See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/26575579

Determination of Multiphase Flow Meter Reliability and Development of

Correction Charts for the Prediction of Oilfield Fluid Flow Rates

Article in Leonardo · June 2008

Source: DOAJ

CITATIONS READS

3 757

3 authors, including:

Samuel S. Mofunlewi Joseph Ajienka

University of Port Harcourt / Baker Hughes University of Port Harcourt
27 PUBLICATIONS 36 CITATIONS 142 PUBLICATIONS 650 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Joseph Ajienka on 20 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Leonardo Journal of Sciences Issue 12, January-June 2008
ISSN 1583-0233 p. 165-174

Determination of Multiphase Flow Meter Reliability and Development of

Correction Charts for the Prediction of Oilfield Fluid Flow Rates

Samuel S. MOFUNLEWI, Joseph A. AJIENKA and D. APPAH

Department of Petroleum & Gas Engineering, University of Port Harcourt, Nigeria

E-mails: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract

The aim of field testing of Multiphase Flow Meter (MPFM) is to show

whether its accuracy compares favourably with that of the Test Separator in
accurately measuring the three production phases (oil, gas and water) as well
as determining meter reliability in field environment. This study evaluates
field test results of the MPFM as compared to reference conventional test
separators. Generally, results show that MPFM compares favourably with
Test Separator within the specified range of accuracy.
At the moment, there is no legislation for meter proving technique for MPFM.
However, this study has developed calibration charts that can be used to
correct and improve meter accuracy.
Keywords
Multiphase Flow Meter (MPFM); Test Separator (TS); Correction Charts;
Accuracy; Water Liquid Ration (WLR); Oil; Gas.

Introduction

Until recently, large expensive test separators have been used to separate the oil, gas
and water which are then measured using conventional technology [1, 2].

165
http://ljs.academicdirect.org
 Determination of Multiphase Flow Meter Reliability and Development of Correction Charts ...
Samuel S. MOFUNLEWI, Joseph A. AJIENKA and D. APPAH

Multiphase meter is a device that can be used to measure individual fluid flow rates of
oil and gas when more than one fluid is flowing through a pipeline. A multiphase meter
provides accurate readings even when different flow regimes are present in the multiphase
flow [3]. When using single-phase meters, the fluid mixture (oil and gas) coming from the
wellbore must pass through a fluid-separation stage (separator) prior metering. Otherwise, the
readings of the single-phase meters will be inaccurate. Separators are not necessary for
multiphase metering, and the meters can support different proportions of gas and oil.
Multiphase meters provide the advantage of continuous well monitoring, which is not
possible using single-phase meters. Additionally, multiphase meters cost less, weigh less and
require less space. Multiphase meters are more common in deepwater operations, where well-
intervention operations are often prohibitively expensive.
The problem now arises as to whether the accuracy of multiphase meter (MPFM)
compare well with that of test separator. How can the MPFM accuracy be improved? This
paper proposes solutions to these probes.

MPFM Test Reference Loop

The test reference loop consists of a three-phase separator. Gas and liquid are
separated in the test separator. In order to achieve the desired steady water cut concentration,
the oil/water volume in the separator and different draw points are adjusted. On separation,
the liquid is pumped through a liquid measurement line. In this line, volumetric measurement
is performed with PD meters and water cut measurement is performed with the oil/water
meter. A vortex meter and rotameters are used to measure gas after compression.
Following the separation is a recombination of gas and liquid phases. On
recombination, the combined stream then passes through the multiphase meter and
measurement taken accordingly. Figure 1 shows the diagram of the test reference loop [4].

Test Procedure

Below is a list of the procedure for the main testing of MPFM [5]. Test separator is

166
 Leonardo Journal of Sciences Issue 12, January-June 2008
ISSN 1583-0233 p. 165-174

validated as a reference to the multiphase flow meter.

Water Supply Air

Compressors

PD Meters

Pump

MPFM

Figure 1. Schematic of test reference loop. Adapted from Tests at Agar Corporation (1999)

1. A purge is time is assigned to each well to be tested.

2. Data review from test separator to ensure that a steady production condition is attained
before starting test.
3. Data collection from the MPFM and test separator at the same time when test starts.
4. Initial test result is reviewed.
5. Enquiry from vendor for any modification for improvement of meter performance was
made
6. Validity of all data collected with a test separator. This involves comparing test results
with historical data.
7. Test is invalidated if major discrepancies are observed.
8. MPFM inputs were reviewed.
9. A final list of valid comparison tests was prepared.
10. Cross-plots of MPFM against test separator were produced.

167
 Determination of Multiphase Flow Meter Reliability and Development of Correction Charts ...
Samuel S. MOFUNLEWI, Joseph A. AJIENKA and D. APPAH

Process and Performance Conditions

Process and performance specifications are given in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

Table 1. Process Conditions

Description Process Conditions
Watercut 10 – 90%
GVF 24 – 85%
Liquid flow rate 1,000 – 5,000 BPD
Salinity of water 1.5% by weight
Oil viscosity 360cp
Temperature 40oC

Table 2. Performance Specification (accuracy)

Description Specification
Liquid (oil and water) ± 5%
Crude Oil ± 5%
Water ± 5%
Gas ± 5%

The formula below was then used to compute accuracies in each case from the total
flow rate and total deviations.
⎡ Deviation ⎤ (1)
%Accuracy = ⎢ ×100⎥
⎣ referenceMeasurement ⎦

Test Result Summary

The test result summary is presented in Table 3 for clarity.

Table 3. Test results summary

No. Reference Measurements (BPD) Test Measurement (BPD) Deviations
Gas Gas
Oil Water Liquid WLR Oil Water Liquid WLR Oil Water Gas Liquid WLR
(ACFD) (ACFD)
1 1054 129 40229 1183 0.109 1128 84 39954 1212 0.069 74 -45 -275 29 -0.04
2 2701 363 20080 3064 0.118 2819 305 19026 3124 0.098 118 -58 -1054 60 -0.02
3 3276 433 6835 3709 0.117 3382 363 5427 3745 0.097 106 -70 -1408 36 -0.02
4 786 701 47241 1487 0.471 730 729 47376 1459 0.5 -56 28 135 -28 0.029
5 2373 2575 30098 4948 0.521 2480 2488 28839 4968 0.501 107 -87 -1259 20 -0.019
6 180 1319 48773 1498 0.881 218 1204 50196 1423 0.846 38 -115 1423 -75 -0.035
7 487 4504 29236 4991 0.902 661 4493 27048 5154 0.872 174 -11 -2188 168 -0.03
Total 10857 10024 222492 20880 3.119 11418 9666 217866 21805 2.983 561 -358 -4626 205 -0.135

168
 Leonardo Journal of Sciences Issue 12, January-June 2008
ISSN 1583-0233 p. 165-174

The following results in Table 4 were obtained using equation 1 above.

It can be inferred from the results in Table 4 that the MPFM compare well with test
separator. The percent accuracy falls within the specifications in Table 2. This means that the
overall performance of the meter was excellent.

Table 4. Percent accuracy of Oil, Water, Gas, Liquid and Watercut

Description Oil Water Gas Liquid Watercut
Accuracy 5.17% 3.57% 2.08% 0.98% 4.34%

Development of Correction Charts and Descriptive Statistics

The correction charts below are developed from the test result summary (Table 4).
They are to be used for improving meter accuracy. These charts are developed by selecting
the best trend line for oil, gas water, liquid and water liquid ration (WLR) separately. They are
presented in Figures 2 – 6. Descriptive statistics are also presented.

Correction Charts for Oil Rate

3500
y = 0.9775x - 43.388
3000
R 2 = 0.9969
Oil rate for TS (Actual), BPD

2500

2000

1500

1000

500

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000
Oil rate for M PFM (Predicted), BPD

Figure 2. Cross plot for oil rate for test separator versus oil rate for MPFM

Descriptive Statistics for Oil Rate

Table 5a. Descriptive Statistics

Regression Statistics
R Square 0.9969
Standard Errors 73.90
Observations 7

169
 Determination of Multiphase Flow Meter Reliability and Development of Correction Charts ...
Samuel S. MOFUNLEWI, Joseph A. AJIENKA and D. APPAH

Table 5b. Descriptive Statistics

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-Value Lower 95% Upper 95%
Intercept -43.39 48.58 -0.89 0.41 -163.26 81.48
X Variable 0.98 0.02 40.12 1.81E-07 0.91 1.04

Correction Charts for Water Rate

5000
y = 0.9958x + 56.899
4500 2
R = 0.9991
Water rate for TS (Actual), BPD

4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
W ater rate for M PFM (Predicted), BPD

Figure 3. Cross plot for water rate for test separator versus water rate for MPFM

Descriptive Statistics for Water Rate

Table 6a. Descriptive Statistics

Regression Statistics
R Square 0.9996
Standard Errors 51.8
Observations 7

Table 6b. Descriptive Statistics

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-Value Lower 95% Upper 95%
Intercept 56.90 26.81 2.12 0.087 -12.02 125.82
X Variable 1.00 0.013 75.06 7.95E-09 0.96 1.02

170
Leonardo Journal of Sciences Issue 12, January-June 2008
ISSN 1583-0233 p. 165-174

Correction Charts for Liquid Rate

6000

y = 0.969x + 64.169

Liquid rate for TS (Actual), BPD

5000
R 2 = 0.999

4000

3000

2000

1000

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
Liquid rate for MPFM (Predicted), BPD

Figure 4. Cross plot for liquid rate for test separator versus liquid rate for MPFM

Descriptive Statistics for Liquid Rate

Table 7a. Descriptive Statistics

Regression Statistics
R Square 0.999
Standard Errors 57.6
Observations 7

Table 7b. Descriptive Statistics

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-Value Lower 95% Upper 95%
Intercept 64.17 47.26 1.36 0.23 -57.31 185.65
X Variable 0.97 0.014 69.6 1.16E-08 0.93 1.00

Correction Charts for Gas Rate

60000

y = 0.9429x + 2438.4
50000
Gas rate for TS (Actual), ACFD

2
R = 0.9974

40000

30000

20000

10000

0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000
G as rate for M P F M (P redicted), A C F D

Figure 5. Cross plot for gas rate for test separator versus gas rate for MPFM

171
 Determination of Multiphase Flow Meter Reliability and Development of Correction Charts ...
Samuel S. MOFUNLEWI, Joseph A. AJIENKA and D. APPAH

Descriptive Statistics for Gas Rate

Table 8a. Descriptive Statistics

Regression Statistics
R Square 0.997
Standard Errors 839.36
Observations 7

Table 8b. Descriptive Statistics

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-Value Lower 95% Upper 95%
Intercept 2438.41 738.53 3.30 0.021 539.96 4336.86
X Variable 0.94 0.021 44.00 1.14E-07 0.89 1.00

Correction Charts for WLR Rate

0.9 y = x + 0.0194
2
R = 0.9957
0.8
WLR rate for TS (Actual), BPD

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
WLR rate for MPFM (Predicted), BPD

Figure 6. Cross plot of WLR for test separator versus WLR rate for MPFM

Descriptive Statistics for Gas Rate

Table 9a. Descriptive Statistics

Regression Statistics
R Square 0.996
Standard Errors 0.025
Observations 7

Table 9b. Descriptive Statistics

Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-Value Lower 95% Upper 95%
Intercept 0.019 0.016 1.24 0.27 -0.021 0.06
X Variable 1.00 0.029 34.18 4.03E-07 0.92 1.07

172
 Leonardo Journal of Sciences Issue 12, January-June 2008
ISSN 1583-0233 p. 165-174

Interpretation of Charts

The plots in Figures 2 – 6 can be used to predict what the rate (oil, gas, water, liquid or
WLR) of a MPFM will be if that of test separator is known.
For example, if the oil rate for test separator is 2000BPD, then the predicted value of
MPFM will 2200BPD. Also, if the gas rate for test separator is 1000ACFD, the predicted
MPFM rate will be 800ACFD. The closer the value of R2 is to unity (1), the better. For rates
that fall outside those presented in the charts above, the corresponding correlations can be
used to determine the predicted values. That is if the value of test separator is know, make
substitution into the appropriate equation to get the corresponding value of MPFM. For
example, if the test separator rate for liquid is 10,000BPD, it will be better to substitue into
the liquid rate equation to obtain the value for MPFM. Doing this, we will get 10254BPD.
The equations, R2 and P values are summarised below:

Table 10. Equations and R2 values for different rates

S/No. Description Equation R2 Value P-Value
1 Oil rate y = 0.9775x – 43.388 0.9969 0.412
2 Water rate y = 0.9958x + 56.899 0.9991 0.087
3 Liquid rate y = 0.969x + 64.169 0.999 0.233
4 Gas rate y = 0.9429x + 2438.4 0.9974 0.0214
5 WLR rate y = x + 0.0194 0.9957 0.269

Conclusions

This study has been able to show that the MPFM accuracy compare favourable with
that of test separators. Hence, due to the economic benefits and the dependability of its
accuracy, it is important to spread the expertise in MPFM through the oil industry. Both field
and laboratory testing should be conducted to determine meter accuracy for added confidence.
Also, the correction charts developed in this study are useful tools for predicting the
values of MPFM fluid flow rates when the flow rates of test separators are known. However,
the charts are limited to the ranges shown on them. For fluid flow rates outside those
obtainable on the charts, the equations developed are recommended for use.

173
 Determination of Multiphase Flow Meter Reliability and Development of Correction Charts ...
Samuel S. MOFUNLEWI, Joseph A. AJIENKA and D. APPAH

References

1. Mofunlewi S. S., Ajienka J. A., Economic Evaluation of Multphase Meters, Leonardo J.

Sci, 2007, 11, p. 2.

2. Mofunlewi S. S., Evaluating the Efficiency of Multiphase Meters, M. Eng. Thesis,

Department of Petroleum & Gas Engineering, University of Port Harcourt, Port Harcourt,
Nigeria, 2003, p. 2.

3. Schlumberger Oilfield Glossary, Multiphase Meter,

http://www.glossary.oilfield.slb.com/Display.cfm?Term=multiphase%20meter, 2008, ID
11235.

4. Sonatrach, Anardarko, Lasmo, Quobba, Multiphase Meter and Watercut Meter Test, Tests
at Agar Corporation, Houston, Texas, 1999, p. 1-3.

5. Al-Taweel A. B., Barlow S. G., Field-Testing of Multiphase Meters, Saudi Aramco

Journal of Technology, http://www.saudiaramco.com/irj/go/km/docs//
SaudiAramcoPublic/Publications/EN/Journal%20of%20Technology/Spring2000/p50to59.pdf,
Spring, 2000, p. 50-59.

174

View publication stats