OTC-26754-MS

Role of Flow Assurance in Integrated Asset Modelling-A Comparitive Case

Study
Rubakumar Sankararaj, Shoaib Memon, Priyanka Jagadip, and Andrew Wadsley, Stochastic Simulation Ltd

Copyright 2016, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference Asia held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 22–25 March 2016.

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

Abstract
Integrated Asset Management (IAM) solutions provides an excellent platform for combining data from
multiple sources (subsurface to markets). The level of detail incorporated in such models determines the
usefulness of such tools in reservoir management. The integrated modelling tools can be as simple as
combining decline profiles to very detailed 3D numerical simulation models coupled to thermodynamic
pipelines and facility network with risk management logic represented externally. This study makes an
effort to address the issue of differentiating flow assurance models from forecasting tools. The advantages
of using IAM tools with optimal detail for questions faced by an engineer are discussed through a real field
application.
IAM solutions are becoming the norm in the industry to assist engineers and planners formulate sound
investment decisions. Modern IAM tools have been documented to increase annual revenues in excess of
100 million USD. In this paper, we discuss the inputs required to build such IAM tools and the types of
analysis typically conducted in such tools.
The role of flow assurance is inevitable in field development but increasingly we see the misuse of the
technology under different circumstances. Here a case study is conducted on a real field Integrated Asset
Model comprising of more than 20 gas/gas condensate reservoirs in Oceania. A typical network modelling
tool is utilized to construct the entire field model with fields represented through pressure based type
curves/ material balance tanks connecting platforms to facilities through pipelines.
The IAM model is used to conduct flow assurance study, field development optimization, short-term
and long term forecasting. In each case, the effect of pipeline flow formulations, temperature tracking,
velocity constraints etc., are discussed and its implications on model runtime and accuracy is presented.
The understanding is important to make IAM more efficient and effective to carry out the different
scenario analysis.
The results show the flow assurance model comprised of detailed representation of flow behavior is
useful in field development planning but they tend to be very slow due to large amount of details required.
The forecasting model with necessary inputs tends to produce similar results and proves to be effective
in conducting large number of scenario analysis.
2 OTC-26754-MS

Recommendations are made to an engineer when looking to employ a detailed IAM model aimed at
flow assurance as compared to forecasting studies. Guidelines are presented to planners/engineers on
awareness of computational overhead when considering an IAM study.

Introduction
Integrated Asset Modeling studies are carried out by engineers for various phases of field development.
The typical functions of such models are in forecasting, flow assurance, feasibility studies and project
economic evaluations. The details of the IAM models decide its usability i.e., the more detailed the
integration and physical flow descriptions in the optimization system, the slower the model run time but
it can provide greater accuracy. On the other hand, simple mathematical formulations with minimal flow
equations can lead to faster solution times but might not be representative for field decisions.(1) So
engineers should select optimal level of details through a balanced approach.
Flow Assurance is a vital criterion for every hydrocarbon field development planning right from the
start of field evaluation studies till the late field life when improved or enhanced recovery options could
be considered. Field development plans carried out without incorporating flow assurance can lead to major
setbacks and result in enormous waste of time and resources. (1) In an IAM model the details necessary
to avoid any flowassurance issue can be input as rate, pressure, velocity or temperature constraints.
The IAM solutions put together for field studies should provide the framework for handling different
level of details. Currently the tools used to provide such framework are brought together by combining
multiple special purpose simulation technologies. (2)This type of end to end combination through multiple
tools can be useful in some cases. But these network simulations incorporating well, reservoir and process
simulators etc., tend to be very slow. This is due to: computational time of individual simulations
conducted sequentially, data transfer overhead and multiple application management. Such detailed
models can take anywhere between 8 hours to 3 days to complete a single run. The application of such
models will be usually carried out for long term forecasting.

Flow Assurance – As used in the Industry

The term ‘Flow Assurance’ is currently used in the industry about chemical / thermal effects affecting
operations of equipments and pipelines. The flow assurance study of a field can focus on wax deposition,
expected pigging timelines, hydrate formation and possible remedies such as injection of chemicals and
quantifying how much to inject. Since these processes have impact from thermal effects, considerations
have to be placed when modeling typical operational environments (onshore/offshore), possibility of
sensor failure, leak detection etc have to be accounted for and typical ranges have to be simulated.
While chemical and thermal impacts on operating the equipments are essential, we also need to
acknowledge the different uncertainty of inputs coming into these models. Typical uncertainties to be
considered are equipment downtime, change in reserves, uncertainty in fluid properties, temperature
effects together with demand/price uncertainty of current market scenarios. So the IAM framework must
be flexible enough to add/remove these details for specific study purpose. Here engineers should include
the flow assurance of the field under the above uncertainties as well. This aspect of study is only possible
with an optimization framework which is fast enough to run but incorporates enough physical processes
to be representative of the systems.
The elements of a typical IAM system is listed in Figure 1. We also refer to the paper(3) regarding the
level of details of such models and note their conclusion of the cost over defining the problem. So for an
effective IAM solution simple and fast models provide required answer in reasonable run time.
OTC-26754-MS 3

Figure 1—Detailed IAM solution

Figure 2—Simple Forecasting Solutions

Oil and Gas Network Optimization

The oil and gas network optimization is a multi-objective, non linear optimization problem which requires
lot of iterations on material balance and energy balance in a single time step. The simplifications can be
applied in various elements in the system which can improve the runtime without compromising too much
into accuracy. For an optimized solution, the thermal and velocity effects are then analysed to understand
whether there could be operational risk.
In this study we utilize a fully Integrated Asset Modeling tool which provides the framework with all
elements from reservoir to market representation with minmal communication with external applications.
We use a single phase pressure drop equation for pipelines and compare it with detailed multiphase
solution with temperature tracking for a group of gas / gas condensate fields flowing to common network.
Similar optimization studies were done previously in the works mentioned in References 4 and 5.
Case Study – Details
To illustrate the role of flow assurance in IAM, two models are developed on a real field comprising of
more than 20 gas/gas condensate reservoirs in Oceania. Figure 3 shows the IAM model of the fields used
in this study. A fully Integrated Network Modeling tool is utilized to construct the entire field model with
reservoir behavior represented through pressure based type curves/simple material balance tanks. These
typecurve based sources are connected to facilities through pipelines with pressure drop systems and
finally to market delivery.
4 OTC-26754-MS

Figure 3—IAM Model of fields used in the study

The scalable pressure dependent type curves consisting of gas potential, constrained gas rates due to
erosional limits, gas cumulative volume, different hydrocarbon and non hydrocarbon component fractions.
Ranking and Priorities have been set for the different platforms in the model to come online at different
stages of the field life rather than coming online initially. This triggering feature will ensure that demand
can be met throughout the fieldlife incase of poor performance from other wells. Parallel compressors with
pressure vs rate performance curve models are represented in the network.
The pipelines, being a major component in gas gathering system, impose constraints on the operation
of the network due to the pressure drop resulting from the flow of gas through the line. Single and
Multiphase pressure drop correlations have been used to calculate the pressure drop across the pipeline,
given the pipeline length, elevation, internal diameter, temperature and liquid content.
The facilities in the model have been modelled in terms of inlet pressure, outlet pressure and the flow
rate. Product extraction schedule has been defined at the faciltiltes. By specifying the source of gas being
processed, gas has been modelled for fuel and flaring purposed. Five compressors have been used in this
model inorder to compress the gas stream to a pressure sufficient for sales. Pressure vs rate dependent
performance curves are utilized for modelling compressors. Compressors are designed to come online at
certain stages in field life
Case A: The network model with simple pressure drop equation (Weymouth), where we consider all
the hydrocarbon molecules in gas phase, is utilized for calculations.
Case B: The network model is constructed with multiphase pressure drop solution (Beggs and Brill)
where we consider gas and liquid phase pressure drops.
Short Term Forecasting E&P companies usually tend to produce two types of forecasts i.e, short and
long term forecasts. Short term forecasts looks at immediate field operations that are happening at present
/ expected to happen in 1 – 3 months. A number of alternate scenarios to handle uncertainties are modeled.
The short term forecasting of the model is aimed to address the following questions.
i. What are the operational network pressure and rate bottlenecks in the system?
OTC-26754-MS 5

ii. Can optimized rates cause system downtime?

iii. Can Peak system load be handled without any market disruptions?
Long Term Forecasting The long term forecasting is used for scheduling new field developments and
facility upgrades (like compression) etc. The typical timeframe of long term forecasts are any where from
3 years to 20 years or more. These optimization results should provide the answers to the following
questions.
i. When do we expect to bring the fields online?
ii. What are cost evaluations of installing a facility upgrade vs another field development?
iii. What is the likelihood of exceeding system operational limits (not constraining)?
Results
To demonstrate the use of IAM model in field devleopment and flow assurance perspective two cases are
constructed. These two cases are utilized for four scenarios as shown below along with the results. In each
scenario we present our recommendation of which level of detail to be utilized for best operational
decisions.
Scenario 1: Short Term Forecasting – Flow Assurance The purpose of the Flow Assurance model in
short term forecasting is to constrain/monitor the velocity and temperature of the different nodes
accurately. The common EOS fluid model should be subjected to pressure and temperature analysis to
identify critical temperature and velocity inputs to avoid any flow issues in the pipelines and equipements
(eg. Wax deposition, Gas Hydrate formation). Once identified, we can use pressure and rate constraints
at different nodes/metering points to provide acceptable operational solution while meeting the average/
peak demand.

Figure 4 —System Bottleneck flags for operational constraints (highlighted in red)

6 OTC-26754-MS

So here the two cases A and B were run to identify the operational limits of the facilities and to ensure
the safe working limits of the plants. Rates of certain facilties were constrained and demand was
montitored for one year in daily time step. As you can see in the Figures the field allocation provided by
back pressure model is different for both cases. So here we identify Case B with detailed multiphase
solution to be operationally sufficient. The model run times increases (by factor of 5) if we constrain the
models through erosional velocity constraints. So engineers should use these based on the time available
for forecasting runs.

Figure 5—Facility Inlet Rates Comparison: Case A and Case B

OTC-26754-MS 7

Figure 6 —Facility Inlet Pressure Comparison: Case A and Case B

Figure 7—Iinital production profile (without constraints): Case B

8 OTC-26754-MS

Figure 8 —Iinitial production profile (without constraints): Case A

Figure 9 —Production profile with constraints: Case B

OTC-26754-MS 9

Figure 10 —Production profile with constraints: Case A

Scenario 2: Short Term Forecasting – Field Operations study Apart from field operational issues,
the gas / gas condensate field operations require optimization of right field mix to supply for different
contracted markets. Also it is essential to identify new spot market LNG opportunities for which the field
production can be utilized. Here we add more details to the forecasting models in the market side. We
specify domestic gas, LNG and Condensate markets with quality specifications such as maximum heating
value content, N2 mole percent etc.
The aim of the model was to monitor the required market specifications. Heating values were
constrained and monitored for both multiphase and single phase pressure drop models. The results in
Figures 11 and 12 show how these two models perform. The differences between two optimization results
were not significant overall.
10 OTC-26754-MS

Figure 11—Short Term Optimised Field Production: Case A

Figure 12—Short Term Optimised Field Production: Case B

OTC-26754-MS 11

Scenario 3: Long Term Forecasting – Flow Assurance The models A and B are run to study the Flow
Assurance aspect of forecasting. From chemical compositional studies of all field wide fluid models,
critical erosional velocities and pressures were identified. These are introduced in network models as
license pressure on pipelines and facilities. Similarly, the erosional velocities were monitored and flagged
when the velocities exceeded.
The simulation enabled us to identify the time and which equipments may exceed the license limits in
future. The single and mutiphase pressure drop models were compared on performance and accuracy. The
optimization solutions were similar in both the cases as shown in the Figure 13.

Figure 13—License Pressure constrained at different facilities

12 OTC-26754-MS

Scenario 4: Long Term Forecasting – Field Development Study In this scenario, we use the model
for long term field development optimization purposes. New fields discovered were assigned new ranking
and provided with earliest time for field production. These reservoirs were brought online using trigger
logic in optimization framework. Results and time taken to run the models for single and multiphase
pressure drop model were compared. The effect of changing the onstream dates of the platforms on the
entire production profile were analysed. Platforms 1,2 and 3 were compared by triggering them in 2017
and in 2025 to see the effect on Platform 4.
Figures 14 and 15 represent the overall change in production profile with a changing onstream date for
Cases A and B respectively. Figure 16 represents the production rate of four platforms, all coming
onstream in 2015 with Case A. In Figure 17, the onstream date of platforms 1,2 and 3 were pushed to
2025. This changing effect of onstream date is reflected on platform 4. Similarly, the results for Case B
are depicted in Figures 18 and 19.

Figure 14 —Field Production Profile with changing onstream dates: Case A

OTC-26754-MS 13

Figure 15—Field Production Profile with changing onstream dates: Case B

Figure 16 —Platform producing rates with initial onstream date: Case A

14 OTC-26754-MS

Figure 17—Platform producing rates with an onstream date of 2025: Case A

Figure 18 —Platform producing rates with initial onstream date: Case B

OTC-26754-MS 15

Figure 19 —Platform producing rates with an onstream date of 2025: Case B

Conclusion
Integrated Asset Modeling frame works can support a large range of detailed simulation elements. But in
many occasions we find engineer’s time is spent in setting up too complex a model for a decision to be
made. To identify the level of details sufficient in short and long term forecasting four different scenarios
were prepared. In each scenarios two different versions of a real field gas/gas condensate IAM model is
tested. The simpler models could serve as possible alternative in certain cases.
We present the following recommendations when considering IAM solution for decision making from
our experiments.
● In short term forecasting it is observed that when pressure and rate constraints used along with
velocity monitoring provides best results in run time and accuracy. If erosional velocity constraints
are used it tends to slow down the optimization.
● Also when optimizing on correct field mix for market supply, we observe for pipelines carrying
low condensate volumes single phase pressure drop solutions provide sufficient accuracy and very
fast convergence.
● For long term forecasting we identify single phase considerations provide reasonable accuracy for
guiding field development decisions but for equipment selection decisions it is recommended to
utilize detailed multiphase, thermal solutions.
● It is also observed that preparation of common EoS fluid model is challenging for multiphase
detailed workflow with small number of components and sufficient time has to be spent analyzing
flow regions where we expect chemical/thermal flow assurance issues.
16 OTC-26754-MS

References
1. Charles C Okafor, ⬙Breaking the Frontiers for effective Flow Assurance using Integrated Asset Models (IAM)⬙, SPE
149537, 2011
2. Göbel, Derek; Cramer, Ron; Briers, Jan; De Boer, Frank; Lai, Kok-Lam; Hooimeijer, Martijn. ⬙The path to a
Real-Time Optimized, Integrated gas Networks-Smart Fields Applied⬙, IPTC 14490, 2012
3. Sodi Toby, ⬙Making the Best of Integrated Asset Modelling⬙, SPE 171161, 2014
4. Sunhaji, Iman; Gorden, William C; Khalid, Khadijah; Liew, Alex; Jaynes, Scott. ⬙Integration of Multi-Functional
Disciplines to Optimally Develop a Greenfields gas Development Project: Example from T field, Malaysia⬙, IPTC
16877, 2013
5. Yates, D; Chong, L; & Dale-Pine, B. ⬙Maximising the value of the North-West Shelf Project using the DIME
Forecasting and Optimisation Tool⬙, SPE 88555, 2004