IPA18-137-F

PROCEEDINGS, INDONESIAN PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION

Forty-Second Annual Convention & Exhibition, May 2018

DEFINING FLOW SIMULATION METHOD FOR EXISTING ZULU MULTIPHASE PIPELINES

OPERATED IN TURNDOWN RATE

Putri Dwithasari*
Dian Nurlita Kusuma*
Harris Grenaldi Panaiputra*
Arif Rakhmawan*

ABSTRACT platforms are producing: ZUA, ZUB, ZUD and

PHE ONWJ intends to increase production from
Zulu area by conducting Redevelopment Project.
The project consists of mainly additional infill wells
in existing offshore platforms. The produced fluids
will be commingled with current production and
transported to main station (ZUJ1) through existing
multiphase subsea pipelines. The objective of this
research is to identify the best method of flow
simulation for the pipelines, which are currently
operated below turndown rate so that they can
accommodate the future production increment up to
14000 BOPD of waxy, sandy, and heavy crude oil
from current production 3,000 BOPD. The
methodology is by having comparison of PIPESIM
and OLGA Flow Simulation Software against the
actual field data recording. Simulation result and
analysis have concluded that PIPESIM is able to
shorten the simulation time but giving distinct
results. PIPESIM identifies unstable flow regime
but indicated that internal diameter of pipeline is
significantly decreased while pipeline is reported
clean from latest pigging. The more rigorous
modelling in OLGA software is able to fully capture
pipeline behavior hence able to benchmark actual
condition. Thus OLGA Software is best used for
validation of existing pipelines in turndown rate
which then with validated pipeline condition from
OLGA, PIPESIM is able to be used for adequacy
check of future production rate since it is located far
above the turndown rate.
INTRODUCTION
Zulu is part of PHE ONWJ west asset, which
located above Kepulauan Seribu conservative area
as shown in Figure 1 indicated by red box.
It is consist of eight unmanned offshore platforms
and a main station namely ZUJ1 as a process
platform which connected to living quarter (ZLQ)
by bridge. From those offshore platforms, only 4
ZUG. Some platforms are also functioning as a
junction. Produced fluid from unmanned platform
is transported to ZUJ1 through 12” multiphase
subsea pipelines. Liquid are then separated at ZUJ1
prior exported to Central Station via Papa flow
station, while separated gas is currently used as fuel
for power generation. Simplified Zulu network
schematic can be seen in Figure 2.
Zulu produced fluid is having specific characteristic
compared to other PHE ONWJ area fluid, which
are:
 Heavy crude (API 20),
 Waxy with 1 – 15% wax weight and WAT >
86 degF
 Sand production history
 Low pour point
That is one of the reasons ESP is used to produce
such fluid. Chemical are also injected in platforms
(viscosity reducer in ZUJ1 and pour point dispersant
in unmanned platforms) to smoothen fluid
transportation. In current condition, it is observed
that backpressure fluctuation due to slug is
happened in the pipeline. However, ESP discharge
pressure can still handle the maximum
backpressure, however it is rather difficult to
validate pipeline Internal Diameter (ID) for future
simulation purpose with this slug issue.
Zulu redevelopment project is basically increasing
production by conducting additional infill wells in
existing platforms as stated in Zulu POFD (Prima et
al, 2016). Infill well fluid will be commingled with
current production through existing installation
without any modification in the pipeline. Thus, it is
important to validate existing pipeline ID in order to
check future capacity.
The objective of this study is to identify the best
method of flow simulation for pipelines which are

* Pertamina Hulu Energi ONWJ

currently operated in slug regime (below turndown
rate) so that they can accommodate the future
production increment up to 14,000 BOPD of waxy,
sandy, and heavy crude oil from current production
3000 BOPD.
METHODS
 Pipeline network hydraulic simulation
methodology can be seen in Figure 3.
 Pipeline network model is build and then
validated using pipeline hydraulic software
 Validation comparison between steady state
software (PIPESIM) and transient state software
(OLGA) against the actual field data recording
and pigging history record (only for ZUG –
ZUJ1 pipeline)
 Design basis for each software is based on
actual operation data on active pipelines,
however data input to simulation depends on
software requirement:
o PIPESIM: spot data of pressure mapping
and flowrate
o OLGA: limited recordable pressure data
(taken every 3 hours in average) with
average flowrate (liquid, GOR & water cut)
and fact that slug are experienced in ZUJ1
production header.
 Pipeline network is built by inputting pipeline
Internal Diameter (ID), roughness, bathymetry,
riser height, water depth and environmental data
(wind speed, ambient temperature, etc)
 Adjustment of roughness and internal diameter
parameter are made in simulation in order to
match the actual data. Once it is matched, those
parameters will be considered as validation
parameters.
 Forecast simulation is run by using validated
pipeline ID and forecast flowrate
RESULTS
Pipeline network simulation is validated by using
two softwares as listed with different results as
follow:
 PIPESIM Simulation
o Identifies unstable flow regime caused by
slug.
o Indicates that pipeline internal diameter is
significantly decreased while pipeline is
reported clean from latest pigging. This is
not match with actual data. Detail can be
seen in Table-1.
In general, PIPESIM is able to shorten the
simulation time but giving distinct results
compared to actual data.
 OLGA Simulation
Pipeline benchmarking is first performed for
ZUG – ZUJ1 pipeline which in actual is clean
based on pigging history by using data as seen
in Figure 4 (Dwithasari and Diinillah, 2015).
Detail OLGA validation result for this pipeline
can be seen in Figure 5 (after Dwithasari et. al,
2015) with summary as follow:
o Slug regime along ZUG – ZUJ1 pipeline is
confirmed by OLGA
o Real maximum pressure from OLGA is 110
psig, while actual pressure data from record
(80 psig) is located in graph shoulder area.
This discrepancy might be caused by record
time duration of 3 hours. However, from
dedicated barton chart record, it is
confirmed that maximum pressure in ZUG
is reaching 110 psig.
o ZUG – ZUJ1 pipeline ID is confirmed
11.75 inch as per design. High backpressure
to 110 psig is due to slug issue, not due to
ID decrement as indicated by PIPESIM.
In general, OLGA is able to fully capture
pipeline behavior hence able to benchmark
actual condition.
With the same analogy, simulation is performed
for other active pipelines, with validation result
as follow:
o ZUD – ZUJ1 pipeline size is reduced to
10.75” ID
o ZUA – ZUD pipeline size is reduced to
10.75”
To be noted that validation process is very
important to represent actual pipeline condition and
possible bottleneck in existing or even in future
condition. Hence, further analysis and
recommendation can be more specific and solve the
right issue.
PIPESIM is then utilized to simulate hydraulic
backpressure using OLGA validated ID for future
production rate without any distinction since the
flowrate located far above the turndown rate. Thus,
resulting infill wells production incremental up to
14,000 BOPD can be comingled through existing
pipeline without any significant bottleneck since
simulated backpressure are still below ESP
discharge pressure.
CONCLUSIONS
Summary of simulation and analysis are:
• Turndown rate is an infliction point of
backpressure and liquid hold up in multiphase
pipeline. Pipeline regime is changing (i.e
slugging) in below turndown rate area. Detail
can be seen in Figure 6 (Dwithasari and
Diinillah, 2015). It is very important to
understand whether the simulated condition is
below or above the turndown point. This will
decide which software to be used.
• PIPESIM (steady state software) is not
recommended to be used in multiphase below
turndown area, due to this specific reasons:
o Below turndown area itself is a dynamic
phenomenon, not a steady state
o PIPESIM will indicates un-correct
pipeline parameter result
• OLGA (transient state software) is able to
fully capture pipeline behavior in multiphase
pipeline below turndown area. However,
longer simulation duration is required since it
will give detail simulation and analysis.
• PIPESIM is recommended to be used in
multiphase pipeline above turndown area. It is
suitable for future adequacy check with high
flowrate and many scenarios.
REFERENCES
Dwithasari, P., and Diinillah, F: Zulu
Redevelopment Workshop (presentation),
company document, Dec 2015
Dwithasari, P., Kusuma N. D. et al: Zulu
Redevelopment – Flow Assurance Study Report,
company document, Dec 2015.
Prima, M. I., Sakti, C. A. P., Ilona, S., Dwithasari,
P., Diinillah, F., Rahmadona, D., et al: POFD
Pengembangan Lapangan Zulu, 2016
 TABLE 1

PIPESIM SIMULATION RESULT

Figure 1 - Zulu - PHE ONWJ Area Map
Figure 2 - Simplified Zulu Network Schematic

Figure 3 - Methodology of Hydraulic Simulation

Figure 4 - Olga Validation Data (Dwithasari and Diinillah, 2015)
Figure 5 - Olga Validation Result for ZUG – ZUJ1 Pipeline (after Dwithasari et al, 2015)
Figure 6 - Turndown Rate Graph (Dwithasari and Diinillah, 2015)