Al Huwaisah GGP Pipeline Project Hydraulic Report: Revision

Al-Huwaisah Area Development Project Integrated Engineering and Construction Co.
LLC
Hydraulic Report Petroleum Development Oman LLC
Al Huwaisah GGP Pipeline

Project
Hydraulic Report
Revision 02AO
Integrated Engineering and Construction Co. LLC Petroleum Development Oman LLC
P.O. Box 587, Ruwi P.O. Box 81
Postal Code 112 Mina Al Fahal, Postal Code 113
Sultanate of Oman Sultanate of Oman
Tel 00968 24852000 Tel 00968 24678111
Fax 00968 24815850 Fax 00968 24677106
GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000284411GK07-PRO-003 / Rev.A02O i
/conversion/tmp/scratch/498321988.doc/conversion/tmp/scratch/49
8321988.doc
Al-Huwaisah Area Development Project Integrated Engineering and Construction Co. LLC
Al Huwaisah GGP Pipeline Project
Hydraulic Report
SAP No. : 4500358080 / 40
WBS No. : COM.GHN.DP.10.001C.OM.XXX.XX.X

X.XXX.XXXX
IECC Job No. : 284411GK-07
Document No. : 284411GK07-PRO-003GGP-251-PX-

4603-10001-000
Issue and Revision Record
Rev Date Originator Checker Approver Description Client

Authorization
Issued for
01 27/02/11 MK RGK VSD
Comments
2311/035/
A02 MKSR RGK VSD Issued for Approval
11
This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the captioned project
only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose.
We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for
any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other
parties.
GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000284411GK07-PRO-003 / Rev.A02O ii
8321988.doc
List of Contents Page
Summary S-1
Abbreviations 2
1 2
2 Introduction 3
2.1 Document Objective 3
2.2 Background 3
3 Design Basis 4
3.1 Simulation package 4
3.2 Methodology 4
3.3 Input Data 4
3.3.1 Fluid Composition 4
3.3.2 Flowrates 5
3.3.3 Reservoir Pressure 6
3.3.4 Reservoir Temperature 6
3.3.5 Wellhead Piping Parameters 7
3.3.6 DSS Pipeline Parameters 7
3.3.8 Flow Correlations 8
3.4 Fluid composition for Pipesim 8
4 Hydraulic Analysis 10
4.1 Hydraulic Calculation Results 11
4.2 Observation on well network Hydraulic Analysis 29
4.3 Recommendation on well network Hydraulic Analysis 29
5 Reference Documents 30
Appendix A: Document A-1
Summary S-1
1 Abbreviations
2
2 Introduction
4
2.1 Document Objective

4
2.2 Background 4
3 Design Basis 5
3.1 Simulation package 5
GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000284411GK07-PRO-003 / Rev.A02O iii

8321988.doc
3.2 Methodology 5
3.3 Input Data 5
3.3.1 Fluid Composition 5
3.3.2 Flowrates 6
3.3.3 Reservoir Pressure 7
3.3.4 Reservoir Temperature 7
3.3.5 Wellhead Piping Parameters 8
3.3.6 DSS Pipeline Parameters 8
3.3.8 Flow Correlations 8
3.4 Fluid composition for Pipesim 98
4 Hydraulic Analysis 11
4.1 Hydraulic Calculation Results 12
4.2 Observation on well network Hydraulic Analysis 3124
4.3 Recommendation 3124

5 Reference Documents 3225
GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000284411GK07-PRO-003 / Rev.A02O iv
8321988.doc
Summary
This document provides a technical report on the hydraulics and the heat loss/temperature calculations
carried out for the flow line/pipeline gathering system, from the three Al-Huwaisah Wells, i.e. AH-
135, AH-173 and AH-G wells.
Gas from the Al-Huwaisah wells facility will be transported to new separator slug catcher (slug
catcher not part of this projectInlet Separator is to be installed under FSW Project) at Yibal GGP via a
32 kms DSS pipeline.
The hydraulic calculations have been carried out for the Al-Huwaisah gas pipeline for the arriving
pressure of 34-7 bar (a) bara in year 2011, 28bara in year 2013 and 20 bara in year 2018 at the Yibal-
GGP compressor suction. The Al-Huwaisah Wells maximum gas production capacity is 0.5
mmscmdMMscmd for the production year 2013 as per concept selection report.
Hydraulic study furnishes additional liquid/slug volume generated from Al- Huwaisah wells.
This document also furnishes the technical inputs used in the calculations for the DSS pipeline
materials, physical properties of the source fluids and the piping materials and the applicable
environmental and ambient data.
Please refer Ffig-ure 1 for sketch of the system
AH-135
Fahud Area
AH-G Gas
V-9206
Gas filter
AG separator
AG UG AG V-9311
Future Tie-ins
Slug Catcher
UG
UG
Yibal A
32 Kms 6'' DSS Line 0.05 kms Condensate
Pipeline
UG
AG
AH-173
Figure 1: Schematic for Al-Huwaisah Well Network
GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000/ Rev.02284411GK07-PRO-003 / 1
Rev.O
/conversion/tmp/scratch/498321988.doc
1 Abbreviations
2
Bcm : Billion Cubic Meters
BJA Baker Jardine and Associates
CGR : Condensate to Gas Ratio
CSR : Concept Selection Report
DSS : Duplex Stainless steel
FED : Front End Design
FSW : Fahud South West
FTHT : Flowing Tube Head Temperature
GBP : Gas Business Plan
GGP : Government Gas Plant
GIIP : Gas Initially In Place
HIPPS : High Integrity Protective Pressure System
ID : Internal Diameter
IECC : Integrated Engineering and Construction Co. LLC
MAOP : Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure
MMSCMD : Million Standard Cubic Meters per Day
Mw : Molecular Weight
NBP : Normal Boiling Point
ND : Nominal Diameter
P/L : Pipeline
PDO : Petroleum Development Oman LLC
PP : Polypropylene
RV : Relief Valve
SPGR : Specific Gravity
SP : Engineering Specification
GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000/ Rev.02284411GK07-PRO-003 / 2
Rev.O
VLE : Vapour – Liquid Equilibrium
WT : Wall Thickness
GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000/ Rev.02284411GK07-PRO-003 / 3
Rev.O
3 Introduction
3.1 Document Objective
The purpose of this document is to summarize the inputs, assumptions and output of the hydraulic
simulations, carried out as a part of front end engineering design of Al-Huwaisah Area development
project.
The purpose of the hydraulic analysis is to:

 To verify flowline / pipeline size for the design flow range.
 Verify whether the velocities and the backpressures in the pipes are within acceptable limits.
 To establish slug volume in DSS pipeline steady state condition.
In addition to above, this document also covers hydrate formation temperature and pressure for various
well fluid compositions.
3.2 Background
The Al Huwaisah Area consists of accumulation from Amin reservoir, which is located 22 km south-
east of the Yibal Government Gas Plant. The field contains essentially wet gas with a GIIP of 2.6
Bcm.
As part of GBP2007 it was decided to develop small fields in order to de-risk the Yibal Natih field in
the light of increasing gas demand. Al Huwaisah Area gas of 0.5 MMscmd will be treated in the
existing Yibal Government Gas Plant.
Based on GBP 2007, CSR was issued in 2007 and FED was initiated in 2008 and the project was put
on hold in 2008. Al Huwaisah development project is reinitiated in 2010 with revised scope and
addendum to earlier CSR issued by PDO in Jan, 2011.
Based on GBP 2007, CSR was issued in 2007 and FED was initiated in 2008 and the project was put
on hold in 2008010. Al Huwaisah development project is reinitiated in 2010 with revised scope and
addendum to earlier CSR issued by PDO in Jan, 2011.
The Al-Huwaisah Area gas @ 0.5 mmscmd will be treated in the existing Yibal Government Gas
Plant. As per Concept Selection Report, the following facility scope is envisaged. The bulk facilities
required for Al Huwaisah Area Development Project are:
 4” wellhead piping from the wells (AH-135, AH-173 and AH-G) of DSS, DEP Class 63831
93831
 6” 32 km DSS pipeline from Al Huwaisah to GGP
 Tie-in of pipeline to Inlet Header to new slug catcher (slug catcher not part of this project) at
Yibal GGP.
 Tie-in to new Haban Inlet Separator inlet piping
GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000/ Rev.02284411GK07-PRO-003 / 4
Rev.O
4 Design Basis
4.1 Simulation package
Aspen Tech’s UNSIM R390 Build 15055 & Schlumberger’s PIPESIM (version 2009.01.0153)
packages are used to simulate the system.
PIPESIM is used with the BJA flow correlations in absence of license for shell correlation for well
network. Results are finalized based on BJA correlations, since hydraulic simulation results are more
conservative.
Peng -Robinson property package is used as a VLE method for simulation. Peng-Robinson property
package works with better accuracy as 90% of dry gas composition is methane, ethane and propane.
4.2 Methodology
The following methodology was employed for the simulation of the system:
 UNISIM simulations have been carried out using the reservoir composition as described in sec.
3.3.1 and flow rates (sec 3.3.2) in order to establish the fluid composition and rates at the
wellhead.
As the reservoir composition is on dry basis, the gas was saturated by addition of requisite
water at the reservoir conditions, in UNISIM.
A free formation water flow rate 300 m3/d (As per Addendum to CSR, Reference CSR-
GGE132-00002) has been added as separate stream and mixed with the saturated gas stream.
 PIPESIM simulations have been carried out for all the three wells using the wellhead composition
given in sec 3.3.1. The suction pressure of compressor is considered as 34 bar (aa) (2011), 28 bar
(a) (2013) and 20 bar (a) (2014-2022) and 7 bar (a) (beyond 2022) at Yibal GGP.
The wells fluid will arrive at the 6” DSS pipeline via individual flow lines.
From 6” DSS pipeline gross well fluid is transported to inlet piping of Inlet Separator (is to
be installed under FSW Project).
The cases have been simulated for winter & summer conditions. As per PDO input, theThe fluid
temperatures are considered as 80 Deg C for summer and 65 Deg C for winter. These temperatures are
considered at the choke valve outlet as a conservative basis. There is also onea case of maximum 95oC
temperature at the choke valve outlet with maximumpredicted with free formation water break through
wells (300 m3/d).
4.3 Input Data
3.3.1 Fluid Composition
Bottom hole and surface samples have been taken in September 2010 for AH-173 for full PVT
analysis. This show Al-Huwaisah is a wet gas with CGCR of range 400-500 m3/MM m3 and H2S is of
range 5-10 ppm. The PVT data and estimated pseudo-component properties are provided in the
following table: (Note: Fluid composition is based on the Fluid characterisation done by PDOas per
Reference-1)
Table 1:
GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000/ Rev.02284411GK07-PRO-003 / 5
Rev.O
Reservoir Fluid Compositional Analysis with three hypos

MW SPGR(g/cc) NBP (C)
Nitrogen 0.0165
CO2 0.0175
H2S 0.0000
Methane 0.8236
Ethane 0.0470
Propane 0.0214
i-Butane 0.0049
n-Butane 0.0084
i-Pentane 0.0039
n-Pentane 0.0044
n-hexane 0.0065
Mcyclopentane 0.0004
Cyclohexane 0.0003
Benzene 0.0004
Toluene 0.0010
p-Xylene 0.0007
o-Xylene 0.0002
CP1A* 0.0265 135.53 0.7732 161.56
CP1B* 0.0160 259.71 0.8490 309.63
CP1C* 0.0004 526.43 0.9438 521.78
Total 1.0000
3.3.2 Flowrates
The reservoir flow rates used for the simulation are indicated below.
Table 2 – Reservoir Gas Flow Rate and Landing Pressure year wise:
Input
Predicted Gas Flow
Compressor Landing Rate Per Well Total Gas Flow Rate
S. No. Suction Pressure ( MMSCMD)
Pressure bar (a) Al-Huwaisah Wells
bar (a) (Note-1) Total
AH-135 AH-F AH-G
1 34 35 0.1667 0.1667 0.1667 0.5
2 28 29 0.1667 0.1667 0.1667 0.5
3 20 21 0.067 0.067 0.067 0.2
4 207 218 0.0166 0.0166 0.0166 0.05
Note-1: Pressure at hook-up (landing pressure) at inlet manifold to new separator is considered by
adding pressure drop of 1 bar, which accounts pressure drop across flowmeter at well head side,
GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000/ Rev.02284411GK07-PRO-003 / 6
Rev.O
existing manifold, slug control valve, new inlet separator and gas outlet piping of new inlet separator
connected to suction of compressor at Yibal-GGP.
For the above four cases, free formation water considered is as per Table-3.
GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000/ Rev.02284411GK07-PRO-003 / 7
Rev.O
Table 3 –3 – Water Flow rates (As per CSR-GGE15-00001, Rev 0)
Predicted Water Flow Rate From Wells ( m3/day)
AH-135 AH-173 AH-G Total
100 100 100 300
In Addition to cases listed above sensitive analysis is done for different free formation water content of
well fluid at maximum total gas flowrate of 0.5 MMSCMD.
Table 4 – Cases for Sensitive Analysis w.r.t. Free formation water content (Refer TabeTable 2 for 300
m3/d free formation water flowrate)
Input
Predicted Gas Flow Rate Free Formation Flow Rate
S. ( MMSCMD) ( m3/d)
Landing
No. Pressure Al-Huwaisah Wells
bar (a)
AH- AH- AH- AH-
AH-G Total AH-G Total
135 173 135 173
65 35 0.1667 0.1667 0.1667 0.5 66.667 66.667 66.667 200
76 35 0.1667 0.1667 0.1667 0.5 33.333 33.333 33.333 100
3.3.3 Reservoir Pressure

The Reservoir Pressure for each well, used in UNISIM simulation, as 610.54 bara, considered from the
Concept selection report (12.1.2).
The main Yibal reservoir pressure will decline and the landing pressure at Yibal GGP separator slug
catcher will also decline over the years. With the installation of depletion compressors, the Haban slug
catcherSeparator operating pressure is declining considered as 28 bara in 2013, 20 bara in 2016 and 20
bara in 2022to 28/20/7 bar (g).
3.3.4 Reservoir Temperature
Reservoir Temperature 151 0C

FTHT: 96 0C (Summer, with Max Water)
80 0C (Summer Max)
65 0C (Winter Min)
Air Temperature (For A/G Piping) 55 0C (summer maximum)
5 0C (winter, minimum)
Ground Temperature 38 0C@650mm below grade (maximum)
35 °C @ 800 mm below grade (maximum)
20 0 C @ 1000mm below grade (minimum)
(Considered as per design guideline SP-1103)
GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000/ Rev.02284411GK07-PRO-003 / 8
Rev.O
GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000/ Rev.02284411GK07-PRO-003 / 9
Rev.O
3.3.5 Wellhead Piping Parameters

Table 5 – Wellhead Flowline / Piping Parameters (Note-1)
Reservoir Al-Huwaisah
Wells AH-135 AH-173 AH-G
ND, Inch 4 4 4
ID, mm 97.18 97.18 97.18
WT, mm 8.56 8.56 8.56
Length, m 200 200 200
DSS/600900 DSS/600900 DSS/600900
Material/Piping Class
# # #
Note-1: Flowline length is less than 10 m. It is ignored for steady state hydraulics.
3.3.6 DSS Pipeline Parameters
Flow line properties

1) DSS flow line Roughness = 0.0053 mm.
2) DSS Thermal Conductivity = 16 (W/ m / K)
3) The line is bare in air.
4) Design Air Velocity for above ground piping / pipeline = 14 m/s
5) Pipeline Burial Data: Burial Depth = 0.8 m (Fully Buried centre below ground)
6) Thermal Conductivity of the Soil/Sand = 0.42 (W/ m / K) (Based on SP-1103)
7) Thermal Conductivity of Polypropylene = 0.22 (W / m / K) (Based on DEP 31.40.30.34)
Table 6 – Pipelines Parameters
Reservoir
Al-Huwaisah Wells Gross Pipeline
Description 6’’ DSS Pipeline (Selected) 8’’ DSS Pipeline (Optional)
ND, Inch 6 8
ID, mm 157158.17 208.7
WT, mm 5.64.8 5.6
Length, m 32 km (Approximately) 32 km (Approximately)
Material DSS DSS
External Coating 3 Layer Polypropylene 3 Layer Polypropylene
Design Pressure, bar (g) 95120 95 120
MAOP, bar (g) 140 120 (Note-2) -
Note-2: MAOP is based on the selected thickness of 6”DSS Pipeline
GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000/ Rev.02284411GK07-PRO-003 / 10
Rev.O
3.3.8 Flow Correlations

PIPESIM is used with the BJA flow correlations in absence of license for shell correlation for well
network. Results are finalized based on BJA correlations, since hydraulic simulation results are more
conservative. Under BJA, Hagedorn & Brown for Vertical P/L flow and Beggs & Brill (revised) for
horizontal P/L flow are used.
3.4 Fluid composition for Pipesim
A Model was developed in UNISIM, to saturate the dry reservoir gas. Predicted free water production
was added as a separate stream to the saturated gas stream. A typical UNISIM model with total
formation water of 300 m3/d (100 m3/d per well) and total gas flow rate of 0.5 MMSCMD is shown in
Figure-2 for Al-Huwaisah wells.
Figure 2. Al-Huwaisah wells Wet Gas Composition stream with Free Formation water at reservoir
conditions in UNISIM.
GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000/ Rev.02284411GK07-PRO-003 / 11
Rev.O
Table 7: Composition at wellhead conditions for Pipesim Input:
Compositions at wellhead condition for Pipesim Input

Area Al-Huwaisah
Name AH-135/AH-173/AH-G
Composition
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
No.
Gas with Formation Water

Gas
Saturated Total Gas Total Gas Total Gas Total Gas Total Gas
with Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow
Water at 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.05
Dry
Reservoir MMSCD MMSCD MMSCD MMSCD MMSCD
Gas
condition
(151ºoC & Formation Formation Formation Formation
Formation
601.54 Water Water Water Water
Water Flow
bara) Flow Flow Flow Flow
300 m3/d
300 m3/d 200 m3/d 100 m3/d 300 m3/d
Mole
Component Mole Frac. Mole Frac. Mole Frac. Mole Frac. Mole Frac. Mole Frac.
Frac.
Nitrogen 0.0165 0.016184 0.009382 0.010911 0.013034 0.005755 0.001962
CO2 0.0175 0.017164 0.009951 0.011572 0.013824 0.006104 0.002081
H2S 0.0000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
Methane 0.8236 0.807805 0.468328 0.544619 0.650604 0.287253 0.097931
Ethane 0.0470 0.046099 0.026726 0.031080 0.037128 0.016393 0.005589
Propane 0.0214 0.020990 0.012169 0.014151 0.016905 0.007464 0.002545
i-Butane 0.0049 0.004806 0.002786 0.003240 0.003871 0.001709 0.000583
n-Butane 0.0084 0.008239 0.004777 0.005555 0.006636 0.002930 0.000999
i-Pentane 0.0039 0.003825 0.002218 0.002579 0.003081 0.001360 0.000464
n-Pentane 0.0044 0.004316 0.002502 0.002910 0.003476 0.001535 0.000523
n-hexane 0.0065 0.006375 0.003696 0.004298 0.005135 0.002267 0.000773
Mcyclopentane 0.0004 0.000392 0.000227 0.000265 0.000316 0.000140 0.000048
Cyclohexane 0.0003 0.000294 0.000171 0.000198 0.000237 0.000105 0.000036
Benzene 0.0004 0.000392 0.000227 0.000265 0.000316 0.000140 0.000048
Toluene 0.0010 0.000981 0.000569 0.000661 0.000790 0.000349 0.000119
p-Xylene 0.0007 0.000687 0.000398 0.000463 0.000553 0.000244 0.000083
o-Xylene 0.0002 0.000196 0.000114 0.000132 0.000158 0.000070 0.000024
CP1A* 0.0265 0.025992 0.015069 0.017524 0.020934 0.009243 0.003151
CP1B* 0.0160 0.015693 0.009098 0.010580 0.012639 0.005580 0.001903
CP1C* 0.0004 0.000392 0.000227 0.000265 0.000316 0.000140 0.000048
H2O 0.0000 0.019178 0.431364 0.338733 0.210049 0.651223 0.881094
Total 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Note: The well composition of well (AH-173) is considered as basis in UNISIM for simulation of wells AH-
135 and AH-173.
GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000/ Rev.02284411GK07-PRO-003 / Rev.O 12

5 Hydraulic Analysis
The Flow cases for hydraulic study of Al-Huwaisah well network are provided below:
Table 8: main Cases for Hydraulic analysis of Al-Huwaisah area well network.
Landing Free
Case Gas Flow Composition Environmental
Pressure Formation
No: (MMSCMD) No Condition
(Bara) Water
(m3/d)
1 35 0.5
2 29 0.5
0 2
3 21 0.2
4 218 0.05
5 35 0.5 300 3
Summer
6 35 0.5 200 4
7 35 0.5 100 5
8 29 0.5 300 3
9 21 0.2 300 6
10 218 0.05 300 7
11 35 0.5
12 29 0.5
0 2
13 21 0.2
14 218 0.05
15 35 0.5 300 3
Winter
16 35 0.5 200 4
17 35 0.5 100 5
18 29 0.5 300 3
19 21 0.2 300 6
20 218 0.05 300 7
The Hydraulic calculations are performed based on the following configuration given in table 9
Table 9: Al-Huwaisah Well Head, 6’’ DSSPipeline and Inlet 20” Header Configurationat Yibal GGP:
Sr. Pipe Internal Diameter

Line Description Line Length (mts)
No (mm)
1 4” Well Head Piping 97.1897.18 200
2 6”/8” (Optional) DSS Pipeline 157.1158.7 / 208.7 31433
3 20” new Inlet manifold 455.62 50
GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000/ Rev.02284411GK07-PRO-003 / 13
Rev.O
4.1 Hydraulic Calculation Results
4.1.1 Al-Huwaisah Well Network Hydraulic Analysis with 6” DSS Pipeline
The results from the hydraulic analysis of Al Huwaisah Well network with 6” DSS pipe are summarized in the table 10 given below. The compositions
considered for the cases are shown in section 3.4.
Table 10: Al-Huwaisah Well Choke Valve Backpressures and velocity ranges at various production rates. (Refer Figures 4 to 10 for PIPESIM MODEL, 6”
DSS Pipeline velocity profiles, pressure profiles, liquid hold-ups at various gas capacities and separator pressures)
Calculated Parameters
Pipeline Fluid Pipeline
Well Mean Erosional
Landing Free head Velocity Velocity
Case Gas Flow Composition Environ. Temperature at
Pressure Formation Choke Range (m/s) Range (m/s)
No. (MMSCMD) No Condition hook-up to
(Bara) Water Valve
existing inlet
Back
manifold (ºoC)
pressure Max Min Max Min
(Bara)
0 Summer 8.338. 3.944 18.991 13.68

1 35 0.5 72.270.93 43.4743.25
(Fluid 16 .03 8.95 14.12
Temp@
0 70.1668.7 9.999. 4.063 20.762 13.91
2 29 0.5 choke valve 40.1740.39
2 4 80 .99 0.77 4.05
outlet 80
0 Deg C) 34.6134.1 5.425 3.212 24.434 19.92
3 21 0.2 38.9387
3 3 5 2 20.07
0 23.7624.4 1.351. 1.161 24.582 23.85
4 218 0.05 43.83
5 36 .12 4.44 23.57
5 35 0.5 300 3 87.3 / 50.0650.19 8.788. 3.33. 15.951 10.48
85.47 60 45 5.96 10.59

Well Mean Erosional
(Bara) Water Valve
existing inlet
Back
manifold (ºoC)
(Bara)
200 82.4980.8 5.368. 3.423 16.747 11.31

6 35 0.5 4 47.547.69
1 45 .50 5 43
7 35 0.5 100 5 75.95 44.44 98.54 3.66 17.8 12.49
300 83.6181.8 10.64 3.445 17.585 10.71
8 29 0.5 3 49.3148
2 43 2 7 0.82
300 6.055. 1.432 17.141 12.07
9 21 0.2 6 45.4696 47.6147.54
91 .64 7.12 12.14
300 0.721 10.129
10 218 0.05 7 31.91 45.23 1.62 9.41
.05 0
0 69.2368.0 7.463 1.443 17.941 12.97
11 35 0.5 17.2417.45
5 2 .46 7.95 13.09
0 66.1464.5 9.098. 3.571 19.819 13.31
12 29 0.5 2 Winter 16.1916.39
9 91 .5 .81 3.48
(Fluid
0 5.145. 3.72. 23.422 18.29
13 21 0.2 Temp@ 33.4582 14.9715.02
04 74 3.55 18.42
choke valve
0 23.962 21.04
14 218 0.05 outlet 65 24.568 12.52 1.273 0.89
3.65 21.05
Deg C)
300 3.023 10.03
15 35 0.5 3 83.1584.9 27.3927.55 87.85 15.24
.08 13
200 7.837. 3.183
16 35 0.5 4 78.6177.9 24.3224.56 15.97 10.95
68 .21
Well Mean Erosional
(Bara) Water Valve
existing inlet
Back
manifold (ºoC)
(Bara)
100 74.0772.8 7.697. 3.283 16.916 11.82

17 35 0.5 5 20.9121.12
0 53 .34 .89 11.93
300 82.8781.0 9.729. 3.093 10.151 16.79
18 29 0.5 3 26.6928.88
5 53 .17 6.80 10.27
300 45.4844.2 5.524 2.342 16.391 11.42
19 21 0.2 6 24.6324.67
8 1 .40 6.38 11.58
300 32.2132.0
20 218 0.05 7 22.83 1.547 0.93 10.5 8.864
7

Figure 3: PIPESIM MODEL FOR STEADY STATE HYDRAULIC STUDY-PRESSURE DROP CALCULATION WITH 6” DSS PIPELINE


Figure 4: Elevation Vs Total Distance for 6” DSS Pipeline for Al-Huwaisah Well Network

Composition No-2
Ambient Conditions Summer
Landing Pressure = 35 bara

Figure 5: Pipeline Inlet Pressure Vs. Gas Rate (Saturated with Water) @ various lading pressures
Composition No-2

Ambient Conditions
Summer
= 29 bara
Landing PressureLanding Pressure
Landing 8 bara
Landing
=Pressure 35 bara
Pressure
= 21 = 8 bara
Figure 5: Pipeline Inlet Pressure Vs. Gas Rate (Saturated with Water and Free Formation Water: 0 m3/d) @ various lading pressures

Composition No-3

Ambient Conditions
Summer


Composition No-3
Ambient Conditions
Summer
Figure 6: 6” Pipeline Inlet Pressure Vs. Gas Rate (with Formation Water 300 m3/d) @ various landing pressures


Erosional velocity
Pressure Profile
Gas velocity Mean velocity
Liquid Velocity
Figure 7: Velocity Profile@ 35 Bara separator pressure and 0.5 mmscmd capacity with composition: Gas with free water (0 m3/d),
Ambient Conditions: Summer

Erosional velocity
Pressure Profile
Gas velocity
Fluid Mean velocity
Liquid Velocity

Erosional velocity
Pressure Profile
Gas velocity
Mean velocity
Liquid Velocity
Figure 78: Velocity Profile@ 35 Bara separator pressure and 0.5 mmscmd capacity with composition: Gas with free water (300 m3/d),

Erosional velocity
Pressure Profile
Gas velocity
Fluid Mean velocity
Liquid Velocity

Pressure Profile
Erosional velocity
Pressure Profile
Gas velocity
Mean velocity
Gas Velocity
Mean Velocity
Liquid Velocity
Liquid Velocity
Figure 8: Velocity Profile@ 35 Bara landing pressure and 0.5 mmscmd capacity with composition: Gas with free water (300 m3/d),
Figure 9: Velocity Profile@ 20 Bara landing pressure and 0.2 mmscmd capacity with composition: Gas with formation water (0 m3/d), Ambient Conditions:
Summer

Erosional velocity
Pressure Profile
Gas Velocity
Mean Velocity
Liquid Velocity
Figure 9: Velocity Profile@ 20 Bara landing pressure and 0.2 mmscmd capacity with composition: Gas with formation water (0 m3/d), Ambient Conditions:
Summer

Liquid
Pressure
Mean velocity velocity
Profile
Erosional velocity
Gas velocity
Figure 10: Velocity Profile@ 20 Bara landing pressure and 0.2 mmscmd capacity with composition: Gas with formation water (300 m3/d), Ambient
Conditions: Summer

Ambient Conditions: Winter

Mean Slug Volume-21 bara
Composition: Gas with free
formation water (300 m3/d) Slug Frequency-29 bara
Slug Frequency-35 bara
Figure 11: Pipeline Mean Slug Volume and Mean Slug Frquency @ various gas flowrate and landing pressures under Winter Conditions

Separator Pressure = 10
20 bara
Sphere-generated liquid volume-SGLV Ambient Conditions: Winter

bara Composition: Gas with free
formation water (300 m3/d)
Total Liquid Holdup-35 bara
SGLV-35 bara
SGLV-8 29 bara
SGLV-21 bara

SGLV-8 bara

Ambient Conditions: Winter Mean Slug Volume-21 bara
Slug Frequency-35 bara Slug Frequency-21 bara

Mean Slug Volume-29 bara Mean Slug Volume-35 bara
Figure 11: Pipeline Mean Slug Volume and Mean Slug Frquency @ various gas flowrate andSlug Frequency-8
landing baraWinter Conditions
pressures under

formation water (300 m3/d) Ambient Conditions: Winter
formation water (300 m3/d)

Separator Pressure = 20 bara
Separator Pressure = 10 bara

Sphere-generated liquid volume-SGLV

bara

SGLV-35 bara

SGLV-8 bara
SGLV-21 bara
Total Liquid Holdup-8 bara SGLV-8 bara
Figure 12: Pipeline Liquid Hold-ups and Sphere-generated liquid volume @ various gas flowrate and landing pressures under Winter Conditions

4.1.2 Al-Huwaisah Well Network Hydraulic Analysis with 8” DSS Pipeline
The results from the hydraulic analysis of Al Huwaisah Well network with 8” DSS pipe are shown in Figures. The compositions considered for the cases are
shown in section 3.4.

Figure-13 : PIPESIM MODEL FOR STEADY STATE HYDRAULIC STUDY-PRESSURE DROP CALCULATION WITH 8” DSS PIPELINE

Composition No-3
Ambient Conditions
Summer
Figure 14: 8” Pipeline Inlet Pressure Vs. Gas Rate (with Formation Water 300 m3/d) @ various landing pressures


Composition: Gas with free Slug Frequency-35 bara
Mean Slug Volume-35 bara formation water (300 m3/d)

Figure 15: 8”Pipeline Mean Slug Volume and Mean Slug Frequency @ various gas flowrate with formation water flow 300 m3/d and landing
pressures under Winter Conditions


formation water (2300 m3/d) Slug Frequency-21 bara

Figure 16: 8: 8”Pipeline Mean Slug Volume and Mean Slug Frequency @ various gas flowrate with formation water flow 200 m3/d and landing


Mean Slug Volume-35 bara formation water (1300 m3/d)
Mean Slug Volume-29 bara Slug Frequency-35 bara Slug Frequency-29 bara
Mean Slug Volume-8 bara Mean Slug Volume-21 bara
Figure 16: 8: 8”Pipeline Mean Slug Volume and Mean Slug Frequency @ various gas flowrate with formation water flow 100 m3/d and landing

4.2 Observation on well network Hydraulic Analysis
1) For all the hydraulic cases considered, the fluid mean velocity rates are below 10 m/s and
acceptable as per PDO standards. The Erosional velocity limits are well above fluid
mean/gas velocities. Hence, velocity ranges are well with in the acceptable limits.
2) Calculated maximum well head back pressure downstream of choke valve with gas flow rate,
0.5 MMSCMD + free formation water, 300 m 3/d is 8785.3 47 Bara (Ref. Figure-8 and Table-
10). With 10% additional margin on maximum operating pressure design pressure for
pipeline required is 95 bar (g) instead of 90 bar (g) indicated in CSR Addendum.
3) Refer figure 11 and 12 for Total Hold-ups volume, 6” DSS pipeline Mean Slug Volume,
Mean Slug Frequency and Total Hold-ups volume, Sphere generated volume for @ various
gas flow rate and landing pressure respectively. From Figure-11, Maximum Mean slug
volume based on steady state analysis is 2.6 m 3 @ gas flowrate 0.4 MMSCMD and landing
pressure 21 Bara.
4) Calculated maximum well head back pressure with gas flow rate 05MMSCMD + free
formation water, 300 m3/d is 53.643Bara. (Refer Figure-14 for 8” DSS pipeline.
5) Refer figure 15 , 16 and 17to 18 for 8” DSS pipeline Mean Slug Volume and Mean Slug
Frequency @ various gas flow rate and landing pressure respectively with formation water
flow rate 300 m3/d, 200 m3/d and 100 m3/d. Mean slug volume is slightly changing with
change in formation water flowrate. From Figure-15, Maximum Mean slug volume based on
steady state analysis is 6.6 m3 @ gas flowrate 0.05 MMSCMD with formation water flowrate
300 m3/d and landing pressure 35 Bara .
4.3 Recommendation on well network Hydraulic Analysis
1) Design Pressure recommended based on Hydraulic is 100 100 bar (g) with additional
provision for increase in suction pressure of compressor at Yibal-GGP and unanticipated
change in input flow value for hydraulic. Recommended However based on selected design
pressure is possible with selected thickness of DSS pipeline (54.6 8 mm, MAOP: is 140 120
bar (g)).

6 Reference Documents
1. Concept Selection Report, Doc. No. CSR-GGE15-00001, Rev 0
2. Addendum to Concept Selection Report, Doc. No. CSR-GGE132-00002
3. PDO mail (Dated 26/01/11) for Dry Gas Composition of Al-Huwaisah Well

Appendix A: Document


Al Huwaisah GGP Pipeline Project Hydraulic Report: Revision

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Al Huwaisah GGP Pipeline Project Hydraulic Report: Revision

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Al-Huwaisah Area Development Project Integrated Engineering and Construction Co.

Al Huwaisah GGP Pipeline

Al Huwaisah GGP Pipeline Project

SAP No. : 4500358080 / 40

WBS No. : COM.GHN.DP.10.001C.OM.XXX.XX.X

IECC Job No. : 284411GK-07

Document No. : 284411GK07-PRO-003GGP-251-PX-

Issue and Revision Record

Rev Date Originator Checker Approver Description Client

List of Contents Page

Appendix A: Document A-1

2.1 Document Objective

3.1 Simulation package 5

GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000284411GK07-PRO-003 / Rev.A02O iii

4.1 Hydraulic Calculation Results 12

4.2 Observation on well network Hydraulic Analysis 3124

4.3 Recommendation 3124

Please refer Ffig-ure 1 for sketch of the system

Figure 1: Schematic for Al-Huwaisah Well Network

Bcm : Billion Cubic Meters

BJA Baker Jardine and Associates

CGR : Condensate to Gas Ratio

CSR : Concept Selection Report

DSS : Duplex Stainless steel

FED : Front End Design

FSW : Fahud South West

FTHT : Flowing Tube Head Temperature

GBP : Gas Business Plan

GGP : Government Gas Plant

GIIP : Gas Initially In Place

HIPPS : High Integrity Protective Pressure System

IECC : Integrated Engineering and Construction Co. LLC

MAOP : Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure

MMSCMD : Million Standard Cubic Meters per Day

NBP : Normal Boiling Point

PDO : Petroleum Development Oman LLC

SPGR : Specific Gravity

VLE : Vapour – Liquid Equilibrium

The purpose of the hydraulic analysis is to:

3.3.1 Fluid Composition

Reservoir Fluid Compositional Analysis with three hypos

Table 3 –3 – Water Flow rates (As per CSR-GGE15-00001, Rev 0)

Predicted Water Flow Rate From Wells ( m3/day)

AH-135 AH-173 AH-G Total

100 100 100 300

3.3.3 Reservoir Pressure

3.3.4 Reservoir Temperature

Reservoir Temperature 151 0C

3.3.5 Wellhead Piping Parameters

3.3.6 DSS Pipeline Parameters

Flow line properties

Table 6 – Pipelines Parameters

Note-2: MAOP is based on the selected thickness of 6”DSS Pipeline

3.3.8 Flow Correlations

3.4 Fluid composition for Pipesim

Table 7: Composition at wellhead conditions for Pipesim Input:

Compositions at wellhead condition for Pipesim Input

Gas with Formation Water

GGP-251-PX-4603-10001-000/ Rev.02284411GK07-PRO-003 / Rev.O 12

Sr. Pipe Internal Diameter

4.1 Hydraulic Calculation Results

4.1.1 Al-Huwaisah Well Network Hydraulic Analysis with 6” DSS Pipeline