See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/318766495

Debottlenecking XYZ Flowstation to Increase Capacity and Optimize

Performance

Conference Paper · July 2017

DOI: 10.2118/189152-MS

CITATIONS READS
0 609

3 authors, including:

Adetiloye Bamisebi
Technische Universität Bergakademie Freiberg
6 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Adetiloye Bamisebi on 12 September 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

SPE-189152-MS

Debottlenecking XYZ Flowstation to Increase Capacity and Optimize

Performance

Dixon Nwosu, Adetiloye Bamisebi, and Goodluck Eleazu, Energia Limited

Copyright 2017, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Nigeria Annual International Conference and Exhibition held in Lagos, Nigeria, 31 July – 2 August 2017.

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 have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract
The XYZ field has a single-train two-stage separation facility consisting of a 3-phase test separator, a
3-phase HP separator, and a 3-phase LP separator. The reservoirs are of volatile-oil/condensate type,
producing with comparatively high GOR and high FTHP. Its current production potential is 6,200bopd and
a 35MMscfd, increasing steadily to a peak of 26,000bopd and 98MMscfd by 2022. Thus, in view of this
anticipated increase in field production, it is expedient to assess the capacity and performance of the station,
identifying bottlenecks that need to be addressed as well as defining requirements for the field's further
development programme. Process simulation models, based on the facility's existing configuration and the
proposed configuration, were developed with Aspen Hysys v7 using the Peng-Robinson fluid package. API
12J and API 14E criterion were then employed to determine the fluid handling capacity of the vessels and
the sizing adequacy of the process lines respectively.
Results showed that the flow-station, which can handle the current field production albeit a minor
restriction by the HP Flare KO Vessel outlet line and flare line, cannot handle the forecast production beyond
2016 owing mainly to limitations in the HP separator gas handling, under-sized process lines and an ultimate
restriction from the LP separator oil outlet line. With peak production of 26,000 bopd, the station needs to
be upgraded and debottlenecked by installing an XHP separator, as well as replacing identified under-sized
lines, to resolve the identified constraints. The XHP separator, which constitutes an additional separation
stage, will enhance liquid recovery amounting to 500bopd starting from 2019, decrease waste associated
gas production and conserve off-separator gas pressure.

Introduction
The XYZ Field is an onshore field with a single train two-stage separation facility, consisting of a 3-phase
test separator, a 3-phase HP separator, a 3-phase LP Separator, and related ancillaries. Its current production
potential is 6, 200bopd and 35MMscfd, increasing steadily to 11,000bopd and 50MMscfd and peaking
at 26 Mbopd and 98 MMscfd by 2024. The reservoirs are of volatile / condensate type, producing with
comparatively high GOR, and high FTHP.
2 SPE-189152-MS

In view of the anticipated increase in field production, it is imperative to assess the facility's current
performance and determine its ability to process increased fluid flow with the attendant effect of a high gas
profile from the well streams.
The objectives of this study, which was undertaken against the background of the field's reservoir
characteristics and the well's production profile are:

• Identify bottlenecks leading to low oil recovery yield in the facility.

• Retrofit the facility to optimize its performance and process the anticipated rise in field production
at minimal cost.
• Enhance the safety of the facility.

Reservoir Characteristics and Production Profile

• Volatile oil & condensate-type reservoirs with more gas than oil production

• High-pressure well streams that are fit for high-pressure AG delivery

• High reservoir pressures, currently 4,071 – 4,772 psia

• High solution gas (Rs), ranging from 2,000 – 3,200 scf/stb

• High Bo ranging from 2.24 – 2.66 rb/stb

• Low viscosity reservoir oil, 0.15 – 0.41 cP

• Light / low viscosity tank oil: 43.2 – 53.2 °API / 0.32 cs

Four wells - XYZ-1, XYZ-4, XYZ-5, XYZ-6, and XYZ-7 - are already on stream. With the exception of
XYZ-1, all the wells have been completed with dual strings. To increase the field production up to 11,
200bopd and 50MMscf in 2020, two additional wells, XYZ-8 and XYZ-9, are to be drilled and brought on-
stream by 2020. Peak production of 26,000bopd and 98MMscf is then achieved by drilling nine additional
wells, XYZ-10 to XYZ-18, by 2024.

Figure 1—Production Forecast for the XYZ Field

SPE-189152-MS 3

Current Process and Operations

The current process scheme, a 2-stage separation process scheme, involves a flow distribution design that
fully takes the properties of the different well streams into account and operationalizes the test separator
(when no well is on test, some well streams are routed to the test separator for fluid separation through the
test header). A line heater is installed immediately downstream of the HP separator for emulsion treatment.
The four condensate wells, 6L, 6S, 7L, and 7S, are too fragile to join other streams for heating and are
routed separately to the Test separator. All other well strings are routed to the HP Separator except 4S whose
FTHP is not comparatively high enough for the HP header competition. The liquid from the LP separator,
operating at 40 – 60psig, flows to the storage tank with a considerable amount of gas being vented into the
atmosphere from the tanks.
However, in view of the properties of the well streams (high GOR and high FTHP), the 2-stage separation
configuration is deemed to be sub-optimal for the processing of the well streams. A 3-stage configuration,
on the deployment of an XHP separator, is proposed as a better fit for the high-pressure well streams for
increased liquid recovery and reduced waste gas production. While the four condensate wells are routed
through the Test separator, all other well streams, except 4S whose FTHP is comparatively low, are routed
to the XHP separator.

Process Simulation Method

A steady-state process model of the XYZ field, based on the existing process flow diagram and flow
distribution, was created using Aspen Hysys v7.3 with the Peng-Robinson equation of state (EOS) as the
fluid package. The feed streams were defined according to the well stream temperatures, composition and
molar flow.
Stream compositions for XYZ-1 to XYZ-7 were inputted in line with the PVT data on the well streams.
For XYZ-8 and XYZ-9, which are to come on-stream in 2019, the PVT data for XYZ-4 and XYZ-1 were
used respectively as both wells are to deplete the same reservoirs as the afore-mentioned wells. This method
was also used to distribute the PVT data to the other wells which are yet to come on stream. In cases where
the PVT data did not match the production forecast, a make-up gas stream had to be introduced.
Various simulation cases, based on the current, imminent and peak production rates, were set up to
establish the process performance of the facility:

• A 2-stage process-train comprising the HP (20ft × 5ft), LP (20ft × 5ft) and Test separators
(16ft × 4ft) as currently being operated. The static head pressures of the HP, LP, and Test are
285psig,40psig, and 285psig respectively.
• A 3-stage process train comprising the XHP (Extra High Pressure), HP (High Pressure), LP (Low
Pressure), Test separators and a surge vessel. The static head pressures of the XHP, HP, LP, and
Test are 285psig,150psig,40psig, and 150psig respectively.
4 SPE-189152-MS

Figure 2—Process Schematic of the 2-stage Separation System at Peak Production

Figure 3—Process Schematic of the 3-stage Separation System at Peak Production

The temperature of the oil stream exiting the line heater was set as 60°C.
Simulation results, on the convergence of the inlet and outlet streams, were then used in line with the
stated criteria in API 12J and other proprietary process engineering design standards to establish the gas-
SPE-189152-MS 5

handling capacity, nozzle sizing, and performance of the separators. Also, a sizing approach based on API
14E and other process engineering design standards was carried out on the in-plot process lines

System Capacity Checks and Bottleneck Identification

The basic system units covered in the capacity checks are:

• The inlet manifold/headers (HP, LP, Test).

• The feed inlet lines to the separator vessels, heaters, flare knock-out vessels, and storage tanks

• The separator vessels (HP, LP).

• Vessel feed inlet nozzles, gas outlet nozzles, and oil outlet nozzles.

• The flare knock-out vessels.

Table 1—Line, Vessel, and Nozzle Sizing Criteria

6 SPE-189152-MS

System Capacity Checks Summary

Table 2—System Sizing Summary for the XHP Separator System

Capacity Checks and Line Sizing: HP Separator System

Under the 2-stage scenario, the vessel and its piping are adequately sized to handle the current field
production as its gas load factor, calculated based on the maximum liquid level, is less than the design
criteria of 0.07. However, the system will require a great deal of debottlenecking to handle the imminent
and peak field production. Particularly, the vessel piping will be resized to more than twice the diameter
of the original piping (6" to 10", 8" to 18"). However, the 3-stage separation reduces the extent of the
debottlenecking required as the XHP system relieves the HP system of most of its gas load (the gas load
factor is less than 0.07 even at peak production). Some lines (HP header, HP separator gas outlet nozzle,
HP gas outlet line) which have been classified as inadequate under the 2-stage scenario are classified as
adequately sized under the 3-stage scenario.

Table 3—Capacity Checks for HP Separator in the 2-Stage Separation Case

SPE-189152-MS 7

Table 4—Capacity Checks for HP Separator in the 3-Stage Separation Case

Table 5—System Sizing Summary for the HP Separator System

Capacity Checks and Line Sizing: Test Separator System

Despite the fact that the same wells are routed to the Test separator in all three cases- imminent, current and
peak, the Test separator system requires a greater level of debottlenecking at peak production. This is due
to the fact that the GOR of the well streams has considerably increased, due to a drop in the liquid yield,
leading to a greater constraint on the system.
8 SPE-189152-MS

Table 6—System Sizing Summary for the Test Separator System

Capacity Checks and Line Sizing: LP Separator System

Line sizing studies show that the LP separator system's piping is inadequate to handle both the imminent
and the peak production rates. Irrespective of the process configuration adopted, the LP separator system
will still require the same level of debottlenecking. This is understandable as it is the last handling unit in
the separation process.

Table 7—Capacity Checks for the LP Separator in the 2-Stage Separation Case.
SPE-189152-MS 9

Table 8—Capacity Checks for the LP Separator in the 2-Stage Separation Case.

Table 9—System Sizing Summary for the LP Separator System

10 SPE-189152-MS

Capacity Checks for the Flare System

Table 10—System Sizing Summary for the Flare System

Case for XHP Deployment

The 3-Stage (XHP) Separation will yield the following benefits, compared with 2-Stage (HP):

• Additional liquid recovery of ca 2%, resulting in additional revenue. The additional oil recovery
will average about 500 bopd over the next 5 years, starting from 2019.
• Reduction in waste gas by up to 1%, eliminating flare penalty associated, in a situation of flaring.
This reduction in flared AG will average about 1 MMscfd over the next 5 years.
• Associated gas at high pressure for a CNG plant / third party gas off-taker

• Increase in overall flow-station capacity, - through the resolution of restrictions from HP vessel
and associates (in particular the HP header and vessel's gas outlet nozzle), - as the XHP vessel
picks up the feed load and associated gas up-front the HP system.
SPE-189152-MS 11

Table 11—Liquid Yield: 2-stage Separation vs 3-stage Separation

Indicative Cost/Benefit of the XHP Separator Deployment

Table 12—Cost Benefit Analysis for XHP Deployment

Key Findings
The facility can handle the current field production of 6,000bopd and 35MMscfd, albeit minor restriction by
the HP flare KO vessel outlet line and the flare line. However, with the imminent production of 11,000bopd
through to the peak production of 26,000bopd, the station needs to be upgraded or debottlenecked and hence
the need for a timely installation of an XHP separator.
12 SPE-189152-MS

The XHP separator is a prime debottlenecking equipment that resolves current constraints or reduces the
extent of debottlenecking that the constraints will require. In particular, the XHP system, contributing an
additional stage, will enhance liquid recovery, decrease waste gas AG production, reduce the gas load on
the HP separator system and conserve off-separator gas pressure. The XHP solution will be sufficient over
the time considered and further upgrade or a facility extension will only be required if the facility exceeds
the peak forecast of 26,000bopd.
Vessels’ inlet and outlet nozzles also pose their own restriction owing to the fact that they are undersized.
While undersized process lines limit flow rates and can cause erosion due to high fluid velocity, poor nozzle
sizing results in the poor distribution of the gas-liquid mixture resulting in severe liquid entrainment and poor
gas separation. However, it is not advisable to modify the nozzles as it will be cumbersome and will demand
vessel recertification. These limitations are however of process consideration, not of structural integrity
nature, and can be managed. However, it brings to light the need for proper nozzle sizing in future facilities.
The volume of gas being vented from the tanks is becoming substantial, rising to 6MMScfd by 2022.
This is due to the fact that the LP separator operates at a considerably high-pressure range of 40 – 60psi.
Thus, final degassing of the crude oil occurs at the tanks. Continuing with venting will pose a safety threat
to the facility, especially considering the fact that the gas is heavier than air and will accumulate at grade,
vulnerable to plume ignition. In view of this, it is recommended to install a surge vessel, directly downstream
of the LP separator, operating at new atmospheric pressure so that the gas can be gathered for monetization
or flaring.

Actions Required to Handle Peak Production

• Installation of XHP separator, - as an upgrade from the present 2-Stage (HP / LP) separation to 3-
Stage (XHP/HP/ LP) separation, and a surge vessel, - that will enable the gathering of the AP gas.
• Installation of the associated XHP flare KO vessel, and the associated XHP flare.

• Installation of the associated AP flare KO vessel, and the associated AP flare.

• Installation of crude export pumps, - for the transportation of the surge vessel crude to LACT /
storage tanks.
• Replacement of undersized In-plot process lines. These lines are:

◦ Test header, the Test separator inlet line, and the Test separator gas outlet line.

◦ HP separator inlet line and the HP separator outlet line.

◦ LP separator inlet Line, the LP separator gas outlet line, and the LP separator oil outlet line.

◦ HP flare gas header and the HP flare KOD gas outlet line.

◦ LP flare gas header and the LP flare KOD gas outlet line.

• Replacement of undersized relief valves & control valves.

A schematic of the proposed facility is shown below:

SPE-189152-MS 13

Figure 4—Proposed Schematic for the Debottlenecking of the Flowstation

Conclusion
Continuing with the operationalization of the Test separator to relieve the HP separator of the gas load is only
an interim solution. As more wells are brought on stream, field production rises, and total associated gas
production rises, it then becomes imperative to deploy the economically-justified XHP separator solution.
Notwithstanding the increased liquid yield translating to more revenue, the XHP solution resolves issues
relating to facility safety and pipe vibration.

Nomenclature
Bo Formation Volume Factor rb/stb
D Line Size (Diameter) in
Qg Gas Rate m3/s
Rs Solution Gas Ratio scf/stb
V Fluid Velocity through Conduit m/s
ve Erosional Velocity m/s
vm Mixture Velocity m/s
ρG Gas Density Kg/m3
ρm Mixture Density Kg/m3
ρm. vm2 Momentum Factor Pa
ρL Liquid Density Kg/m3
λG Gas Load Factor m/s
λG, max Maximum Gas Handling Factor m/s

Abbreviations
AG Associated Gas
Bopd Barrels of Oil per day
DR Discount Ratio
FTHP Flowing Tubing Head Pressure
HP High Pressure
LACT Lease Automatic Custody Transfer
14 SPE-189152-MS

GOR Gas-Oil Ratio

KOD Knock-out Drum
LP Low Pressure
LS Long String
Scfd Standard Cubic Feet per day
SS Short String
XHP Extra High Pressure

References
Aspen Hysys v7.3 User Guide, 2011 Burlington, Massachusetts, Aspen Technology Inc.
API 14E - Design and Installation of Offshore Production Platform Piping Systems, 1991, 5th Edition, Washington D.C.,
American Petroleum Institute.
API 12J - Specification for Oil and Gas Separators, 1989, 7th Edition, Washington D.C., American Petroleum Institute
API 521 - Guide for Pressure Relieving and Depressurizing Systems, 2007, 5th Edition, Washington D.C., American
Petroleum Institute.
Manning, F.S. and Thompson, R.E., 1995, Oilfield Processing of Petroleum, Volume 2, PennWell Publishing Company,
Tulsa, Oklahoma,
Sounders, M. and Brown, G.G., 1934, Design of Fractionating Columns, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry: 2691 –
2698
SPE-189152-MS 15

Appendices

A: Properties of the Well Streams from the XYZ Field

B: Stream Composition
16 SPE-189152-MS

C: Production Forecast for XYZ Field

SPE-189152-MS 17
18 SPE-189152-MS

D: System Capacity Checks Calculations at Peak Production

D1.1: 3-stage Separation System: XHP Separator System Inlet and Outlet Piping - Erosional Velocity
and Fluid Momentum

D2.1: 2-stage Separation System: Test Separator System Inlet Piping - Erosional Velocity and Fluid
Momentum

D3.1: 2-stage Separation System: HP Separator System Piping - Erosional Velocity and Fluid
Momentum
SPE-189152-MS 19

D3.2: 3-stage Separation System: HP Separator System Piping - Erosional Velocity and Fluid
Momentum

D4.1: 2-Stage Separation: LP Separator System Inlet Piping - Erosional Velocity and Fluid
Momentum
20 SPE-189152-MS

D4.2: 3-Stage Separation: LP Separator System Outlet Piping - Erosional Velocity and Fluid
Momentum

View publication stats