IBP1391_11 OPTIMIZATION OF THE OIL AND GAS FLOW IN MATURE FIELDS 1 2 Jlio C. S. Nascimento , Lindemberg J. N. Duarte , Luiz C. L.

Santos3

Copyright 2011, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP

This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition 2011, held between September, 20-22, 2011, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the Technical Committee of the event. The material as it is presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute opinion or that of its Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition 2011.

Abstract
Technologies capable of predicting the behavior of multiphase flow in oil and gas pipelines have been developed dramatically over the past 60 years. With them, it is possible to determine the pipe diameter, pressure drop, flow patterns, among others. In the petroleum industry, it appears that the maturity of a field causes significant influences on the flow regime during the production phase. Such flows may occur within the reservoir, production columns, rows of upwelling, risers and transfer lines for refining units. The correct understanding of how the biphasic mixture behaves during the flow in each production component is of fundamental importance to dimension production systems able to produce with maximum efficiency. Therefore, the aim of this work is the optimization of oil and gas production in the 1-FMO-001-BA well, belonging to the Field-School Project (ANP / UFBA), located in the Reconcavo Baiano, Entre Rios. In this context, new and improved flow conditions have been studied which will help with some urgency to expedite the process of control, diagnosis and decision making to maximize its production. The biphasic mixture is transported from the wellbore to the wellhead through the production column with an inner diameter of 0.051 meters and 3375 meters of length. Then the fluids are directed to a separator vessel through a production line of 0.076 meters of inner diameter and 37.34 meters of length. The oil and gas flow rate recorded just after the separator is 6.9 m std/d and 6400 m std/d, respectively. It is also known that the pressure in the head remains stable at 51.89 kgf/cm. The study was modeled by numerical simulation of multiphase flow in pipelines for various operating conditions of the well, such as the effects of the diameter variation and the gas-oil ratio (GOR). From the flow conditions simulated in the production column, it was observed that the pressure gradient decreased significantly with increasing GOR. This may be caused by the reduction of the mixture density due to the increase in the quantity of gas. By analyzing the diameter of the production column, it was observed a reduction on the pressure gradient for diameters lower than 0.051 meters which might be due to the friction reduction between the fluids and piping. On the other hand, for larger diameters, it was noticed an increase in the gradient pressure due to the increase of the hydrostatic column. On the production line the variation of these parameters showed no significant effect, so that the pressure drop observed between the wellhead and the separator vessel was practically nil.

1. Introduction
Petroleum has a key role in the existence of humanity being the main feedstock for energy production. The search for more efficient systems for oil production has been continuous over recent years. The production involves the oil extraction from the reservoir to the surface. In the reservoir, the oil is under certain conditions of pressure and temperature, which determine an equilibrium state. During production, this balance is broken and the fluid may take a wide variety of behaviors. For Gilbert (1954), three distinct flow categories can be observed on an oil production system, as follows: flow on the reservoir, flow on vertical tubing and surface flow. Figure 1 shows the production stages of natural lift Wells. For the fluid reaches the surface and be produced in the desired flow it is necessary that the load losses imposed by the three stages of flow are overcome.

______________________________ 1 M.Sc. Student in Petroleum Engineering DPET/UFRN 2 Ph.D., Chemical Engineer DPET/UFRN 3 Ph.D., Chemical Engineer DCTM/UFBA

Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition

Figura 1. Production stages of natural lift Wells From Figure 1, it is expected that the dissolved gas will be released from the oil due to its depressurization, resulting in a multiphase flow (oil, water and gas). The concept of phase and component can not be distinguished from this type of flow, but the number of interfaces present in the flow. For example, two-phase flow means the presence of an interface; it can be either liquid-liquid immiscible (oil and water) or liquid-gas (oil and gas). For the case of multiphase flow, it has the presence of two interfaces, liquid-liquid-gas (water, oil and gas), though the mixture is biphasic (OLIVEIRA, 2003). It is very important to understand how the gas-liquid mixture behaves during the flow on each stage in order to scale production systems able to produce with maximum efficiency. In Petroleum Engineering, the design of production facilities is often done through what it is called by Nodal Analysis. From that, the production of oil and gas in a particular well is evaluated and so the effects of various components, including: tubing diameter, pressure drop, flow patterns, among others. Each component is evaluated separately and the entire system is combined to optimize the flow effectively (NASCIMENTO, 2011).

2. Background and Purpose

In Brazil, the oil industry emerged in the 30s with the discovery of oil and gas deposits in the Recncavo Basin. Since then, the national industry has evolved into new discoveries in nearly the whole country, reaching self-sufficiency in production through the exploration of offshore deposits which comprise about 84% of national production. The oil fields on the Reconcavo Basin has been producing over 30 to 60 years with advanced stages of exploitation. As a result, they present a declining production close to their economic limits. These fields are often called Mature Fields and, although less profitable than they were in the past, they have great economic importance for the regions near to their locations, either by heating the local market, gathering royalties, or by attracting local skilled workers (CMARA, 2004). In this sense, the aim of this work is to study the optimization of the flow of oil and gas on the mature field of Fazenda Mamoeiro, which is operated by Well 01-FMO-001-BA. Therefore, the intention is to identify new and improved flow conditions that contribute urgently to expedite the process control, diagnosis and decision making to maximize their production.

3. Multiphase Flow in Pipes

Models able to predicting the behavior of multiphase flow in pipelines have been developed extensively over the past decades. With them it became possible to predict tubing diameter, pressure drop, flow patterns and separator pressure (BRILL and MUKHERJEE, 1999). 2

Rio Pipeline line Conference & Exposition Brill and Arirachankaran (1992) 1992) divided the development of such models in three e distinct disti periods: a) The Empirical Period eriod (1950 a 1975) During this period several authors autho have developed empirical correlations from observa bservations of actual data of oil fields and laboratory tests. The paramete ameters used to build these correlations include: oil and nd gas ga flow rate, physical fluid properties, diameter, orientation, roughness roughn and pipe pressure, flow patterns and liquid id holdup. ho In some cases, the multiphase flow is considered homogeneo ogeneous, i.e. it is assumed that oil and gas flow with the same sam velocity. b) The Awakenig Years ears (1970 a 1985) The empirical correlations s used to predict pressure gradient, coupled with the e introduction intr of the personal computer in the early 1980s, became ame a practical tool available to petroleum engineers. s. The pressure behavior along pipes can be better understood by means mean of numerical integration techniques. Brown et al. . (1984) ( presented the true concept of Nodal Analysis, able to measure measu and evaluate the production performance from m a particular pa component in the system. c) The Modeling Period eriod (1980 Present) Mechanistic models were developed deve from the restrictions imposed by empirical irical correlations. From that, multiphase flow can be characterized ed by creating physical models based on physical and phenomenological phenom principles. 3.1 Pressure Gradient The pressure gradient in pipes pipe can be calculated by Equation 1. This equation ation was originated from the combination of the laws of conservation ation of o mass and momentum. (1)

It is observed that the total l pressure press gradient is a consequence of the sum of three ee parts: par elevation, friction and acceleration. The pressure gradient t due the t elevation corresponds to the weight of hydrostatic ostatic column and it is directly proportional to the specific gravity y the produced fluids. It represents 80-95 % of the total pressure gradient in the vertical tubing. The friction part refers fers to the losses caused by the contact between the fluid with w the pipe walls and it contributes with about 5-20% of losses. sses. Furthermore, friction losses may vary with pipe e diameter, diam roughness and flow rate. At last, the acceleration component onent refers to losses caused by the velocity variation inside the pipes. For flows with high water content and low gas-liquid id ratio, rati the gradient due to acceleration can be considered ered null n (THOMAS, 2001). Figure 2 shows the finite control ontrol volume in pipes.

Figure 2. Finite control volume in pipes For the case presented on Figure 2 and assuming a homogeneous gas-liquid mixture, , the th total pressure gradient can be calculated by Equation 2. (2)

Where, m is the mixture density; density ftp is the two-phase friction factor and depends s on the th method used; vm is the average speed of the mixture and d is the pipe diameter. For vertical flow, =90, sin90=1 and dL=dZ.

Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition

4. Methodology
The work was conducted on the 01-FMO-001-BA well, located at the Reconcavo basin, which is operated by Field-School Project (PCE) in partnership with the Brazilian National Agency of Petroleum, Natural Gas and Biofuels (ANP). The gas-liquid mixture leaves the reservoir and flows to the surface through a vertical tubing of 3375 m of length and 0.051 m of inner diameter. After reaches the wellhead, the fluids are directed to a primary petroleum processing plant through a flow line with 0.076 m of inner diameter and 37.3 m of length. The flow line has three distinct sections, the first one (vertical) that comes from the choke to a horizontal pipe in the subsurface (second section) and then another vertical one that connects to the separator vessel. In the last section there is a safety valve SDV (shutdown-valve) installed for automatic shutdown in case of some uncontrolled flow from the well. In this work, the pressure gradient was predicted by Beggs and Brill (1973) correlation. This correlation can accurately describe the multiphase flow behavior for all flow patterns and pipes inclinations. In addition, a blackoil model was used to determine the fluid properties. Numerical simulations were performed by using the DPDL computer program developed by Shoham (2005). The aim is to evaluate the oil and gas flow performance on the vertical and horizontal tubing by changing its diameter and gas-oil ratio. By setting the inlet pressure at the separator vessel to 0.483 MPa and leaving the choke fully opened, it could be observed an oil production of 6.9 m std /day with a gas-oil ratio of 927.54 m std / m std. These were the initial values used on the simulations.

5. Results and Discussion

5.1 Vertical Gas-Liquid Flow Figure 3 shows the pressure gradient in the vertical pipe versus depth, calculated by using Equation 2.
Qo=6.9 m std/d Qg=6400 m std/d GOR=927.54 m std/m std tubing diameter=0.051 m Pwh=0.48 MPa 0 -500 -1000
Depth (m)

-1500 -2000 -2500 -3000 -3500 -4000 0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Pressure (MPa)

Figure 3. Vertical flow pressure gradient It can be observed from Figure 3 that the pressure varies continuously with depth in a nonlinear way. This behavior occurs due to the gradual release of gas from the oil as there is pressure loss in the column. The flowing bottom hole pressure (Pwf) observed in front of perforations is about 10.8 MPa. The tubing diameter and gas-oil ratio effects on the column pressure gradient are shown on Figures 4 and 5, respectively.

Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition

Qo=6.9 m std/d Qg=6400 m std/d GOR=927.54 m std/m std Pwh=0.48 MPa 0 tubing diameter=0.0254 m -500 tubing diameter=0.0381 m -1000 tubing diameter=0.0508 m

Depth (m)

-1500 tubing diameter=0.0635 m -2000 tubing diameter=0.0762 m -2500 tubing diameter=0.1016 m -3000 tubing diameter=0.127 m -3500 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Pressure (MPa)

Figure 4. Tubing diameter effects on the vertical pressure gradient According to Figure 4, the Pwf ranged from 7.6 MPa to 19.4 MPa by varying the tubing diameter from 0.0381 m to 0.127 m, respectively. It is expected that increasing the tubing diameter results in a reduction of the pressure drop due to the reduction of liquid and gas superficial velocities, which also reduces the friction loss. On the other side, by increasing the tubing diameter also favors an increase in the pressure drop due to the elevation losses. This is explained by the fact that higher diameter corresponds to a higher cross-section area which results in a higher Pwf. From Figure 4 it can be observed that the Pwf for the tubing diameter 0.031 m and 0.0508 m is smaller than that of tubing diameter of 0.0254 m. For these cases, the increase of tubing diameter resulted in a decrease of the pressure drop by friction loss. For tubing diameters higher than 0.0635 m, the friction loss was not so important. However, it could be noticed an increase of Pwf and consequently an increase of the pressure drop due to elevation losses. On the oil industry, the choice of the optimal tubing diameter depends on several factors. However, the best choice is one that provides the lowest possible cost along with lower pressure loss and the best flow pattern for the production systems. Applying the first two parameters as a criterion for determining the diameter of the vertical tubing operation, it came to a conclusion that the 0.0381 m diameter offers the lowest pressure drop with the lower material costs for manufacturing. Figure 5 shows the influence of the GOR in the pressure gradient on the vertical tubing.
Qo=6.9 m std/d Pwh=0.48 MPa tubing diameter=0.051 m

0 -500 -1000

GOR=178 m std/m std GOR=356 m std/m std GOR=534 m std/m std GOR=712 m std/m std

Depth (m)

-1500 -2000 -2500 -3000 -3500 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 Pressure (MPa)

GOR=890 m std/m std GOR=1068 m std/m std GOR=1246 m std/m std GOR=1424 m std/m std GOR=1602 m std/m std GOR=1780 m std/m std

Figure 5. Effect of GOR on vertical tubing pressure gradient It can be observed from Figure 5 that increasing the GOR from 178 m std/m std to 1780 m std/m std would cause a decrease on the flowing bottom hole pressure (Pwf). For a GOR of 178 m std/m std and an oil flow rate of 6.9 m std/d it is necessary a Pwf nearly of 20 MPa. The minimum Pwf is observed when working with the maximum simulated GOR of 1780 m std/m std. 5

Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition It is expected that the increase of the GOR on the vertical tubing helps to reduce the density of the multiphase mixture, thus favoring the reduction of pressure drop by reducing the elevation loss. However, the progressive increase of the GOR reaches a point where the pressure gradient stabilizes and begins to grow. This is a result of the increased friction and acceleration losses which is higher than the effect of the hydrostatic column density. These changes on the behavior were not observed on the GOR simulated on this work. Thus, there are two possibilities for choosing the best GOR on the vertical tubing. The first one is working with the lower Pwf which implicates that the reservoir is feeding the well near to the maximum production capacity. The second possibility is operating the well with the lowest GOR. Since the driving mechanism is gas in solution, by keeping the lowest GOR helps to maintain the production energy inside of the reservoir which leads to a longer production time by natural lift. 5.2 Horizontal Gas-Liquid Flow The same methodology used on the vertical gas-liquid flow will be applied to analyze the horizontal gas-liquid flow. The flow line pressures were determined by adding up the pressure drop from the separator to the choke with the inlet pressure of the separator. Figure 6 show the pressure gradient against length.
Qo=6.9 m std/d Qg=6400 m std/d GOR=927.54 m std/m std tubing diameter=0.0762 m Pwh=0.48 MPa

1,00 0,90 0,80

Pressure (MPa)

0,70 0,60 0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0 10 20 Length (m) 30 40

Figure 6. Horizontal flowing pressure gradient It can be observed from Figure 6 that there was almost no variation on the pressure drop between the separator and the wellhead. This might be due to the low oil flow rate and small tubing length which are not sufficient to cause losses on the overall system. The tubing diameter and gas-oil ratio effects on the horizontal pressure gradient are shown on Figures 7 and 8, respectively.
Qo=6.9 m std/d Qg=6400 m std/d GOR=927.54 m std/m std Psep=0.48 MPa

1,00 0,90 0,80

tubing diameter=0.0254 m tubing diameter=0.0381 m tubing diameter=0.0508 m tubing diameter=0.0635 m tubing diameter= 0.0762 m tubing diameter=0.1016 m tubing diameter=0.127 m tubing diameter=0.152 m

Pressure (MPa)

0,70 0,60 0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0 10 20 Length (m) 30 40

Figure 7. Tubing diameter effects on the horizontal pressure gradient 6

Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition It can be seen from Figure 7 a reduction of the pressure drop in the flow line due to the increase of the pipe diameter. This is explained by the decrease on the liquid and gas superficial velocity, which reduces the friction and acceleration losses. For tubing diameter of 0.0254 m the pressure on wellhead is approximately 0.8 MPa. By increasing the tubing diameter to 0.0381 m, the pressure on the wellhead decreased significantly to 0.51 MPa. For tubing diameters higher than 0.0508 m, no significant variation could be observed on the pressure drop. This leads to a conclusion that the wellhead pressure tends to decrease with the increase on tubing diameter, reaching the limit where thereafter the increase on the diameter does not contribute for the reduction of the friction loss and therefore the pressure remains constant at the wellhead. The gas-oil ratio effect on the flow line pressure drop is shown on Figure 8.
Qo=6.9 m std/d tubing diameter=0.0762 m Psep=0.48 MPa

1,00 0,90 0,80

Pressure (MPa)
GOR=178 m std/m std GOR=356 m std/m std GOR=712 m std/m std GOR=890 m std/m std GOR=1068 m std/m std GOR=1246 m std/m std GOR=1442 m std/m std GOR=1780 m std/m std

0,70 0,60 0,50 0,40 0,30 0,20 0,10 0,00 0 10 20 Length (m) 30 40

Figure 8. Effect of GOR on horizontal flow line pressure gradient In general, it is expected that an increase on the gas-oil ratio in horizontal pipes cause an increase on the pressure drop. This is expected due to the increase in the gas superficial velocity, which results in an increase of the acceleration and friction losses leading to an increase in the total pressure gradient. From Figure 8 it could be noted that the GOR values simulated in this work caused no variation on the pressure drop on the flow line. Thus, the best GOR will be defined based on the results of the vertical tubing and also on the logistics and the operational conditions for the production and sale of the oil and gas on this well.

6. Conclusions
The following conclusions were obtained by evaluating the pressure gradient in the vertical tubing and horizontal flow line with respect to tubing diameter and GOR: 1. 2. The vertical flowing pressure gradient varied continuously with depth in a nonlinear way. By keeping the wellhead pressure at 0.48 MPa, the flowing bottom hole pressure obtained was approximately 10.8 MPa; The pressure drop reduction caused by the increase of the vertical tubing diameter was only observed for diameters below 0.0508 m. For tubing diameters higher than 0.0635 m, it was observed an increase of the bottom pressure due to an increase of the elevation loss; The progressive increase of the GOR on the vertical tubing contributed solely to decrease the pressure gradient; For the conditions simulated on the flow line, no significant pressure loss was observed between the separator and the wellhead. A good consistency was observed by analyzing the effects on the piping diameter and GOR. A significant pressure drop was only observed for diameters lower than 0.0508 m. Regarding to GOR, it was also observed no influence on the pressure gradient; From these analyses it can be concluded that the optimization of oil and gas flow in Fazenda Mamoeiro Field will be achieved if it operates with a vertical tubing diameter of 0.0381m and a horizontal flow line diameter of 0.0508 m. By taking into account the evaluation of the pressure gradient on the vertical tubing and horizontal flow line it can be concluded that the best GOR will depend on the logistics and operational conditions for the production and sale of the fluids.

3. 4.

5.

Rio Pipeline Conference & Exposition

7. Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the collaboration of the Field-School Project (UFBA/ANP) for providing the operational data for the 01-FMO-001-BA Well.

8. References
BEGGS, H. D., BRILL, J. P. A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes. Journal of Petroleum Technology, p.607617, 1973. BRILL, J. P., MUKHERJEE, H. Multiphase Flow in Wells. Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc, p. 149,1999. BRILL, J.P., ARIRACHAKARAN, S.J. State of The Art in Multiphase Flow. In: BRILL, J. P.; MUKHERJEE, H. Multiphase Flow in Wells. Texas: Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc, p. 149,1999. CMARA, R. J. B. Campos Maduros e Campos Marginais: Definies para Efeitos Regulatrios. Master's dissertation. UNIFACS, Salvador, p. 139, 2004. GILBERT, W. E. Flowing and Gas-Lift Well Performance. Drilling and Production Pratice, p. 143, API, 1954. NASCIMENTO, J. C. S. Otimizao de Escoamento Multifsico: Um estudo no Poo 1-FMO-001-BA. Graduation conclusion work. UFBA, Salvador, p. 91, 2011. OLIVEIRA, M. F. D. Anlise da Aplicao de um Sistema de Bombeamento Multifsico Submarino na Produo de Petrleo. Master's dissertation. PUC-RJ, Rio de Janeiro, 2003. SHOHAM, O. DPDL Multiphase Flow Pressure Loss Computer Code. In: TANAN, U. L. P; DUARTE, L. J. N; NASCIMENTO, J. C. S; GIS, L. N. Caracterizao dos Padres de Escoamento Para o Fluxo Multifsico de Petrleo em Campos Maduros. Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference, Rio de Janeiro, 2010. THOMAS, J. E. Fundamentos de Engenharia de Petrleo. Rio de Janeiro: PETROBRAS, Intercincia, 2nd Ed., p. 267, 2001.