Field Testing of a Multiphase Flow Meter

Used on a Liquid Dominant System

Philip A Lawrence, Director of Business Development

Cameron Valve & Measurement. USA

Stuart Wright, Design Engineer

Cameron (JQS) Valve & Measurement. UK

Abstract

Multiphase meters span many different designs in an attempt to achieve the right answer !

“A representative multi-fluid flow rate measurement that is repeatable”. Many previous designs of flow
meter have used extensive and propriety slip and PVT modeling that has worked on some occasions
and not worked in others. The primary reason for some multiphase meter performance failures is the
over-reaching of manufacturers performance claims that are really only viable within a set of Fluid
/PVT/fraction limits, based on conceptual reservoir data. This kind of reservoir data can be speculative
in some cases, with more modern techniques however, real time well data analysis is getting better.

One major obstacle in multiphase measurement is to satisfy the need for correct velocity
measurement in a multiphase device‟s meter throat, whilst developing a repeatable determination for
the composition of the fluids during changing conditions. This “ .P.” measurement is a major part of
many multiphase meter designs, and is the primary method used to determine the velocity in the
metering section and forms the basis from which other data is compared to and is often used in
conjunction with special “slip models” to mathematically compensate in real time for the differences in
superficial fluid velocities thus enabling “The reasonable answer”.

Usually devices that have been developed along this “computer slip modeling path” primarily have
been developed by electronic or computer engineers because of the complexities in the computations
and the exact process data needed to do the said “slip” corrections. The upstream condition into the
meter is important as well some manufacturers use a blind „T‟ as a conditioner which is hardly a
designed for the job pre conditioner. It is also rare to find these manufacturers operating in the field
of standard single phase custody transfer or fluid quality measurement

“Simple is Best ! ” is the philosophy that is touted around the world by many engineers, particularly
where safety and performance is needed (say in the aerospace industry). Reducing component parts
and complexities to a minimum is the key to a good safe and robust design in most cases. The
development of fluid superficial velocities that are homogeneous depends on the mixer or P element
type being used in certain meter designs. If a common mixed fluid velocity is achieved by the basic
design many complicated slip modeling issues are negated and made obsolete !

The multiphase device that will be described in this paper is designed to reduce the element of
surprise in the field of the main part of many multiphase devices “The Differential Producer Element”,
by offering the mixing and the homogeneity needed using a simple but effective mechanical design,
offering an installation without special calibrations for short pipe runs and flows that have severe
perturbation effects.

The research work for the device was completed at the Imperial College London UK, one of the
world‟s most influential universities and centers of excellence specializing in fluid mechanics, fluid
dynamics and aeronautics.
Is it Really a Liquid Dominant Regime ?

The abstract was written before the field trials of the multiphase device & the separator which was
used as the baseline comparison. We have been testing our device around the world with various end
users with interesting and good results. You will see from the data sets presented that a multiphase
well head will not do what it is told even when you have some previous history !

The MPFM testing described herein was performed at a large production site during 2010 and the
wells did not produce any representation of a totally liquid dominant flow regime despite assurances
by the reservoir engineers to the contrary, the wells were above an 80 % GVF. - See Figure 1.0.

Figure 1.0 - Well Flow Rates - Water, Oil Rates and G.V.F.

The client process team gave various parameters to “JQS-Cameron” to produce a Multiphase Flow
Meter (MPFM) sizing and determine a test matrix. After we were on site and started to collect flow-
data with our MPFM we realized later on that the process data we collected was totally different than
clients reservoir engineer‟s estimated data given at the start of the project.

The Reality !

We found that the multiphase flow data indicated by the test separator and production system was
totally different than the predicted GVF from the process engineers. The actual data from the
separator was only offered at the end of the test and this developed into an interesting situation !

Despite the paper title “Field Testing of a MPFM in a Liquid Dominant Regime” the majority of flow
data showed high GVF values which caused a little concern, however in multiphase metering what
matters is how you solve the situation you are handed with !

Multiphase Meter Test Concept

Prior to the test of the MixMeter (MxM) Multiphase Meter the writer made a visit in 2009 to the field
test site to review the well head well test system which uses 2 sets of high and low pressure
separators and is a multiple well system. The test concept was discussed with the client process
engineering team and a plan produced to supply a MxM multiphase flow meter (MPFM) at the site to
measure high pressure 3 phase lines coming from multiple well heads and compare the separator
with the MPFM which was to be placed after the well head main choke.
A cursory audit of the existing separator system was done to ascertain the validity of the system as a
benchmark or baseline for the test, various comments were made and are shown in this report.

Multiphase Measurement Philosophy

Conventional single-phase metering systems require the product constituents or "phases" of the
well streams to be fully separated upstream of the point of measurement to a known standard.

Usually for production metering this requirement is recorded automatically at the outlet of a
conventional process plant, since the main purpose of such a plant is to receive the sum of well
streams in one end and to deliver ( partially stabilized) single phase measured product ready for
transport at the other end. Single-phase metering systems normally provide high-performance
measurements of hydrocarbon production.

The need for multiphase flow metering arises when it is needed to meter well stream(s) upstream of
the inlet separation and/or for co-mingling.

Multiphase flow measurement technology is an attractive methodology since it enables

measurement of unprocessed well streams very close to a well. The use of MPFMs can lead to cost
savings in initial installations

A MPFM can provide continuous monitoring of well performance and thereby better reservoir
exploitation, drainage and in field process management.

Multiphase measurement technology is complex and has certain limitations; therefore care must be
exercised when planning installations that include one or more MPFMs in uncharted locations.
Some limitations of multiphase measurement technology can be the overall uncertainty of the
measurement and relationship with the clients expectation.

An important factor to consider is that a multiphase meter is measuring unprocessed/live and more
complex flow than is measured by single-phase measurement systems and separators, therefore
calibration and fluid knowledge is of paramount importance requiring Representative Samples and PVT
Data (either modeled or from direct laboratory analysis) to ensure accurate performance.

The MxM MPFM uses a combination D.P. element to bring the multiphase flow to a common
velocity this is the key factor in obtaining much reduced slip between each of the phases this
eliminates the need for special and complicated slip modeling (Figure2.0 below shows the simple
design which was developed empirically at Imperial College in London, UK ).

Figure 2.0 – The M.x.M. Venturi – Wedge (Low Slip-Design) Multiphase .P. Element

3 - Flow.
Meter Selection Process

When selecting a multiphase flow metering technology for a specific application, one must first
investigate and describe the expected flow regime(s) from the wells to be measured and determine
the production envelope/s, review the location, and determine if possible all the process fluids to be
measured.

An assessment can be done to see if there exists a MPFM with a corresponding measurement
envelope, making it suitable for the purpose of metering the wells properly.

Exploration/ reservoir samples or well production forecasts can be used for these considerations,
and can be a useful aid in selection of the correct MPFM types together with the use of two-phase
flow and composition maps all which can help the selection process.

When a production/measurement envelope / application matrix is produced then the selection of a

MPFM that is capable of continuously measuring the representative phases and volumes within the
required uncertainties can be determined.

The well stream flow rates will vary over the lifetime of the well, and it is important to ensure that the
MPFM is also able to measure this variation with the required uncertainty for the client‟s needs.

Alternatively, the MPFM may have to be exchanged or re-tooled at some later stage in the production
life. This is an important issue to consider when deciding upon the sizing of a MPFM.

The test meter we sized had parameters that made it suitable for trial however the meter pipe
diameters did not match the client piping on arrival at the site (a change we did not know about during
the 2009 site visit shown later in Fig 3).

Concentric reducers were used to make the meter flanges match, this method could in certain
circumstances cause gas breakout before the system due to the pipe area reduction particularly on
low vapour pressure crude oils.

MPFMs are now being used in some cases of marginal field developments where the cost of
processing facilities and metering downstream of separation cannot be justified and they may be used
with relaxed uncertainty for allocation applications, depending on risk level, partner or contractual
acceptability and taxation /fiscal rules for such devices.

Test Matrix

A test matrix sketch is shown next in Fig 3.0 as produced from the writer s site visit.

Even after more than 25 years of end user / multiphase meter operations world-wide the selection of a
correct process definition for these meter types is key in obtaining a proper metering result after
installation. The use of sales personnel to manage this part can be fraught with difficulty unless the
person has a strong metering, technical or chemical engineering background.

The new draft API chapter 20.3 – “ Multiphase Measurement Draft Standard “ makes a very good
attempt to address this aspect of the use of MPFM‟s and it is hoped that end users will use the
valuable information contained in this new document when finished to help themselves and
manufacturers to supply and use more accurate metering systems.
 Fig 3.0 - The Separator Baseline Installation as Observed November 2009

Comments on the Baseline Generator – (Separator System)

The system as found is shown in the simple representative sketch in fig 3.0 and appears to be about
17-20 years old. It was fitted with DP technology, level gauges and orifice plates as the main
measurement methodology to determine a set of well testing quantities “oil water and gas flow rates”.

This type of technology must be maintained properly and inspected regularly if factual results are
obtained and be sure that all is working correctly regarding the collection of repeatable & accurate
flow rate data and level control etc.

The low pressure separator had some modernization; - a 6 inch diameter Coriolis type flow meter has
been fitted.

The construction of this meter is primarily for liquids and cannot handle or operate in a gas breakout
condition which can cause failed or inaccurate readings if this condition occurs during operation.

The separators where originally designed with oil gas and water outlets however the water outlet has
been shut in and the water routed to the oil export line which is measured by the Coriolis, metering
unit.

No independent water measurement exists on the baseline separator system

A set-up drawing of the install was distributed to the end user and, no comments were made and all
assumed to be in order and confirmed. No calibration certificates were reviewed or available.

We believe the water-cut on the separator was established by the variation in density in the 2-phase
liquid, although I am unsure how they measured the density.
Baseline Data Collection Using a Combined Water / Oil Mass Meter.

Using a combined water and oil measurement for the liquid side of the high pressure separator is not
usually recommended, although Coriolis type meters can read mass flow rate for a flowing liquid it is
classed as a single phase device this device had no method to discern whether water or oil mixture is
changing in the measurement section unless a device is used to estimate the water cut.

Density changes and the problem with gas breakout conditions due to low vapour pressure may be an
issue in normal operation. This may cause swings in then mass flow rate indicated due to the water
content and density change across the meter.

(The new proposed draft API 20.2 standard API MPMS Chapter 20.2 Production Allocation
Measurement Using Single Phase Devices, deals with this issue with regard to liquid meter position
ratio to the low-low level in the tank).

They can be used for 2 phase liquid flow within certain limits according to the manufacturers‟ claims;
however the Coriolis manufacturer must state these limits and provide a procedure to operate the
device properly based on PVT data.

N.B. If gas breakout occurs in the mass device the meter stops recording and alarms. This alarm can
be disabled as it can become disconcerting to the operators and so means nothing.

Any deposition inside the device may be read as a density error it is advisable to inspect these
devices if scale is predicted, to make sure that this density error does not occur. Installation of these
meter types in the correct orientation is also necessary to get more accurate results.

Test Set up - Location and Installation

The MPFM (MxM) was installed after the well head choke manifold system and in front of the
separator into a 4 inch line by using concentric reducers/ expanders as the MPFM supplied was only
available with 3 inch class 600RF flanges so reducers had to be installed.

This is an important point which will be discussed later in the report with regard to fluid phase
relationship effects. The meter has a local RS485 connection to program calibrate and record the flow
rate data from the meter this was located at about 1000 feet from the meter in a room located in the
training building

Baseline Testing and Results

Data was collected over a 6 week period during mid – 2010, the test data that was provided by JQS
Cameron was given in an unmodified format daily to the end user. At the end of the test the baseline
test data from the separator was provided reciprocally to Cameron JQS.

At no time during the test was any PVT or baseline data given to enable calibration of the MxM
multiphase meter. The daily phase data would have been helpful to enable specific tuning of the
MPFM to tighten up the meter uncertainty during the test.

The field test was completed over 27 days and the final client data set (baseline) was given to us for
inspection only after reviewing the data it was noticed that the baseline had some incorrect GOR
values. This re-iterates the need for care when managing an allocation system ! The true values
where calculated by the writer and are shown in the RHS column. The end user was grateful for the
insight and some procedures changed to reflect the calculation issue. See Fig 4.0.
 Figure 4.0 Baseline Testing and Results

Cameron JQS Plotted Data Sets

The following is a summary of the data set from both the baseline output and the MxM Multiphase
device for, gas oil and water.

The data is represented in a graphical form and shown as a raw uncorrected output plotted and then
shown with a correction to bring the data in line with the baseline by tuning to correct for PVT errors.

It is acceptable using the correct calibration data to align data sets in multiphase measurement
based on allocation measurement techniques Noticeably the meter is fairly repeatable (as can be
seen from the data) but there are indications that a large over-reading is occurring over the 3 phases,
this may be explained as being due to initial calibration or lack of it and the fact that PVT data
information was not available from the end user at the onset of the test, also this may be due to the
separator system.

Natural Gas Data – (Baseline v Meter)

The gas outlet data set is shown first (Figure 5), which is followed by the graphical representation of
the data (Figure 6) corrected using one K factor to align the separator and meter data set.
 Natural Gas Outlet versus MxM

Fig 5.0 - 1) MxM Uncorrected 2) Baseline 3) MxM Corrected using a 0.55 K-factor

The MxM gas data was corrected by using a 0.55 meter factor correction across the whole data set
this gave a repeatable answer which fell inside the client‟s uncertainty requirements.

Water Outlet Data

The water outlet data was supplied by the end user it is not clear how this data was determined since
the Coriolis meter was flanged with a manifold to both water and oil the relationship between these
liquids can have issues due to salinity or other chemical deposition MPMS API chapter 20.1 does not
mention this method of allocation.

The data is shown below both raw, corrected graphically (trending) and tabular - figs 6 & 7.

(N.B. All the data in this paper is blinded due to the end users requirement for confidentiality)

Figure 6 – MxM Results v Baseline – Produced Water

MPFM Output Values - Produced Water

The MxM Multiphase meter values indicated an over-read against the separator output a post
test correction was used to show a best alignment with the end user / client data.

This was obtained using a 5% K factor correction factor in the data set highlighted in yellow The
graphical data is shown next with the MxM corrected data and client data.The data is fairly close
and follows a trend line. (Figure 7.0)

Water was not present on certain days the data set shows zero‟s on these days

A photograph of the MxM installation is shown in Figure 8.0

Figure 7.0 - Water Outlet Flow Rates - Series 1 Corrected MxM -V- Series 2 Separator.

Figure 8.0 - Meter Install showing O.P. Elbow Piping Configuration.

Crude Oil Data Set

The oil data was particularly interesting since the uncertainty of the measurement looked and seemed
higher than would be expected. The use of the mass flow device to determine volume using the
density output can be an issue particularly when the water outlet is passing through the same device
viscosity can affect the readings.

The data as presented shows an uncertainty banding of +/-10% between the separator and the MxM
MPFM produce data reconciliation. The following is both a tabular and graphical representation of the
data set, seen as Figs. 9.0 & 10.0 respectively.

Figure 9.0 - Crude Oil Daily Flow Rates.

Figure 10.0 Baseline Separator v MxM MPFM - Raw & Corrected.

 Conclusion

The meter worked from the start with little or no calibration and a poor inlet and outlet piping regime
using concentric reducers !

Once the meter data set had been „re-calibrated‟ retrospectively to correct the systematic offset
caused by poor PVT data the MxM results looked both stable and within the performance
requirements of the test criteria and were accepted by the end user . The apparent shift in results is
consistent with a lack of up-front process data and information at the start to enable a proper set up of
a M.P.F.M.

Secondary corrections to stock tank conditions (usually referred to as GOR 2) is also a parameter
that was not taken into consideration that can impact any baseline comparison and needs to be a
component in a test to be reviewed.

Multiphase metering has developed into a mainstay technology for many companies, the main issues
that still cause hiccups in the implementation of the devices is the technical appreciation and fluid
compositional needs at the start to affect a good result.

The smaller independents and overseas companies are readily looking at MPFM devices as a
management tool to control costs, manage well head and well testing as at more advanced level. The
ability to reduce the need for a separator is a big driving force in the acceptability of multiphase
meters.

The safety aspect of the newer designs of containment particularly when the containment meets the
U.K. radiological standards also means that the chances of a person being irradiated by the Barium
sources used in these devices is very low indeed.

Reducing slip modeling is a factor that most multiphase metering companies should strive for since
the calculations are much easier to facilitate and work with where simpler calculation techniques are
used.

It is anticipated that multiphase meters will be more readily accepted as time progresses as the end
users and manufacturers work together at the start of a project to have a better understanding of one
another‟s needs to reach a better measurement answer !

Appendix 1 – General- MxM - MPFM Concept Data for Information

The MixMeter (MxM) had its genesis in a study carried out for the UK Offshore Supplies Office. The
study was commissioned because the various multiphase meter developments in progress at the time
did not seem to be heading very rapidly or with any certainty towards a solution.

The main thrust of this original study and all the work which followed was towards a subsea meter,
suitable for use on manifolds or individual wellheads. Of course such a meter would also have
application on topsides and land based developments.

Key requirements were seen to be:

Accuracy: A target of +/-5% for each phase was set although a +/-10% meter was seen as
commercially viable in a reservoir management role.

Reliability/Simplicity: To operate reliably in a remote environment over long periods it was felt that the
device should be as simple as possible.

Minimal or Zero Calibration Requirements: No in situ flow calibration would be possible so a

successful meter has to function independent of flow conditions and therefore independent of the
installation.
Compactness: A small device is required to allow installation within wellhead/manifold guideposts. A
compact device should also be relatively light. This will aid deployment subsea and makes the device
attractive for topsides applications.

Low Power: Power is at a premium subsea and low power consumption was seen as essential along
with low data transfer requirements.

In the initial design study, a number of important conclusions were reached which included:

(1) In principle, measurement of the three flow-rates (oil/water/gas) implies measuring the phase
average velocities and phase cross sectional fractions in the pipe; this means, in general, that
three velocities and two phase fractions (the third follows by difference) must be determined.

However, if the flow can be conditioned in some way to make the velocities equal at any cross
section at any time, then only one velocity needs to be measured. This reduces the number of
measurements required to three (one velocity and two phase fractions).

The first study indicated that there was some hope that equalization of the velocities could be
achieved using developments of homogenizers available at that time.

(2) For phase fraction measurement, the least equivocal methods were those based on radiation
measurements (dual-energy gamma and neutron interrogation).

General Description of a MxM - MPFM

The MxM multiphase flow meter comprises two main components:

1. A specially developed homogenizer or „mixer‟

2. A dual energy gamma phase fraction meter

(seen below)

Signals from the gamma instrument, a differential pressure signal from a transmitter reading the mixer
pressure drop together with line pressure and temperature signals are fed to a remote data
acquisition/transmission unit at the meter and then via a serial data link to the control room computer
(PC) which controls the meter and processes the data, currently providing on screen and printed
output.

The meter has no moving parts and the only intrusion into the flow is the mixer which is formed from
two solid „shoes‟ welded inside the meter tube. Materials selected will depend upon application but
usually 316 stainless steel is offered as standard.
The overall length of the 3” meter is less than 1m this was the meter type used at KOC for the test.

To allow passage of the low energy gamma beam two inserts are mounted in the pipe wall. These are
machined from a high performance engineering polymer „Victrex PEEK 450G‟ which is rated for
continuous working temperatures up to 250degC, is fully resistant to hydrocarbon and general
chemical attack and is already widely used in the oil industry for valve parts etc.

Once MxM is installed and calibrated operator intervention is not required with the field equipment in
normal operating conditions. The meter can be fully operated from the flow computer.

Flow Computer & Software

The MxM flow computer is a PC running the Windows operating system. The flow computer is
interfaced to the field equipment via a serial interface which transfers the raw data from the field
equipment to the flow computer. The MxM software performs all data processing, display and
reporting of results.

Configuration & Calibrations

MxM software can store the fluid calibrations for a large number of oil wells (limited by the flow
computer hard drive). This allows the meter to be operated on a range of oil wells containing fluids of
different properties simply by loading the correct fluid calibrations. Each set of fluid calibrations are
saved with a specific well name to avoid errors.

Velocity Measurement

The differential pressure measured across the mixer provides the basis for determination of the bulk
velocity or total superficial velocity of the flowing fluid, VT. The relationship used also involves the
liquid fraction, EL which is obtained from the dual energy instrument. The equation is of the form:
2
P = k(VT EL)

Where k is a constant.

A fundamental and unique characteristic of the mixer is that the above relationship is very stable for
all fluids and liquid fractions tested to date, from 100% liquid to 10% liquid and below including 2 and
3 phase situations.

The calibration constants can therefore be derived from simple single phase water flow tests. The
following chart illustrates this point – Data from NEL and the original prototype below

200

180
Differential Pressure kPa

160

140
2/3 Phase NEL
120
Water
100

80
Oil
60
2/3 Phase Trecate
40

20

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Rig Total Velocity^2 x Rig El

(m/s)^2
Informative References

In single-phase flow measurement there exists normative standards; this is not the case for
multiphase flow metering. The following literature is recommended as informative references for
multiphase flow metering at this time although the API in the USA is writing a standard which
includes wet gas and multiphase (API chapter 20.3 will be the title)

SO-11631:1998 International Organization for Standardization (1998):

Measuring of Fluid flow.

Methods of Specifying Flow Meter Performances.

API TP 2566 American Petroleum Institute (2004):

State of the art Multiphase Flow Metering.

API RP-85 American Petroleum Institute (2005):

Use of Subsea Wet gas Flow meters in Allocation Measurement Systems.

Recommended Practice 85 discusses how liquid hydrocarbon measurement is accomplished by

using available sampling information to determine the well's water volume fraction and gas-oil ratio
(GOR). This RP presents a recommended allocation methodology that is technically defensible and
mathematically optimized to best fit the application, and that equitably accommodates variances in
the uncertainty level between meters within the system.

ISO/TR 7066-1:1997 International Organization for Standardization (1997):

Measurement of fluid flows in general. Assessment of uncertainty in calibration and use of flow
measurement devices - Part 1: Linear calibration relationships.

Biographical References

1) NEL Test Report MxM MPFM Trial project # CPM 002 1998 - DTI Multi-flow II Project.
2) Gulbraar, A.M., Christiansen, B., and D. Kvamsdal, Compact Cyclone Multiphase Meter –
Discussion of Metering Principle, Slug Handling Capacities, and Flow Measurement Results,
North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop, Oslo, Norway, October 1999.
3) Movafaghian, S., Jaua-Marturet, J. A., Mohan, R. S., Shoham, O., and G.E. Kouba, The
Effects of Geometry, Fluid Properties and Pressure on the Hydrodynamics of Gas-Liquid
Cylindrical Cyclone Separators, International Journal of Multiphase Flow, vol. 26, no. 6, June
2000, 999-1018.
4) Gysling, D., Next Generation Clamp-on Sonar Meter for Wet Gas Applications, The Americas
Workshop, Houston, Texas, February 2009.
5) Toral, H., Multiphase Flow Rate Identification by Pattern Recognition at Shell Auk Alpha
Platform, North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop, Gleneagles, Scotland, October 2000.
6) Olijinik, L.A., and D.A. La Caze, Parque das Conchas (BC-10) Subsea-Hardware Systems:
Selection, Challenges, and Lessons Learned, SPE Journal of Petroleum Technology, pp. 56-
58, August 2010.
7) American Petroleum Institute (API), Measurement of Multiphase Flow, Recommended
Practice RP 86, March 2005.
8) Norwegian Society for Oil and Gas Measurement, (Norsk Foreing for Olje og Gassmåling),
NFOGM, Handbook of Multiphase Flow Metering, second edition, March 2005.
9) UK Department of Trade and Industry, Guidance Notes for Petroleum Measurement, Issue 7,
December 2003.