OIL/GAS FIELDS FEASIBILITY EVALUATION: A FAST RUNNING

TOOL FOR FLOW ASSURANCE ANALYSES

V. Faluomi, E. Dellarole, S. Sodini, M. Bonuccelli, M. Fratini TEA SISTEMI S.p.A.

This paper was presented at the 10th Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition in Ravenna, Italy, March 23-25, 2011.
It was selected for presentation by OMC 2011 Programme Committee following review of information contained in the abstract
submitted by the author(s). The Paper as presented at OMC 2011 has not been reviewed by the Programme Committee.

ABSTRACT

The proposed paper details the main features of an Excel spreadsheet that can be used to
evaluate and compare both single pipelines or large networks, and which is used within TEA
since 2003 for pre-feasibility and feasibility analyses, together with more sophisticated tools.
The software is composed by the following modules:
• Black oil fluid property model
• Steady state thermal-hydraulic network model
• Simplified transient model
• Flow Assurance chemistry module

The scope of the presented software is to provide, with the minimum data set available, the
required design parameters to compare different field development concepts, as indicated
below:
• Cumulative hydrocarbon deliverability;
• operative area of pipeline network with respect to hydrate and wax formation
• erosion/ issues
• cooldown time and maximum surge associated with selected transients
• Chemical injection requirements

This paper describes the software structure and includes some comparison between the
results of this tool and experimental/field data as well as some examples of typical usage of
the software during feasibility studies, to demonstrate the accuracy of the developed tool..

INTRODUCTION

During the early phases of oil/gas field feasibility evaluations, a large number of analyses
have to be carried out to perform counterpart evaluation among different development
concepts, in order to identify the most robust and economical solution. At this stage, flow
assurance play a fundamental role in the decision process, indicating the relevant issues of
each selected solution and the requirements, both in terms of hardware and operative
procedures, for a safe development. However, since very few data are available and the
accepted accuracy of predictions is in the order of 20%-40%, to save time the use of
complex system codes (like OLGA1 or MAST2,3) is often not justified for all the analyses, but
only to validate the selected solution. Actually, available steady state simplified codes are
used for feasibility analyses (PIPESIM4, PIPEPHASE5) but still these codes sometimes lack
of necessary flexibility to be used for screening calculations, where tens or even hundreds
runs are required. Moreover, these codes typically do not provide any result (even
preliminary) about typical parameters used to compare different concepts such as cooldown
time and warm up time, surge volume during restart/pigging or well shut-in pressure. Due to
the reasons above, for few years TEA Sistemi has been developed a software tool to match
the following goals:

1
• Small amount of input data required to perform the hydraulic design of a multiphase
transportation system. The software should run using the data available during or prior
to well exploration phase
• No specialization required. The tool should be used by any process engineer with a
standard knowledge of typical oil/gas field architecture
• Smooth learning curve required. The tool should be used through existing standard
office tools (excel or similar programs)
• Integration of hydraulic calculations and flow assurance requirements. The tool should
directly calculate the hardware parameters and the operational needs for a given
development concept based on the field data provided by the user, without any
intermediate user action.
• The se of output data supplied by the tool must be sufficient for the selection of the best
development solution.
The above requirements have been forced the tool development to be as simple as possible,
using well known approaches in the oil/gas field, and simplifying, when possible, the
description of the simulated system to be able to catch the essential data with low calculation
efforts. The other requirement of the tool was the capability to report as a final result both the
relevant parameters characterising the analysed system and the operability map indicating
the safe production zone, defined on the basis of input data provided and the flow assurance
methodology assumptions.

SOFTWARE STRUCTURE OVERVIEW

The main calculation blocks on top of which the model has been developed are the following:
- a black oil approach for fluid properties calculation;
- a mechanistic one dimensional steady stated model for multiphase flow description,
including a mixture energy equation for fluid temperature evaluation;
- a lumped integral calculation model to describe the main pipeline transient conditions
(shutdown, restart, pigging), to evaluate the following overall parameters:
o pipeline cooldown and warm up time
o surge volume during restart and pigging
o flare peak flowrate during depressurization
- a simplified flow assurance methodology used to process the results from previous
calculations to provide:
o hardware parameters of considered system (diameters, insulation level, surge
volume)
o operability maps based on user selected parameters (rate vs. GOR,
production years vs. arrival pressure, etc..)
o ranking of selected production systems based on comparison among
calculation results and system constraints.
Both the input data and the calculation results are organised into a proper data base , which
simplifies the data management, especially when a large number of cases have to be
analysed.
The overall infrastructure of the software is based on an Excel spreadsheet, which helps in
plotting/representing the results of the carried out analyses.
In Fig 1 the conceptual structure of the software is reported.

2
 Fig 1 : Software Conceptual Structure

INPUT DATA PREPROCESSOR

Since one of the statements at the basis of the model development was the reduction of
input data requirements, the overall model architecture has been designed to be able to
provide the overall parameters to compare different development concepts using only the
following data:
a) Fluid characterization
1. GOR
2. API
3. Gas molecular weight
b) Field layout
4. Wells target, Wellhead, Manifold position
5. Arrival plant location
c) Well production data
6. Oil, gas and water rates
7. Static pressure and temperature
8. Productivity index / bottom hole flowing pressure
d) Process data
9. Arrival pressure
e) Environmental data
10. Environmental temperature
The above data can be either a single or an array of values, depending on the type of
analysis to be carried out. Based on the above data, the input pre-processor module will
calculate the parameters required by the calculation engine, as follows:
• Fluid property table
• Network discretization
The input pre-processor will also provide, in the case of parametrical analyses, all the data
and the control structure required to perform screening calculations in order to find the
suitable pipeline parameters (diameter, pipe thickness and insulation degree) based on
production constraints (flowrates, available reservoir pressure and arrival pressures)

3
BLACK OIL PACKAGE

The availability of fluid properties, also when fluid PVT analysis is not available, is of
paramount importance to perform any type of thermal hydraulic calculations. Therefore, to
allow the software to be usable also with no knowledge of production fluid composition, a
black oil package has been developed to provide all the required fluid data to the calculation
engine.
The black oil model is based on well know set of correlations6,7,8 with some peculiar
modifications9 required to obtain specific parameters needed for thermal hydraulic
calculations, as follows:
Gas-oil ratio (GOR): The original relationship calculated GOR at bubble point conditions
(bubble pressure and reservoir temperature). Therefore, these correlations have been
extended to allow the calculation of GOR in actual conditions, i.e. at any pressure and
temperature conditions.
Oil and gas enthalpy: No specific black oil correlations are available for enthalpy calculation,
therefore the oil and gas enthalpy are computed through a linear regression of the values
calculated for a number of typical oil samples (Ref. 10). For pressure values above the
bubble pressure the gas enthalpy is considered constant by the code
The black oil package has been validated against the main fluid parameters obtained with
the SRK11 equation of state and using a set of known fluid compositions, whose PVT studies
were available.
Example of black oil performances are reported in and

Fig 2 : Black Oil properties validation: Fig 3 : Black Oil properties validation:
ligth oil viscosity (API = 32°, GOR = 130 heavy oil density (API = 19°, GOR = 27
m3/m3, 130 bara pressure) m3/m3, 90 bara pressure)

HYDRODYNAMIC AND THERMAL MODEL

The TEA multiphase model12,13 has been developed extending the two phase flow model as
proposed by Taitel et. Al.14, and including specific closures laws15,16,17 .The basic formulation
for the present model is to consider steady state one dimensional flow for both mass and
momentum conservation equations18. Additional features extending the base model have
been implemented to take into account some relevant phenomena occurring in the
hydrocarbon multiphase pipelines, such as19:
• phase change (flashing/condensation)
• thermal behaviour
The overall module can handle both single pipelines and converging networks. The solution
of the latter case has been based on the work reported in /20/. Regarding boundary

4
conditions, both pressure-pressure and pressure-flow boundaries can be managed by the
software(including basic reservoir inflow performance relationship).
The basic mass/momentum/energy balance applied from the inlet to outlet pipeline section is
the following (for each gas and liquid phase):

∂
(α k ρ k uk ) = 0 (1)
∂z
∂p 1 S 1 S
= − f k ρ k uk uk k − f i ρ i u r u r i + ρ k g ⋅ sinϑ + Γk uk (2)
∂z 2 αk 2 αk

∂
( ∑k α k ρ k uk H k ) = −Qext
1, 3
(3)
∂z

Qext = htot ⋅ Aext ⋅ (T fluid − Text ) (4)

The equations (1) and (2) are coupled to obtain a two-equation system which is solved
iteratively along the network for each calculation point to evaluate:
• Phase velocities (ug,ul);
• Phase distribution (Ak);
• Local pressure drops
The temperature calculation (Equation 3) is decoupled from the main hydrodynamic model
and is solved after pressure drop determination. Afterwards, an additional iteration is needed
to couple temperature effects in the main fluid-dynamic model.
Because an explicit numerical scheme has been chosen to evaluate the system given by
(1),(2) and (3) equations, the calculation consistency with assigned boundary conditions is
achieved by external control loops. As indicated in /13/, the average error of flow model in
calculating main parameters as pressure drop is in the order of 15%
The conservative equation system is then integrated with a heat transfer package (Equation
4, required to perform thermal evaluations) that assumes a cylindrical configuration of
pipeline and insulation layers21. In case of buried pipelines a simplified geometry (equivalent
soil layer approximation) is used to take into account soil insulation22. A special model is
available to evaluate bundle geometries where more than one pipe is flowing within a
common casing23

SIMPLIFIED TRANSIENT MODELS

Pipeline cooldown model

To perform cooldown calculations, the steady state data provided by the multiphase
simulator (essentially temperature and average holdup) is used as initial condition for the
model illustrated below. The conventional correlation of cool down temperature response
curve widely used in petroleum industry is the so-called “exponential temperature relation24,
which has the form of

T (t ) = (T0 − Ta )e − B (t −t0 ) + Ta (5)

where
h ⋅ l ⋅π ⋅ d
B= (6)
∑ ρ i CiVi

5
Ci = ci ⋅ Ti (7)

The term ρiCiVi normally includes the density, specific heat capacity and volume of pipeline
fluid content, pipeline structural material and insulation layers, and it is calculated using the
property values of each pipeline layer and the average temperature of the layer evaluated in
steady state conditions.
In case of a buried pipeline, the equivalent soil layer determined for steady state calculations
has to be included as well22.
Equation (5) determines the time required for the temperature to reach a specified value T(t).
Equation (5) also indicates that the temperature of the object T(t) approaches Ta
exponentially. T(t) decreases rapidly at the beginning of cool down, but rather slowly later on.
A large value of B indicates the object will approach the ambient temperature in a short time.
The larger the value of the B exponent, the higher the temperature decay rate is. The thermal
model that yields the solution of Equation (5) is the lumped capacity thermal model for
transient heat transfer process. It is worth to note that such model does not include any mass
transfer effect among phases (the holdup remains the one calculated at steady state
conditions), nor heat transfer in the axial direction of the pipeline. In a previous work /23/ the
cooldown model was compared with more sophisticated CFD approaches, showing a good
agreement in results, as reported in Fig 4.

40

Fluent OLGA
38 FLUENT

36 Equation Soil
Module
34
Temperature (°C)

32

30

28

26

24

22

20
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Time (h)

Fig 4: Simplified Cooldown model vs. FLUENT (20”)

Pipeline warm-up model

Pipeline warm-up integral model has been developed to preliminary estimate the time
required to reach a given steady state thermal content within a pipeline, to evaluate:
• Chemical injection duration to control hydrate formation
• Residual cooldown time in case of an interrupted restart

The lumped model is based on the following assumptions:

a. Pipeline static liquid holdup equal to the one at steady state conditions
b. Constant production restart flowrate
c. Mixed flow along the pipe throughout all the warm-up time and constant velocity
along the pipe

6
 d. Neither J-T effects of the gas during the same period (to simplify the energy equation
form), nor kinetic or gravitational effects

The energy equation integrated during warm-up has the following form18:

qwarmup − q shutdown
=
[qinlet ⋅ vinlet − qoutlet ⋅ voutlet ] − q (8)
ext
∆t ∆z

With the above assumptions, the warm-up time can be quickly evaluated from Equation 8 as
follow:
 T f + Tsoil 
[V c
l pl ρ l + V g c pg ρ g ]sh ⋅ T f +[Vsoil c p ,soil ρ soil ] ⋅ 
2

 
t warmup = (9)
vmix ⋅ ρ mix ⋅
d 2 ⋅π
4
⋅ c p ,mix ⋅ (Tin − Tout ) − h ⋅ d ⋅ π ⋅ L0 ⋅ T f − Tsoil[ ]
Discharge model

The model adopted to evaluate the discharge through a valve or a flare stack is based on the
Perkins model25 which has the general form below:

[ ]
n −1
 
Λ 1 − P th( ) n  + α dw 1 − P th
 
G = C D Aup 2 Pup ρ up (10)
2
 x +α 
( )
2
A    x P −r 1 / n + α
2
ρ up 1 −  up  g dw

 Ath   x P th + α  g
− 1 / n dw
 g dw 

The model has been modified to allow the use of the more typical Cv discharge value instead
of Cd and also to account for sonic discharge to atmosphere in case of flaring due to
depressurization
The model has been further assessed and modified by TEA during several activities, and it
also form the basis of TEA virtual metering system /26/ and is also implemented in the
RAINBOW code for the blowout risk assessment /27/.
In Fig 5 results of the discharge model as implemented by TEA are compared with field
data, showing an agreement in the order of 10%.
The model is used in the presented software to evaluate the following parameters during
depressurization to the atmosphere after shutdown:
• Maximum flowrate through the blowdown valve
• Minimum temperature downstream blowdown valve

Since the shutdown pressure of the system is not evaluated by the software, an average
pressure (based on inlet and outlet pressures at steady state) of the pipeline being
depressurised is used.

7
 800
Well#3 Wellhead choke 3/4''
Well#1 Wellhead choke 1/2''
700
Well#4 Wellhead choke 1/2''

TEA method flow allocation (m3/d)

Well#2 Wellhead choke 1/2''
600

500

400
+10%

300
-10%

200

100

0
0 200 400 600 800
Well Testing Oil Production (m3/d)

Fig 5: Discharge Model : Comparison with Field Data

Surge Volume model

One of the principal parameters characterising a hydrocarbon production system is the size
of the arrival separator. In some cases, the length of pipeline and the type of produced fluid
might require very large volumes to handle multiphase flow during transient conditions.
Among all the operative procedures typically expected in a field, the production restart and
the pigging are the most critical in terms of liquid surges at arrival point. Therefore, in the
presented software, a simple procedure has been implemented to preliminary evaluate the
expected surge during pigging/restart procedure. The surge volume calculation is performed
by the model on the basis of the following main hypotheses:
e. The restart rate is constant;
f. The liquid front during restart behave as a rigid pig;
g. The pig/restart front fluid velocity is evaluated as geometrical average between inlet
and exit flow velocity, calculated assuming homogeneous flowrate along the pipeline;
h. The liquid discharge occurs at average pig/restart velocity, considering all the liquid
stored into the pipeline packed in front of the pig/liquid front during the overall
procedure;
i. Mixture flow path is homogeneous;
j. Inlet and outlet pressures and temperatures during pigging/restart are those
calculated in steady state conditions for the same production conditions.

Based on the assumptions above, the model has been developed as follows:

1. On the basis of surge volume definition we have:

Vsurge = (Gout − Gdrain ) ⋅ ∆t (11)
where ∆t is the discharge period.

2. Assuming that all the liquid is packed at pipeline outlet prior to discharge (assumption
b), the outlet flow becomes:

8
 Gout = v restart ⋅ A (12)

3. On the basis of hypothesis (c):

v restart =
(vin + vout ) (13)
2

4. Since during restart/pigging the mass flowing along the pipeline is constant:

Gin ⋅ ρ in = Gout ⋅ ρ out (14)

the pigging /restart velocity becomes:

 ρ 
Ginlet ⋅ 1 + in 
 ρ out 
v restart = (15)
2⋅ A

5. The slug tracking time is calculated as:

H ss
∆t = (16)
v restart ⋅ A

where H ss is the steady state holdup (assuming that no condensation takes place
during system shutdown)

6. From the previous steps it results:

 Gdrain 
Vsurge = H ss .1 −  (17)
 v ⋅ A 
 restart pipe 

7. Combining the above relationships the volume of surge related to the actual inlet
pipeline flow during pigging/restart and including fluid acceleration due to pressure
drops is the following:

 
 
 G 1 
Vsurge = H ss ⋅ 1 − drain ⋅  (18)
 Gin  ρ 
1 + mix ,in 
 2  ρ mix ,out 
  

8. The ratio between inlet and outlet densities indicates the velocity variation along the
pipe. Assuming the liquid density equal to the one at stock tank conditions, the
mixture density at inlet and outlet can be calculated as follows:

ρ mix ,inlet = ρ l ,st ⋅ α l ,in + ρ g ,in ⋅ α g ,in

ρ mix ,outlet = ρ l ,st ⋅ α l ,out + ρ g ,outlet ⋅ α g ,out (19)

Gas densities can be evaluated using perfect gas law, inlet and outlet void fraction
can be calculated assuming no slip equilibrium and then using the relationship
between void fraction and quality18:

9
 x
α= (20)
ρg
(1 − x ) ⋅ +x
ρl
Where

Ak 
αk =
A 
 (21)
mk 
xx =
mtot  k =l , g

9. Considering the assumption f, inlet and outlet pipeline mixture densities as well as the
relationship between actual total rate and stock tank liquid flowrate can be easily
calculated, leading to the following final formulation for surge volume:

 
 
 Gdrain 1 
Vsurge = H ss ⋅ 1 − ⋅  (22)
 Gl ,st ⋅ ρ l ,st  ρ  1 − xin x  ρ 
1 + GORst ⋅ g ,st  + in 1 + mix ,in 
 2  ρ l ,st  ρ 
ρ g ,in  ρ mix ,out 
   l ,st 

The restart/pigging phenomenological representation is reported in Fig 6, where the liquid

configuration prior to and during restart/pigging operation is shown. The results of the
presented model have been compared with MAST calculations showing an agreement of
25% (see Fig 7)

Liquid Holdup prior restart/pigging

Liquid Packed during restart/pigging

vrestart Qout

Pigging/Liquid Front

Qinlet Liquid Holdup (shutdown)

Liquid Holdup (restart/pigging)
Gas Volume

Fig 6:Simplified scheme of surge volume calculation

10
 180

Surge with Slug Factor

160
Simplified Surge Model +25%
140

Surge Volume, Simplified Model (m3)

120

100
-25%
80

60

40

20

0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Surge Volume, OLGA (m3)

Fig 7:Simplified Surge Model: Counterpart tests with MAST code

SCREENING ANALYSIS AND FLOW ASSURANCE METHODOLOGY

For the feasibility phase, when often the basic data is largely incomplete and affected by
relevant uncertainties, a minimum set of evaluations are required to obtain the minimal set of
results needed to compare different development scenarios and to identify the suitable
solution28,29. The most important part of the feasibility analysis is the screening phase, when
several development concepts are analysed varying the main design parameters as:
• Pipeline diameter and insulation
• Field configuration
• Production profiles and fluid data
Each combination of the parameters above leads to a different scenario, which will be fully
evaluated with the presented software. Starting from the results of the calculations, the tool
will also evaluate flow assurance issues30 and will rank each scenario to allow for the concept
selection.
Ranking will be done thanks to the implementation of a simplified flow assurance
methodology that consists in two steps:
- Calculation of the following design parameters for each production scenario
considered:
o Cumulative delivered fluid
o Max/Min Pressure and Temperature
o Erosional velocity
o Hydrate/Wax inhibitor rate
o Surge Volume
o Cooldown and warm-up time
o Flare Rate
o Pig velocity
- Comparison of the above results with selected constraints, for each operative
condition30 (e.g. steady state, shutdown), the considered scenario will be judged:
o Suitable, when design parameters are within the constraints (value=1)
o Risky, when the design parameters are beyond constraints but operation is
possible (value=0)

11
 o Unsuitable, when design parameters are beyond constraints and operation is
impossible (value=-1)

The final ranking of each selected scenario will be done by adding all the single operative
results, providing a number which indicates the scenario suitability in field production ().
Scenario having rank below 5 are considered generally unsuitable (since one of more issues
are unmanageable), while scenario with rank value between 5 and 7 are assumed risky. An
example of comparison among different scenario is reported in

Tab 1: Main design parameters and costraint used to rank development scenario
Production
Flow assurance issue Parameter Costraint
Condition
Deliverability Pipeline diameter Cumulative production
Pressure Inlet Pressure Below design pressure
Temperature Inlet/outlet temperature Within design temperature
Steady state
Erosion Erosional velocity ratio <1

Injection Injection Rate Assuming shutdown to ambient temperature

Time to entering into To be higher than the recovery time after

Shutdown Cool-Down time
hydrate formation zone shutdown

Time to leave hydrate

Restart Warm Up Time Maximum chemical storage
zone

Maximum peak gas

Blowdown Discharge Rate Within flare design flowrate
mass rate

Pig velocity Velocity < 2 m/s

Pigging Below separator surge volume (if already
Surge volume Slug Volume
selected)

Tab 2: Example of scenario ranking

Production Flow assurance

Condition issue Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3
Deliverability 1 1 1
Pressure 1 1 1
Temperature 1 1 1
Erosion 1 0 0
Steady state Injection 1 0 0
Shutdown Cool-Down time 1 0 -1
Restart Warm Up Time 1 0 -1
Maximum peak gas
Blowdown mass rate 1 1 -1
Peak Pig velocity 1 0 0
Pigging Surge volume 1 1 -1
Overall Rank 10 5 -1

12
APPLICATIONS AND RESULTS

The described tool has been used internally for few years to quickly evaluate the
performances of several concept developments for a given hydrocarbon field.
Quite broad type of development have been approached with this tool, and in the following
text an example of feasibility evaluations performed with this tool is reported.
The considered scenario consisted in the development of a marginal field on 600 m water
depth. The first activity was the definition of the transportation system, in terms of internal
diameter and insulation.
Due to the lack of reservoir study, a broad range of analyses were required to evaluate the
possible operative envelope of the selected pipeline.
The screening analysis was performed based on the following parameters:
• Oil Rate (bopd): from 2000 to 20000
• Fluid GOR (scf/bbl): 1000, 3000, 5000 and 10000
• Water cut (%): 0, 10, 40 and 80
• Wellhead pressure (bara): 50, 75 and 100
• Wellhead temperature (°C): 40, 55 and 70
Each combination of the above parameters was assumed to be a possible production
condition.
The development scenario for production pipeline were selected as follows:
• Diameter (inches): 6” and 8”
• Insulation (OHTC,W/m2K): 4 and 6
Fluid data were kept constant, as well as pipeline profile and the arrival conditions. The
results was the analysis of 572 different production conditions.
The suitability of a given scenario was in this case based on steady state screening analysis
developing an operative envelope for each production scenario. based on the following
constraint:
1. Arrival pressure
2. Hydrate formation
3. Wax Formation
In Fig 8 and Fig 9 an example of the results of operative envelope for the two production
scenario is reported. In the plots the different colour means:
• Red: production not possible due to arrival pressure below the constraints
• Yellow: operative conditions under wax formation risk
• Brown: operative conditions under hydrate formation risk
• Green : safe production zone

Based on proposed methodology, the overall rank of the different production scenario was
performed and reported in

13
 10000

8000

GOR [SCF/BBL] 6000

4000

2000

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Oil rate [BOPD]

Fig 8:Operative envelope 6” pipeline

10000

8000
GOR [SCF/BBL]

6000

4000

2000

2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Oil rate [BOPD]

Fig 9:Operative envelope 8” pipeline

Tab 3: Ranking of 6” and 8” pipeline production scenario

Production Flow assurance 6" diameter- 8" diameter- 6" diameter- 8" diameter-
Condition issue OHTC=4 W/m2K OHTC=4 W/m2K OHTC=6 W/m2K OHTC=6 W/m2K
Deliverability 1 1 1 1
Pressure 1 1 1 1
Temperature 1 1 1 1
Erosion 0 1 0 1
Steady state Injection 1 1 1 1
Shutdown Cool-Down time 1 1 0 0
Restart Warm Up Time 1 0 1 0
Maximum peak gas
Blowdown mass rate 1 0 1 0
Peak Pig velocity 0 0 0 0
Pigging Surge volume 1 0 1 0

Overall Rank 8 6 7 5

14
CONCLUSIONS

This paper presents a tool made to rapid evaluate and compare the main flow assurance
issues of different development concepts. The principal scope of this tool is to help the
concept selection phase of new hydrocarbon field developments, where a large number of
counterpart calculations are required to select the most suitable configuration in relation with
expected production requirements
Therefore, the expected accuracy of the tool can be relatively low, since the main use of this
tool is to compare different production systems, rather than to design a specific one.
The relevant characteristics of the developed tool are the following:
- Small amount of data required to perform a preliminary flow assurance analysis
- Minimum user choice requirements
- Quantitative evaluation of key parameters for field development as:
o Pipe diameter and insulation
o Chemical injection requirements and storage
o Surge volume and Flare rate
o Cooldown and warm up time
- Identification of main flow assurance issues as:
o Production losses
o Erosional issues
o Hydrate and Wax formation risk
o Hydrodynamic slugging
To accomplish the objectives above, the following modules have been included in the tool:
- A full two phase mechanistic one dimension calculation engine, including temperature
evaluation
- A complete black oil module, providing all the required fluid data (e.g. density,
viscosity, gas/oil ratio, enthalpy)
- A simplified model of principal operating procedures to quantify the main issues in
field operability
- A post processor module, which evaluates the results of the calculation modules and
qualitatively ranks the selected development scenario on the basis of a defined flow
assurance methodology
The basic calculation models have been tested against both reference multiphase codes and
field data, obtaining satisfactory results, aligned with tool specifications (accuracy within 25%
maximum)
Since 2003 the tool has been used by TEA Sistemi during feasibility studies to select the
most suitable development scenario to carry forward. The calculations performed in the later
stage of the projects generally showed an agreement between simplified and refined
approaches in the expected range for such type of tools.

NOTATION

Symbol Description Unit

α Flow area fraction for phase k -
ρ density for phase k Kg/m3
u velocity of phase k m/s
f friction factor -
µ viscosity Pa s
Γ deposition/entrainment factor Kg/s2 m3
S wetted perimeter m
q Heat content in a system J
h,U Overall heat transfer coefficient W/m2K
GOR Gas Oil Ratio m3/m3

15
 A Flow area m2
n Polytrophic coefficient -
P Critical pressure ratio, Pup/Pth -
V Volume m3
∆t Time step s
m mass kg
x Quality, mass fraction -
Λ Perkins Model mass fraction parameter -
l,L0 Pipe length m
H total enthalpy J/kg
Q heat power W
P,p local pressure Pa
G Volumetric Flow m3/s
D,d Pipe diameter m
sin ϑ elevation angle from horizontal deg
g Gravitational acceleration m/s2
z spatial coordinate m
∆z Spatial step m
T temperature K
c,cp specific heat J/kg K
t time s
CD Multiphase Discharge Coefficient -
γ Isentropic coefficient -

SUPERSCRIPT/SUBSCRIPTS
a ambient
k phase indicator, pipe layer indicator
in Inner pipe data
out Outer (external, ambient) data
ext external
soil Soil parameter (buried pipeline)
l liquid
up Upstream discharge section
th Throat discharge section
tot overall
i interface
f,fluid Bulk fluid
r relative
mix Mixed flow
sh Shutdown conditions
g gas
dw Downstream discharge section
surge Surge volume
ss Steady state
st Stock tank conditions
drain Drain rate
restart Restart conditions

REFERENCES

1. K.H. Bendiksen, D. Maines, R. Moe, S. Nuland, “The Dynamic Two-Fluid Model

OLGA: Theory and application”, Journal Of Petroleum Technology, SPE 19451,1991
2. Bonizzi M., Andreussi P. & Banerjee S. “Flow regime independent, high resolution
multi-field modelling of near-horizontal gas-liquid flows in pipelines”, Int. J. Multiphase
Flow, Vol. 35, pp. 34-46,2009
3. Kadri U., Mudde R.F., Oliemans R.V.A., Bonizzi M. & Andreussi, P. ,“Prediction of the
transition from stratified to slug flow or roll-waves in gas-liquid horizontal pipes”, Int. J.
Multiphase Flow, Vol. 35, pp. 1001-1010, 2009
4. Schlumberger, “PIPESIM 2000 User Manual”, 2005
5. SIMSCI, “Pipephase 9.1 User Guide”, 2005
6. W.D. McCain, Jr, “The Properties of Petroleum Fluids”, 2nd Ed. 1990
7. GPSA, “Engineering Data Book”, Tulsa, 2004
8. Danesh A., “PVT and phase behaviour of petroleum reservoir fluids”, Elsevier, 1998

16
9. De Ghetto G., Paone F., Villa M., “Reliability analysis on PVT correlations”, SPE
28904, European Petroleum Conference, London, October, 1994
10. S. Belsito, “Programma per il calcolo delle proprietà degli oli con correlazioni di black
oil”, CPR-TEA, 1997
11. Calsep, “PVTSim User Manual”, 2003
12. P. Andreussi, A. Minervini, A. Paglianti, F. Sabatelli, “ Two Phase flow of brine in long
pipelines: Analysis of field experiments”, Geothermics, 23 (1), pp. 31-41, August 1994
13. Faluomi V., Bonuccelli M., Bousbia Salah A., “Simplified Transient Multiphase Model
For Oil Field Development Analysis”, 3rd International Symposium on Two-Phase
Flow Modelling and Experimentation, Pisa, 22-24 September 2004
14. Y. Taitel, D. Barnea, “Simplified Transient Simulation of Two Phase flow using Quasi-
Equilibrium Momentum Balances”, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, Vol. 23, No. 3, pp. 493-
501, 1997.
15. Y. Taitel and A. E. Duckler, “A model for predicting flow regime transitions in
horizontal and near horizontal gas-liquid flow”, AIChE Journal, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 47-
55, 1976
16. Faluomi V., Bonuccelli M., Ansiati A., Bousbia Salah A., Blotto P., “Modelling annular
flow at high gas velocities for well blowout analyses”, 3rd International Symposium on
Two-Phase Flow Modelling and Experimentation, Pisa, 22-24 September 2004
17. P. Andreussi, A. Minervini, A. Paglianti : A Mechanistic Model of Slug Flow in near–
horizontal pipes, Aiche Journal, 39 (8), pp. 1281-1291, August 1993
18. T. Wallis, “One Dimensional Two phase Flow”, MG-Hill, 1969
19. O. Shoam, “Mechanistic modelling of gas-liquid two-phase flow in pipes”, Tulsa, 2005.
20. Shifeng Tian, M.A Adewumi, “A new algorithm for analyzing and designing two-phase
flow pipeline networks”, SPE 28177, November, 1993
21. Faluomi V., Bonuccelli M, Dellarole E., Sodini S., Carniani C., Monti C., “Flow
Assurance and System Operability: Integration of Flow Modelling into Field
Management Procedures” OMC 2005, Ravenna, (Italy), March 2005
22. Archer R. A., O’Sullivan M.J., “Models for heat transfer from a buried pipe”, SPE
36763
23. V. Faluomi, P. Arcipreti, S.Sodini, M. Bonuccelli, “Pipeline Insulation Systems: State
of Art and design methods”, OMC 2007,Ravenna (Italy), 28-30th March, 2007
24. Davenport, T., Conti V.J., “Heat Transfer problems encountered in the handling of
Waxy Crude oils in Large Pipelines”, Journal of the Institute of Petroleum, V. 57, N.
555, May 1971
25. T.K. Perkins, “Critical and Subcritical Flow of multiphase Mixtures Through Chokes”,
SPE Drilling and Completion December , 1993.
26. V. Faluomi, E. Dellarole, M. Bonuccelli, L. Antico, “Virtual Metering System for Oil and
Gas Fields Monitoring: Design, Implementation and Applications”, BHR Group, May,
2006
27. P. Blotto, P. Andreussi, M. Bonuccelli, R. Galinetto, F. Podenzani, “An Integrated
Methodology for the evaluation of the safety and environmental Consequences of a
Blowout”, SPE 61192, 1999
28. Basana R., , Bonuccelli M., Giacometti L., Ferretti C., Negri I., Buelli M., D’Amato M.,
Berti D., De Ghetto G., “ A Decision Support System to Select Development Schemes
of Deepwater Fields”, Deep Offshore Technology, New Orleans 1998.
29. Bonuccelli M., Mazzoni A, Aprile G., Ghiselli P. W., Granato M., “Guidelines for
Design Deep Water Multiphase Transportation System”, Offshore Mediterranean
Conference OMC 1999, Ravenna, 24-26 March, 1999.
30. Faluomi V., Bonuccelli. M, Monti. C., De Simone N., “ABO field : Flow Assurance and
Operability Strategies needed in deepwater development”, Offshore Mediterranean
Conference OMC 2003 Conference, Ravenna (Italy), 26-28 March , 2003

17