Hydraulic Analysis - Segment C and D Gathering System

FEED PR OJEC T
Hydraulic Analysis
Segment C & D Gathering System
FEED and Phase 2 CONCEPT
00100W-N-FL-FL30-PR-REP-0001 Rev 1
17 July 2014
WorleyParsons Europe Limited

Parkview, Great West Road
Brentford, Middlesex
TW8 9AZ
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 (0)20 8326 5000
Fax: +44 (0)20 8710 0220
© Copyright 2014 WorleyParsons

Imi WorleyParsons
resources & energy
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
SEGMENT C & D GATHERING SYSTEM
NOT/CE: "These materials are the Work Product of WorleyParsons, and no reliance on this work
product is authorized by WorleyParsons, and WorleyParsons accepts no liability for any reliance
by any person on the Work product contained herein. has expressly authorized
WorleyParsons to issue this disclaimer."
FEED PROJECT 405000-00100 - HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

REV DESCRIPTION ORIG REVIEW WORLEY- DATE CLIENT DATE
PARSONS APPROVAL
APPROVAL
A Issued for Inter- 19-Feb-2014 NIA

Discipline Check S Gupta H Taylor
B Issued for Client Review 27-Mar-2014

S Gu~ta H Tallor H Tallor
O Issued for Information 17-Apr-2014
Re-Issued for 17-Jul-2014

Information
I natescu
00100W-N-FL-FL30-PR-REP-0001 Page 2 of 41
Rev 1 (17 July 2014) Template R6
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
REVISION DESCRIPTION SHEET
Rev. Para. Reason for Revision
B Issued for Customer Review
0 Issued for Information
1 Re-Issued for Information
Hold
Para. Description of Hold
No.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
E X E C U T I V E S U M M AR Y
This report presents the results of the steady state and transient simulations of the gathering system
in Segments C & D.
The initial steady state analysis modelled all flowlines, manifolds and trunklines throughout the field
life with a single 20 in. NB trunkline per trunkline corridor. The results of these simulations indicated
that the backpressures downstream of the well choke valves typically exceeded the target
backpressure (17 barg) and keep increasing as the years progress, with some cases where the target
is exceeded by 25 barg. However, the water cut of the produced fluids is more than 30% and so it is
expected that ESPs will be installed in most wells and therefore these higher backpressures will not
be an issue. In case ESPs are not installed, using 2 off 20 in. NB trunklines in highest backpressure
corridors like T302 and T402 results in the backpressures being reduced to approximately the same
as the backpressures in the other trunklines.
Production rates in the trunklines indicated that an erosion rate of 0.1 mm/yr is not exceeded for the
majority of the trunklines with a 20 in. NB pipeline size until after 2027, with the exception of T302 and
T402 where this becomes an issue after 2025-2026. If production beyond 2025-2026 is envisaged
then it is recommended to leave space for a second trunkline for corridors T301, T302, T304, T402
and T404 to minimise corrosion. If twin trunklines are not installed then the production from wells
connected to these trunklines could be choked back to lower the erosion rate.
Additionally, it was found that the IPC arrival temperatures in winter were below the target 50 °C
(required for adequate separation in dehydrators and to achieve the oil RVP specification) in case of
four trunklines. However, for three of these trunklines this is true for only the first few years.
Considering that the fluids would be mixed with the other warmer fluids at the IPC and also that
conservative winter conditions were simulated, this is not expected to have a significant impact on the
IPC operation.
The transient analysis focussed on the trunklines in trunkline corridor T303, which was considered to
be representative of the other corridors in Segments C &D.
All trunklines generally operate in the slug flow regime under normal operating conditions throughout
the field life. The simulations indicated that the maximum surge volume expected at the IPC due to
3
hydrodynamic slugging on average under normal operating conditions is approximately 35 m , based
on results for T303, with slugs expected to arrive frequently, at a rate of around 1-2 slugs per minute.
Using 2 off 20 in. NB trunklines in corridor T402 was found to give the highest surge volumes for the
3
corridor of around 50 m per trunkline. These surge volumes are in the same range as the surge
3
volume per trunkline allowed for in the IPC design (50 m ). These results, combined with the
3
predicted scraping surge volume of less than 10 m , show that the surge volumes to be handled are
expected to be no more onerous than those in Segments A and B.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 7
1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 7
1.2 Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 7
1.3 Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... 8
2. GATHERING SYSTEM OVERVIEW .................................................................................. 9
2.1 Trunkline and Multi-Well Well Pad Configuration .............................................................10
3. FLOW ASSURANCE BASIS ............................................................................................12
3.1 Fluid Composition .............................................................................................................12
3.2 Operating Conditions ........................................................................................................13
3.2.1 Pressure ...............................................................................................................13
3.2.2 Temperature.........................................................................................................13
3.3 Flow Line, Manifold and Trunkline Details ........................................................................14
3.3.1 Installation and Insulation ....................................................................................14
3.3.2 Field Elevation and Trunkline Routing Data ........................................................14
3.3.3 Thermal Properties ..............................................................................................14
3.3.4 Pipe Sizes ............................................................................................................15
3.4 Ambient Conditions ...........................................................................................................15
3.5 Simulation Software ..........................................................................................................15
4. STEADY STATE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................16
4.1 Well Backpressures ..........................................................................................................16
Erosion Limitations ......................................................................................................................20
4.2 IPC Arrival Temperatures .................................................................................................22
5. TRANSIENT ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................23
5.1 OLGA Model .....................................................................................................................23
5.1.1 Model Development & Assumptions ....................................................................23
5.2 Hydrodynamic Slugging ....................................................................................................24
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
5.3 Operational Slugging – Scraping ......................................................................................27
6. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................28
7. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................29
APPENDIX 1 PIPESIM RESULTS – SUMMARY
APPENDIX 2 PIPESIM RESULTS – EXAMPLE DETAILED OUTPUT (T302, 20 IN. NB & 2 X 20

IN. NB TRUNKLINES)
APPENDIX 3 GATHERING LAYOUT FOR SEGMENTS C AND D
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
1. INTRODUCTION
has entered into a Technical Services Agreement with the

i government for the rehabilitation of the Oil Field.
The intent of this Agreement is to increase crude oil production to a target of 2.1 mmbpd. This will be
achieved through a number of measures which include the drilling of new wells, rehabilitation of
existing wells, and increased water flooding, together with the rehabilitation and expansion of existing
crude oil processing facilities. This is considered as the Overall Full Field Development.
WorleyParsons is performing the Front End Engineering Design (FEED) for selected WORK that will
form part of the new facilities for the overall Full Field Development. The selected WORK for
FEED is defined by the Cost, Time & Resource (CTR) agreements prepared by WorleyParsons and
approved by
1.1 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to provide the results of the concept level study of the hydraulics of the
multiphase gathering system in Segments C & D, with the aim of confirming whether the standard
design applied to Segments A and B is applicable.
1.2 Definitions
COMPANY
PROJECT Project – FEED.
CONTRACT The formal agreement between COMPANY and

CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTOR The Contractor performing the WORK described under

the CONTRACT with the COMPANY
WORK Any and all works and/or services and/or materials to be

provided by the CONTRACTOR under the CONTRACT
with the COMPANY.
SHALL AND MUST Indicates mandatory requirements.
SHOULD Indicates that a provision is not mandatory, but

recommended as good practice.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
1.3 Abbreviations
A full list of abbreviations is contained in the Abbreviations and Acronyms Procedure [Ref 1].
Additional abbreviations, commonly used in this document, are listed below.
Abbreviation Definition
bbl Barrel
BEDD Basic Engineering Design Data
BOD Basis of Design
bpd Barrels (of oil) per Day
CS Carbon Steel
ESP Electric Submersible Pump
FEED Front End Engineering Design
GOR Gas-Oil Ratio
ID Inner Diameter
IPC Integrated Processing Complex
MP Main Pay
MS
NU Nahr Umr
NB Nominal Bore
RVP Reid Vapour Pressure
scf Standard Cubic Feet
US Upper Shale
WT Wall Thickness
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
2. GATHERING SYS TEM OVERVIEW
As described in the Configuration Study Report [Ref 4] multiphase fluids in Segment C and D will be
gathered by a network of trunklines and routed to IPC C, which is scheduled to become operational in
2022.
The production rates for Segments C and D, broken down by reservoir, are shown in Figure 1, based
on a full field peak production rate of 2.1 mmbopd.
500
450
OIL RATE (kbopd)
400
350
Total
300
MP
250
MS
200
NU
150
US
100
50
0
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
YEAR
Figure 1: – Oil production rate by reservoir in Segments C and D.
It can be seen that the largest addition of wells in Segments C & D is from the reservoir. No
further development of the Main Pay reservoir is expected to occur in these segments, with the given
oil production resulting from existing Main Pay wells in the area. Some development of the Upper
Shale and Nahr Umr reservoirs is expected in these segments, however the relative contribution from
these reservoirs is minor compared the amount of production from the and Main Pay
reservoirs.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
2.1 Trunkline and Multi-Well Well Pad Configuration

The dominant well pattern in Segments C and D is the same as in Segments A and B and therefore
the primary configuration considered is a continuation of the one used in Segments A and B. This
involves a series of horizontal trunklines that collects the reservoir fluids from a grid of multi-well well
pads. As in the configuration of Segments A and B, longer flowlines have generally been used at the
edges of the field due to greater uncertainty in the production/injection rates in these areas, as well as
to ensure that there is sufficient fluid velocity for scraping of the trunklines. Longer flowlines will also
likely be required in the northern part of Segment C in order to route around the existing facilities and
features.
The layout of the trunklines that was used in the hydraulic simulations is shown in Figure 2 and is
discussed in greater detail in the Configuration Study [Ref 4]. It must be noted that gathering is from
North of main highway, just south of T404, as shown in the figure below. Wells in between the
highways will be directionally drilled where possible and connected to T404. Other wells will be sent
to Segment E IPC. Appendix 3 shows the gathering architecture for Segments C and D.
There is an uncertainty around predicting the reservoir performance around the flanks of the field. The
current predictions show that there are low flowing wells. Thus it is proposed to delete the wellpads
around the flanks. The wells and reservoir potential if realised will be routed to the nearest manifold
with longer flowlines.
Removal of the flank wellpads does not adversely affect any of the findings and conclusions of the
hydraulic analysis of the gathering trunklines in Segment C/D. Therefore, the present revision only
captures this change by attaching the revised layout in Appendix 3.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
Main
Highways
Figure 2 – Gathering system configuration in Segments C & D.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
3. FLOW ASSURANCE BASIS
3.1 Fluid Composition

Details of the compositions used in the simulations can be found in the Segment B Pipelines Basis of
Design [Ref 2] and are reproduced in Table 3.1 below for ready reference.
Table 3.1 – Fluid Compositions.
MAIN PAY / ZUBAIR
COMPONENT MOL FRACTION COMPONENT MOL FRACTION
N2 0.00768 N2 0.0172
CO2 0.0024 CO2 0.0102
H2S 0.00197 H2S 0
C1 0.33374 C1 0.3746
C2 0.10669 C2 0.1005
C3 0.07276 C3 0.0713
iC4 0.01487 iC4 0.0148
nC4 0.0515 nC4 0.043
iC5 0.02036 iC5 0.0169
nC5 0.02715 nC5 0.0242
MS-PS1* 0.07816 MP-PS1* 0.0948
MS-PS2* 0.09385 MP-PS2* 0.1014
MS-PS3* 0.08554 MP-PS3* 0.0749
MS-NM1* 0.01606 MP-PS4* 0.0407
MS-NM2* 0.08729 MP-PS5* 0.0156

* - Indicates a pseudo-component, whose properties can be found in the Segment B Pipelines
Basis of Design [Ref 2].
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
3.2 Operating Conditions
3.2.1 Pressure
The operating pressures of the gathering network in Segments C &D are given in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 – Gathering system operating pressures.
Parameter Unit Value
Pressure upstream of choke valve (Main Pay wells) barg 31

(Note 1)
Pressure upstream of choke valve (Other wells) barg 17
Arrival Pressure at IPC barg 14
Note 1: Includes all , Upper Shale, Nahr Umr and 4th Pay wells.
The well pressures in Table 3.2 are for free-flowing wells only. Once the water cut of the well fluids
exceeds 30% it is expected that an ESP will be installed, significantly increasing the available
pressure upstream of the choke.
3.2.2 Temperat ure

The temperature of the reservoir fluids is dependent on the water cut of the fluids. The relationship
between water cut and temperature is linear within the bounds given in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 – Flowing Well Head Temperatures
Water Cut Main Pay / Zubair
0% 60 °C 70 °C
80% 70 °C 90 °C
The fluid temperature at the wells was specified based on using these figures and the water cut of
each well as determined from the well data provided by CUSTOMER [Ref 3].
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
3.3 Flow Line, M anifold and Trunkline Details
3.3.1 Installation and Ins ulation

Flow lines and manifolds are installed above ground with a 1.5 mm thick external coating of epoxy.
Trunklines are taken to be buried 1 m below ground level from the top of the pipe and have a 3 mm
thick external coating of 3-layer-polypropylene (3LPP).
3.3.2 Field Elevation and Trunkline Routing Data

Trunkline and flowline lengths were based on estimated lengths from preliminary routings as far as
possible. Where unavailable, while flow line lengths were set at a standard 1000 m for remote single
well pads connecting to multi-well well pads and 100 m flowlines for wells directionally drilled from the
multi-well well pads. The field elevation profile was relatively flat and detailed elevations were not
used in the PIPESIM simulations, with the default PIPESIM undulations, at a rate of 10/1000, used for
more conservative results.
3.3.3 Thermal Prope rties

The thermal properties for the various materials used in the simulations are given in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 – Thermal properties used in the simulations.
Property Carbon Steel 3LPP Epoxy Soil
Thermal Conductivity
50 0.22 0.3 0.4
(W/m.K)
Specific Heat Capacity

470 2000 - 800
(J/kg.K)
Density (kg/m3) 7850 890 - 1800
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
3.3.4 Pipe Siz es

For the purposes of this study, it is assumed that the flowline manifold sizes used in the Segment B
FEED are applicable; ie. 8 in. NB flowlines and 16 in. NB manifolds will be used in the design of the
gathering system in Segments C & D. Simulations of the gathering system will instead focus primarily
on the sizing of the trunklines.
The pipe sizes used in the simulations are summarised in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 – Pipe sizes used in the simulations.
Type Nominal Bore Outer Diameter Wall Thickness Inner Diameter

(in.) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Flow line 8 219.1 15.88 187.3
Manifold 16 406.4 15.88 374.6
Trunkline 20 508.0 19.05 469.9
3.4 Ambient Conditions

Winter conditions were used in all simulations as this was considered to give conservative results.
The ambient conditions that were used are summarised in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 – Ambient temperatures used in the simulations [Ref 8].
Property Unit Value
Soil temperature (1 m depth) °C 18
Ambient air temperature °C 2
3.5 Simulation Softw are

All steady state simulations were performed using Schlumberger PIPESIM 2011.1.2 with OLGA-S
2000 V6.2.7 3-phase flow correlations. OLGA version 5.3.4.6 was used for all transient simulations.
To estimate surge volumes within OLGA the default value for the delay constant (value of 150) was
used.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
4. STE ADY STATE ANALYSIS
4.1 Well Backpressures

For the gathering system, the pressure required at the IPC inlet is 14 barg. In general, the target
backpressure for the wells, upstream of the choke valve, is 17 barg; however, in some cases this can
be exceeded depending on the reservoir pressure. Figure 3 shows the range of well backpressures
for wells connected to a single 20 in. NB gathering trunkline in corridor T303, based on the layout
shown in Figure 2.
Figure 3 – Well backpressures downstream of the choke valve for corridor T303.
This trunkline has backpressures representative of those in Segments C & D. Similar plots for all
trunklines can be found in Appendix 1. In general, with a 20 in. NB trunkline, the target backpressure
of 17 barg is exceeded for the majority of wells. It is also seen than backpressure increases
significantly later in life with the 5-spot infill being implemented. This would be a concern only for free-
flowing wells due to the low reservoir pressure. However, this is not expected to be a
significant issue as the majority of the wells will require ESPs. Figure 4 shows the average water cut
for the wells of each reservoir in Segments C & D. Figure 5 shows the average water cut for each of
the trunklines.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
Figure 4 – Water cut by reservoir for wells in Segments C & D.
0.9
0.8
0.7 T301
T302
WATER CUT
0.6
T303
0.5 T304
0.4 T401
T402
0.3 T403
0.2 T404
0.1
0
2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
YEAR
Figure 5 – Water cut by trunklines in Segments C & D.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
It is apparent that, with the exception of the Nahr Umr wells, all of the reservoirs have average water
cuts above 30% indicating that the majority of the wells will require ESPs. With an ESP installed, the
backpressure on a well is not expected to limit the production from the well.
Corridor T302 had some of the highest backpressures, as shown in Figure 6, which greatly exceed
the target 17 barg due to it having the highest flowrates and being a relatively long trunkline.
In order to reduce the backpressures, the option of using 2 off 20 in. NB trunklines as per the design
in Segments A and B was considered. Using two trunklines enables a number of different
configurations for connecting the wells in each corridor to the trunklines in that corridor. The
configurations that were considered were:
1. 50:50 split between the two trunklines – assigning the wells to the two trunklines such that the
flow rate in each of the trunklines is approximately the same.
2. / Main Pay split – segregated gathering with all of the wells connected to one
trunkline and all of the Main Pay to the other trunkline.
The backpressures resulting from the first option (50:50 split) are also shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6 – Well backpressures downstream of the choke valve for corridor T302.
Figure 7 below shows the backpressures for a / Main Pay split.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
Figure 7 - Well backpressures downstream of the choke valve for T302 for MS/MP split.
By installing twin trunklines it is apparent that the backpressure is significantly reduced for a 50:50
split, specially after 2025. In case of / Main Pay split, backpressures are low and fairly
constant across the field life in the trunkline carrying Main Pay fluid due to the lower Main Pay
production. However, for the trunkline, the backpressures remain high and rise significantly
during the transition to 5-spot and 5-spot infill patterns. In this case ESPs will have to be installed to
overcome the backpressure.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
Erosion Limitations
In addition to the well backpressures, one of the other main factors in determining the required
trunkline diameter is the velocity. The flowrate in the trunkline should be such that the erosion rate is
kept below 0.1 mm/yr [Ref 6].
Figure 8 compares the oil production rate and the water cut of the fluids in each of the trunklines
between 2022 and 2030 for a single 20 in. NB trunkline in each corridor. The lines shown indicate the
maximum oil carrying capacities for a trunkline across the range of water cuts, based on not
exceeding the erosion limit of 0.1 mm/yr. These capacities were determined based on a particle size
of 50 µm with a solids loading of 30 mg/L, which is considered as being representative of the fluids in
the field [Ref 7], and physical properties of the fluids taken at 14 barg and 75 °C.
100 T301
90
T302
80
T303
OIL RATE (kbopd)
70
T304
60
50 T401
40 T402
30 T403
20
T404
10
20 in. (GOR 550)
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 20 in. (GOR 700)
WATER CUT
Figure 8 – Trunkline erosion capacities (2022 to 2030).
It is evident from Figure 8 that the majority of the trunklines in Segments C & D, across all of the
years of operation are within the erosion capacity of a 20 in. trunkline. However, trunklines in corridors
T301, T302, T304, T402 and T404, exceed the erosion capacity of the 20 in. trunkline for several
years, and may require two 20 in. NB trunklines in order to reduce the erosion rate to below 0.1
mm/yr.
Plotting the above data for years up to 2027 only, as shown in Figure 9 below, shows that apart from
T302 and T402 high erosion rate becomes a concern for the other trunklines only after 2027.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
90
T301
80
T302
70
OIL RATE (kbopd)
T303
60
T304
50
40 T401
30 T402
20 T403
10 T404
0 20 in. (GOR 550)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
20 in. (GOR 700)
WATER CUT
Figure 9 – Trunkline erosion capacities (2022 to 2027).
Even for T302 and T402, erosion rates are high only after 2025-2026.
If it is envisaged that the field might continue producing later in life, i.e., after 2025-2026, then space
for a second trunkline should be provided for T301, T302, T304, T402 and T404 to minimise erosion.
If twin trunklines are not installed then the production from wells connected to these trunklines could
be choked back to lower the erosion rate. This also provides the flexibility of splitting and Main
Pay fluids, if required, and a reduced backpressure on attached wells.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
4.2 IPC Arrival Temperatures

The produced fluids should be above 50 °C when they arrive at the IPC in order to be able to achieve
adequate separation in dehydrators and the target oil RVP specification [Ref 5]. Arrival temperatures
below this may result in the oil product from the IPC having a higher RVP.
Figure 10 – Fluid arrival temperatures at IPC for single 20 in. NB trunklines.
Figure 10 shows that four of the trunklines have IPC arrival temperatures below the required 50 °C.
However, the arrival for three of these trunklines is below 50 °C for only a few initial years. It must be
noted that these results are conservative as they correspond to winter ambient conditions. Further,
after mixing at the IPC with the warmer trunklines, the inlet to the trains will be higher.
Splitting the flow evenly between 2 off 20 in. NB trunklines decreases the arrival temperatures by
around 10 °C. For the higher flowrate corridors where twin trunklines could be installed (if ESPs are
not installed) in early years of operation – T302 and T402 – from Figure 10 it can be seen that the IPC
arrival temperatures would fall well below 50 °C but given the inherent conservatism in the results and
mixing with other warmer trunklines this is not expected to be a cause for concern.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
5. TRANSIE NT AN AL YSIS
5.1 OLG A Model
5.1.1 Model Dev elopment & Assumptions

Individual flowlines and manifolds were not modelled in OLGA as it would make the model very
complex and slow to run. Instead, each manifold feeding the trunkline was modelled as a fixed mass
source at the appropriate location along the trunkline to obtain a simplified model as shown in Figure
11 below. The flowrate and temperature for each source was taken from the corresponding PIPESIM
steady state simulation. Transient simulations have been done for trunkline T303 which is considered
representative for this segment. Simulations have been done for years 2022, 2026 and 2029 to cover
the range of expected field life.
Figure 11 – Simplified OLGA model used for transient simulations of trunkline corridor T303.
Although each well pad has a different overall water cut and GOR for any given year, it is not readily
possible to simulate multiple compositions in OLGA models. To simplify the simulations, the overall
average water cut and GOR for all wells connected to the trunkline in any given year was used to
generate the composition and thus the OLGA property table for that year. Table 5.1 below gives the
water cut and GOR used for different years.
Table 5.1 – Average water cut and GOR for T303
Year Water Cut (%) GOR (scf/bbl)
2022 46.3 569
2026 63.7 526
2029 73.9 499
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
5.2 Hydrodynamic Slugging

It was found in the steady state analysis that all trunklines operate in the slug flow regime across the
field life. This is hydrodynamic slugging; slugging that occurs as a result of the fluid properties,
operating conditions and elevation profile under normal, “steady state” operation. Thus, depending on
the liquid drain rate available at the IPC end, additional volume in the inlet vessel is required to
accommodate the liquid surges generated due to hydrodynamic slugging.
The production rate was found to exceed the erosional velocity limit in a single 20 in. NB trunkline in
mainly two corridors (T302 & T402) and 2 off 20 in. NB trunklines were considered for these
trunklines. As the flow rate in T402 is the lowest of the two, hydrodynamic slugging is expected to be
worst for this trunkline. Hence, transient simulations were also completed considering 2 off 20 in. NB
trunklines for T402 for the 50:50 split. Simulations were done only for 2024 as these are expected to
give the most conservative results.
Figure 12 below shows the liquid arrival patterns at the IPC for a single 20 in. NB trunkline in corridor
T303 for 2022. Figure 13 and Figure 14 show the liquid arrival patterns for 2026 and for 2029
respectively. The liquid drainage rate at the IPC was set at the average liquid arrival rate for all three
cases.
Figure 12 – Surge volume for T303, single 20 in. NB trunklines for 2022.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
The maximum predicted surge volumes for different years are given in Table 5.2. The results are as
expected with higher surge volumes in earlier years due to the lower flowrates and higher hold ups.
3
The surge volumes do not exceed the maximum surge volume of 50 m per trunkline allowed for in
Segments A and B. Therefore, the surge volumes that must be handled at the IPC inlet are expected
to be no more onerous than was allowed for in the design of the IPC.
Table 5.2 – Surge volumes due to hydrodynamic slugging for T303 for single 20 in. trunkline.
Year Maximum Surge Volume (m3)
2022 35
2026 10
2029 4
Figure 15 below gives the surge volume for T402 for 2 x 20 in. NB option. A maximum of slightly
3 3
above 50 m is seen. This is more than a single trunkline maximum of 35 m and is as expected due
to the reduced flow in the trunkline which results in more slugging. The IPC A & B slugcatcher design
3 3 3
is based on hydrodynamic slugging of 50 m each from 3 trunklines (i.e. 150 m ) and 150 m from
3
scraping of a fourth trunkline [Ref. 9] (overall total 300 m ). A similar requirement for Segments C & D
is expected to be adequate.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
Figure 15 – Surge volume for T402, 2 x 20 in. NB trunklines for 2024.
5.3 Operational Slugging – Scraping

Simulations were run to investigate the expected surge volumes resulting from scraping operations in
Segments C & D. The single 20 in. NB trunkline in corridor T303 for 2022 was selected for this
simulation due its lower flow rate which is expected to give higher scraping generated surge volumes.
Scraping simulation for 50:50 flow split for T402 was also performed.
3
The scraping surge volume for the single trunkline (T303) is of the order of 5 m and the surge volume
3
for the 2 x 20 in. NB option (T402) is less than 10 m . This is considerably smaller than the surge
volumes in the Segments A and B simulations. This is because the available liquid drainage rate at
IPC is much higher than was in the case of segments A and B, which significantly reduces the surge
3
received at the IPC. Hence the surge volume due to scraping is well within the 150 m allowed for in
the design of the slug catchers in the IPC design.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
6. CONCLUSION
Steady state simulations indicate that using a single 20 in. NB trunkline in each of the trunkline
corridors in Segment C & D generally results in average backpressures downstream of the choke
valves exceeding the target backpressure (17 barg) which keep increasing as the years progress,
with some cases where the target is exceeded by 25 barg. However, the water cut of the produced
fluids is more than 30% and so it is expected that ESPs will be installed in most wells and therefore
these higher backpressures will not be an issue. Considering 2 off 20 in. NB trunklines in high
flowrate corridors, such as T302 and T402, reduces the backpressures to similar levels as the other
trunklines in the segment.
The production rates are such that for the majority of the trunklines the erosion rate is expected to
exceed 0.1 mm/yr for a 20 in. NB pipeline size only after 2027. The high flowrate corridors, such as
T302 and T402, exceed this erosion rate with a single 20 in. NB trunkline after 2025-2026. If
production beyond 2025-2026 is envisaged then it is recommended to leave space for a second
trunkline for corridors T301, T302, T304, T402 and T404 to minimise corrosion. If twin trunklines are
not installed then the production from wells connected to these trunklines could be choked back to
lower the erosion rate.
The temperature of the production fluids arriving at the IPC was found to be below the minimum
required arrival temperature of 50 °C (required for adequate separation in dehydrators and to achieve
the oil RVP specification) in four trunklines. However, it is true for only the first few years and in winter
ambient. Further, the fluid will be mixed with warmer fluid from other trunklines at the IPC. This
observation is also valid for the high flow corridors where twin trunklines could be implemented.
Hence, arrival temperature related concerns are not considered to be an issue.
Transient analysis has indicated that for a 20 in. NB trunkline the maximum expected surge volumes
are in the order of 35 m3, while 2 off 20 in. NB trunklines results in higher surge volumes of up to
around 50 m3 (per trunkline). The scraping surge volume is expected to be less than 10 m3, which is
well within the allowed 150 m3 in the IPC design.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
7. REFE RENCES
1 00100-C-G0-G000-PM-PRO-0001 Abbreviations and Acronyms Procedure
2 00100W-N-G0-G020-GE-BOD-0001 Basis of Design – Segment B Pipelines
3 00100-AAN-0137 AAN – Well Development GIS Design Basis
4 00100W-N-G0-G030-PR-REP-0001 Segments C and D – Gathering and Injection Pipeline

Systems Configuration Study
5 00100-W-C-DG-DN00-PR-REP-0001 Process Description – Integrated Processing Complex

(§4.1)
6 BP GN 06-001 Erosion Guidelines Rev. 3 (2004)
7 001-CAN-0004 TSS in Associated Water

8 00100W-C-G0-G000-GE-BOD-0001 Basic Engineering Design Data
9 00100W-N-FL-FL20-PR-REP-0003 Hydraulic Analysis – Gathering System
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
Appendix 1 PIPESIM Results – Summary
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
30
WELL BACKPRESSURE (barg)
27
24
max
21 avg
min
18
15
2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
YEAR
Figure A1 – Well backpressures downstream of the choke valve for a 20 in. NB trunkline in
corridor T301.
33
30
27
24 max
avg
21 min
18
15
2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
YEAR
corridor T302.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
Figure A3 – Well backpressures downstream of the choke valve for a 20 in. NB trunklines in
corridor T304.
corridor T401.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
corridor T402.
corridor T403.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
45
42
39
36
33
30 max
27 avg
24 min
21
18
15
2022 2024 2026 2028 2030
YEAR
corridor T404.
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
Appendix 2 PIPESIM Results – Example detailed output

(T302, 20 in. NB & 2 x 20 in. NB trunklines)
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
Appendix 3 Gathering Layout for Segments C and D
Rev 1 (17 July 2014)
FEED PROJECT
HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
DELETED
DELETED
DELETED
DELETED
DRAWING WILL BE REVISED TO SHOW DELETION.
DELETED
Rev 1 (17 July 2014)

Hydraulic Analysis - Segment C and D Gathering System

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Hydraulic Analysis - Segment C and D Gathering System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEED PR OJEC T

FEED and Phase 2 CONCEPT

WorleyParsons Europe Limited

© Copyright 2014 WorleyParsons

FEED PROJECT 405000-00100 - HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS

A Issued for Inter- 19-Feb-2014 NIA

B Issued for Client Review 27-Mar-2014

O Issued for Information 17-Apr-2014

Re-Issued for 17-Jul-2014

REVISION DESCRIPTION SHEET

Rev. Para. Reason for Revision

B Issued for Customer Review

0 Issued for Information

1 Re-Issued for Information

1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................... 7

1.2 Definitions ........................................................................................................................... 7

1.3 Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... 8

2. GATHERING SYSTEM OVERVIEW .................................................................................. 9

2.1 Trunkline and Multi-Well Well Pad Configuration .............................................................10

3. FLOW ASSURANCE BASIS ............................................................................................12

3.1 Fluid Composition .............................................................................................................12

3.2 Operating Conditions ........................................................................................................13

3.2.1 Pressure ...............................................................................................................13

3.3 Flow Line, Manifold and Trunkline Details ........................................................................14

3.3.1 Installation and Insulation ....................................................................................14

3.3.2 Field Elevation and Trunkline Routing Data ........................................................14

3.3.3 Thermal Properties ..............................................................................................14

3.3.4 Pipe Sizes ............................................................................................................15

3.4 Ambient Conditions ...........................................................................................................15

3.5 Simulation Software ..........................................................................................................15

4. STEADY STATE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................16

4.1 Well Backpressures ..........................................................................................................16

Erosion Limitations ......................................................................................................................20

4.2 IPC Arrival Temperatures .................................................................................................22

5. TRANSIENT ANALYSIS ...................................................................................................23

5.1 OLGA Model .....................................................................................................................23

5.1.1 Model Development & Assumptions ....................................................................23

5.2 Hydrodynamic Slugging ....................................................................................................24

5.3 Operational Slugging – Scraping ......................................................................................27

APPENDIX 1 PIPESIM RESULTS – SUMMARY

APPENDIX 2 PIPESIM RESULTS – EXAMPLE DETAILED OUTPUT (T302, 20 IN. NB & 2 X 20

APPENDIX 3 GATHERING LAYOUT FOR SEGMENTS C AND D

has entered into a Technical Services Agreement with the

PROJECT Project – FEED.

CONTRACT The formal agreement between COMPANY and

CONTRACTOR The Contractor performing the WORK described under

WORK Any and all works and/or services and/or materials to be

SHALL AND MUST Indicates mandatory requirements.

SHOULD Indicates that a provision is not mandatory, but

BEDD Basic Engineering Design Data

BOD Basis of Design

bpd Barrels (of oil) per Day

ESP Electric Submersible Pump

FEED Front End Engineering Design

GOR Gas-Oil Ratio

IPC Integrated Processing Complex

RVP Reid Vapour Pressure

scf Standard Cubic Feet

2. GATHERING SYS TEM OVERVIEW

2.1 Trunkline and Multi-Well Well Pad Configuration

Figure 2 – Gathering system configuration in Segments C & D.

3. FLOW ASSURANCE BASIS

3.1 Fluid Composition