularly interested in water production to manage the injection rate of hydrates inhibitor. In heavy oil installations, the water cut
may be critical to manage the injection rate of diluent to reduce liquid viscosity. In those situations, the water rate and water cut
respectively are quantities of interest. Without trying to cover all possible applications, this shows that when considering MPFM to
answer specific needs, accuracy may not be the only evaluation metric. In fact, in many cases characteristics such as ability to handle
variable flow conditions, consistency in measurements, high resolution to detect small changes or even the ability to provide high-
frequency data may be more critical. As such, any technology evaluation must be conducted with the end-user in mind and
evaluation criteria designed accordingly.

Flow-rates and fluid behaviour

One of the most troublesome aspects of flow measurements is the dependency of flow rates to fluid behaviour and the variability
that can be observed depending on the PVT (pressure-volume-temperature) modelling approach used, as well as on the location of
the metering point within the production system. For a given flow stream consisting of live hydrocarbon fluids, changes in pressure
and temperature measurement conditions will lead to mass transfer between the gaseous, hydrocarbon liquid and aqueous phases.
This is well known for hydrocarbons but even affects water, with gas present as a dissolved phase in water under pressure (think
about CO2 solubility in fizzy drinks for instance) as well as water present under the form of vapour in the gaseous phase under high
temperatures. Mass transfers between vapour and liquid hydrocarbon phases are well-known and, in addition to volumetric changes
of a given phase under variable pressure and temperature conditions, can create significant challenges in determining meaningful
flow-rates for the end-user. To determine flow-rates of oil, water and gas under a given set of reference conditions (typically a
pressure of 1 atmosphere or 1.0135 bar/14.7 psia and a temperature of either 60°F/15.55°C or 20°C/68degF) from volumetric
measurements of an hydrocarbon liquid, aqueous and vapour phase under metering conditions, a set of PVT conversion factors
accounting for fluid shrinkage/expansion and mass transfers must be used. This is the case for any multiphase meter and single-
phase meter, including atmospheric tanks where measured volumes have to be corrected for differences in temperature between
reference and tank temperature. Such a workflow is illustrated on Figure 1.

Figure 1: Process to convert measured flow-rates under metering pressure and temperature to standard conditions

5
This diagram shows how the flow-rates at the measurement point are converted to standard conditions. For example, the water
flow-rate at standard conditions (qwsc) is the sum of:

1. water rate observed at the measurement point (qwmp) with a shrinkage coefficient (bw) applied and,
2. fraction of water vapour/steam present in the vapour phase (rgst) as part of the measured gas rate (qgmp) converted to
standard conditions through a condensation volumetric ratio (r gwmp)

Similarly, total gas production is the sum of

1. measured free gas rate after removing the steam content to keep only natural gas, converted after expansion to standard
conditions (qgmp*rgnn*bg)
2. gas released from the aqueous phase (qwmp*bw*Rwst)
3. gas released from the liquid phase (qomp*bo*Rst)

And total oil production at standard conditions is the sum of measured oil rate accounting for oil shrinkage (q omp*bo) and of
condensed liquid hydrocarbons from the natural gas phase (q gmp*rgnn*bg*rgmp).

The process above is fairly comprehensive, but rarely used, in large part because many of the required fluid properties are not
readily modelled through simple correlations and may require more complicated PVT modelling making their use cumbersome.
Instead, the process is generally simplified under the assumption that, at the moderate temperatures under which flow metering is
generally performed, water and oil condensation out of the gas phase is minimal with negligible steam content in the gas phase. It is
also generally assumed that the amount of gas dissolved in the water phase under measurement conditions are negligible compared
to free gas and the amount of gas released from live oil. Under those assumptions, the conversions required simplify to oil and water
shrinkage coefficients (bo and bw), gas expansion factor (bg) and gas-in-oil (Rst) conversions. Furthermore, the water shrinkage is
typically ignored, even though it may account for 2-4% overestimations of flow-rates, assuming that this is a small enough error. In
this case the fluid behaviour conundrum simplifies to only 3 parameters: b o, bg and Rst.

Those considerations have two significant implications when considering both MPFM field testing against another measurement
system and the application of multiphase flow metering results:

1. A proper and consistent PVT model should be used by all metering systems
2. The same process (number of separation stages, pressure and temperature of each stage) should be applied to all systems

Both steps are actually not necessarily straightforward. On the first point, some meter types may provide direct outputs at standard
conditions (for instance liquid measurements based on a combined meter factor accounting both for the meter calibration factor
and the liquid shrinkage) while MPFM would likely provide flow rates at metering conditions as a primary output where shrinkage is
accounted for in a second stage. It then becomes challenging to follow the same process for both metering systems, using for
instance an identical shrinkage factor calculation. Even though following identical processes may be difficult or even impossible, it
may still possible to compare flow rates at standard conditions obtained following different processes, but in that case the impact of
differences in the consideration of mass transfers and volumetric changes must be accounted for when defining acceptance criteria.
A particular point of contention may at times be the consideration of dissolved gas content (Rst or in well testing parlance GOR2).
Any flow meter (test separator or multiphase flow meters) will measure the rate of free gas (or GOR 1) and rely on some PVT
modelling to add the dissolved gas fraction released by the produced oil. When both tools are operated at near-identical pressure
and temperature conditions the free gas rates may be compared directly, however when there are significant differences a
consistent model of GOR2 must be used.

The second point is actually potentially very significant too, especially when performing flow rate calculations at a given set of
standard conditions and in volumetric terms. Depending on the fluid separation process various equilibrium conditions are reached
by the fluids, and the GOR, densities and other fluid properties will vary depending of the path followed by the fluids from reservoir
6
to standard conditions. This can be explained by the fact that separation will change the relative amounts of light and heavy
components present in a given stream and will thus affect the ability of medium-weight components to remain in either vapour or
liquid phases. Practically speaking, the generic effect of separation is that medium-size hydrocarbons such as pentane, hexane,
heptane or octane will have a larger tendency to condense and be present in the liquid phase at standard conditions, since there is
not enough light hydrocarbons left in the mixture to hold them under equilibrium in the vapour phase. Those components exist as
liquids under standard conditions if not mixed with other hydrocarbons and a properly-designed hydrocarbon processing plant
allows for near full-recovery of C5+ (pentane and hydrocarbon molecules with higher molar weight).

As such, the separation process followed will thus affect the composition of stock-tank gas and liquids and, as such, the recovered
fraction of various components in each phase. A corollary to this is that the separation process will thus have a significant impact on
the total gas-oil-ratio (GOR) and on liquid and gas flow-rates. For illustration, Figure 2 shows how the P-T phase envelope of fluids
produced evolves along the production process considering a generic light oil fluid. This starts from a reservoir fluid characterized by
the red phase envelope that is first brought to separator conditions of 1200psia/120degF before being separated and flashed to
standard conditions where production data is typically reported.

Figure 2: Evolution of fluids phase envelope at various stages of the Figure 3: Comparison of stock-tank oil phase envelopes following
production system different separation processes

The impact of the separation process on produced fluids at standard conditions can be further observed on Figure 3, showing the
differences in liquid behaviour whether coming from a single-stage flash of reservoir fluids to standard conditions (zero-flash liquid
envelope in purple) and that coming from a 2-stage separation following a separator test (brown). This affects all properties of the
fluids: composition, STO density as well as recovered volumes.

Such mass transfers between the gas and liquid phases do obviously affect the production GOR that is sensitive to the complexity of
the separation process and to the pressure and temperature conditions of each separation stage. When performing production tests
using a separator, the total gas production is the sum of the free gas present as vapour phase at metering conditions and of the
amount of gas released from the oil after separation and flash to standard conditions. When taken with respect to the produced oil
at standard conditions it is generally expressed as the total gas/oil ratio (GOR T) being equal to the sum of first-stage GOR (GOR1) and
second-stage GOR (GOR2).

It is clear that the first-stage GOR - actually measured by test separator or multiphase flow meters - varies significantly depending on
metering pressure and temperature. What is less obvious though, is that even when accounting for dissolved gas the total GOR is
not conservative and can significantly vary depending on the operating pressure and temperature. As illustrated on Figure 4,
showing for the same fluids as used above the value of GOR 1, GOR2 and total GOR assuming different first-stage separation
conditions, it can be seen that not only GOR1 but also total GOR can be significantly different not just from a GOR obtained from a

7
PVT analysis report providing zero-flash GOR, but also between different flow metering tools operated under different conditions.
Differences may well be of 10% or higher depending on the type of fluids and on the differences in metering conditions.

Such considerations must be kept in mind when planning for a flow meter performance test as differences in test conditions
between the meter under evaluation and the reference measurements, whether another metering system or a well performance
model, must be properly accounted for. The only truly conservative quantities in a production system are total mass rate and well
stream composition that are independent of not only mass transfer between the phases but also not or little affected by PVT models
when using mass-based single-phase or multiphase flow meters such as Coriolis meters. In many flow-loops, even when using dead
fluids without mass transfer between phases, the reference flow measurements are often used in mass terms to enable a proper
comparison of meters operating under different pressure and temperature conditions.

Figure 4: Behavior of GOR1, GOR2 and total GOR for different first-stage separation processes (zoomed on the right)

Defining target conditions

When performing a field test of any flow metering technology it is therefore important to bring together two major considerations:

 How to account for differences in production processes between the evaluated meter and the reference measurement
 How to evaluate the technology keeping in mind the end-user requirements

This offers several possible combinations of considerations to define the reference conditions under which flow rates can be
compared. Total mass rate is rarely considered as an acceptable metric as it does not represent a meter’s ability to properly
represent produced fluids. Nevertheless, it should always be a first verification point to confirm that there is no major inconsistency
between different metering systems. Remembering that total mass rate is a quantity of interest for production systems - and can be
of interest to reservoir engineers to update reservoir models without needing a formation volume factor but only a water rate
combined with hydrocarbon mass rates - this can be taken as data of interest.

When combining mass rate with well stream composition, however, this becomes a very useful set of data that can be compared to
export data when the main fiscal measurement is performed on stabilized fluids where a clear-cut difference exists between the
different plant products (gas as C1-C2, LNG as C3-C4 and liquids as C5+ for instance). It also allows for a direct comparison of data
between meters operating under very different conditions. This approach should be preferred when dealing with very volatile fluids
for instance. This also opens the possibility of using fluid sampling results, when possible under single-phase conditions above
saturation pressure, as an additional comparison method.

When mass rate comparison is not possible, however, it is mandatory to properly define the metrics of evaluation considering both
which target/reference conditions to use, but also the process followed to get there. Conventionally, field tests are considering flow-
8
rates under an agreed set of standard conditions (generally 1 atmosphere and either 60 °F or 20 °C depending on local rules) but
does not always clarify how liquids shrinkage should be calculated or whether to report free gas only or total gas. If total gas rate
including dissolved gas content is considered, questions remain on what should be the methodology used to compute GOR 2. Those
points are to be agreed on, documented and any additional uncertainty or expected discrepancies due to the methodology should
be accounted for in the acceptance criteria.

A last option would apply when the meter under test and the reference measurements are under identical, or at least very similar
conditions. In that case, it is possible to minimize the impact of fluid properties by ignoring the process of conversion to standard
conditions. Depending on the single-phase meters used and associated computations used to convert raw sensor measurements
into flow-rates, the flow-rates of individual phases may be compared directly under metering conditions, either in volumetric or
mass terms. For example, data from a Coriolis meter obtained in mass terms can be compared to mass rates from a MPFM, while
flow-rates from a turbine meter could be obtained directly in volumetric terms without having to account for shrinkage to convert
liquid rates to standard conditions. Such a choice, however, should be critically evaluated to ensure that the unavoidable differences
in metering conditions between the metering systems are of a smaller order than the target accuracies of each system.

A clear and transparent selection of target conditions for comparison and of quantities of interest must be made ahead of time
before embarking in any trial or could lead to inconclusive or misleading results. It is also critical to agree on the quantities of
interest. Setting targets on gas, oil and water rates may appear to be the obvious quantities to evaluate. However, these are not
always the most robust measurements that can be obtained or even the primary measurements. Considering for instance wells
producing with a low water cut, it is likely that test separators will be operated as 2-phase gas/liquid separators and that the liquid
will be split between oil and water based on measurements of water cut performed on the liquid leg of the separator, either from
manual samples or using a water-cut meter. In that case, it is more relevant to compare gas rates, liquid rates and water-cut
measurements from both systems, which are the actual measured quantities. It is also worth noting that most MPFM will provide
similar quantities, with performance specifications expressed in terms of liquid rate and water cut or in terms of water fraction
uncertainties.

Conventional sources of flow-rates measurements

Before looking more in depth at the process of selecting a reference measurement system and at the sequence followed to prepare
a field test program, it is important to understand what could be the sources of flow-rate measurements used by conventional
single-phase meters installed on the outlets of test separators or on single-phase lines. With test separators having been used for
many decades in the industry, there is sometimes a perception by many that those measurements are near-perfect and can be taken
at face value. This is not the case and the following will provide some non-exhaustive indications about the benefits and challenges
of specific technologies, focused on those most widely used.

Types of single-phase measurement

A good overview of conventional single-phase measurement systems for gas and liquid metering has been presented in the DECC’s
[15] [29]
“Guidance Notes for Petroleum Measurement” and by Ross and Stobie . To provide a brief overview of key technologies the
main points will be summarized here.

Gas measurements

The meters most commonly used for gas rate measurement are orifice plate meters. Those are based on the measurement of
differential pressure created by a restriction in the flow area of the pipe through which gas is flowing. The differential pressure
measurement is then converted to a measure of gas volumetric flow rate at standard conditions based on an estimation of
discharge, on the ratio of orifice size to line size, and on proper PVT corrections based on gas density and deviation factor.
Calculations of gas rates from orifice plate measurements can be considered as well understood and are controlled by several

9
standards (ISO 5167 or AGA 8) but are nevertheless subject to several potential issues: presence of liquid in the gas, eroded/bent
plate, unstable flows or poorly calibrated differential pressure measurements. Requirements for calibration of orifice plates-based
systems and mechanical verifications are quite strict on fiscal systems but not always followed as stringently on mobile test
separators. Parameters such as the size of pressure tapings, their location, or other installation considerations can also affect the
quality of those measurements. Orifice plate calculations provide flow-rates in mass terms but are often reported directly to
standard conditions in volumetric terms, and a full transparency of the calculations should be required from the vendors to ensure
that those can be converted to any set of conditions.

Other types of measurement systems based on differential pressure measurements are available, using a change in flow area to
induce an acceleration of the fluids and thus a change in pressure. Those can be either Venturi meters, V-cone or inverted Venturis
(creating an increase of flow area as opposed to a reduction in flow area typically used). Those meters are also subject to serious
norms in terms of installation and flow conditioning, cleanliness of produced fluids or application of correction factor for turbulences
through discharge coefficients for instance and must be calibrated to determine the meter factor prior to installation.

Beyond DP-based measurements, other technologies have also found a place for gas metering. Turbine meters will be discussed in
the liquid metering section but it is worth mentioning ultrasonic meters (USM) and coriolis meters that have been extensively
studied and deployed in recent years. Ultrasonic meters are direct volumetric measurements, relying on a measurement of sound
wave velocity in the flowing fluids between measurements performed in the direction of flow and in the direction opposite to flow.
The differences in velocities between the up signal and down signal, combined with the angle of the sound beams provide a
measurement of flow velocity in the area covered. Such meters have gained significant acceptance in the industry but still rely on
good inputs for compressibility and gas expansion factor to obtain flow-rates at standard conditions. Furthermore, those can be
adversely affected by the presence of liquids in the flow. Nevertheless, they benefit from a wide turndown ratio, of the order of
100:1, and from minimal pressure losses.

Coriolis meters, by contrast, will provide direct mass rate measurements, converted to volumetric rates using a gas density either
inferred from PVT modelling or from measurements obtained by the Coriolis meter itself. The use of measured density is not always
recommended, especially under low pressure conditions where the density has significant associated uncertainty. Coriolis meters
also benefit from a high turndown ratio, even though it is often selected to slightly over-size the meter to minimize pressure losses,
somewhat reducing the actual applicable range of application. One of the benefits of Coriolis meters is that, since they are also
measuring the density of flown fluids, they can provide a qualitative indicator of the presence of liquids in the gas line, thus offering
a primary quality indicator of the quality of measurement and separation.

Liquid measurements

Several solutions are applicable for single-phase liquid measurements, each with specific working principles, strengths and
weaknesses. One of the most conventional methods of measurement is to introduce in the flow a rotating element that will respond
to the velocity of the flow. The measurement of rotational speed is translated to volumetric flow of fluids through a calibration law
and sensor response curve. Turbine meters are one such type, maybe the most commonly used for liquid metering on separators.
Turbine meters are well accepted but must be properly calibrated. Their accuracy can depend on the fluids actually flown during
operations and on the flow-rates observed. Also, since those are intrusive meters they can be affected by erosion or deformation of
the blade of the turbine. Other meters based on the measurement of rotational speed of a moving element include positive
displacement meters or vortex meters. Those similarly rely on a proper maintenance of the moving elements that may get deformed
or fouled, and on proper calibration.

Ultrasonic meters are also used in some installations for liquid metering and provide a direct volumetric measurement, but those are
also strongly susceptible to the presence of gas bubbles in liquid affecting the speed of sound. They may be used in oil-water
mixtures by using the associated measurement of speed of sound for corrections. Such measurements can be used as a diagnostic
tool to identify carry-under of gas. The low pressure losses in USM meter and wide turndown mentioned above also apply.
10
When considering mass flow measurement, Coriolis meters are the most widely-used meters. Similarly to the application for gas
metering they would provide a direct mass rate measurement and the built-in density measurement may be used to infer water cut
when using the separator in two-phase gas/liquid mode. One of the challenges of Coriolis meters in liquid flows is that since they
may generate significant pressure losses gas may evolve out of the liquid solution in the meter itself. Even small amounts of gas may
have a significant impact on measured flow-rates (see [7]) and the density measurement becomes very important to troubleshoot
the computed flow-rates.

Besides flow-rate measurement devices, it is important to highlight that water-cut meters may be used either to determine the
water cut when flow measurements are performed on gas and liquid only, but also to verify the amount of oil carried in the water
leg or water carried in the oil leg when the fluids are prone to imperfect separation in three-phase separators.

Understanding range of application and calibration needs

When properly operated and calibrated, single-phase meters will provide very accurate measurements. Manufacturers’
specifications (and fiscal measurement systems) typically refer to uncertainties of the order of 0.1 to 0.5% typically, but considering
that those laboratory performances directly translate to field deployments on test separators may be optimistic.

First, it must be understood that single-phase meters have a specific range of application and the target application must be well
defined to ensure that the meter will be within its operating envelope. This is the case for liquid meters such as turbine meters
where the covered range of flow-rates will depend on the size of the turbine but also on the density and viscosity of the fluids. There
are also limitations for orifice plates. The beta ratio of an orifice plate (ratio of orifice plate diameter to pipe internal diameter) is
recommended to be within a range of 0.3 to 0.7 (beta as low as 0.15 and as high as 0.85 may be used but degraded accuracy may be
expected) while leading to differential pressure measurements within the optimal range of operations of the differential pressure
sensor. Several alternate differential pressure sensors may be used to cover low and high ranges and further enhance the coverage.
This will limit the turndown of orifice plate systems to the combination of the range of turndown of the differential pressure
measurement and that of the beta ratio. Turndown of orifice plate systems are typically of 100:1 to 200:1 when the orifice plate size
and differential pressure sensors can be changed. If both orifice plate and differential pressure sensors cannot be changed to adapt
to each test, then the turndown ratio drops to a typically-accepted value of 3-5:1.

While a turndown of 100:1 is quite acceptable in most cases for permanent installations within a given field with moderate
variations in production between wells, this can become quite challenging for mobile test separators that may have to cover both
high-rate gas wells and low-rate/low-GOR oil wells. It is quite common to observe limitations on the low range of gas rates where
the measurement becomes quite uncertain. Overall, before performing any test (normal production test or even more comparison
tests) the suitability of the selected equipment to cover the expected range of rates must be properly assessed and the right size of
meter selected. The addition of a low-rate gas metering skid to a separator system may be used when required.

Another important point is to properly understand how a given meter was calibrated. Each meter will have a calibration factor (K
factor) that is determined from calibrations. Many meters, in particular single-phase liquid meters will show a different behaviour
depending on the types of fluids considered. Differences in density and viscosity will affect the response of rotating meters as
illustrated on Figure 5. Furthermore, the calibration is also dependent on flow-rates.

This is one of the reasons why single-phase meters must always be proven at the viscosity, flow-rates and ideally density of
[9]
produced fluids as highlighted by the API . Meters are often calibrated using water as test fluids and this can lead to significant
errors, in particular when considering light, low-viscosity fluids that may be observed in gas condensate or volatile fluids. Even after
proper calibration, there remains an uncertainty that could be accounted for in part by using tanks to accumulate fluids and obtain a
good reference measurement that can provide a combined meter factor (CMF) to properly calibrate the sensors on site. Such
measurement would provide the combination of a meter K factor and of shrinkage, and proper care must be taken to avoid

11
 [24]
considering the impact of shrinkage a second time in the reporting. Figure 10 in Mohamed et al.’s paper shows clearly the
imperfections of the turbine meter even after calibration.

Figure 5: Example of turbine meter (left) [26] and positive displacement meters (right) [12] accuracy dependency on fluids under test

Single-phase meters and their deployment in a test separator

One mistake often made is that the uncertainties of measurements from test separators can be considered as equivalent to the
uncertainties in the measurements of single-phase meters used with the separator. This is extremely optimistic since one of the
primary source of uncertainty with test separators is in fact linked to the quality of separation achieved, along with other
parameters such as installation and operational factors. The pipework around the metering points, stability of the separator
operating pressure and temperature, proper setting of liquid levels in the separator and proper sizing of the separator will have an
[34]
impact on the quality of measurements. As discussed by Theuveny and Mehdizadeh , the flow-regime and stability of well
effluents can adversely affect the results. Instabilities, combined with the lack of proper meter factor and shrinkage measurements
[27]
were also identified as the main sources of errors in the mobile test separator considered by Ojukwu and Edwards .
[29]
But, as highlighted by Ross and Stobie , the main challenge of separator is the quality of separation, considered by them as “an
unlikely occurrence”. An illustration, albeit extreme, of the extent of errors that may be observed due to poor separation is provided
[22]
by Maizeret et al. who pointed out that separation quality can be strongly dependant on flow rates. While flow-rates remain
within the operating envelope of the separator, with properly-set level controls and fluids not susceptible to forming foam or
emulsion, results can be quite good. When retention times in the separator are not sufficient, however, this may lead to significant
errors, 75% under-estimation of liquid rates and 15-20% over-estimation of gas rates in this case.

Quality of separation was identified as a major source of uncertainty by many others, especially in challenging conditions such as in
[28]
the presence of emulsions as in the case presented by Pinguet et al. . This raises a significant concern though, as in many cases
operator’s interests in evaluating the quality of measurements achievable from MPFM are in situations where test separators are
challenged, making the comparison exercise against a system known to be imperfect at least challenging, if not useless. The impact
of imperfect separation is impossible to quantify in most cases and other alternative ways of determining reference flow-rates have
to be investigated to validate MPFM measurements when separators are known to struggle.

Single-phase measurement uncertainty with separators

Determining the uncertainty of flow-rate measurements from test separators is actually quite challenging. To our knowledge, no test
separators have ever been evaluated in controlled flow-loop conditions and their operating envelope and performances are not
[25]
nearly as well characterized as that from multiphase flow meters. The NFOGM offers uncertainty estimates of 5% on each phase

12
 [29]
or better when the separator has been optimally designed and operated, matching the estimate by Ross and Stobie . However,
[19,[22,27]
expectations of 5-10% are more realistic under field conditions and errors can be significantly larger .
[27]
One of the key parameters is to have a properly-designed separator. The extent of differences reported by Ojukwu between a
well-designed permanent test separator and a standard mobile test separator is quite telling on that aspect and it is critical not to
[5]
consider the separator as the absolute truth. Al-Hosani et al. have actually pointed out that their interest for MPFM was in part
driven by the growing inadequacy of test separators as the well flowing parameters evolved over time. A proper understanding and
[32]
description of the reference separator system as provided by Stobie and Wee should be an integral part of a proper field test of
multiphase flow meters.

Reference selection

The selection of a set of reference measurements is not just limited to the proper sizing and calibration of a test separator. Several
single-phase measurement options can be used, sometimes several of them used in series to provide redundancy and cross-checking
of readings. In addition, external measurements may be used, particularly on liquid flows. Also, several options are available besides
direct comparison of two metering systems placed in series. Well performance curves or other inferential methods exist that would
provide an estimate of production rates. A separate evaluation of produced ratios, if not quantities, may be performed on the basis
of fluid composition and finally, the use of high-accuracy fiscal measurements may prove extremely valuable. Those various options
will be shortly reviewed in the following to provide a comprehensive, if not exhaustive list of possible sources of comparable
quantities.

Conventional meters
[9]
Although not a perfect option, gravity-based separators are the references typically used when performing comparison tests .
Some key properties of the test separator are related to its proper sizing and operational controls but the primary considerations are
[15]
often given to the proper selection and calibration of single-phase meters. From a regulatory standpoint, DECC makes it clear that
the separator should be designed to handle and separate expected flows and that each metering tool should be properly studied.
Such verifications have to be documented and made as transparent as possible for regulatory approval to ensure the quality of the
[15]
reference measurements .While this should obviously be the case for any metering activity, this is even more crucial for
comparison tests where the use of an improper reference metering system may lead to misguided conclusions about the
performance of MPFM.

In theory, a reference measurement system should be of a higher level of accuracy than the tested object, typically of accuracy at
[9,21]
least three times better and should provide full auditability to ensure the representativity of results . In practice, however, there
is an understanding that test separators are not perfect and may, in fact, have a lower level of accuracy than the MPFM being
[24] [4]
evaluated , leading some operators to use MPFM to calibrate separator measurements , and not the other way around. In
several examples (see references [17] or [27] for instance) additional verifications showed that the MPFM was actually more
accurate than the test separator. There are three main points to verify at the preparation stage: range of flow-rates covered,
robustness to variations in fluid properties and diagnostic capabilities.

Gas rate measurements

Orifice plate measurements can be considered as a standard measurement methodology. However, since their accuracy can be
affected by inaccurate DP sensor calibration, liquid carry-over or orifice plate damage this measurement should be taken with care.
Besides ensuring that proper PVT properties are used in the calculations, verifying that there is no carry-over (this can be checked
through sampling on the gas line and verification that the sample is indeed free of any liquids) a simple method to ensure
consistency of the measurement consists in changing the orifice plate during a period of stable flow. Performing a short
measurement period under stable flow conditions with a different plate of same size or another plate of different size within the

13
operating envelope of the system in terms of beta ratio and differential pressure readings allows for a cross-validation of the results.
Such simple plate-swapping operations should be not only performed but properly planned and documented to allow for
measurement validation. If a discrepancy is found, then appropriate action should be taken to ensure the validity of the results. As
[29]
stated by Ross and Stobie “there must always be a relatively high level of uncertainty in this measurement”. Furthermore, there
are situations, especially when low gas rates are observed where a test separator equipped with an orifice meter may not be able to
[28]
actually perform representative measurements .

The use of a Coriolis meter provides a stronger built-in auditability of data and somewhat simpler operations. Thanks to the large
turndown of such meters there is no need to change plates or adjust sensors during the test, leaving less potential room for
operator errors and the combined measurement of mass rate and density, as well as additional internal data from the sensor that
are continuously measured and should be captured allows the test engineer to properly validate the measurement. Nevertheless,
Coriolis meters can be quite sensitive to the presence of liquid that can be identified from the density measurement but not readily
corrected for. Another point to keep in mind is that under low operating pressure the Coriolis density measurement may show
significant uncertainty and adding the potential for high pressure losses those measurements may be significantly degraded under
low pressure conditions.

Both systems are equally applicable as a source of gas reference measurements when properly operated but the Coriolis would offer
better auditability of the data and may thus be preferred when applicable. Furthermore, the direct calculation of flow-rates under
mass terms and the additional measurement of density under metering conditions would offer more flexibility when performing a
comparison.

Liquid rate measurements

Rotary systems are the metering systems most typically installed on test separators (turbine meters, positive displacement meters,
vortex meters) but those can be significantly in error due to damage or use with fluids of a different nature than the calibration
fluids. In any case, those should be properly calibrated, just before the comparison test if possible or ideally during the test itself.
The use of calibration equipment (meter prover) on site would significantly reduce the uncertainty expectations and is at times
[9,15]
mandated . With such measurements, it can be considered as mandatory to use a tank on the liquid outlet to perform a proxy to
an on-site calibration. This is not directly a calibration leading to a K factor based on actual test fluids but does provide a combined
correction for meter factor and liquid shrinkage. This combined meter factor does offer not only a calibration of the liquid meters
against actual well fluids but does also resolve the uncertainty about shrinkage calculation. On the other hand, this makes the
determination of flow-rates at measurement conditions (i.e. free from shrinkage corrections) impossible.

Here again, the use of Coriolis meters brings significant advantages and should be the preferred option. This offers a direct
measurement of total mass, is more resilient to changes in the nature of the fluids between calibration facilities and well site and
offers a greater auditability thanks to the density measurement. Measured densities can be used both to identify gas carry-under
and provide an estimate of water in oil or oil in water. This is advantageous when operating the separator in two-phase mode
[32]
(separating only gas and liquid) as it provides a measurement of water cut in the liquid flow , whereas the conventional method in
those cases would rely on manual liquid sampling to determine the water cut from a sub-sample of the flow. As discussed by
[34] [9]
Theuveny and Mehdizadeh and API such manual spot measurements can be quite imprecise due to non-uniformity of the
water cut profile as well as to challenges in capturing a representative sample. Nevertheless, water-cut determination from Coriolis
meters density measurements are not perfect either. They can be affected by uncertainties in the density inputs for each phase or
[16]
the presence of gas in the liquid leg. In situations where the density contrast is small , then external water cut measurements
either using water cut meters or from spot manual sampling operations are required. When liquids are measured without
separation, either due to extreme water cut (very low or very high) not allowing for the separator to measure accurately both liquid
phases (one of which may have very low associated rates), or in the presence of strong emulsions, manual spot-checks on water cut
are required and can be used in combination with dedicated water-cut meters on the liquid line.

14
It should be mentioned that for both gas and liquid measurements, redundant metering systems are recommended. Taking for
example a standard test separator equipped with orifice meters and rotary meters on the gas and liquid lines respectively, the
addition of Coriolis-based metering skids on each line of the separator is a valuable way of cross-checking the reference
measurements. In fact, with three measurements of the same quantities (two from the reference system and one from the MPFM),
it becomes possible to identify one as outlier if the other two are consistent. This at times occurs with the MPFM and one of the
separator readings matching, while the other separator measurement can be identified as wrong.

Adding external measurements

[29]
Quoting again from Ross and Stobie , “it is likely that, in practice, many test separators are not suitably maintained or operated to
give the lowest measurement uncertainty available” but since the test separator has been the accepted industry standard for
decades any differences observed between test separators and MPFM will more often than not be assigned to the MPFM being in
error. This has led to many wrong conclusions in previous trials and an additional source of measurements should be used whenever
possible to resolve any doubt regarding “who is right”. This has led to several trials being planned with several validation points,
typically under the form of measurements of produced liquids accumulated in a calibrated tank as well as based on spot water cut
measurements. Both points have already been discussed above with the calibration or validation of separator measurements in
mind but can readily be used as an additional source of measurement.

Use of calibrated tank measurements

Calibrated tanks are often part of a separator-based flow-metering package. They are used for storage, disposal but also calibration
purposes, providing a combined meter factor for the oil or liquid meters. However, they are not always used during production tests
on old wells, where fluids may be directly directed to a flare pit for disposal or re-injected in production lines. Calibrated tanks,
providing a clear relationship between liquid level in the tank and produced volume of fluids over a given period, should be near –
systematically used for comparison tests since the offer a physical measurement of actual production. It is important to highlight,
however, that this assumes that all produced liquids are flowing through the liquid outlet of the separator. In situations where
significant carry-over exists , the tank readings will obviously under-estimate liquid rates.

The use of calibrated tanks is well-known and, as is the case with any metering instrument, their operations are subject to specific
rules. Proper recording of the time lapse between the start of transfer of liquid to the tank and the bypass of the tank is required (a
manual operation subject to operator error if not done with care). The right conversion factor between liquid level and volume must
be used (it may vary between different types of tanks) and an accurate measurement of volumes present in the tank before the
measurement period is required to properly determine the amount produced during the test period. The liquids must be left to rest
for a given period of time to allow for any gas bubbles present to be released and the temperature of the fluids in the tank must be
recorded to allow for proper temperature corrections. Last not least, a large enough volume of liquid should be accumulated in the
tank to minimize the uncertainty associated to the level recordings. But with those simple steps taken, calibrated tank
measurements do provide a very accurate measurement of average flow rates through the liquid leg(s) of the separator during the
capture period that can be compared to both MPFM and separator readings.
[21]
This approach is often followed and recommended and can bring specific benefits. Kratirov et al. used a weighted tank to obtain
[30]
mass rate in heavy oil wells and used the tank as the primary reference. Shen and Riley used the tank both as a secondary
[17]
measurement and to determine when readings from the turbine meter may be in error. Hassan et al. used the tank both to verify
the separator readings and assess which of the separator or the MPFM was most accurate in case of discrepancies but also to
perform a pre-test verification by pumping the content of a full tank through the MPFM before starting the main comparison tests.
[9]
API does recommend using calibrated tank not just for calibration of the separator liquid meters and for verification but also
propose the use of a low-rate gas meter on the outlet of the atmospheric tank to perform a direct measurement of GOR 2 and
possibly carried-under gas in the liquid leg of the separator. While operationally cumbersome (they are bulky, require transfer

15
manifolds and pumps), calibrated tanks can significantly help resolve and minimize uncertainties in the metering results and
conclusions of the trial test.

Sampling for water-cut measurements

The capture of liquid samples to determine water cut tests has always been a standard activity during production, either for the
purpose of verification, or as part of the calculation process when using the separator under two-phase conditions, or to correct for
the presence of water in oil or oil in water. It is important to understand that such calculations and corrections must be properly
documented and agreed on between parties. How water cut, combined meter factor, and shrinkage measurements are combined in
the calculations and whether the basis of corrections is under metering conditions or at standard conditions is quite important and
can lead to significant discrepancies in the case of volatile fluids.

In many metering case studies and standards/recommended practices, references to sampling are often linked to sampling for water
cut determination as opposed to the more standard approach of capturing live or dead fluid for compositional or PVT analysis. This is
[8]
for instance the meaning of sampling in API’s Measurement of Multiphase Flow Standard . This document does highlight the
importance of capturing samples that are as representative as possible of the flow content, with proper liquid mixing to avoid
segregation and over-sampling of one phase against another, of using multiple samples to rule out outliers and obtain a
representative average and to sample close from the MPFM to have the most representative measurements. It also clearly states
that in cases where large variations in water cut are observed such samples should not be used as a reference as they only represent
sporadic and not continuous measurements. Other comparison tests have relied on wellhead samples for comparison, with specific
[16 17,24]
procedures put in place when such measurements are used as references . Those represent very valid check points not only
when required to operate the test separator but also as a reference independent of separation quality and such measurements are
[2]
parts of a proper audit of the reference system . A proper evaluation of the best sampling point must be performed ahead of time
to ensure representativity and such measurements should be taken with care when the production is proven to be unstable (see
[29] [17]
Figure 6 from Ross and Stobie or figure 8 from Hassan et al. for instance). Considering only samples from the separator liquid
line would not resolve uncertainties when used as an input to separator calculations and another sampling point upstream of the
test separator, ideally close from the MPFM, should be used as an independent reference.

Use of model-based flow estimation

Beyond physical measurements, other ways of estimating flow-rates exist, inferring production from other measurements (typically
pressure and/or temperature at different points in the metering system) used in a well/system performance model. Those methods
[11]
are collectively known as virtual flow metering. The concept is presented by Bringedal and Philipps as a backup or alternative to
[8] [15]
multiphase flow metering, offering a generic overview of such systems. API and DECC mention such systems as metering
technologies but also clarify that those are not sufficient as stand-alone sources of flow-rate measurement, even though they can be
used in conjunction with traceable measurements for model tuning and to check for consistency of measured production.
Comparing production results from a separator or MPFM with those from a virtual flow metering system can be considered as a
good way to validate that the measurements are reasonable or, in the case of significant discrepancies between the two physical
systems, to determine which one is the most accurate.

Some standard virtual flow metering systems are based on well performance models or nodal models. Those relate pressure
variations in one or several points in the production system to total production. One of the simplest model is the choke model,
relating pressure drop across a choke to the flow rate on the basis of choke size and flowing ratios. Building IPR curves are a basic,
[20]
easy output from multi-rate tests performed on a well . Verifying the consistency of such curves can be a first basis to determine
whether measured rates are realistic, if not yet accurate, but at least allows for the identification of major issues in the metering
[22]
system . In well-known and extensively-tested wells and fields, where well performance curves have been studied and refined
[27]
over years, those may actually be used as the reference measurement. Ojukwu and Edwards used such references but also
highlighted that the model must be properly setup for GOR and water cut. In their case, spot water cut measurements were used as
16
an input to the model and GOR was inferred from the reservoir GOR (that ought to be valid when producing below saturation
pressure) and measurement of injected lift gas. This should nevertheless be done with care as well performance curves are built
from production tests and may thus bear a bias depending on the metering technology used.
[16]
Other inferential methods may rely on other models. For instance, Graham et al. used pump performance curves as a reference
estimate of total mass rate for cross-validation of Coriolis readings. Such methods are useful, not necessarily as actual references,
but at least to provide additional data for measurement validation, to identify problematic data and avoid any bias in the evaluation
of MPFM results if it is found that the reference measurement is likely in significant error. The applicability of such methods depends
essentially on the available measurements in the production system. Having both bottomhole and wellhead pressure data makes
nodal analysis possible. Using electrical submersible pumps opens up the possibility of using pump performance curves for instance
but in situations where external instrumentation is limited there may not be such options readily available.

Validation through flow stream composition

One conventional challenge when comparing flow rates from different metering systems is to compare results obtained under
different operating conditions and to validate the observed GOR, indicative of the quality of separation and single-phase
measurements for the separator, or fractions measured by the MPFM. One way of managing those differences and associated
uncertainties, in particular when reference measurements and the MPFM are operated under significantly different conditions (for
instance considering a subsea meter compared to a surface separator or a MPFM located at the wellhead before the production
choke and a separator in a gathering station several kilometres away) is to base the comparison on total mass rate and on the
composition of the produced fluids. It is possible today to take samples of pressurized gas and liquid samples from a multiphase flow
[19]
meter and to use the measured gas/liquid ratio at metering conditions to determine, based on total mass rate and flow stream
composition the mass rate of individual components. Following a similar approach on the test separator this provides conservative
measurements independent of test conditions. Such a comparison, however, relies on clean samples and representative
recombination ratios for both meters. A contamination of gas samples with liquids or liquid carry-over in the gas leg of the
separator, for instance, may undo such comparisons.

It may be possible to obtain an independent source of compositional information by capturing bottomhole samples and using that as
a reference of well stream composition. This, obviously, is only valid if the well is produced under single-phase conditions at the
sampling point (above the bubble/dew point of the fluids) and the fluids should be captured in the flowing well to be truly
representative, avoiding uncertainties due to commingling of different fluids sampled at different depths. This was the approach
[1]
followed by Afanasyev et al. , who showed first that representative pressurized gas and liquid samples can be captured from
multiphase meters but also that, after recombining those with the gas/liquid ratio obtained from the MPFM, the properties of the
well stream fluids can be compared advantageously to those from bottomhole samples. A slightly different approach was followed
[22]
by Maizeret et al. who used single-phase bottomhole samples to verify the production GOR and compare it to the MPFM results.
A well stream sample can be subjected in a PVT laboratory to the same process as that followed by the fluids during production
tests. Such separator tests mimic the production process by bringing single-phase reservoir/well fluids to the pressure and
temperature conditions of a first-stage separation process, then separating gas and oil and following the process through to any
number of separation stages. The GOR from each separation stage is determined and all are added to provide the total GOR of the
fluids through the process. This is an extremely powerful validation point during comparison tests since production ratios are
determined on actual well fluids under well-controlled laboratory conditions, and the only key comparison point remaining to be
evaluated from on-site meters is the total mass rate. Once again, the benefits of performing production testing and by extension
comparative testing of metering systems in mass terms has very strong benefits, that should be incorporated in a test program
whenever possible.

17
Verification against allocation/trunk measurements

Moving down the process chain from measurements on separated phases or on total well stream, a final potentially valuable
reference measurement consists in using the readings of a given meter not on one single well or a series of wells but on a group of
wells, whose combined production is accurately measured by fiscal systems in a processing or production plant. In such installations
where production is monetized, the measurements are of extremely high accuracy and subject to very stringent verification
processes, thus representing an excellent baseline against which to benchmark the performances of a MPFM. While such evaluation
based on the determination of a reconciliation factor may seem very attractive, it also has some drawbacks, the main one being that
all wells producing through to the fiscal measurement point have to be tested by the MPFM in order to perform a proper evaluation
of the performances. Another is that such comparisons rely on an accurate allocation model to extrapolate production from wells
after they have been tested. Only one well can be tested at a given time and in many instances assuming that each well remains
perfectly stable during an evaluation period may be too optimistic, requiring some adjustments of production for downtime of the
[7]
well or changes in production conditions. This creates specific challenges as highlighted by Al-Sibani et al. . Another limitation is
that while this offers a good evaluation of the “average” performances of the meter, it does not allow the user to evaluate
performances under different conditions (high GVF, high water cut, low/high rate) or to determine how much deviation can be
observed on a case-by-case basis, since all the flow conditions end up bundled in the total production measured.

One method to remediate this shortcoming consists in evaluating the MPFM through a test by difference, or using the deduction
[25]
technique . The idea is generally to test a group of wells together and then shut one of the wells. The difference in production can
be attributed directly to the well that was shut-in. This could be applied when using a fiscal system as well, testing a well with the
MPFM then shutting it in, determining the production decrease in the fiscal measurement system and equate that to the production
of the test well. One challenge with such practices is embedded in the “lost production” idea, where a well needs to be shut-in for a
significant period of time to be properly accounted for, a perspective that few operators are ready to entertain. The second
challenge is that even with high measurement accuracy on the fiscal system, a single well may only represent a small fraction of total
production and thus the measurement of a small change in production may not lead to accurate values for the individual
contributor, if only because of minor variations in the production of the other wells.
[25]
NFOGM propose to use the reconciliation factor as an indicator of MPFM data quality in operations. At times such approaches
are required for lack of other alternatives, for instance considering subsea meters (typically tested only on flow loops prior to
[20]
installation) where production from different wells is commingled subsea before reaching a suitable test point (Jackson et al.
clearly explained that total field production was the main metric of evaluation, both more efficient and cheaper than using test
[7]
separators only sporadically). An interesting situation was presented by Al-Sibani and Sequeira , where the point of commingled
production measurement was actually where the MPFM was installed and the comparison point was made of the sum of tests on
individual wells against total production as measured by the MPFM. While not the most accurate measurement either way, this
highlights the challenges of verifying such large meters, where no conventional system (including flow loops) is capable of
performing a proper reference measurement.

Even though the use of a reconciliation factor is only an indicator of the overall performances of an MPFM, since one of the key
drivers for many operators to improve their metering system is to better identify the sources of global production and improve the
reconciliation factor, this at least has the benefit of being an indicator of success of the deployment of a metering technology.
[27]
Ojukwu and Edwards have clearly demonstrated that flow-loop tests alone may not prove the suitability of a metering technology
[29] [28]
to improve this key production metric but as discussed by Ross and Stobie , or Pinguet et al. , reaching a reconciliation factor
between 0.95 and 1.05 does constitute a satisfactory evaluation metric for a metering system. Even when only a few wells are
considered as part of a qualification campaign, a marked improvement in the reconciliation factor after testing a subset of producing
wells can be considered as a positive indicator.

18
Acceptance criteria definition against planned application

One of the most important but often overlooked parts of a field test of a technology is to have a proper definition of the
[24]
expectations for that test. Expectations could be to test the MPFM against its stated claims in agreement with the vendor but
both the fact that stated uncertainties generally represent results at metering conditions and not standard conditions and thus may
[15]
be “best case” scenario based on laboratory data , and the fact that reference measurements are imperfect may make such
objectives over-ambitious. Another approach may simply be to combine the statistical errors of both MPFM and of the reference
[2]
system and follow simple rules about combinations of uncertainty . While this would be practical to define performances over a
large number of tests, it does not address the true requirements from the end users. For field applications, the expectations of
operators from metering system are not just based on accuracy. In some cases ease of operations of the meter is also part of the
[5]
evaluation that can be evaluated with respect to meter uptime during the evaluation period, number of tests over the period,
[9,35]
validation ratio of the tests. In some cases, measurement consistency and repeatability may be more important to the user in
order to achieve their metering objectives. Some operators may operate on the principle of qualification, where a meter needs to
[10]
achieve specific pre-set targets to become an accepted technology , which may prove counter-productive if the reference
[16]
measurements are found to be in error. The objectives and acceptance criteria may also be set by local regulators as part of a
qualification campaign. In some cases the question may be more to determine what is the most adequate technology for a given
[27]
application and benchmark several available meters against each other .

In any case, it is important to have fair and objective targets and criteria that would satisfy the end-user within the environment
targeted. It is important to avoid cases where a wide range of conditions (GVF, water cut, operating pressure, fluid types) are
targeted during tests while the final application would be within a much narrower operating envelope and opposite situations where
only a few tests are run before deploying a meter across a wide range of fields and flow conditions. Ensuring that a given MPFM is
adequate for a particular application is typically the main reason for embarking in field tests, those should however be performed
considering not just the current production conditions but also those that may be experienced in the future. With those
considerations in mind, it is at time considered to evaluate how the meter would respond to changes in production conditions,
variations in fluid types and properties and their response to contaminants in flow such as produced solids. If such considerations
are important then the field test plan and acceptance criteria should properly reflect it.

This paper will not review the definitions of metrological terms such as accuracy, uncertainty, repeatability, reproducibility but the
readers are encouraged to review the short sections on those matters in references [9] and [25] and in metrological standards
quoted therein. It remains critical to define parameters taking into consideration the uncertainty of reference measurements. Since
reference system rarely have an uncertainty an order of magnitude better than the MPFM under evaluation or the operators’
[24,25]
targets, those will play a part in the evaluation .

The first question to be answered when it comes to defining the acceptance criteria, though, before that of “how much?” is that of
“what?”. The importance of using conservative quantities, both for evaluation purposes but also for field management purposes is
[8,13,15,22,23,29]
well understood, and this has pushed many to consider total mass rate as the first point to be assessed . Any comparison
must start with this simple criteria that would very quickly highlight the presence of major discrepancies between two measurement
systems.

Mass may also be used when considering individual phases, either because this would fit the end-use (allocation is better performed
[23,29] [16,21]
in mass terms ), or because separation is problematic and this is the only reliable measurement available . But in most
cases, the quantities of interest are required in volumetric terms, bringing with it challenges on how to account for mass transfer. In
some cases with non-volatile fluids and near-identical operating pressure and temperature conditions between the MPFM and the
[32]
reference measurement mass transfers can be ignored and the data compared with minimal considerations of fluid properties . In
most cases however, it is necessary to define a proper set of conditions under which the flow-rates should be compared since the
[19]
differences in metering conditions and in the reporting processes may lead to quite significant differences (Hollaender et al. for

19
instance showed that there may be significant differences whether comparing flow-rates under metering or standard conditions).
[2]
The Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission clearly calls for all readings to be brought to identical conditions with properly
[15,25]
documented conversion processes but is not prescriptive on what those conditions should be. DECC and NFOGM are similarly
open on the basis to be used for comparison but calls for clear documented procedures as well. For lack of generic guidance, the
industry has tended to perform volumetric comparisons on fluids under standard conditions, with an understanding that this may
create some irreconcilable differences.
[9]
This still leaves the question of which parameters to consider. API Publication 2566 offers an interesting side-by-side comparison
of how many end-users think against what MPFM measure (Table 3 on page 19). Users will think in terms of oil, water and gas rates,
as well as GOR and water cut, while MPFM will likely talk about gas and liquid rates, water/liquid ratio and GVF. All are of course
related but since water production under low water cut conditions would be difficult to evaluate with both systems it is generally
preferable to perform comparisons in terms of liquid rates and water cut than in terms of water and oil rates. This could be
frustrating for production engineers that would focus on net oil production for allocation purposes or absolute water rates for flow
assurance purposes but would generally provide results easier to interpret. Net oil will, understandably likely remain a quantity of
[27]
interest in all cases , but differences between MPFM and reference measurements may be considered in absolute terms when
testing wells at very high water cut (>80%). An evaluation of results in terms of gas and gross liquid rate as well as water cut has
[30]
been often used as standard since the early years of MPFM evaluation .

After having determined what quantities to evaluate and a target level of agreement between MPFM and reference measurement
one last question has to be clarified: how to handle the statistics of uncertainty calculations? Most meters performances are
presented with an associated confidence interval, for instance: “gas rate measurement uncertainty is of 5% with 95% confidence”.
This means that while both reference measurements and MPFM results may be good and meeting their target specifications, there
may be outliers on one or a few tests. Those would not necessarily show either meter to be defective or out of specifications and
should not be interpreted as such. Performance analysis using NFOGM’s cumulative distribution plot (reference [25], section 9.4)
offers a good evaluation of measurement performances but does require a significant number of test points to be representative.
[6]
Not all trials can be based on over 200 test points under a wide range of conditions and when considering fewer test points the
[10]
percentage of points to be within the target error band may have to be reduced (Asiri et al. for instance took 85% of test points
as a target). Such considerations are quite important since statistical analysis of results with few samples can prove misleading. The
[32]
analysis performed by Stobie and Wee for instance used standard deviation and mean error as a measure of statistical
qualification of uncertainties, which can be misleading. For instance, each term alone may appear relatively small but when put
together the combined effect of a systematic bias and of non-negligible spread of errors can lead to significant errors in many cases
(in this example, all gas rates are over-estimated, with over half the cases showing errors larger than the average error and several
cases in error by more than twice the quoted standard deviation. This is also true of liquid rates showing a strong systematic under-
estimation). In any case, using an average error is only an indicator of the presence or not of bias in the measurement but not one of
consistency or overall accuracy and should not be considered as a valid indicator. A meter may be showing small mean errors but
that single number may hide larger errors (see for instance figure 4 in reference [7]) while others may be showing an offset but very
[16]
high consistency, making the data more practically useable (see Graham et al. for instance). Consistency may further be a good
evaluation metric and the program may leave special room to perform repeat tests under similar conditions or tests on wells
expected to yield stable ratios but under different total rates. Such consistency checks may highlight issues with one metering
system (see [22] for an example of major variations in CGR reported by a test separator showing issues with separation quality at
high rates).

When applicable, the allocation factor may also be considered as a simple evaluation metric, it may actually be the main driver or a
[14,15,27,28]
recommended checkpoint . The benefit here is that this will be less dependent on the uncertainties of the reference
metering system used for well-by-well comparison and can be encased within a simple parameter that is deviation of the
reconciliation factor from 1.

20
Beyond purely metrological performances evaluation, field tests are also good opportunities to evaluate the long-term behaviour of
[9]
a given MPFM technology. As stated by API , “each multiphase meter reacts differently to the change in process conditions []. The
impact of process conditions, fluid properties and a fourth phase [..] can vary from “tolerable” to “very significant”. The user should,
therefore, grade the advantages of each meter for the specific application on the basis of these parameters.”. Field tests can also be
designed with such sensitivity in mind and defined agreed levels of deviations on the results due to change in conditions within a
given range of variations. This can be done for instance by pumping external fluids in the system during a test such as water to
[10]
evaluate the meter’s resilience to an increase in water cut (Asiri et al. ) or to changes in water properties. Similar tests can be
performed by pumping diesel for instance to affect the properties of oil or gas from the outlet of the separator to simulate a gas
breakthrough. While conceptually simple, such operations may be logistically difficult, requiring tanks, pumps, compressors and
[13]
fluids to be injected. An alternative method considered by Correa was to go back to first principles of the technology when
available publicly or through exchanges with the manufacturer and perform a propagation of error study on the basis of some
assumed variations in flow conditions or fluid properties. While extremely valuable, obtaining a comprehensive understanding of the
true performances on a purely theoretical basis may have limitations (one of the conclusions for instance related output oil rate
errors to input oil density errors, while in fact those were more related to gas properties errors. Since both oil and gas varied
together, a misleading conclusion was thus reached).

Those theoretical propagation of error studies can be performed in any situation and does not require physical testing of the MPFM.
The acquisition of data, however, opens the possibility of understanding measurement sensitivity on inputs given that acquired data
can be re-processed. Using raw meter measurements it is then simple to assume some uncertainties in calculation inputs and
[6] [31]
directly assess the effect on reported flow-rates. This was the approach taken by Al-Khamis et al. as well as Sherief et al. who
were driven by a need to better understand operational and maintenance requirements of a recently-installed MPFM technology.
Considering several fields for which raw MPFM data was available (i.e. actual sensor measurements, unprocessed and non-
[31]
interpreted) the data sets were re-processed with different input parameters for fluid properties and in Sherief et al. the notion
of tolerance ranges were introduced and determined for various parameters. Tolerance ranges reflect the acceptable variation in a
given fluid property that will not affect the MPFM readings beyond a certain threshold over a given range of application. While
illustrating how this study helped simplify the maintenance process for their fleet of meters by recognizing that several parameters
only had a minor impact on output data, they also highlighted the importance of performing such studies considering representative
variabilities in fluid properties. Some of the fields considered showed, for instance large variations in water or oil properties but with
little incidence on the measurement while in some cases the main driver of measurement reliability was the fact that, for instance,
H2S content in the gas phase showed little variations even though the gas gravity varied significantly from formation to formation.
Such studies can generally be performed quite simply and transparently and should be added as part of the evaluation when such
concerns may arise during actual field operations.

Trial preparation workflow

Following the review of important considerations that would affect the success of field trials of MPFM meter(s), this section will lay
out a step-by-step workflow presenting the options available on a number of points and allowing for a proper preparation, execution
and analysis of such trials to ensure that results obtained are reliable, representative and conclusive for end-users. All the points
discussed below have to be discussed and agreed on between end-users, regulators and manufacturer’s representatives to ensure
that the conclusions are not subject to discussions and should be properly and clearly documented. A clean closure of field tests is
important to allow the end-users to benefit from the deployment of MPFM when proven to be applicable.

21
Definition of target test conditions

The first important step when planning for a trial is to properly define the target application. This starts from a proper assessment of
range of flow-rates to be covered leading to selection of an adequate meter size but also considers the range of flow conditions (GVF
and water cut) to be covered. At times one of the justifications for field testing and not reliance on flow-loop data alone is to cover
[21]
flow conditions that cannot be properly assessed in flow loops (see Kratirov et al. where a comparative operating envelope of
flow-loop and field applications is presented). Even if it is important to properly size the meter against the target operating
conditions, it may at times be considered acceptable to validate a technology on a given size of meter and extend the qualification to
[2]
other sizes .

When performing this evaluation, it is important to consider not just generic minimum and maximum flow rates and associated
fractions but to consider actual well production, under current status but also considering well evolution and trajectories in the
[5,8]
future . The operating conditions can be adequately mapped using two-phase flow maps (plotting liquid versus gas rates) to
estimate the range of flow-rates to be covered and composition map (showing the GVF versus water cut and presenting the range of
[25]
flow conditions expected) .

This analysis must be applied to evaluate the suitability of both the MPFM to be evaluated and that of the reference measurements.
[7]
In some instances the envelope may be quite narrow , in other cases on the other hand the envelope is so wide that several
[32]
meters covering different ranges of rates may be required . Such study may also be used to evaluate the type of flow regimes
expected during the test. In some situations unstable flow regimes such as slug flows are required for the meter to properly operate,
[18]
providing an initial evaluation of meter suitability to the application , but more generally unstable flows can create challenges
[34]
both for a separator-based system that does not properly handle such flow conditions or for the MPFM, that may be out of range
[32]
during peak flow sequences .

This initial evaluation of conditions to be covered should be documented properly both under graphical and numerical terms as part
of the trial preparation process and will be a key input to build the test matrix later on.

Selection of reference measurement

As discussed previously, the selection of reference measurements installed on a test separator is critical not only to obtain good
measurements but also for auditability purposes. Stating that “the reference measurement considered will be the test separator” is
not a sufficient qualifier to properly assess the expected performance and furthermore possible data quality control check points are
strongly dependent on the technology used. This is also important when considering reporting methods. For gas measurements,
orifice plate meters are standard solutions, in which case proper rangeability of the instrument with respect to achievable beta ratio
ranges and differential pressure readings must be carefully evaluated. Ensuring that several plate sizes with small gaps between
available sizes as well as multiple plates of the same size are available is similarly key. When applicable, using Coriolis meters will
allow for a an easier troubleshooting of the results as well as making the use of density measurement possible.

For liquid measurements, Coriolis meters should be preferred but other meters can be applicable. Both for gas and for liquid
measurements, the method used to determine key fluid properties (densities, shrinkage, gas deviation factor) must be detailed and
explicitly laid out. Calibration methods must be similarly defined and pre-job calibrations documented.

Separator size and internal equipment must also be carefully evaluated to ensure that proper separation will be achieved. Using a
small separator without mist extraction systems, foam breakers or similar elements to maximize separation quality should be
avoided during such important trials and a high-end separator should be preferred. When dealing with intermittent wells (such as
beam-pumped wells), the addition of valves to avoid back-flow may also be considered as a requirement in the system to avoid
[30]
misreadings .

22
A simple check-list such as that presented below can be used to clarify and drive this process:

Separator system (select as applicable) Comments

3
Separator volume …….. m /………bbl
3
Gas retention time at max gas rate …. sec @......MMscf/d - ………..km /d Weir plate setting at max rate:
3
Liquid retention time at max liquid rate …. sec @......STB/d - ………….m /d Weir plate setting at max rate:
Basis of operations 2-phase/3-phase
Separation-enhancing equipment Emulsion breaker, coalescing plate, mist extractor, other …
Level control settings Weir min/max: Level check: visual/automated
Gas measurement
Primary measurement Orifice / Coriolis / Turbine / USM/ other 1”/2”/3”/4”/6” other:……
Secondary measurement Orifice / Coriolis / Turbine / USM/ other 1”/2”/3”/4”/6” other:……
Gas density determination Measurement/correlation/NA Source/correlation used:
Gas deviation factor determination Measurement/correlation/NA Source/correlation used:
Frequency of gas properties measurements Every ……… mn
Liquid measurements
Primary measurement Turbine/Coriolis/PD/other 1”/2”/3”/4”/6” other:……
Secondary measurement Turbine/Coriolis/PD/other 1”/2”/3”/4”/6” other:……
Meter calibration factor method Base/lab/site Fluids used:
Shrinkage estimation method Shrinkage tester/correlation/CMF (tank)
# of shrinkage measurements ……… per flow period
3
Tank available on site Yes/No Gas measured: Yes/No Tank volume: … ..bbl - …….m
Frequency of BSW upstream measurements Every ……… mn
Location of BSW upstream sampling point Wellhead/choke/bypass/MPFM/other
Frequency of BSW measurement on liquid legs Every ……… mn
Table 1: Example of reference system definition check-list

Reference audit trail design and additional measurements

The definition of an audit trail for reference measurements should ideally be performed in parallel with the selection of reference
measurements and if the data verification is found to be too weak on a chosen system may lead to a re-evaluation of the selected
references. What is important in any case is to have a properly defined validation workflow for the references, performed
proactively and prior to any comparison with MPFM results, ideally in collaboration between all parties involved. This precedence is
important since if helps avoid difficult discussions about whether references are good after an initial analysis of the performances of
the MPFM led to an initial conclusion that the MPFM failed, from which point any new argument becomes perceived as a hunt for
excuses.
[2]
First it is clear that meters should be calibrated prior to operations . Such calibration results must be recent and documented. If
the sensors require field calibration (e.g. using well fluids as opposed to laboratory calibration fluids), then this should be part of the
[24]
test plan . Calibrations should be performed prior to the test so that initial results are useable and should be repeated at least at
the end of the tests or if possible several times during the trial period to identify any possible drift. Documentation is critical to a
proper evaluation, some tests may be performed with a calibrated tank in the testing setup but if the tank readings are not used or
not properly reported to obtain a clear conclusions that the reference readings are satisfactory, this may bring uncertainty on the
[10]
conclusions. Asiri et al. for instance did mention that a tank was used but no data was presented beyond flow-rates from the
various metering systems. When analysing figures 7 and 15, it appears quite clearly that on average all multiphase meters have on
average a tendency to read significantly higher liquid rates than the separator. With a good comparison of gas rates, this points
towards significant differences in total mass rate (not shown) between the separator and MPFMs’ results. With the four MPFMs
evaluated being either based on Venturi or Coriolis measurements, normally very resilient mass rate measurements; this tends to
point to some possible under-estimation of rates from the test separator’s turbine meter. Without a proper audit of the separator
23
results being presented, conclusions remain however difficult to draw either way and an external eye would mark those tests as
inconclusive.

When considering in particular the use of a tank, the number of measurements (repeated for each flow period ideally) should be
properly planned and controlled, for instance defining the first tank reading sequence after separator pressure, temperature and
rates have stabilized and a second one before the end of the metering period. It should also define the target volume of fluids to
accumulate in order to have a representative reading, the required settling time to ensure that the liquids have properly released
entrained gas and for temperature to have stabilized before reporting the readings. In heavy oil environments, it is important to
[21]
allow for extensive settling time for the fluids . Then, the methodology used to integrate tank measurements in the evaluation
should be clear: should the combined meter factor be used as a calibration point for the separator or as an audit point? It is possible
to calibrate the readings from a first measurement and then validate those with a second measurement during the same test on a
given well, providing some independence between separator results and tank readings.

In order to perform a proper audit of measurement, applicable operations such as plate-swapping on an orifice plate meter must be
planned and documented and be an integral part of the test plan. One such verification during each flow period should be explicitly
planned when possible. Similar considerations apply to manual measurements of water cut from spot samples. The frequency of
measurements, point of sampling (several suitable points may be used alternatively for cross-validation), measurement method (use
of heated centrifuges for proper separation, laboratory separation) and responsibilities must be clearly laid out. Such samples can be
taken by the MPFM provider, by the separator provider or by the operator. Clearly identifying who is responsible for sampling and
who is responsible for analysis is equally important for transparency, with the operator’s representative on site being the key person
who should compile readings from various sources and manage communication between the various parties involved.

When sensors benefit from built-in verification methods (such as when using Coriolis or ultrasonic meters), the audit trail and test
plan must incorporate a specific mention not only to acquire and save the relevant data along with flow-rates, but the actual
verification should be performed before any data being analysed. Quality control must always come before any analysis to avoid
erroneous conclusions.
[25,27]
Additional measurements such as tracers may be used as checkpoints but whether they should hold precedence over other
measurements or are simply to be used as validation tools should be clearly defined. One of the most comprehensive test seen,
[27]
published by Ojukwu used a wealth of data: 2 MPFM from different manufacturers, one mobile test separator, one large-volume
permanent tests separator and tracer technology. The evaluation was also referring to well performance curves. In that example,
the approach followed was to define which metering system best matched the well performance model and it was found that with 5
different sources of flow-rate measurements, there were always two or three metering systems in close agreement between
themselves and with the well model, making the identification of a reliable reference comparatively easier, even though it had to be
done on a test-by-test basis. Even with a multiplicity of meters available, however, it may be decided to consider only one
[10]
measurement source as the reference and other tools being considered as test objected without any comparison between them .

One last important point to agree on concerns fluid properties. The various metering systems all require some PVT properties and
ensuring consistency between the various computation methodologies is important. Proper care of fluid properties is required for
both the MPFM and the test separator and there must be a prior agreement between the various parties on the type of PVT
[9]
information to be made available . Different properties may be required for the test separator and for different MPFM types. Some
would need dead fluid samples, some would use measured densities on stock-tank fluids and in other cases a full PVT report may be
required. Here again, actual data to be made available as well as responsibilities and ownership must be properly defined and the
same data be made available to the various parties.

24
Definition of acceptance criteria

Since the success/failure of a test will ultimately be gauged against the comparison on readings between different sources of flow
measurements, the actual metric of evaluation must be properly defined and acceptance criteria set against each quantity of
interest. Those may be purely related to the closeness of measured rates by the MPFM against those obtained from the reference
measurements but may also include operational criteria. The various points used for the selection of a multiphase metering
[8]
technology listed in API’s MPMS 20.3 should be equally applied to field tests since the objective of field testing is indeed to assess
the suitability of a given technology to a given application. Validation of proper size selection, operational ease, sensitivity to fluid
[18]
properties, flow stability or installation point may be integral parts of the evaluation. For instance, Hatlo and Sørensen presented
a field test where a specific bypass loop was used to install the MPFM, favouring the generation of slugs required for the meter to
properly operate. Such considerations may be hard to evaluate without physical deployment. The actual metrics of evaluation may
[21]
vary from test to test. Kratirov et al. for instance did not consider gas rate measurement as an objective of the field test and
those were actually not measured during the tests.

An example definition of test objectives can be presented as follows:

Total mass rate 5%

GVF range 0-90% 90-95% 95-98%
Gas mass rate @ operating conditions -
Gas mass rate @ standard conditions -
Free gas volume rate @ operating conditions -
Free gas volume rate @ standard conditions -
Total gas volume rate @ standard conditions 10%
Liquid mass rate @ operating conditions 6%/- 8%/- 12%/-
Liquid mass rate @ standard conditions - - -
Liquid volume rate @ operating conditions (rel/abs) - - -
Liquid volume rate @ standard conditions (rel/abs) 8%/- 10%/- 15%/-
Water cut (% absolute) 4% 5% 8%
Net oil mass rate @ standard conditions (rel/abs)
Net oil volume rate @ standard conditions (rel/abs) 10%/150BOPD 12%/150BOPD 15%/150BOPD
Number of tests achieved per day 3
Total mass repeatability 2%
Liquid rate repeatability 2% 3% 5%
Water cut resolution 0.5% 1% 1.5%
Table 2: Example acceptance criteria definition

Preparation of test plan

The test plan is a comprehensive document presenting the sequence of events during the test, starting from equipment preparation
in the workshop, laboratory calibration, deployment of the equipment and on-site calibration. A proper identification of calibration
[2] [25]
needs is required so that it can be integrated in the test program . As stated by NFOGM , “some meters may require an initial
static calibration in-situ using actual well fluids before a dynamic calibration can be performed”. The test plan then presents the
overall sequence of events, with target number of tests, test duration, list of wells, order of tests, choke sequence, sensitivity tests,
repeatability tests and other planned activities. The trial should ensure that the required test matrix is achieved, covering the target
[25]
ranges of flow conditions . A tentative schedule based on estimations of test durations may be preferable to a set fixed program,
listing explicitly the exact duration of stabilization periods and acquisition periods since some wells may take a longer period of time
to stabilize. To avoid such issues, it is recommended to put the wells under stable production conditions for several days before the
[27]
start of the test period and divert each well to the test setup under already stabilized conditions . Allowing a period of time for the
separator to stabilize (pressure, levels, replacement of fluids inside the separator, rates) is required before starting the metering

25
period and needs to be evaluated based on actual separator measurements during the test. Performing tests with well and/or
separator not under stabilized conditions may be problematic, even when performing long tests. Stabilized here is taken in a
macroscopic sense. Wells may be slugging and appear unstable at high frequency but, as long as the slug periodicity and amplitude is
[17]
stable, a test can be performed since this represents a normal steady behaviour of a well. Hassan mentioned that even when
performing 24-hour tests, some wells were found to be under transient conditions, which affected the results. Using fixed test
durations, especially when relatively short may adversely impact the results and could be one of the reasons of deviation observed
[10]
by Asiri et al. . The exact start time of reference metering must be properly logged and communicated to all participants of the
[15]
test to ensure that data acquired during identical time periods is considered for all metering systems. DECC mentions that flow
stability (and equally separator stability) must be properly evaluated before the start of the test period and the duration of
comparison is an important parameter. There is no need to set a fixed duration for all tests and some can be tested faster than
[4,28,29]
others, this must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis . During each test (flow period or test point), the test plan must also
define the list of on-site measurements to be performed, at what frequency and identify responsibilities and ownership of samples
and analysis results.

The number of tests to be performed has to satisfy a number of characteristics starting by covering a reasonable range of conditions
[2]
fitting the application, with enough points for a statistically significant number of points for proper analysis . Additional points may
[17]
be performed for repeatability evaluation or to repeat troublesome points that showed an unexpected behaviour, as well as to
perform sensitivity tests by altering conditions marginally through injection of additional fluids.

It is important to highlight that a comprehensive evaluation plan may combine short-term evaluation using mobile units for a few
days with the manufacturer representatives present on site, followed by longer-terms tests performed with a semi-permanently
[28] [5]
installed meter operated by the potential end-user. This was the approach followed by Pinguet et al. , Al-Hosani et al. , or
[16]
Graham et al. . Long-term test on permanent installations was the norm in several cases, after an initial evaluation based on flow
[18,30]
loop data, and offers a truly representative evaluation of meter performances under permanent installation conditions , but
generally implies renting a meter for a long period or even buying one, which may be seen as undesirable before the meter
performances have actually been validated.

Definition of data delivery method

One important point to ensure the validity of field test results is to use very clear lines of data delivery. Since MPFM data can often
[16]
be post-processed , this opens up the possibility of tuning results based on data that would not necessarily be available during
normal operations. Ideally, the MPFM should be configured before the test to ensure that the results obtained during the operations
would be truly representative of meter performances. An initial period of meter configuration under flowing conditions is perfectly
acceptable as such practices would be followed in many cases during the initial commissioning of a permanently-installed meter. But
during that initial period no reference data should be made available to avoid any attempt at fine-tuning the MPFM. The initial flow
data would typically be used to capture samples of produced fluids and determine key fluid properties used as input to the meter
calculations as part of static calibration. Some meters do explicitly require flowing calibrations but in such cases the robustness of
measurement as the well flowing conditions evolve should be an integral part of the evaluation program.

Following an initial configuration period not using reference measurements as a calibration point, the tests can then proceed, with
[2]
no further updates allowed on the meter configuration . There are then several methods to provide the MPFM data for analysis
and comparison with reference measurements. The data can be delivered either at the end of each test as raw processed data,
either using direct outputs from the meter or as a pre-formatted test report that can be directly used for analysis. Normally, the
preparation of a test report does require some time, if only for formatting purposes and such delays should then be accounted for in
the test program. Direct numerical results can be delivered straight from output files of the meter but will often contain more data
than required and may be cumbersome to use. An alternative option, providing true transparency in the outputs consists in actually
linking the meter to a SCADA system, where meter outputs are directly gathered on the operator’s data historian. In such cases, a

26
proper setup of communication methods must however be properly validated before the start of the test to avoid any issues due to
improper conversion of signals by the SCADA system or inadequate readings and a proper listing of parameters to be read has to be
defined and validate before the start of the test. A combination of raw output files delivered immediately after the completion of a
test and formatted data report provided with some delays is an advantageous solution in that it offers both the certainty of having
unaltered meter outputs as well as properly formatted data, albeit in two different documents.

If some data re-processing is required (for instance because samples for static calibrations are captured during the flow and the
configuration parameters can only be updated after the test), then it is important to account for the delays brought by the time to
perform those calibrations, reprocess the data and prepare the final report. Any update in input parameters between the real-time
data and final reported results shall also be properly documented and justified. During this period, the MPFM operating crew must
not have access to the reference data. It is important to note that the possibility of data re-processing offers good opportunities to
[31]
perform meter sensitivity analysis , but such operations should be performed only after the main results have been delivered to
avoid any confusion.

The data delivered should be properly defined. Flow-rates used as part of the comparison test (total mass rate, mass/volumetric
flow-rates of target phases), GOR, water cut, pressure and temperature are obvious required data. Some quality-control parameters
may be added, such as GOR2, oil shrinkage, total mass rate comparison between metering and standard conditions. Outputs should
be provided both as averages during the entire evaluation period for comparison with reference data, but also at higher frequency
(every minute, 5mn or 15mn for instance) to identify trends in the data if the well was found to be unstable or to identify
inconsistent trends between MPFM and separator as one or the other was still within its stabilization period. A template test report
should be defined for parameters common to all measurements, but also include tool-specific validation points.

Results analysis

The final step consists in analysing the results. The analysis method can be a simple numerical evaluation, comparing MPFM and
reference measurements for each quantity of interest and each test to obtain a simple pass/fail conclusion, then merging all those
results together to determine whether the meter has passed the statistical criteria (e.g. 90% of tests points within the target
accuracy). It is likely that in most cases the final successful completion of the field trials would be based on such numbers.

However, there is significant value in using graphical representation methods. This could be used to highlight systematic bias
between the meter and the reference measurement that could be caused by an erroneous calibration of either system. In that case,
additional sources of measurement may have to be reviewed to determine which system is most likely to be in error and then draw
adequate conclusions. For instance, a systematic relative deviation of oil rate could be attributed to an error or inconsistency in
shrinkage value used, a constant offset of GOR could show an inconsistency in GOR 2 model used. There are several useful graphical
representations that can be used:

 Relative deviation in rates against GVF

 Relative deviation in rates against reference rates
 Absolute deviation in water cut against GVF
 Absolute deviation in water cut against water cut
 Absolute deviation in GOR against GVF
 Cross-plot of MPFM rates against reference rates
 Cross-plot of MPFM water cut against reference water cut

[25]
Tadpole plots

Those plots can bear not only data but also the target performances to provide a very simple visual evaluation of whether deviations
are generally small with a few outliers, highlight potentially troublesome tests, show whether differences if outside of target

27
specifications are significantly in error or just marginally out, or, in good situations, whether acceptance criteria were actually easily
met. Such plots can be particularly useful to compare several MPFM that were tested during the same period.

The final evaluation report should be prepared by the operator or mandated third party in charge of the final conclusions but should
be shared with the manufacturers to allow for further work if additional technological developments of the technology are possible.
The operator generally remains the owner of the data since such tests are generally subject to a commercial agreement and
subsequent use or disclosure would remain a matter of agreement between the parties involved.

Conclusion

This paper has proposed an exhaustive review of considerations pertaining to the proper completion of field trials of MPFM
technologies, extensively drawing from over 20 years of experiences. In such tests, a strong emphasis must be placed on minimizing
doubts about the final results. This involves a very thorough audit of reference measurements, whose quality is crucial to such tests.
A proper selection of reference measurements and additional verification points, combined with realistic acceptance criteria will
strongly substantiate conclusions leading to validate or reject a technology for a given application. Preparations for such tests may
appear cumbersome but are in fact only a succession of systematic operations to be performed in the most professional manner.
The value of accurate flow-rates for reservoir and production management are worse the effort since the successful deployment of
multiphase metering technologies opens significant avenues to improve hydrocarbon recovery methods and MPFM installations are
generally found to provide fast payback to operators.

The final section of this paper provide a systematic workflow to address all steps of a qualification/field/trial test of a technology
(those words being often used interchangeably in the industry) that should be of interest to users looking to improve their
production testing practices.

References

1. Afanasyev V., Theuveny B., Jayawardane S., Zhadin A., Bastos V., Guieze P., Kulyatin O. and Romashkin S.; Sampling with
Multiphase Flowmeter in Northern Siberia – Condensate Field Experience and Sensitivities, paper SPE 115622, presented at
the 2008 SPE Russian Oil & Gas Technical Conference and Exhibition, Moscow, 2008
2. Alaska Oil & Gas Conservation Commission, Guidelines for Qualification of Multiphase Metering Systems for Well Testing,
prepared by Mehdizadeh P. and Williamson J., November 2004
3. Al Hajeri S., Ghedan S., Al Basry A. and Negahban S.; Integrated History Matching Simulation Study of the First Miscible CO2-
EOR Pilot in Abu Dhabi Heterogeneous Carbonate Oil Reservoir, paper SPE 142623, presented at the SPE Middle East Oil and
Gas Show and Conference, Bahrain, 2011
4. Al-Hammadi I.T., Handak Aly S., Khan M.N., Gurses H., Baslaib A. and Younes M.K.; Validation of Coriolis and V-Cone Meters
Using Multi Phase Flow Meters (MPFM) in ADCO’s North East BAB (NEB) Field – A Case History, SPE 162200, presented at
the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, 2012
5. Al-Hosani M.A. and Khan M.N.; Evolution of the Smart Production Testing Strategy in ADMA-OPCO, paper SPE 161237,
presented at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, 2012
6. Al-Khamis M.N., Al-Bassm A.F., Bakhteyar Z. and Aftab M.N.; Evaluation of PhaseWatcher Multiphase Flow Meter (MPFM)
Performance in Sour Environments, paper OTC 19152, presented at the 2008 Offshore Technology Conference ,Houston,
2008
7. Al-Sibani S. and Sequeira D.; Validation of a 16-in. Bulk Meter for Allocation Metering, paper SPE 103713, presented at the
2006 Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu Dhabi, 2006
8. API MPFM Chapter 20.3, Measurement of Multiphase Flow, first edition, January 2013
9. API Publication 2566, State of the Art Multiphase Flow Metering, first edition, May 2004

28
10. Asiri M., Villegas R., Hussain S., Buhidma I. and Subail A.; Field Testing Experience of Wet Gas and Multiphase Flow Meters
th
Conducted in Saudi Arabian Wet Gas-Condensate Producers, presented at the 30 International North Sea Flow
Measurement Workshop, St Andrews, October 2012
11. Bringedal B. and Phillips A; Application of Virtual Flow Metering as a Backup or Alternative to Multiphase Flow Measuring
Devices, paper SCADA-06-017, presented at the Subsea Controls and Data Acquisition 2006: Controlling the Future Subsea,
Neptune, France, 2006
12. Cameron, F2500 Series Floco Positive Displacement Meters Installation Manual, version 01A08a, January 2001
13. Correa Feria C; An In-House Experiment About PVT Impact on Multiphase Metering Accuracy, paper SPE 138495, presented
at the SPE Latin American & Caribbean Petroleum Engineering Conference, Lima, 2010
14. Couput J.P., Prouvost H, Coquil M., Leprocher E. and Dykesteen E.; Implementation of Multiphase Metering on Unmanned
Wellhead Platform, paper OTC 13220, presented at the 2001 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, 2001
15. DECC Licensing, Exploration & Development, Guidance Notes for Petroleum Measurement, Issue 8, July 2012
16. Graham J., Olson J., Pinguet B. and Abraham A.; The Benefits of Multiphase Flow Meters in SAGD for Production
Optimization and Allocation Measurements, paper SPE 157915, presented at the SPE Heavy Oil Conference Canada, Calgary,
2012
17. Hassan M.M., Bekkoucha M. and Abukhader M.; Production Well Testing Optimization using Multiphase Flow Meters
(MPFM), paper SPE 101475, presented at the 2006 Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference, Abu
Dhabi, 2006
th
18. Hatlo, A. and Sørensen S.; North Sea Field Test of a Multiphase Flowmeter, 12 International North Sea Flow Measurement
Workshop, St Andrews, October 1994
19. Hollaender F., Zhang J.J., Pinguet B., Bastos V. and Delvaux E.; An Innovative Multiphase Sampling Solution at the Well Site
to Improve Multiphase Flow Measurements and Phase Behavior Characterization, paper IPTC 11573, presented at the
International Petroleum Technology Conference, Dubai, 2007
20. Jackson M., Napalowski R., Paris N. and Moksnes P.O.; Operational Experience with Subsea Multiphase Flow Meters in the
Pyrenees Development, Offshore Western Australia, paper SPE 158518, presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas
Conference and Exhibition, Perth, 2012
21. Kratirov V., Jamieson A., Blaney S. and Yeung H.; Neftemer – A Versatile and Cost Effective Multiphase Meter, presented at
th
the 24 International North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop, St Andrews, October 2006
22. Maizeret P.D.M., Reid D. and Essenfeld D.; Accurate Measurements of Liquid Condensate Rate with Multiphase Metering
Technology Improves Ecological Impact of Well Test in Deepwater Exploration Well Offshore Brazil, paper OTC 24395,
presented at the 2013 Offshore Technology Conference Brazil, Rio de Janeiro, 2013
23. Mehdizadeh P. and Farchy D; Multi-Phase Flow Metering Using Dissimilar Flow Sensors: Theory and Field Trail Results, Paper
SPE 29847, presented at the 1995 Middle East Oil Show, Bahrain, 1995
24. Mohamed P.G., Al-Saif K.H. and Mohamed A.; Field Evaluations of Different Multiphase Flow Measurement Systems, paper
56585, presented at the 1999 SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, Houston, 1999
25. Norwegian Society for Oil and Gas Measurement (NFOGM), Handbook of Multiphase Flow Metering, revision 2, March 2005
26. Nuflo Measurement Systems; Viscosity Effects on Calibration, NF Info 00009 00 0113
27. Ojukwu K.I. and Edwards J.; Reliability of Multiphase Flowmeters and Test Separators at High Water Cut, paper SPE 114127,
presented at the 2008 SPE Western Regional and Pacific Section AAPG Joint Meeting, Bakersfield, 2008
28. Pinguet B., Blouin E., Faillenet E., Hussenet J.P. and Bardin D.; Production Optimization in Heavy Oil: Field Experience with Vx
th
Multiphase Flow Meter, paper OMAE2007-29666 presented at the 26 International Conference on Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering, Sand Diego, 2007
th
29. Ross A. and Stobie G.; Well Testing – An Evaluation of Test Separators and Multiphase Flow Meters, 28 International North
Sea Flow Measurement Workshop, St Andrews, October 2010
30. Shen J.J. and Riley R.C.; Field Evaluation of a Multiphase Meter in Well-Testing Operation, paper SPE 37436, published in SPE
Production & Facilities, pp. 109-117, May 1998
29
31. Sherief M., Al-Hassain K.K., Al-Ameri A.F. and Abdou M.K.; Multiphase Flow Measurements Sensitivity Assessment and
Management – A Cost Effective Methodology for Surveillance Engineers and Field Operators, paper SPE 138199, presented
at the Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition & Conference, Abu Dhabi, 2010
32. Stobie G. and Wee A.; Blind Testing of a Multiphase Meter with Simplified Field Configuration Needs and In-Situ
Measurement of Fluids Properties, presented at the 2011 TUV-NEL The Americas Workshop, Houston, 2011
st
33. Syre B.; Using Multiphase Meter for Fiscal Purposes – Field Experience, presented at the 31 International North Sea Flow
Measurement Workshop, Tønsberg, 2013
34. Theuveny B.C. and Mehdizadeh P.; Multiphase Flowmeter Application for Well and Fiscal Application, paper SPE 76766,
presented at the SPE Western Regional/AAPG Pacific Section Joint Meeting, Anchorage, 2002
35. Tosic S. and Mehdizadeh P.; Multiphase Well-Rate Measurements Applied to Reservoir Analysis, paper SPE 117466, SPE
Production & Operations, May 2011 pp155-160, 2010

30