SPE 92053
Successful Field Surveillance Using Portable Multi-Phase Flow Meter in a High Gas-
Volume Fraction and High Water-Cut Application in East Kalimantan, Indonesia
S. Wangsa and R. Latief, Total Indonesia, and J. Kaura, D. Finley, and A. Ogilvie, Halliburton Energy Services, Inc.
Copyright 2005, Society of Petroleum Engineers
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Europec/EAGE Annual Conference held in
Madrid, Spain, 13-16 June 2005.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any position
of the SPE, their officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part
of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum
Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more
than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O. Box
833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Total Indonesia had been finding it increasingly more difficult to
obtain direct measurement of produced oil from some of their
remotely located fields. The production wells that needed testing
were in a mature field in a swamp location and had high water-
cuts (WC) and extremely high gas-volume fractions (GVF). The
WC and GVFs in these fields range from 80 to 100% and 90 to
100%, respectively. Moreover, most of the wells have low
potential and are very sensitive to back-pressure. All these
characteristics as well as their logistics made accurate
measurement of production from the wells in this area extremely
challenging. As a result, the time interval between the well tests
was ever increasing (more than one month).
In order to achieve more frequent performance data, and
thus, enable more effective work-over decisions, the suggestion
was made to evaluate use of a portable multi-phase flow meter
(MPFM) to resolve the measurement problems.
The initial well tests yielded MPFM total liquid flow-rate
readings that were ±30% of the test separator readings; the
MPFM gas rates were ±25% of the separator reading. The
operator’s requirement was for the MPFM to be within ±10% of
the test separator readings. Since these disparities were
attributed to the extremely high GVFs that had been encountered
on these wells, modifications to the present MPFM system were
needed to
• Reduce the GVF going through the meter
• Reduce the uncertainty of the meter measurements
• Improve the accuracy of the meter
• Increase the meter operating envelope.
Subsequently, a gas knock-out (GKO) vessel was designed
and constructed to address the above needs. The GKO vessel
was designed within a predetermined set of constraints so as to
achieve the desired results.
The GKO vessel was installed immediately upstream of the
multiphase meter. After incorporating the GKO vessel with the
MPFM, the new “hybrid” system was used to test the same wells
that had been tested earlier. The results using the MPFM and the
GKO vessel yielded liquid rates and gas rates that were within
±10% of the test separator.
Introduction
Accurate well testing is extremely important in all field
development and reservoir management scenarios. The accuracy
of the well testing systems is critical to providing the data for
decision analysis in ongoing drilling and work-over programs.
However, well-test systems generally have been cumbersome
with large footprints, have numerous mechanical failure
potentials, and very often, provide less than desirable
capabilities for repeatability in flow measurements. A MPFM
that can generate accurate flow measurements can provide
significant cost savings and improved well management and
optimization1.
MPFM technology has improved significantly in the last few
years and is becoming increasingly accurate and repeatable
when compared to the separator.2 However, the MPFM accuracy
is very dependent upon the conditions to which the meter is
subjected since the MPFM performance is affected by the
increasing GVF in the flow stream. The MPFM operates within
acceptable accuracy range for well test purposes with a GVF of
up to 85%. Beyond this GVF, the accuracy of the MPFM
reduces and is subject to acceptance by the operating company.
The high GVF, high WC, and low-potential productivity
characteristics make accurate measurement of production from
the wells in this area extremely challenging. This is due to the
inherent nature of the fluid flow and the physics of the sensors
measuring the multiphase flow. This producing field consists of
layered reservoirs stacked on top of each other. The reservoirs
form a fluvial deltaic environment with the surface locations of
the wells in a swampy area of the island. The reservoir pressure
has declined as a natural result of production over an extended
period of time. In order to sustain the production and keep the
field economically viable, various artificial-lift techniques were
deployed. In order to effectively manage the layered reservoirs
2 SPE 92053
and optimize the gas-lift injection, a continuous and consistent
well-performance monitoring technique that used the temporary
testing facilities was required. Due to the logistics of the swamp
well locations, it was difficult to obtain direct measurement of
produced oil from each well, and with the time interval between
well tests continuing to increase (more than one month between
tests), the field performance could not be properly evaluated.
If the use of a portable MPFM could achieve quicker turn-
around time and effective work-over decisions, the MPFM
measurements could be used to:
• improve production allocations (calibration of current
procedure)
• identify trends per zone (shallow, main, deep, etc.) to
better define priorities for work-overs
• identify work required on surface facilities.
Multi-Phase Meter Operating Principle
The major parts of this MPFM are the Venturi insert and the
electrodes incorporated within the throat of the Venturi insert.
The flow rates of oil, water, and gas are calculated based on the
measurements obtained by the electrodes and the measurement
of the differential pressure across the Venturi inlet. No
separating devices, mixers, by-pass lines or radioactive sources
are used in this MPFM concept. Figure 1 shows the cross-
sectional view of the meter. The principle of operation is
summarized in the block diagram shown in Figure 2. The
differential pressure is measured across the inlet of the Venturi
insert. The capacitance or conductance of the mixture flowing
through the Venturi insert is measured by the electrodes inside
the Venturi throat. The velocity is found from cross-correlating
the high resolution time signals from pairs of electrodes within
the Venturi insert.
Unlike most other MPFMs, the MPFM used here does not
measure the fluid-mixture density directly, as there is no gamma
densitometer. However, the density is determined indirectly
through the momentum equation (i.e., the “Venturi equation”).
The set of equations used in the calculations of the fractions
are listed below:
Cap . /Cond . = f (α , β , γ , ε oil / σ water ) 1)
Density = f ( DP,Velocity) = f (α , β , γ , ρ o , ρ w , ρ g ) . . (1)
α + β + ρ = 1.0
1)
Capacitance and oil permittivity (εoil) apply for oil-continuous
mixtures while conductance and water conductivity (σwater) apply for
water-continuous mixtures.
Capacitance or conductance, DP, and velocity are the input
measurements and are being measured by the electrodes and DP
transmitter. The permittivity of the oil (εoil), water conductivity
(σwater) and densities of oil, water and gas (ρo, ρw, ρg) are input
parameters entered into the user interface. The fractions of oil
(γ), water (β) and gas (α) are calculated from the equations
above.
The Water-in-Liquid Ratio (WLR) is defined as:
β
WLR = . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .(2)
β +γ
The set of equations for the calculation of flow rates are
listed below:
Oil Flow Rate = A ⋅ V ⋅ γ
Water Flow Rate = A ⋅ V ⋅ β . . . . . . . . . . (3)
Gas Flow Rate = A ⋅ V ⋅ α
The cross sectional area of the pipe (A) is known, based on
the geometry of the Venturi; the velocity (V) is measured by
cross-correlating the electrical signals from the electrodes; and
the fractions of oil, water and gas are found from the set of three
equations for the fractions, as indicated above.
Operating Envelope
The operational range for this multiphase meter is shown in
Figure 3. To make the diagram independent of piping and meter
dimensions, the term flow rate divided by the pipe cross section
area (also known as the superficial velocity) on the axes has
been used. This velocity can be explained also as the velocity of
one phase, based on its flow rate, if the other phases were not
present. The maximum limit (red line) of the operating range is
determined solely by the maximum limit of the differential
pressure cell. In this case, it is 2500 bar. The minimum limit
(blue line) is determined by the lower limit of the differential
pressure cell, as shown in the bottom left corner of the diagram
(solid blue line).
However, two other important effects have impact on the
lower limit of the range:
A minimum liquid flow rate is needed to create a continuous
flow through the meter. This means that a certain momentum is
required to prevent back flow through the main metering section
in which the velocity is measured by cross-correlation. In this
MPFM, this limit is lower than most other multi-phase flow
meters because of the fact that the velocity is measured in the
Venturi throat, and thereby, creates a higher velocity. The limit
is set at a superficial liquid velocity of 0.6 m/s (blue horizontal
line) in the main pipe line. An upper limit for the GVF is set at
97% (dotted and blue line).
Initial Well Test Set-up Description and Results
The initial well tests were conducted on a testing barge that
consisted of the standard well-test equipment with a three-phase
separator and an atmospheric tank. The well-test equipment
occupied the majority of the topside on this 20 meter barge. The
MPFM was installed upstream between the wellhead and the
SPE 92053
choke manifold. The first set of well tests from the MPFM was
not very promising when compared to the results obtained from
the well test equipment. The MPFM total liquid rate was within
±25% of the separator readings, and the gas rate was within
±30%. The following subsections address in detail why the test
results deviated from those derived from traditional well-testing
results.
Liquid Rate Comparison
Figure 4 shows the liquid rate comparison between the MPFM
and the three-phase separator reading after the first set of trials.
It can be seen that the liquid rate is underestimated by the
MPFM. This is primarily due to the relatively high GVF of the
fluid going through the meter. The GVF was so high that it
overshadows the liquid droplets in the flow, and as a result, the
liquid rate estimated was lower than the liquid actually flowing
through the MPFM.
Gas Rate Comparison
On the other hand, the gas rate was over estimated. Figure 5
shows the gas-rate response of the MPFM in comparison with
the separator. The deviation of the MPFM gas rates to the high
side can be attributed to the nature of flow that is happening with
the wells ― essentially, the fluid flowing with high gas-volume
fractions.
Had the MPFM and the three-phase separator reading been
the same, all the points plotted in Figures 4 and 5 would have
been on the unit slope straight line going through the origin of
the plot. This was not observed in either of these figures.
Solution to the Challenge
Since the wells were producing at a GVF of 90 to 99% and a
WC of 80 to 100%, they were essentially flowing in the water
continuous mode. As a result, the MPFM is measuring in the
conductance mode, as opposed to the capacitance mode where
the continuous phase would be oil.
When the MPFM is operating in the conductance mode, the
measurement is a function of the following;
1. Water cut.
2. Salinity of the water
3. Gas volume fraction (GVF) going through the meter.
Since the water cut and water salinity were beyond operator
control, the only parameter that could be effectively controlled
was the GVF of the fluid going through the MPFM. It was
determined that any reduction achieved in the GVF would assist
in achieving more reliable results from the MPFM and that this
reduction could only be achieved by having a mechanism strip
some of gas from the flow. While this would lower the GVF
going through the MPFM, it was important that the overall
measurement of the gas flow also be measured.
Figure 6 is a detailed block-diagram representation of the
conceptual GVF control system. In order to shift the flow
characteristics to the optimum part of the operating envelope, it
was important to reduce/modulate the GVF going through the
MPFM.3 However, at the same time, it was very important to
3
ensure that the other essential parameters such as the superficial
liquid velocity (VLS) through the meter and the DP across the
MPFM did not fall below the minimum required to obtain
reliable data. As a result, a control valve was placed on the gas
line in order to assist with the above objective of reducing the
GVF while ensuring that at the same time, the required
conditions were met. Based on the fluid flow rates from the
wells being monitored, it was virtually impossible to achieve
complete separation of the flow through the GVF control
system. The GVF control system would partially remove some
of the gas before the multiphase flow enters the MPFM. The
partially separated gas was measured using a separate gas meter,
and then, combined downstream of the MPFM with the gas
going through the MPFM to allow the total flow to go to the
pipeline carrying the gas to the gathering station. Figure 7 is a
representation of the gas measurement using the MPFM and the
GKO vessel. This is solved mathematically with:
QgT = (Qggko + Qgmpfm) . . . . . . . . . (4)
Where,
QgT = Total gas-flow rate.
Qggko= Gas flow rate going through the gas knock out
separator.
Qgmpfm= Gas flow rate going through the MPFM.
The amount of gas going through the GKO separator is a
function of
1. the fluid properties
2. the respective volumetric flow rates
3. percentage GCV opening.
Qggko = f (Vmix, DP, dρ, percentage opening of the GCV)
Where,
Vmix= mixture velocity through the MPFM.
dρ = density difference between the liquid and gas phase
In order to keep the project economical, a simple, rugged
method to achieve partial gas separation was targeted. And,
since it was also necessary to keep the equipment compact, the
design engineers decided to base the separation technique on
centrifugal separation.
In the design, the centrifugal separation is induced by a
cyclonic motion of the fluid owing to the mechanical design of
the inlet to the GKO vessel4,5. The centrifugal force causes the
heavier fluids such as the water and oil to move to the wall of
the vessel and slide down. The lighter particles (i.e., the gas)
move up the center of the induced cyclone to the top of the
vessel and exit from the gas outlet. The liquid and some of the
entrained gas pass through the liquid outlet at the bottom of the
vessel. In this case, the gas exiting from the top of the gas
knock-out separator is measured using a simple gas-turbine
meter.
Modified Set up and Results
After the GKO vessel was designed, it was incorporated into the
existing setup and was installed on the testing barge upstream of
the MPFM to achieve the desirable objectives of producing
4 SPE 92053
reliable results; i.e., reducing the uncertainty related to the liquid
flow rates and improve the accuracy. Figure 8 shows the
production and ID of the section where the GKO vessel change
was implemented. Figure 9 shows the picture of the actual
system after assembly. Upon deploying the system back into the
field on the same wells, favorable results were observed. These
are described below.
Upon deploying the system back into the field, the same
wells were tested again in order to verify the accuracy of the
modified MPFM system. Again, the results were favorable.
Liquid Rate Comparison
It can be seen in Figure 10 that the majority of the data points
for the liquid flow rate are within the allowable error margin of
±10%. The results are shown in the comparison of the flow-rate
readings between the MPFM and the standard well-test
separator. These improved results are owing to the reduced GVF
going through the MPFM, which provides optimum conditions
for the meter.
It can be seen that there are two data points in Figure 10 that
are outside the prescribed limit, and these are attributed to the
following conditions:
1. The point in the upper half of the diagonal in the graph is
due to the initial fine tuning problems with the gas
knock-out separator.
2. The second point in the lower half of the diagonal in the
graph is due to low liquid rates going through the meter,
and as a result of the low liquid rate, the MPFM is at a
lower operating limit with regards to the DP and VLS.
This shows that when the operating limits of the meter
are not maintained, it cannot achieve reliable liquid
readings.
Gas Rate Comparison
The gas-rate comparison between the MPFM and the separator
is shown Figure 11. It is observed that majority of the gas
measurement points are within the required ±10% deviation
margin compared to the standard-condition flow rate derived
from the separator calculations.
GVF Reduction
The tests performed with the GKO vessel resulted in the desired
lower GVF going through the MPFM. The reduction in the GVF
was between 6 to 12 percent, depending upon which well was
tested. Figure 12 shows the GVF before and after using the
GVF control system during a well test on a particular well. It can
be seen that the reduction in GVF is achieved as soon as the
GKO vessel is operated to control the GVF. The change in the
GVF was closely monitored on all the wells and recorded during
the entire test period. The gas line on the GKO separator was
intermittently checked for any liquid carryover. No signs of
liquid carryover or traces of liquid were seen in the gas line.
Figure 13 is a bar-graph illustrating GVF comparison for
different wells on which the system was tested before and after
the GVF control skid was used. Upon achieving the reduction in
GVF of the fluid flowing through the MPFM, the wells were in
the optimum part of the operating envelope. The uncertainty of
liquid measurement was reduced. Hence, results obtained for all
the fluid rates through the system were within the tolerance level
of ±10% as specified by the operating company.
Conclusions
The following results have been obtained from the modifications
applied to the MPFM
• A simple and rugged gas-knock-out vessel design was
successfully applied in a field application and achieved high
efficiency with the MPFM in this welltest application.
• The liquid-rate measurement uncertainty in a high-gas-
volume fraction (GVF) environment can be reduced to
provide better results by the use of a GVF control
mechanism. This can be seen by the reduction in deviation
of the liquid-rate measurement from ±30% to ±10%. For the
purposes of definition, deviation here is the difference
between the flowing rates measured from the MPFM
against that measured from the test separator.
• The reduction in GVF was between 6% and 12%. This was
dependent upon the varying flowing conditions in the wells
included in this case history.
• The MPFM with the GKO vessel is cost effective and
inherently safe when compared to the traditional ways of
field surveillance, which employ a test separator, calibration
vessels, burner booms, and additional piping. This cost
efficiency results from the reduction in equipment needed as
well as the approximately 60% reduction in manpower
required to manage the equipment. In addition to providing
greater cost efficiency, reducing manpower exposure to
hazardous operating conditions and areas enhances
personnel safety.
• This system has preferred application in areas with strict
environmental codes relating to flaring of the hydrocarbons.
This is due to the inherent measurement technique, which
does not require separation of the liquid and gas for
metering. Traditional field surveillance equipment requires
the separated gas to be flared unless an expensive
compression system is available to compress the gas and
inject it back in to the pipeline.
• As it stands today, MPFM technology is applicable to oil-
bearing fields with gas-volume fractions (GVF) of up to
85% at flowing wellhead conditions. However, beyond this
GVF, the uncertainty associated with the MPFM reading
increases. Use of the gas knock-out vessel has reduced this
uncertainty, and as a result, has shifted the operating
envelope towards the “Optimum” region of the MPFM
operating envelope. This has resulted in increased operator
confidence in the system.
• The footprint of the MPFM is very small, and with the
inclusion of gas knock-out vessel, there is no significant
increase in the systems footprint. In addition, the physics of
measurement of this particular MPFM; i.e., no radioactive
source for density determination, makes this system
SPE 92053 5

applicable to many global areas as it does not require References

compliance to local radioactive legislations of various 1. Falcone, G., Hewitt, G.F., Alimonti, C., Harrison, B., “Multi-Phase
countries. Flow Metering: Current Trends and Future Developments”,
Journal of Petroleum Technology,” June 2002, pp. 77-84.
2. Hasabe, B., etal., “Field Qualification of Four Multiphase
Future Recommendations Flowmeters on North Slope, Alaska”, SPE 90037 presented at the
Future recommendations include automating the existing system 2004 SPE ATCE held in Houston, TX September 26-29, 2004.
so that the GVF control is automatic, based on signals from the 3. Kaura, Jiten D., “Stretching the Operating envelope of the
computer. This would require taking the GVF signal coming Multiphase Meter Using the Gas Volume Fraction Modulation” M
from the meter combined with the DP across the venturi as well Sc Thesis at Heriot Watt University, 2004.
as the superficial liquid velocity through it. This could be 4. Kurokawa, J., “Gas-Liquid Flow Characteristics and Gas-Separation
accomplished by using a programmable logic controller where Efficiency in a Cyclone Separator,” ASME FED-Vol. 225, Gas
the incoming reading is compared to the set point, and the Liquid Flows, 1995, pp. 51-57.
automated valve adjusts its position to the point where the GVF 5. Chang F, And Dhir, V. K.: “Turbulent Flow Field in Tangentially
Injected Swirl Flows in Tubes”, Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow, 1994,
control can be exerted by maintaining the other parameters; i.e., 15, pp. 346-356.
the DP and the superficial liquid velocity within the operating
envelope. However, the economic feasibility of this plan must be
SI Metric Conversion Factors
further evaluated based on such factors as the length of the ft x 3.048* E - 01 =m
project and the type of application under consideration. in x 2.54* E + 00 = cm
psi x 6.894 757 E + 00 = kPa
bar x 1.0* E + 05 = Pa

*Conversion factor is exact.

Figure 1 ― Cross-Sectional view of the MPFM

6 SPE 92053

WC Flow
Fraction Oil
Rate
Models Models

Density GVF

Water

Capacitance and
Conductance
Electrodes
X-Correlation (Velocity) Gas

Venturi for
Differential
Pressure

Flow Direction

Figure 2 ― Measurement Principle

SPE 92053 7

10,0

Max limit
Liquid Flow Rate / Pipe area [ m/s ]

8,0
Min limit
DP Min limit
VLS = 0,6 m/s
6,0
GVF = 97 %

4,0

Operational Range
TopFlow Multiphase
Multi-Phase Meter
Flow Meter
2,0

0,0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Actual Gas Flow Rate / Pipe area [ m/s ]
Figure 3 ― Operating Envelope of the MPFM

MPFM Liquid Rate Response to the Flow Conditions

OUTPUT
3000

FastQ
3" FastQ meter
Liquid Flow Rate
Balikpapan
2500
TFE
INPUT
2000
Flow With
Extremely
FastQ (bpd)

High GVF (90

– 99%) & Very 1500

High Water
Cut (80 –
100%) 1000

TFE 9-17 March 2003

500

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

MPFM Separator (bpd)

Figure 4 ― Liquid rate comparison between the MPFM and Separator

8 SPE 92053

MPFM Gas Rate Response to the Flow Conditions

OUTPUT
2500

Gas Flow Rate

FastQ
3" TopFlow meter
INPUT 2000 Balikpapan
TFE
Flow With
Extremely
High GVF (90 FastQ (mscfd) 1500

– 99%) &
Very High
Water Cut
(80 to 100%) 1000

500

TFE 9-17 March 2003

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Separator (mscfd)

MPFM

Figure 5 ― Gas rate comparison between the MPFM and Separator

Gas rate out

from gas meter
GVF set GVF Gas Control
point Controller Valve (GCV)
Gas rate out
from MPFM

Monitor GVF and VLS

through the MPFM

Figure 6 ― Conceptual GVF Control system block diagram

SPE 92053 9

Gas
meter

Partial Gas
scrubbing MPFM
system

Figure 7― Gas rate addition

2” 2” gas
wellstream
Production Gas
Wing Valve 6” dia X Turbine
Swab PI Meter
ES 10’ height MPFM
Valve
DV
Service
Wing 39 Master
39 Valves 2” liquid
Annulus 39
Valves
39 Knock Out Pot

FROM
RESERVOIR

OIL AND GAS IN PROCESS

OIL IN PROCESS
GAS IN PROCESS
WATER IN PROCESS

Figure 8 ― P&ID of the Modified System

10 SPE 92053

Gas Outlet

Gas KO
pot

Multiphase
MPFM
Fluid Inlet

Multiphase fluid outlet

Figure 9 ― The GKO pot and the MPFM layout.

System Liquid Rate Response to the Flow Conditions

OUTPUT

Liquid Rate Comparison between the FastQ & Separator with the Gas KO in use

3000

INPUT 2700

Flow with 2400

Extremely 2100
High GVF (90
– 99%) & 1800

Very High
Separator

Water Cut (80 1500

– 100%) 1200

900

600

300

0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000
FastQ w ith the gas KO pot

Gas knock out

separator with
MPFM

Fig 10 ― The Liquid rate comparison between MPFM and Separator

SPE 92053 11

System Liquid Rate Response to the Flow Conditions

OUTPUT
Gas Rate
LiquidComparison Between
Rate Comparison between the MPFM
the FastQ & Separator and
with the Gas KO inSeparator
use
With the Gas KO in Use.
3000

INPUT 2700

Flow with
2400

Extremely 2100
High GVF (90
– 99%) & 1800

Very High

Separator
1500
Water Cut (80
– 100%) 1200

900

600

300

0
0 300 600 900 1200 1500 1800 2100 2400 2700 3000
FastQ w ith the gas KO pot

Gas knock out

separator with
MPFM

Figure 11―Gas rate comparison between MPFM and Separator

GVF through the MPFM

0.9

GVF through the MPFM

0.85
GVF through the meter
when the GKO pot is
clos ed.

0.8 Open the GKO for GVF

control.
GVF

0.75
GVF through the m eter
when the GKO pot is
opened.

0.7

0.65
11:45:00
11:53:00
12:01:00
12:09:00

12:33:00
12:41:00
12:49:00
12:57:00

13:13:00

13:29:00
13:37:00
13:45:00
13:53:00
14:30:00

14:46:00

15:02:00
15:10:00
15:18:00
15:26:00

15:50:00
15:58:00
16:06:00
16:14:00
16:22:00
16:30:00

16:54:00
11:37:00

12:17:00
12:25:00

13:05:00

13:21:00

14:38:00

14:54:00

15:34:00
15:42:00

16:38:00
16:46:00
hh.mm

Figure 12 ― GVF History through the MPFM for GVF control

12 SPE 92053

120
GVF before deploying GKO pot
GVF after deploying GKO pot

100

80
GVF

60

40

20

0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Wells

Figure 13 ― GVF comparison before and after use of the GKO vessel.