OILFIELD GATHERING SYSTEM

MODELS FOil PLAlOUNG AND OP"l'DlUK DESIGN

by

B. T. Yocua

ABSTRACT

The eleaents entering into the formulation of an Oilfield

Gathering System Kode1 are developed. These are design formulae for
facilities, cost correlations, reservoir behavior predictions, .and
producing rate schedules. The model is formulated and present worths
are calculated. Minimum cost designs and use of the optimized .odels
in planning are described with examples.

INTRODUCTION

Large investments are required in oil facilities to produce,

gather, process, and transport crude oil from the reservoir to the
shipping terminal. A major engineering objective is to plan and design
these facilities to miniaize the total investment and associated expenses
during the oilfield life. In this paper we formulate a model of oil-
field gathering facilities, as well as design formulae and cost correla-
tions required to make the model suitable for cost optimization procedures.
The equations are stated generally with coeffiCients, and not with specific
Arabian values.

Figure 1 shows the facilities elements required to produce an

oilfield up to the loading of the tankers. We will restrict out model
formulation to the gathering system and the pipelines connecting to a
.ajor pipeline systea, or a major center of operations. The included
facilities are the oilwells, flowlines and trunklines, gas oil separator
plants, pumping, pipelines, and pressure maintenance facilities (water or
gas injection). Well flow stimulation facilities s,uch as deep well pumps
and gas lift are also included. Oil fields offshore or in isolated areas
often require their own tankage and terminal facilities. The model then
increases in complexity since tankage and terminal facilities should be
opt~ized together with the gathering and pipeline facilities. This
.ore co.plex situation is not considered bere.

MODEL RlQUllEKERrS

We .ust establish several relationships to define the lathering

sys tea DIOde 1.

lleservoir

1. The estimated reservoir pressure decline curve with ti. . (in

years) with the total withdrawal rate from the reservoir es
par... ter.

2. Flow resistance of reservoir rock (productivity index), also,

iaitia1 reservoir pressure aad te.perature.

709
 'i I'

OILFIELD SYSTEM ELEMENTS

,------ J_ --- -l .. r- - - ___ l_:.:.~ '" --,

I PUMPING AND PIPELINE 'I'
. I'
~ TANKAGE AND
STABILIZATION
I
I
'- - - - - - - ~- - - __ - --I .~. ,,: "!; L:- ~- - - - [ - - - - - --J

, ,
'-
',"
.,
-~~~--- ------,
I I

GAS OIL SEPARATORS . ,~,.: ". '. TERMINAL :

·····L '. _..:.... _______ -..1
- ..
,
. " ': I .' .. _

TRUNKLINES .. :

BOTTOM HOLE PUMPING,

,..---~ GAS LIFT
...--_ _ _-"1..--_ _ _----, ...

FLOWLINES

PRESSURE MAINTENANCE
- GAS, WATER INJECTION ETC
" "
OIL WELLS

(.~.--------~------~
RESERVOIR FIGURE-I
'.~ ""'"t

. ~~, ~. '

710
Production Rate Schedules

Oilfield producing rate for constant rate studies, or year by

year schedule of producing rates for long ranse or maximum
development studies.

Facilities Design Formulae

1. Two-phase flow equations and correlations for oi1we11s, flow-

lines and trunk1ines.

2. Sizing and flow equations for separators, pumping, pipelines,

water injection systems. These equations should be reasonably
accurate, say *51 on flow rate.
Cost Correlations

General cost correlations for each facility. Preferably

function of capacity or major design variables.

Cost Analysis

1. Estimation of incremental operating expenses, depreciation,

and taxes, to calculate cash flows.

2. Supporting facilities.

3. Cost sheets of capital outlay plus cash outflow each year.

4 •. Interest rate tables and present worth computation.

Our experience shows that the empirical equations and correlations

have to be reasonably accurate to give trustworthy results. Coarse
definition of the calculating equations causes loss in sensitivity in
comparing alternative plans or designs.

Figure 2 is an example of the reservoir pressure decline with

time from an oilfield, at three assumed producing rates. Note the three
phases of facilities additions at a constant producing rate. In Phase 1
facilities are required to bring on the oilfield. In Phase 2 supplementary
wells, flowlines and trunklines are required to maintain rate with decline
in well flows (lower reservoir pressure). In phase 3, pressure mainte-
nance facilities are installed. These three phases of facilities additions
continue to exist when several increments are brought on year after year,
with the time series of facilities superimposed. With the Figure 2
relationship we are able to relate facilities requirements to time and
the capacity and size of the facilities to the production rates.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Reservoir

The fundamental relationship for all oilfield cost .ode1s is

reservoir pre•• ure decline versus ti.e with total withdrawal rates as

711
 HYPOTHETICAL OIL FIELD
..---INI TIAl RESERVOIR BASIS
FACILITIES

,~--AOD WELLS I FLS

0::
Q..

LLI
0::
j
U)
U)
LLI
a:
Q..

a:
-
o
PRESSURE
MAINT. FACILITIES -~...
>
a:
LLI
U)
laJ
a:

o
TIME, YEARS
FfGURE 2
parameter. Figure a shows this relationship for a hypothetical reservoir.
The resistance to flow of the reservoir rock is measured by the productivity
index (PI). This is constant if the reservoir fluid is in one phase, and
varies if gas is evolved in the reservoir at lower pressures. Reservoir
pressure is the ultimate upstream pressure in all calculations. Reservoir
temperature is needed to fully define the thermodynamic state of the reservoir
fluid along it. flow path.

Oil Well
The major requirement is definition of the pressure and tempera-
ture profiles up the oilwell. As the reservoir fluid rises in the well its
pressure declines until the bubble point is reached. A flashing mixture
of gas and liquid then flows to the top of the well and through the
gathering lines. The more accurate the prediction of the mixture density
along the flow path, the more realistic the design estimates of facilities
will be.

The density function is defined by Laboratory PVT studies on the

specific reservoir fluid under study. These calculations are programmed
for the computer so the Laboratory density function with pressure and
temperature is listed on a master tape and read directly into the program.
The gas oil mixture at any P and T value is defined by the mixture density.

In the low pressure region up to about 40~ of the bubble point

pressure, the mixture density is a linear function of pressure level at
constant temperature. This allows development of simplified formulas. The
mixture density in the intermediate range between the linear low pressure
region and the bubble point is an exponential function of pressure. (An
arc tangent function was defined of limited value). For computer application
a nine coefficient power series of good accuracy can be developed by
regression analysis. Above the bubble point the gas is entirely in solution,
and is treated as liquid phase density. A four coefficient series accurately
matches this region.

Te.ting proved that the conventional friction factor defined by

the Reynolds Number applied to oil well flow, the only modification being
that liquid phase viscosities and mixture densities be used in calculating
the Reynolds Number. The Colebrook-White equation is a convenient form
for computer calculation.

An essential factor is the conversion of the barrel per day rate

of crude oil flow measured at atmospheric pressure to the mass flow of the
oil and gas mixture before removal of the gas in the separators.

The above equations are solved simultaneously starting at the

bottom of the well and proceeding incrementally step by step up the well.
Computer programs have been written to carry out this chore. The end result
are curves of predicted well head pressures and temperatures as a function
of well flow rate with flowing bottom hole pre.sure as parameter. By
solving flow rate with the reservoir resistance factor, productivity index,
the reservoir pre.sure can be substituted for the flowing bottom hole

713
pressure. Thi. curve is referred to a. the well potential curve. It is a
most important component of the facilities model since it relates well
requirements, surface pressure, and the reservoir characteristics.

The well potential curve is next converted to an empirical equation

form. If actual well test data are available, an empirical equation can be
developed with three empirical coefficients and three terms in the equation,
the last one being proportioned to the square of the flow rate. This
empirical form is entered in the model. Submergible pumping adds a pressure
increase at the bottom of the well. Artifical lift affects the mixture
density starting at Some depth. The well equations can be modified to
handle these additions.

Flow Chokes

Flow chokes are often necessary to restrict well rates for

reservoir control. The best way to handle them in the model is by incorpo-
ration in the well potential curves and modifying the well coefficients. A
rough correlation of choke pressure drop is found in the subsonic region. At
sonic velocity in the throat, a critical pressure ratio occurs. Flow capacity
remains constant as pressure drop increases, the pressure energy going into
nois~ or shock waves emitted downstream. Open well potential models are
often the most useful for planning and design purposes. The choke problem
then does not arise.

Flowlines and Trunklines

The gathering lines operate in two-phase flow (except in well-

head separation cases). Thus, the characteristics of two-phase hydraulics,
at low to medium pressure, enter the model construction. A modified form
of the Fanning equation is used with mixture density and liquid phase
viscosity. A temperature equation along the line correlates above-ground
temperature drop for bare pipelines with good accuracy as a function of
length, diameter, ambient temperature and heat transfer coefficient. Our
experience shows heat transfer coefficients for underwater concrete coated
lines range from 1.5 to 3.0 BTU/hr.ft 2 of, and for buried and wrapped lines,
from .15 to 1 BTU/hr.ft 2o F depending on soil type, moisture conditions, and
depth of burial.

Extensive studies and correlations of two-phase friction factors

in pipelines have been made in th~ past. For practical calculations a
simple approach was found to be most successful. Above a critical velocity
(10 ft/sec) all flo~ data was adequately correlated by the Reynolds Number
modified to liquid viscosity and mixture density. Below 2.5 ft/sec velocity,
friction factor rose steeply. An empirical equation expressed as a function
of linesrvelocity of the mixture, and, gas oil ratio, fitted this region.
Between 2.5 and 10 ft/sec the friction factor is calculated both ways, and
the highest value chosen.

A computer program haa been written which calculates pressure and

temperature increment by increment considering elevation changes as well as
friction losses, and temperature effects on density. The theory is that
uphill elevation changes cause equivalent head reduction in pressure as
usual, but that going downhill the elevation head exchanges energy with

714
relative velocity; Consumption of energy in surface waves and mixing also
occurs. The practical effect is that pressure drop is increased by uphill
elevations but is not recovered on the downhill slopes.

Pressure losses across valves, piping and fittings should be

considered since they amount to 30 - 50 psig. Subtracting half of the loss
at the wellhead and half at the separator plant entrance is usually a
realisti.c estimate. The mixture density is linear with pressures for most
fluids up to 40% of the bubble point. A short form equation is developed
by substituting the linear density equation into the Fanning equation. A
squared pressure form results which is useful for quick studies.

Gas Oil Separation

For each crude (defined as its reservoir fluid) there is an

optimum set of separating conditions. The entering temperature of the two-
phase mixture into the separating plant is not controlled, so the optimum
solution is in terms of the number of stages of separation, and gas removal,
and the pressure held on each stage. The objective is to maximize the
retention of valuable LPG and other light components in the crude oil thus
maximizing API gravity. Laboratory case studies over a wide variety of
conditions are most desirable, however, usually, vapor-liquid equilibrium
calculations based on standard K values are resorted to. These are classical
vapor-liquid flash equilibrium calculations which are fully described in
the text books.

Sizing of the separator vessels makes use of empirical formulas

with constants defined by extensive testing.. Flare lines, oil lines,
suction boosters etc., are sized by standard hydraulic curves for gas and
oil.

Pump Stations

After separation of the gas the oil is pumped in one phase. A

minimum cost solution always occurs if the pumping horsepower requirement
is less than the power available in the gas (especially high pressure gas),
since gas expansion turbine drivers can then be used. Often this solution
is not possible since the gas is sold or injected. With cold gas expansion
turbine~ keeping exit temperature above 40-50Dr is desirable to avoid
hydrate formation.

Power studies are usually required comparing electrification, gas

combustion turbines, or diesels, as pump drivers and standard auxilIaries.
These alternatives are often tested in their long range aspects by the model
studies.

Pipelines

Crude oil pipeline sizing and optimization with the pump stations
are handled by using the standard hydraulic curves. Conventional liquid
phase fOLffiulas for pressure gradient and elevation change and hydrauliC charts
are used. The standard optimization of pumping and horsepower is made
separately from the rest of the model.

715
Water Injection

Often there are two-phases of water injection facilities: (1) Dump

flood injection where the same well may be used for water supply and injection.
Use of dump flood will depend on several factors, relatively high injectivity
index (or low re.i.tance) to the water by the reservoir, low reservoir pre.-
sures. or , limited oil producing rates. (2) Powered injection where the
water is pumped into the reservoir. Optimization studies of power supply,
location and size of pumps, water supply and injection distribution networks
are required. These studies can be done as model case studies if the model
is properly constructed.

COST CORRELATIONS

Cost estimates are made for each facility which cover the practical
range of capacity. These costs are plotted against the major variables
controlling capacity. Actual investments in plants and facilities were then
correlated with the theoretical relationships. Adjustments are made as
required as new facilities are built and new information becomes available.
The following cost corelations are useful:

Oilwells - Depth, caSing diameter, onshore or offshore.

Flowlines and Trunklines - Diameter, length, location (above

ground, buried, underwater).

Offshore Platforms - Water depth, area, number of risers or wells.

Pump Stations and Drivers - Horsepower, type of driver.

Gas Oil Separator Plants - Plant capacity, stages of separation.

Pipelines - Diameter, wall thickness, pipe grade, location (above

ground, buried, underwater),length.

Stabilizer - Capacity, reboiler heating, process.

Tankage - Working capacity, type (spheroid, hemispheroid, cone

roof).

Terminal - Specific estimates depending on location and .any other

factors.

Water In1ection - Estimate from components.

Gas Inlection - Discharge and suction pressure, capacity.

The incremental operating expenses associated with additions of

each type of facility are estimated from Accounting Data, and correlated with
new units and capacity.

Capital outlays in oil facilities create the need for additional

supporting facilities. The more remote or inaccessible the area where the

116
oilfield is located the greater these requirements usually are. Support
facilities are usually considered to be transport (motor, aircraft, marine),
housing, community facilities, electric power, shops, materials supply,
utilities (water, gas, fuel oil), and communications. Comparison of invest-
ment programs or design approaches reflect differences in these support
facilities (more or less manpower, or electric power or water etc). The
supporting facilities can only rarely be neglected, usually only when
specific design configurations are being suboptimized. In investment
planning they should not be neglected.

COST SHEETS

Now that we have the tools to design and cost estimate the stream
of facilities needed to produce an oilfield and to sustain or increase its
production, we can prepare the cost sheets (Table I). The investment for
each facility added is estimated as well as the incremental cash outflow it
generates each year. The total capital outlay and the total cash outflow
are added to give the "Net Cash Effect". The present worth of the resulting
time series of costs is then computed using the interest rate tables.

Alternative plans, strategies, designs approaches, rate schedules,

and reservoir behaviour variations may each result in a separate cost sheet
of the Table I type. The alternative present worths are then computed and
can be compared. Some Managements choose a discount rate for study purposes;
u8ually in the 15-251 range depending on business risks in the area.

OPTIMUM GATHERING SYSTEMS

Figure 3 shows four solutions to the design of a oilfield

gathering system. Each solution has been found to be the minimum cost
solution for a specific oilfield. Several alternative configurations are
tested to determine the minimum present worth solution.

1. Individual Flowlines

Connecting the oilwells with individual flowlines to the central

separator plant was the original plan in most Middle East fields.
It is still optimal in certain circumstances, for instance, under
the following conditions, low wellhead pressures and well flow
rates, long flowlines, severe elevation changes, rapid reservoir
pressure decline and early pressure maintenance.

2. Trunkl ines

Gathering the two-phase mixture from the oilwells via a large

diameter trunkline and short flowlines is the normal minimum
cost solution in most oilfields. Trunklines were not recognized
as the best solution in most cases until greater confidence in
the two-phase hydraulic formulae was gained in the late 1950's.
The true minimum cost configuration must be tested for since ',,'
factors affect the relative value of wells/flowlines/and trun;,
lines. Future expansion is considered too (tying in additional
wells). This key algorithm is separately discussed later on.

717
 OIL FIELD GATHERING SYSTEMS
TYPICAL SOLUTIONS

INDIVIDUAL FLOWLINES TRUNKLINE + FLOWLINE

TRUNK + BRANCH WELL HEAD SEPARATION

o OIL WELL
GATHERING LINES
c:::::::J GAS OIL SEPARATOR FIGURE 3
Jll. PUMP

718
----_._-_._.__ .--
 3. Trunk and Branch

This is an extension of the trunkline principle of crude gathering.

Kajor trunklines 24-30" in diameter, 30-50 miles long, gather the
two-phase mixture from small branch trunklines, 16-20" diameter,
which, in turn gather from short individual flowlines to the wells.
These complex branching solutions proved to be minimum cost in the
development of a large offshore field. The big trunklines were
less costly than offshore separating and pumping stations. Production
was broughtto shore to tie into a major pipeline system. The two-
phase mixture was dense and wellhead pressures were high and
relatively constant over the years, thus giving large carrying
capacities to the trunklines. This configuration should definitely
be studied where expensive underwater installations in offshore
fields are necessary. Integration with future expansions of off-
shore separating, pumping and terminal installations at lower
reservoir pressures in future years can be optimally worked into
the planning.

4. Wellhead Separation

The best solution in a remote offshore field with high wellhead

pressures and gas-oil ratios which otherwise would require thick
wall large diameter two-phase trunklines. The solution involved
multiwell platforms with provision for future gas expansion turbine
driven pumping.

We advise testing the oilfield model with these four configuration

types. Many variations should be tried before one is satisfied that the opti-
mum range of solutions has been found. Experience has shown that the answer
is not obvious.

GATHERING SYSTEM ALGORITHM

A key calculation is the simultaneous solution of the oilwells/

flowlines/trunklines to the separator. Figure 4 exhibits the trial and error
calculation procedure. A computer program has been written. It is the only
convenient way to handle the calculation. Note the balancing of flows at the
junction. If the incoming well flow exceeds the outgoing trunkline flow, a
higher last junction pressure is needed, so the trunkline flow into the sepa-
rator is increased. (Vice versa if incoming well flow is less).

After a system is established, for given choke settings, trunkline

back pressure, and reservoir pressure, individual well flows can be determined
by only reading the wellhead pressures with a known trunkline flow.

PRESENT WORTH CURVES AND CORRELATIONS

The results of oilfield studies are often presented as present

worth curves versus discount rate, especially when plans or investment justi-
fication. are being presented to Managements. Examples are shown in Figure 5
and 6.

719
 WELL FLOWLINE TRUNKLINE SYSTEM
SAMPLE CALCULATION

7 1. PF known
2. QT assume
3. Compute PJl
. 4. Compute Pw1,Pw2
5 5. Compute Qw1,Qw2
6. Subtract Qw1+Qw2
from QT = QJI-J2
Q T- OWJ• -OwJ 2 7. Compute PJ2
* QJ2 -OJ3 8. Compute Pw3, pw4
9. Compute Qw3,Qw4
10. Subtract Qw3+Qw4
from QJ1-QJ = QJ2-J3
12. Compute Pw5,Pw6,Pw7
13. Compute Qw5,Qw6,Qw7
14. Is G+6+7 = QJ2-J3?
15. If less, reduce QT
and repeat
2 16. If more, increase QT
and repeat

o WEl.LS
o GOSP
FIGURE 4

720
 COMPARISON OF OIL FIELD DESIGNS AND PLANS

OISCOUNT RATE 0/0

o 10 20 30 40 50

ALTERNATIVE
SOURCE OF PRODUCTION
- 5
~
................_PLAN"A"

- 10
--

iIt
:e PLAN" S"
:t
-/5
:x:
l-
e:::
0
~
-20
J-
Z
L&J
(/)
lIJ
0:
Q. -25

... 30 FIGURE 5

721
 OIL FIELD RATE· STUDY

0
u
CQ
......
CI)
0:::
ct
..J
..J
0
0

0
.
u
co
""
:c
I-
0:::
0
;:
"
I- .,
Z .. ' -
w
CI)
W
0::
a..

o 50 100 150 200 250 300

PRODUCTION RATE MBeD

F'GURE~ 6
.

722
 Oilfield models are useful in formulating plans as well as in de-
aigning facilities systems. Areas of usefulness are:

1. Guidance in comparing available oil investment opportunities

($/BCD) •

2. Establishing economic ranking and timing of production

increments in a major expansion program. (local or worldwide),

3. Estimation of the magnitude of investment required for an oil

program, not only initial costs but also future costs, to maintain
production. This data is essential in financial planning and
budget preparation.

4. Ability to compare major plant or design alternatives including

future effects.

5. Aid in establishing long range plans that recognize expansion

possibilities.

The present worth versus discount rate relation in Figure 5 for a

typical oilfield can be used for interpretation. Plan B shows the same present
worth as Plan A below 137. discount rate. Plan B can also be carried out at a
lower total cost (capital outlay plus cash outflow at 01. discount). Some extra
capital is invested now to gain the long term lower oil program costs --
Management decides for Plan B. As study and design proceeds, a better con-
figuration of total facilities is found (preferably minimizing initial invest-
ment). Row about alternative sources? Alternatives can be plotted on the
same chart for comparison. Revenue differences due to gravity variation or
location can be treated also. Equivalent production can be obtained from
another oilfield at lower present worth, so, a decision is then made whether
to postpone bringing on'~lan Bit field until it be~omes the lowest cost
choice to meet production targets, or whether "Plan Btl should go ahead anyway
for other business or political reasons.

Figure 6 shows the present worth per BCD of production versus rate
for an typical oilfield. Rate studies are useful in formulating projects and
setting up a long range plan. In this case, pipelines and separators were
sized to 110 MBCD (minimum unit cost range), although the initial production
increment was restricted to 60 MBCD because of sales forecasts. Confirmation
of the reservoir pressure decline curve with test data, before committing
funds for expensive water and gas injection facilities, is also necessary.
In the long range, we found that as crude demand grows, the unit costs are not
appreciably greater at 300 MBCD than at 200 MBCD. So facilities plans should
consider expansions to 300 MBCD.

Let me conclude by saying that model studies for oil fields have
been a valuable aid in the sizing and design of facilities, the outlining of
economic long range plans, pointing out the relative effect of major factors,
and exploring the possibilities of development. Worthwhile results are
obtained if the model i8 con8tructed with sufficient care and detail by ex-
perienced personnel.

723
 OIL FIELD GATHe.1UNG SYS'I'EM MODEL
VARIABLES AND FORMULAE

R~seriroir

1. Initial Reservoir Pressure and Temperature (PR, TR)

2. Productivity Index (Reservoir flow resistance)

P = PR - QjPI
FBHP ..
3. Reservoir Pressure Decline Curve

P
R
= f(QT, t)
t = time, years
QT = total flow rate field or area, MBPD

Oil Well

4. Pressure Profile (annulus)

(~.
J.f
5. Temperature Profile

- -TR. -"\ K -t- - ~,i(~ -2 BP) + . r K!f

7T
r- 3600 Q INCI p
UD
6. Mixture Density

f NY\. ~ C\J ( P, T) C \ - ---'. C \( )

0'
Low Pressure (cC.. qO Ie B P )

6A.

ffW\.
 68 •

.s~ -:,' fo.... \ + /\ L P'1- f:\~f--''<'- +./~,;'I

1""
+- 1\.: P-r~ Ab \:;'£'T+ ~1 T'
t--....~) -r P'4- {.),." q'T? e]..
L

Abo~e Bubble' Point. {L1g9!cl· !'hUe}

60.

7. .Friction hctors
1
TA. 'r-
V r-

i{C\S-~

18. R\>i':' I ,.,..,/ ..... ...;;tJ...

8. W. Factor

9. Empirical well Potential Curv••

General

lOA. Rv :.
Slmpl1tlecl

lOB. F~f\J::: f~ \ ,_ (~\ 0, L

10. Plow Choke.

lOA.

·C.i(~)" t,

Sonic Velocltl
, 11. FlowU.nea and Trunldines
I
,11A. ,. Plow - Pressure (General)

S s!e.t- (dry -::.LI;?'l.IO- 4 F(OW/dL···

~ J pI.. DS
118. Temperature Protile ...)

, -4-
~ :: '3. Zb;.<..ID )(
IlD.
(Q\J/ )0.10
'l. ,1.. r (0 w)J.·· L' ',.
~-I: ~ ·3.Sx\O·4
llE. KT DS

12. Friotion Factors

Above Velocities of 10 it./eec.
12A. r>t, W\\:: A,,:'."7 p... ,

Below Velocities ot2.5 tt./aeo.

12C.
F~': :, (-
10
~'C·' \~ ~; - \, ':~ '0 \ 0":',
' ':1l)\~,...
r'\ \ / )
-..) \C

1,. Gaa, Oil Sep&r!tora

1,,,. Qt",.- (r, D~ i Dr . \ Lr

+ KJ.
f"3 ?;~~.~?qBI.+ K4 b) , .'.
IJB. PV . '.' r , . .

1~. ~. K. r~ l.- f;Jf ;-_.

. iK. ~: j·(~)p).·
 Pump Stations
14A. Pump Horse Power
__ __-,.___ l_______~J? 0..
~
=-:F'_______ ,_ -. ,
BHP =.
J(

14B. Gas Expansion 'lUrbines - "\r

1. Temperature Drop

15.
Pressure Gradient (psi)lOOO')

15A. P\::. c_~ p'

r:Y: L_
-:.Lt~ L F SL
----[)5----
cL
Elevation Chan§!

15C.

b f:;'d : ~'):. p ib. L -2:" .04 ~.~ SLL -~"

16. Water Injection

{-;-"I"
\.L J. )
 NOMENCLATURE

Reservoir Pressure (State), psia

o
Reservoir Temperature, F

Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure, psia

PI - Productivity Index, BPD/psi.

Q Flow Rate, 1000 Barrels Per Day (Standard)

Q:l' - Total Oilfield, Rate, Barrels Per Day (Standard)

t Time, Years
P Pressure, psia
Density, Pounds Per Cubic Foot
Well Depth, Feet
r{ _
~J\.'.
Gravitational Constant - 32.2
f Friction Factor, Dimensionless

Di - Inside Casing Diameter, Feet

do - Outside Tubing Diameter, Feet

w Conversion Standard BPD to I/Sec.
T Temperature, OF

r Temperature Factor
Ground Temperature Gradient, OF Per Ft.
Flashing Temperature Drop Constant, OF Per Ft.

Cp- Heat Capacity, B'rulll OF

U Heat Transfer Coefficient, B'1U/Hr.Ft~ OF

Mixture Density, II/Ft?

Molecular Components of FlUid, Moles

Krr - Slope of Mixture Density Vs. Pressure (Constant T) 111Ft? psi

~, .. - Coefficients of Regression AnalysiS Equations

F Friction Factor
Reynolds Nwmer
Viscosity (Liquid), Centipoise
 Liquid Phase Density, I/Ft~

GOR - Gas-Oil Ratio, Ft~/Bbl.

{,)'f"."., _ Molecular Weight of Gas
~
Pw - Wellhead Pressure, psia
In1 t1al Reservo1r Pre.sure, ps1a

A,B,C - Empirical Well Coefficients

Flow Choke Constant
Upstream Pressure, pSia
Downstream PressUre, psia

Throat Area, Ft.

Entering Area to Choke, Ft.
Specific Heat (Constant Volume), BTU/lop
Critical Pressure Ratio, Sonic
Change in Ground Elevation, Ft.
L Length, Feet
D Diameter (Pipe), Feet

ta - Ambient Temperature, o F
Radiation Temperature Effect, OF
Exponent Temperature Coefficient, 0p/Ft.

Pressure Change (Elevation), psi

v Velocity, Pt./Sec.

I1I' - Diameter Separator Vessel, Ft.

LT - Length Separator Vessel, Ft.

QM - Maximum Capacity Separator, BPD

Kl-K4 - Empirical Coefficient Separator FOrmula

Or.
.J.,)
- Density of Gas Phase, I/Ft1
Ks - Coefficient Two-Phase Separation, Pt./Sec.
BHP - Brake Horsepower
bF:.p - Developed Pump Head, psi
~JF_'(f" Gas Expansion Turbine Temperature Drop, of

t"\f:l'--P .. Gas Expansion Turbine Efficiency

%. .. Ratio of Specific Heats

W(1" .. Mass Rate of Gas, l/Hr.

Sepecific Gravity of Gas (Relative to Air)
Specific Gravity of Liquid (Relative to Water)
pi .. Pressure Gradient, psi/lOOO'

rr Injectivi ty Index (Water) BPD/ps1.

. ~P'r· .. Friction Loss in Well, psi/Ft.

7:'/1 .. Total Well Depth, Ft.

 DISCUSSION

Question by H. D. Sheffield, Lavan Petroleum Company

How soon in the life of the field does the planning sequence
outlined start?

Answer by B. T. Yocum

The preliminary model is usually constructed as soon as suf-

ficient :1.nformation is developed from wildcat and delineation
wells for the reservoir engineers to make their first estimate
of reservoir behavior through time, and for the well potential
curve to be prepared. Initial facilities are planned and de-
signed on the data from the first few wells, sometimes one wild-
cat well on~~i c

Question by H. D. Sheffield, Lavan Petroleum Company

What is the relation between standardization of equipment

and the optimized planning models?

Answer by B. T. Yocum

In general, equipment standardization is aided by establish-

ment of a long range plan for oil facilities. The optimum
economic flowline size, pumping increment, GCSP capacity, etc.,
are products of a properly optimized model. Standardization
can be achieved by making the economic increments (say pumps)
equal through time. This can usually be done if the growth 1n
production forecasts is relatively constant.

Question by D. H. Tehrani, Iranian Oil Expl. & Prod. Co., N.V.

On Figure 4 - do you start with an assumed size of pipe.

Wouldn't it be better to use a transportation program that
would select pipe size flow rates, etc?

Answer by B. T. Yocum

Our computer program computes trunkline flow rate for a given

system. A variety of systems are tested. Trunkline diameters,
flowline diameters, well locations, junction locations, future
GOSP locations, well casing programs are all varied. The
computer run to compute the flow rate for a given configuration
takes about 30 seconds. The number of independent variables
(including effects of future facilities) is so large, the only
reasonable approach is to calculate classes of solutions and

725
 then oompare oosts, flexibility, influenoe of ohanges in well
potentials, ease and cost of expansibility, eto. The recogni-
tion of future requirements in the initial pattern of facilities
is often necessary to minimize total costs over the oilfield
life. A transportation model would not consider all these
effects in the facilities, so a general flexible computation
method is utilized.

Question by E. Houlston, Iranian Oil Exploration & Prod., NeV.

Do you encounter s~rging problems and how do you combat these?

Answer by B. T. Yocum

Surging is certainly set up by rapid elevation changes, and

also by obstructions, and changes to smaller diameter lines.
At the bottom of a hill, if the two-phase mixture velocity is
below a critical minimum, there is a pile up of liquid, which
can vary from minimal surges to slugging in the extreme case.
The number of elevation changes, their steepness, velocities,
relative quantity of gas and oil all affect the magnitude of
the unsteady state flow. If the flow regime stays unchanged
through the length of the line there is no reason for major
surges to form. This means design to linear velocities above
the minimums at critical elevation change points on the line,
and minimization of valves, no changes from large to small
diameter that allow the liquid to encompass the cross section
of the small pipe, and smooth gradual curves along elevation
contours that cannot be avoided.

Question by E. Houlston, Iranian Oil Exploration & Prod., N.V.

How do you deal with changes in elevation?

Answer by B. T. Yocum

Where elevation changes are marked and numerous, special

care must be taken in the pressure drop calculations. We
usually assume no pressure recovery on the downhill slope.
Velocities are maintained above 10 ft/sec. if possible. The
wellhead pressure requirement is thus larger, sometimes
critIcally so, compared w1t~ a horizontal line between the two
points. If wellhead pressure is high enough, two-phase lines
are feasible in broken country, if properly designed. A boundary
condition to check 1s the pressure requirement in each well for
start up, after the line has been shut in. During a shutdown,
the liquid flows into the valleys and the gas rises up the hills.
At startup we are faced with the manometer effect of gas lock-
ing. The sum of elevation heads must be overcome with the avail-
able pressure drop. Often the pressure required exceeds the
shut in pressure of the last wells on the line. These wells
should not, in general, be on that line.

726