SPE 77351
Wet Gas Metering: Trends in Applications and Technical Developments
Parviz Mehdizadeh, Production Technology, Jack Marrelli, ChevronTexaco, Ven C. Ting, ChevronTexaco
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29 September–2 October 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Wet gas metering covers a variety of measurements in
production streams with high to very high gas volume
fractions. There is a need for direct measurement of gas under
these conditions in such applications as gas condensate and
high GOR fields as well as many production operations where
gas from separation systems may contain liquid. More gas will
be produced in the future from remote and subsea fields where
production, capital investment, and operating costs must be
optimized. For example, real time measurement of gas and
liquid flow rate are critical in a subsea production system
which will improve well allocation, optimize reservoir
production, and enhance flow assurance. A number of wet gas
metering strategies and systems have been developed to
address these needs.
This paper reviews the principle of operations of
commercially available systems, and evaluates their strength
and limitations in various applications. Available data from
test loops, pilot and field installations are used to assess the
performance and accuracy of these wet gas systems. The field
installations are used to identify the types of applications as
well as the application trends that have utilized these systems.
The paper also assesses the potential benefits from the
deployment of a wet gas metering system.
The technologies employed in the current systems impose
performance and accuracy as well as operational limitations.
These limitations are outlined and evaluated in terms of
operator expectations and requirements. The analysis is used
to outline a list of issues that an operator has to consider in
selecting and justifying a system for wet gas measurements in
an asset development.
New developments that are ongoing or must be undertaken to
address the limitations of the current wet gas metering systems
are also reviewed. The implications of these developments to
extend the future applications of wet gas metering systems
are discussed.
Introduction
More gas will be produced in the future from remote and
subsea fields where production, capital investment, and
operating costs must be optimized. As an example, gas
production from deep waters in the GOM (1) has increased in
the last 5 years as shown in Fig. 1. Real time measurement of
gas and liquid flow rate are critical in a subsea production
system to improve well allocation, optimize reservoir
production, and enhance flow assurance. In many of the
deepwater reservoirs, the economics developments dictate that
several fields be commingled together and processed at a
central facility. In such cases, it is critical to be able to
measure the produced gas at the wellhead in order to be able
to allocate the oil and gas assets to partners in each reservoir
(2). These trends have provided much support to the
development of more robust and accurate wet metering
systems.
Wet gas metering covers a wide range of measurements,
which is necessitated by the specific applications and the
definition of “wet gas”. The definition of wet gas can vary
depending on whether one is looking at the fluids from the
perspectives of reservoir engineering, measurement systems,
or commercial sales of the products (3). The lack of a common
definition is partly to be blamed for some confusion and
misunderstanding when facility engineers, operators and
vendors have to communicate across these perspectives. In the
following section an attempt is made to establish an acceptable
definition, which could be used through the rest of this paper
to facilitate our discussion of the wet gas metering systems.
Wet Gas Metering
What is wet gas? Wet gas can be simply defined as gas, which
contains some liquid. The amount of liquid can vary from
small amount of water to substantial amount of water and
hydrocarbon. The amount and nature of the liquid, as well as,
the flow rate, temperature, and pressure of the flow stream can
impact the selection and accuracy of the measurement system.
2 PARVIZ MEHDIZADEH
For example, the metering system and measurement
techniques used to measure gas with small amount of water
vapor (humid gas) would be quite different than the system
used at the well head of a gas condensate well to measure flow
rates of gas and substantial amounts of liquid. It is therefore
important that “wet gas” be characterized properly (3) before
one can discuss the wet gas measurement systems. It is clear
that a recognized acceptable definition(s) help the
manufacturers, users and potential regulators of wet gas
metering systems.
A number of attempts have been made from differing
perspectives to define and formalize the definition of wet gas
(4-6). From a PVT composition perspective: Reservoir
engineers define wet gas when the producing gas-liquid ratio
exceeds 15,000 SCF/STB with stock-tank liquid gravity up to
70 degree API (7). From a volumetric perspective, a general
definition of wet gas is provided in reference 4 as the
guideline to be used in developing measurement systems for
gas produced in the North Sea. This definition is to be applied
to wet gas measurements at the wellhead of a subsea tie back
or at the top of a production riser of a host installation. In this
guideline, wet gas is taken to mean gas, which is in
equilibrium with either water or gas condensate or both in the
flowing gas stream. The liquid contents are generally limited
to liquid to gas ratio (LGR) of 0.2 % for flow streams
exhibiting stratified flow and 0.5% for flow streams that can
be characterized as annular mist flow. From a volume-density
perspective, the impact of flow regime, flow stream pressure
and temperature, and liquid content of the gas can
alternatively be characterized by the Lockhart-Martinelli (LM)
parameter (7). Using this characterization, wet gas has been
defined (8) as a gas stream with a LM parameter of 0.3 or less.
From the above discussion, it is obvious that the wet gas
metering requirements are affected not only by the definition
and the composition of the fluids, but also by the intended
application. Reconciliation of the above definitions may not be
possible, however, in the following section we develop a
suggested classification for wet gas using the Lockhart-
Martinelli parameter.
Types of Wet Gas
Figure 2 shows a proposed map for classifying a wet gas
stream, on the basis of superficial velocity for gas and liquid.
We have defined three types of wet gas regions in this map.
Type I wet gas is defined as the region with Lockhart
Martinelli number (X) equal or less than 0.02 as shown in
Fig.2. The Lockhart-Martinelli equation is defined as follow:
X = (Vsl / Vsg) (√ρl / √ρg) = 0.02 (1)
The GVF associated with this condition can be obtained from
the following equation:
GVF= 1/ (1+ X* (√ρg/√ρl) (2)
SPE 77351
It should be noted that this boundary is dependent on the
composition of the liquid fraction and the flow stream
pressure, which affects the density of the gas. This is
illustrated by the lines in Fig. 2 for three boundaries produced
by gas containing light condensate 37.5 lb/cu.ft. (600 Kg/m3)
at pressures of 150 psi (10 bars)), 750 psi (50 bars), and 3000
psi (200 bars). The gas densities associated with these
pressures is assumed (3) to be 0.6, 3.1, and 12.5 lb/cu.ft. (10
Kg/m3, 50 Kg/m3, and 200 Kg/m3) respectively. The
resulting GVF lines, which form the boundaries for our Type I
wet gas, are developed from the equation 2 and are shown in
Figure 2. If the liquid contains water, then boundaries would
shift due to higher density of the liquid.
Type I wet gas corresponds to a range of high GVF at the
99%. This type of wet gas would probably consist of
processed or un-processed gas with less than 0.5% volume of
liquid consisting of water or condensate carry over. Type I wet
gas may, however, be produced by a reservoir with very high
GOR, high temperature, and or high pressure. The primary
interest in this type of wet gas metering is to measure the gas
content of the stream. But accurate knowledge of the liquid
content would be necessary to develop more accurate gas
readings, especially in fiscal metering applications.
Type II wet gas is defined as the region above Type I in fig. 2
and constrained to the liquid content limited (4,8) by the
following Lockhart-Martinelli relation set equal to or less
than 0.30.
X = (Vsl / Vsg) (√ρl / √ρg) = 0.30 (3)
Type II wet gas is typically produced at the wellhead of a well
from gas condensate reservoir. The primary interest of gas
metering in this region is to measure the gas. Knowledge of
the liquid flow rate is required for accuracy, reservoir
management and allocation. In addition, knowledge of the
composition of the liquid, i.e. watercut, would be important
for improved accuracy.
Finally, all the regions above the boundaries defined by the
Lockhart-Matinelli relationship are designated as Type III wet
gas. This region of wet gas is encountered during the
measurement of streams with proportionate gas and liquid
content, which may also contain high fraction of water. The
primary interest in this region is the measurement of liquid
and gas hydrocarbons. Measurement of water would be
required for accuracy, well and reservoir management, and
field allocation. Measurements of the flow stream components
in this region of the diagram in Figure 2 are typically handled
by multiphase metering systems described in references 9
and 10.
It is recognized that, in practice there may be considerable
overlap in the definitions for the three types of wet gas regions
described here. The boundaries of the regions also shift as a
function of changing pressure. More elegant mapping of the
SPE 77351 WET GAS METERING: TRENDS IN APPLICATIONS AND TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS
gas liquid mixture that defines the various flow regimes and
wet gas characterization are available in the literature (3, 11).
But, for the purpose of this review paper, we propose to use
the three types of wet gas characterizations described above to
organize the reviewing of the wet gas metering systems. A
number of wet gas metering strategies and systems have been
developed to address these needs. These systems will be
discussed in the following sections.
Metering Strategies
The development of wet gas metering has come from two
different directions. A large amount of effort (12) has gone
into developing “correction factors” and improved accuracy
when single-phase gas metering devices are used in conditions
where a small amount of liquid is known to be present. These
efforts have resulted in introducing new technology to upgrade
the wet gas measurement capability of such devices as the
orifice plates, inverted venturi (V-cone), venturi tubes, coriolis
and ultrasonic meters. On the other hand, elements of the
multiphase metering technology that were intended for in-line
measurements of oil, water, and gas stream, have been
modified to develop wet gas metering systems (13,14). This
approach has even produced hybrid systems, which use a
combination of separation technology and multiphase
metering technology (15,16,17) to handle very high GVF
multiphase streams that can approach “wet gas” as
characterized by the boundary between the Type II and Type
III wet gas shown in Figure 2.
In the last few years, wet gas joint industry projects such as
UltraFlow for ultrasonic meters, National Engineering
Laboratory (NEL), Colorado Engineering Experiment Station,
Inc (CEESI) and Christian Michelson Research began
studying the effect of liquid on gas flow measurement
accuracy in single phase meter, and wet gas meters. These
facilities control their gas and liquid injection rate with high
accuracy and data covered full range of gas and liquid flow
rates. The full extent of the research efforts conducted within
these programs has not been released. However, scatter-
published data are available in the public domain and has been
used in the discussion of wet gas metering. In the following
sections, we will discuss the capabilities and limitations of wet
gas metering systems, derived from these different
approaches, for handling wet gas measurements. We will also
assess the performance of these meters for well testing, field
allocations, reservoir management, production optimization,
and fiscal metering.
Metering Systems for Type I Wet Gas
Table 1 was developed to show the variation of densities, GFV
and liquid gas ratios (LGR) at 3,000, 750, and 150 Pisa (200,
50, and 10 bar) respectively for Type 1 metering systems. For
this type of wet gas meter, GVF) and LGR are lower at higher
pressures as shown in the Table. For example, for a fixed
X=0.02, liquid entrainment rate varies from 8bbl/MMSCF at
3000 psia to 43 bbl/MMSCF at 150 psia (44 m3/millionstd m3
at 200 bars to 4.3 m3/million m3 at 10 bars). It is also noted
3
that the GVF varies with pressure at a constant X. Type I
typically represents measurement system at production
wellheads, unprocessed gas pipelines, separators, allocation
points, and well test facilities where GOR are high.
Table 2 lists metering devices for Type I gas metering
systems. These are single-phase commercial gas meters and
the liquid flow rate is input independently for gas flow rate
calculations. These methods assume a constant liquid flow rate
estimate over a period until new liquid flow rate is updated.
Common methods of determining liquid flow rate are
periodical well tests, tracer injection, PVT prediction, and
allocation techniques.
If a single-phase meter is used with an estimated liquid flow
rate input to a modified gas flow equation, such as Murdock
equation (18) for orifice meter, gas flow measurement
uncertainty could improve. The accuracy of the gas flow rate
calculation, therefore, depends on the uncertainty of the liquid
flow rate input value over that measuring period.
In Table 2, the over-reading values from each flow device are
calculated using the gas flow calculation algorithm and
assuming the presence of liquid flow is not accounted for. The
over-readings listed in the Table 2 are extracted from
published data (19- 28). Commercial single-phase meters such
as orifice, venturi, inverted venture, turbine, coriolis,
ultrasonic, and vortex meters show gas flow over-reading up
to 6% in Type I wet gas. The over-reading value reflects the
increase of density of the total fluid. The references offer more
detailed performance characteristics of each device.
The liquid presence in the gas for Type I metering system
cause a systematic bias error in gas flow measurement if liquid
flow is not corrected in the gas flow equation. However, it is
important to realize that the gas measurement error using a
modified wet gas equation could be even higher than the dry
gas flow calculation estimate, if the liquid input has large
uncertainty in the Type I metering system. There is one
exception in the orifice meter where Ting and McBrien
(21,22) both reported under-reading up to -1.7% at high beta
ratio when small amounts of liquid is entrained in the flow
stream. This negative bias will impact gas flow measurement
accuracy especially for allocation and custody transfer
measurement where gas is slightly wet.
Figure 3 shows a reproduction of performance plot from
reference 27. This plot shows the over-reading, expressed as
Gas Mass Flow Ratio (GMFR), of a venturi meter as a
function of Lockhart-Martinelli number. Most of the over-
reading in Figure 3 is distributed in the range of 1 to 1.05 or 0
to 5% for X≤0.02. This figure also shows the performance
variation at different pressures and fluid properties.
When utilizing the Type I system, selection of a flow-metering
device, liquid measurement methods and their correspondent
measurement uncertainty must be considered in order to
4 PARVIZ MEHDIZADEH
deliver an optimum system. Since gas flow rate error is
relatively lower at X≤0.02, sometimes more complex Type II
or Type III meters may not improve measurement accuracy for
Type I wet gas applications.
The future trend of applications of Type I meter is to utilize
additional signals from the meter, such as pressure recovery
reading from a venturi meter, diagnostic signals form a
ultrasonic meter, and density signal from a coriolis meter, to
estimate liquid flow rate and, therefore, improve gas flow
measurement uncertainty. New systems, such as clamp-on
ultrasonic meters, also provide another alternative for wet gas
flow measurement (29).
Metering Systems for Type II Wet Gas
A range of parameters defined by Type II wet gas metering
system is shown in Table 3. Gas and liquid densities, GVF,
and LGR at 3,000, 750, and 150 psia (200, 50, and 10 bar)
respectively for 0.3 Lockhart-Martinelli numbers are listed.
For this type of wet gas system, liquid entrainment rates are
higher than Type I metering system. For example, liquid
entrainment rate varies from 118 bbl/MMSCF at 3000 psia to
649 bbl/MMSCF at 150 psia (662 m3/millionstd m3 at 200
bars to 3,664 m3/million std m3 at 10 bars). Type II typically
represents a measurement system at production wellheads,
commingled pipelines, and well testing applications.
Type II wet gas-metering systems cover higher liquid flow
ranges so that the users often require more accurate gas and
liquid flow rates. Conventional multiphase meters'
compositional measurement uncertainties in wet gas domain
are too large for most applications.
Differential pressure devices such as orifice, venturi, and
inverted venturi respond well to variations of fluid mixture.
Murdock developed a two-phase flow correlation for the
orifice meter in 1962 and showed the liquid loading of the gas
will cause an over-reading of the gas flow rate. Several
commercial wet gas-metering devices have been developed
based on differential pressure devices as shown in Table 4.
Most Type II wet gas meters listed in Table 4 use a differential
pressure device plus another technique to measure gas and
liquid flow rates. Sampling and tracer techniques determine
liquid flow rate periodically and liquid flow rates remain
constant between sampling intervals. Other devices such as
extended venturi, dual differential and dual venturi with vortex
offer continuous measurement of gas and liquid flow rates.
Three groups of commercial wet gas meters can be identified:
The first group of commercial wet gas meters deploys
sampling methods. De Leeuw in 1994 introduced a venturi
meter with tracer dilution to determine gas and liquid flow
rates. This technique requires manual injection, sampling, and
analysis of the samples. Commercial meters such as
MultiTrace, shown in Figure 4, and DualStream I use this
technique. Another meter, VEGA, uses isokientic sampling
SPE 77351
method to withdraw 10% of the wet gas and separate the
liquid from gas to determine liquid flow rate. It uses an orifice
meter to measure the gas flow rate and sampling is automated.
The second group of commercial meters utilizes two or more
dissimilar devices to determine gas and liquid flow rates.
Commercial meters such as Dualstream II, shown in Figure 5,
and WGM employ this measurement principle of solving two
equations (dual meters) with two unknowns (gas and liquid
flow rates).
The third group of commercial meters uses multiple
measurement sensors such as OneStep meter, which utilize an
extended venturi to measure two pressure drops along the
venturi to determine gas and liquid flow rates.
Although the manufactures of the commercial wet gas meters
listed measurement uncertainty of their devices as shown in
Table 4, the actual field proven accuracy of these devices has
not been fully corroborated by the users. The field
performance of the venturi - tracer meter, marketed as
MultiTrace and Dualstream I, has been reported by a number
of users (34). Other meters, listed in Table 4, are still new in
the market at this time. Their accuracy has yet to be
demonstrated.
Since all commercial Type II meters use differential pressure
devices, it is important to understand how liquid flow
measurement uncertainty impacts gas flow rate measurements
over the entire range of operational conditions. Performance
and measurement uncertainty of differential pressure devices
in wet gas condition is well studied up to Lockhart-Martinelli
number equal to 0.30, as shown in the example in Figure 3.
However, performance data for liquid measurement using
these devices are not available in public domain to verify the
accuracy of liquid flow rate measurement. In addition,
operational conditions and fluid properties also influence (27)
the uncertainty of gas equation as shown in Figure 3. If
operating fluid properties were different from meter
calibration fluids, flow measurement uncertainty will increase.
Ultrasonic meters have been studied for wet gas applications
but not yet introduced as a commercial product. Research
studies have shown (35,36,) that meter sensors could survive
wet gas conditions and their diagnostic measurement signals
and sensors orientations can be used to measure mist, annular,
and stratified flow regimes over a wide range of flow rates and
liquid loading.
Novel approached to wet gas metering has been reported by
Ting (37). This approach uses a rotary separator's rotating
speed and its separated liquid flow rate to determine gas flow
rates. Research conducted by Morrison (38) shows that a
slotted orifice flow meter could also be used for two-phase
flow measurement.
SPE 77351 WET GAS METERING: TRENDS IN APPLICATIONS AND TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS
Metering Systems for Type III Wet Gas
Metering systems used for Type III wet gas are multiphase
metering systems that were developed to measure flow
streams composed of oil, water, and gas mixtures (9,10).
These meters include several commercially available full-bore
multiphase meters as well as metering systems, which use
some form of flow stream separation. To be included in this
wet gas discussion, Type III meter must make an oil, gas and
water rate determination at relatively high GVF > 80%
or X≥0.3
Multiphase meters include an enormous array of devices from
full three phase separators to simple full flow spool pieces
with no separation. In each system, however, the same
processing schematically shown in Figure 6 must occur. These
processes consist of some type of fluid conditioning, mixture
density determination, mixture rate determination, mixture
composition determination, and application of a flow model.
These functions can be supplied by an instrument or by an
assumption in a model. Each instrument function or
assumption has associated uncertainty. The flow model has
uncertainty due to all of the inputs. With practical
considerations, the meter can be placed at virtually any point
from the reservoir to the atmospheric tanks.
Commercial multiphase meters may use two general
approaches based on fluid conditioning: partial separation of
fluids or no separation of fluids. No-separation multiphase
meter systems use a restricted range of instruments. Rate may
be determined by venturi, or by cross correlation or both.
Composition is determined by nuclear densitometers or by
electromagnetic instruments detecting conductivity,
capacitance, inductance, dielectric constant or combinations
thereof.
Multiphase meter partial separation systems can use virtually
all of the Type I & II devices. However, in all cases
considerations of the effects on single-phase meters due to
trace of multiphase flow must be considered (43). In particular
these systems can use single-phase liquid devices such as
venturis, Coriolis and PD meters to improve the liquid
measurement when liquids are in trace quantities as in Type II
wet gas.
Multiphase meter performance assessment in Type III wet gas
conditions is complicated. Performance can be characterized
as the percent error of reading or full scale (FS) or absolute
error for each of the oil, water and gas phases as shown in
Table 5. Since there are no generally accepted standards for
performance claims, users may require performance testing.
Up to now, 3 different approaches have been used to check on
the performance claims shown in Table 5. These approaches
consist of:
1. Third party testing where vendors and end users are not
involved. These tests are generally conducted in a test
5
loop under controlled conditions. Reference uncertainty
is usually very low.
2. End user field-testing where the multiphase meter is
tested against conventional test separators. Reference
uncertainty is usually dependent on field separators and
may be unknown.
3. Manufacturer sponsored testing either in a third party test
loop or at the manufacturer’s facility. Reference
uncertainty varies, and may not be known.
These test programs can be further categorized by use of
fluids ranging from air and water to full hydrocarbon.
Programs using simple fluids show high accuracy but
application of results to the field may be limited. Full flow
field-testing suffers greatly from lack of verifiable references
and narrow range of flow conditions.
Multiphase metering systems tested in third party flow loops
in Type III wet gas region (39) have achieved gas flow rates
uncertainty of 5-25% in GVF range of 80-90% and 10-50% if
GVF range is increased to 90-95%. Metering systems that use
a combination of Venturi and composition devices (see Figure
3) have shown better gas metering performance.
A considerable amount of data on the field performance of
multiphase meters, in wet gas region, is now available (40-42)
In field tests, where the performance of the multiphase meters
have been compared to conventional test separators,
uncertainty’s’ of 5-10% have been claimed. Some field tests
have even claimed uncertainty of 2%. But it should be noted
that these accuracy performances are obtained by comparing
the gas flow measurements against conventional separators
that generally use gas metering devices described for Type I
wet gas metering conditions. In most of the field tests, these
“reference” devices may be operating in Type II or even Type
III wet gas conditions. Their uncertainty, without the use of
correction factors, would be quite high. Comparison of the
data from field tests with these references of questionable
accuracy can be misleading. However, data from multiphase
meters can be used for trending and process optimization.
Issues Challenging Wet Gas Metering
In the previous sections we have described a number of
techniques and measurement strategies that users have at their
deposal to address the various types of wet gas metering.
There are however, three major challenges that the users face.
These are: (a) selecting and specifying a meter for the
application, (b) obtaining the performance data and assessing
the accuracy of the system for the anticipated application, and
(c) getting approval to use a wet gas meter for the intended
application (s) from appropriate regulatory bodies. In addition
the initial and operating cost of the metering system must be
taken into consideration. If the application involves asset
development where the wet gas metering is an enabling
technology, there is less pressure for cost to become the
dominating factor. If on the other hand, the application is a
matter of optimizing the facility or the need for on-line data
6 PARVIZ MEHDIZADEH
measurements, then the user must work hard to align the
requirements for operating conditions and the metrological
needs (performance, accuracy) to reduce the overall cost of
the installation.
There is currently no commonly accepted method to test the
performance of wet gas meters. The user must gather
performance information from various sources such as
described in this paper. Wet gas measurement accuracy is
practically limited by three factors: (1) experimentally derived
correlation uncertainty, (2) meter (transducer) signal to noise-
ratio uncertainty, and (3) liquid composition uncertainty. It is
important to recognize that all of the correlations used in wet 2.
gas measurement were obtained from experimental data.
These correlations therefore, contain uncertainty, which will
limit their usefulness. Test loop uncertainty could be quite
different than field performance if the fluids used to test the
meter are not similar to field fluids. There is therefore a need
to develop a commonly accepted performance test protocol
and a procedure to evaluate the performance (accuracy) in the
field. Procurement specifications should use a common
language that is understood by vendor, user, the procurement
department and the regulator. There is also a need to develop a
commonly accepted terms and definitions that describe the
type and principle of operations of various wet gas meters. It
is hoped that this paper has contributed to the development of
this common language.
Relationship between cost, value, and performance (accuracy)
is different depending on the type of wet gas and metering
applications. Loss of revenue is overriding factor in Type I
meters used for allocation or fiscal metering. Type II metering
systems can be justified on the basis of facility requirements
(subsea). If it is enabling type technology, the performance
level can be relaxed. Type III metering system’s cost may
have justifications based on the ability of these systems to
provide reservoir monitoring, production optimization, flow
assurance capabilities and enabling of marginally economic
subsea projects. This “value chain” approach to wet gas
metering may direct the selection and further development of 3.
the technology (5).
Due to increasing interest in wet gas metering associated with
the development of deep-water reservoir, MMS and API have
initiated programs (2) to address the application of wet gas
meters. The Department of Trade and Industry in UK has
issued guidelines (4) that should assist users in deploying wet
gas metering systems.
Summary
1. A map for classifying types of wet gas is proposed as
a means of reviewing the various metering systems
that are available on the market. The three types of
wet gas conditions are identified as shown in Figure
2. Type I wet gas is defined as the region with
Lockhart-Martinelli number equal or less than 0.02.
SPE 77351
Type II wet gas is defined as the region above Type I
and constrained by the liquid content described by
the Lockhart-Martinelli number equal or less than
0.3. All the conditions in the map above the LM=0.3
is defined as Type III wet gas. The suitability of
various wet gas metering system to perform in these
types of wet gas conditions were assessed. New
technologies and metering strategies to develop
devices and systems to accurately measure gas and
liquid under the three wet gas conditions are
reviewed in this paper.
Table 2 lists devices that are used for metering Type I
wet gas conditions. Type I metering systems are
typically used in fiscal metering. These are single-
phase commercial gas meters that require liquid flow
rate input to measure gas flow rate calculations.
These methods assume a constant liquid flow rate
estimate over a period or until new liquid flow rate is
updated. Common methods of determining liquid
flow rate are periodical well tests, tracer injection,
PVT prediction, and allocation techniques. The liquid
presence in the gas for Type I metering system cause
a systematic bias error in gas flow measurement if
liquid flow is not corrected in the gas flow equation.
However, it is important to realize that the gas
measurement error using a modified wet gas equation
could be even higher than the dry gas flow
calculation estimate, if the liquid input has large
uncertainty in the Type I metering system. When
utilizing Type I system, selection of flow-metering
devices for liquid measurement and their
correspondent uncertainty must be considered in
order to deliver an optimum system. Since gas flow
rate error is relatively low at X≤0.02, sometimes
more complex Type II or Type III meters may not
improve measurement accuracy for Type I wet
gas applications.
Type II wet gas metering systems typically measure
the flow stream at the production wellhead,
commingled flow line, or well test applications.
Several “commercial” metering systems have been
developed for Type II wet gas and are shown in
Table 4. Most Type II wet gas meters listed in Table
4 use a differential pressure device plus another
technique to measure gas and liquid flow rates.
Sampling and tracer techniques are used in some
systems to determine liquid flow rate periodically and
liquid flow rates remain constant between sampling
intervals. Other systems such as extended venturi;
dual differential and dual venturi with vortex offer
continuous measurement of gas and liquid flow rates.
The volumetric uncertainty’s’, shown in Table 4, are
provided by the manufacturers. The field proven
accuracy of these devices has not yet been fully
corroborated by the users. Operational conditions and
SPE 77351 WET GAS METERING: TRENDS IN APPLICATIONS AND TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS
fluid properties significantly impact the volumetric
uncertainty listed in the Table 4. Type II wet gas
metering covers higher liquid flow ranges as shown
in Table 3,where the commercial value of the liquid
may be significant.
4. Metering systems used for Type III wet gas are
multiphase metering systems that were developed to
measure flow streams composed of oil, water, and
gas mixtures. These meters include several
commercially available full-bore multiphase meters
as well as metering systems, which use some form of
flow stream separation. Multiphase meter
performance assessment in Type III wet gas
conditions is complicated. Performance can be
characterized as the percent error of reading or full
scale or absolute error for each of the oil, water and
gas phases as shown in Table 5. A considerable
amount of data on the field performance of
multiphase meters, in wet gas region, is now
available In field tests, where the performance of the
multiphase meters have been compared to
conventional test separators, uncertainty’s’ of 5-10%
have been claimed. Some field tests have even
claimed uncertainty of 2%. But it should be noted
that these accuracy performances are obtained by
comparing the gas flow measurements against
conventional separators that generally use gas
metering devices described for Type I wet gas
metering conditions. In most of the field tests these
“reference” devices may have very questionable
accuracy. However data from multiphase meters can
be used for trending and process optimization.
5. In addition to the cost, the user faces a number of
challenges in justifying a wet gas meter for an
application. These are: (a) selecting and specifying a
meter for the application, (b) obtaining the
performance data and assessing the accuracy of the
system for the anticipated application, and (c) getting
approval to use a wet gas meter for the intended
application (s) from appropriate regulatory bodies.
Currently, there is no commonly accepted method to
assess the performance of the wet gas meters. The
user must gather performance information from
various sources such as described in this paper. There
is a need to develop a commonly accepted
performance test protocol and a procedure to evaluate
the performance (accuracy) of these systems.
Procurement specifications need to use a common
language that is understood by vendor, user, the
procurement department and the regulator. There is
also a need to develop a commonly accepted terms
and definition that describe the type and principle of
operations of various wet gas meters. It is hoped that
this paper has contributed to the development of this
common language.
7
6. Due to the increasing interest in wet gas metering
associated with the development of deep-water
reservoir as shown in Figure 1, Minerals
Management Service and American Petroleum
Institute have initiatives underway to address the
application of wet gas meters. The Department of
Trade and Industry in UK has issued guidelines that
could assist users in deploying wet gas metering
systems. The interest in wet gas metering is also
justifying a number of research programs described
in the paper aimed at improving the correction factors
used in Types I and II metering systems.
7. The relationship between cost of the metering system
and its performance (accuracy) is different depending
on what type of wet gas-metering application. Loss of
revenue is overriding factor in Type I meters used for
allocation or fiscal metering. Type II metering system
can be justified on the basis of facility requirements
(subsea). If it is an enabling type technology, the
performance level can be relaxed. Type III metering
system’s cost may have justifications based on the
ability of these systems to provide reservoir
monitoring, production optimization, and flow
assurance capabilities. This “value chain” approach
to wet gas metering may direct the selection and
further development of the technology.
Acknowledgement
The authors wish to thank ChevronTexaco for permission to
publish this paper.
Nomenclature
X Lockhart-Martinelli Number
Vsl Superficial velocity of liquid
Vsg Superficial velocity of gas
ρl Density of liquid
ρg Density of gas
GVF Gas Volume Fraction
LGR Liquid Gas Ratio
GOR Gas Oil Ratio
References
1. “Gulf of Mexico deep water production hits record
level”, Oil&Gas Journal, April 8, 2002, 30.
2. Hasshol, T. et al.: “Development of an API
recommended engineering practice for wet gas flow
meters for subsea allocation of hydrocarbon” paper
presented at the 5th International Symposium on Fluid
Flow Measurement, Arlington, VA, April 7-10, 2002.
3. Jamison, A.W., “ Wet Gas Metering- The
Unexpected Challenge, Status and Trends on
Technology and Applications” paper presented at the
19th International North Sea Measurement Workshop,
Kristansand, Norway, Oct. 22-25, 2001.
4. “Guidance Notes For Petroleum Measurements
8 PARVIZ MEHDIZADEH
Under The Petroleum (Production) Regulations” UK
Department of Trade and Industry, Oil and Gas
Division, Issue 6, Oct. 2001.
5. Couput Jean-Paul et al: “Wet Gas Metering In the
UpstreamArea:Needs, Applications & developments”
paper presented at the 18th North Sea Flow
Measurement Workshop 2000.
6. ISO: DIS 14532 (ISO TC 193 Natural Gas).
7. De Leeuw, H., “Liquid correction of Venturi meter
readings in wet gas flow” paper presented at the
North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop,
Kristiansand, Norway, 1997.
8. Van Maanen, H.R.E., “Cost reduction for wet gas
measurement using the tracer-Venturi combination”
paper presented at the Practical Development in Gas
Flow Metering, NEL, East Kilbride, Scotland, 1999.
9. Mehdizadeh, P. “Multiphase Meters: Delivering
Improved Production Measurements and Well
Testing Today” Petroleum Engineering International,
Vol. 71, Number 5, 63, May 1998.
10. Falcone, G. et al, “Multiphase Flow Metering:
Current trends and Future Developments” SPE paper
71474 presented at 2001 SPE – ATCE in New
Orleans, Louisiana, 30 Sept. – 3 Oct. 2001.
11. De Leeuw, Rick, “liquid correction for Venturi meter
readings in wet gas flow”, Paper presented at the
North Sea Flow Measurement workshop,
National Engineering Laboratory, East Kilbride,
Scotland, 1997.
12. Sakariassen, R., “Gas Metering – Status and Trends
on Technology and Applications” paper presented at
the 19th North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop,
Kristansand, Norway, Oct. 22-25, 2001.
13. Dykesteen, E. “Status and Trends in Technology and
Applications”, paper presented at the 19th
International North Sea Measurement Workshop,
Kristansand, Norway, and Oct. 22-25, 2001.
14. Hatton, G. et al, “Wet Gas Metering Using Dissimilar
Flow Sensors: Theory and Field Trials” SPE paper
76193 presented at 2002 SPE – ATCE in San
Antonio, Texas 29 Sept. - 2 Oct. 2002.
15. Ngai, C. et al, “Performance Test of High Gas
Volume Fraction Multiphase Meter in a Producing
Field” SPE paper presented at the 1997 SPE – ATCE
in San Antonio, Texas, Oct. 1997.
16. Cellos, H., “Multiphase Flow Measurement System
of High GOR Applications”, SPE paper presented at
1999 SPE Western Regional Meeting, Anchorage
Alaska, 26-28 May 1999.
17. Bentley N.S., Baker L., and Svingen B., “Well
Testing Issues And A New Comapact Cyclone
System” paper presented at the 16th North Sea Flow
Measurement Workshop, 1998
18. Murdock, J.W., “Two Phase Flow Measurement
with Orifices”, Journal of Basic Engineering,
December 1962
SPE 77351
19. Karnik, Umesh, et al, " Effect of Pulsation and
Liquid Contaminants on Micro-Motion Coriolis Mass
Flow Meter", Flow Measurement 2001 International
Conference, May 2001
20. Ifft, S., “Installation Effects on the V-Cone Flow
Meter”, 3rd International Symposium on Fluid Flow
Measurement, San Antonio, Texas, USA,
March 1995.
21. Ting, V. C. and G. P. Corpron, “Effect of Liquid
Entrainment on the Accuracy of Orifice Meters for
Gas Flow Measurement”, 1995 International Gas
Research Conference
22. McBrien, R.K., "Effect of Liquid on Orifice Meter
Measurement in High Pressure Natural Gas", 4th
International Symposium on Fluid Flow
Measurement, Denver, USA, June, 1999
23. Mattar, L. et al, "Orifice Metering of Two-Phase
Flow", J. of Petroleum Technology, August, 1979
24. Jones, E.H. et al, "Wet Gas Metering Performance",
1966 OMAE, VolV, Pipeline Technology, ASME
1966, pp297-303
25. Hodges, D. et al, "Evaluation of Dry-Gas Meters in
Wet Gas Conditions: Turbine and Venturi Meters",
OTC 13148, May 2001
26. Zanker, K., and Brown, G.,“The Performance of a
Multipath Ultrasonic with Wet Gas”, North Sea Flow
Measurement Workshop, Gleneagles, Scotland,
October 2000.
27. Britton, C. et al, " Experimental Wet Gas Data For A
Herschel Style Venturi", 5th International Symposium
on Fluid Flow Measurement, Wash. D.C., USA,
April, 2002
28. Ting, V.C., private communication, air/water data
29. Ting, V.C. et al, “Evaluation of Clamp-on Ultrasonic
Gas Flow Meters for Natural Gas Applications” to be
presented at the 20th North Sea Flow Measurement
Workshop, October 2002
30. Lund, J.S. et al, "A Wet Gas Meter for
Gas/Condensate Flow Measurement", BHR Group
1999 Multiphase '99
31. Fincke, J.R. at el, “Performance Characteristics of an
Extended Throat Flow Nozzle for the Measurement
of High Void Fraction Multi-Phase Flows”, 4th
International Conference on Fluid Flow
Measurement, Denver, Colorado, USA, June 1999.
32. Andreussi, P.et al,"Development of a Wet Gas
Flowmeter", BHR Group 2000 Multiphase
Technology
33. De Leeuw, H., “Wet Gas Flow Measurement by
Means of a Venturi Meter and a Tracer Technique”,
North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop, Peebles,
Scotland, October 1994.
34. Konopczynski, M.R. and DeLeeuw H., “Large-Scale
Application of Wet GasMetering at the Oman
Upstream LNG Project” SPE paper 63119 presented
at the 2000 SPE Annual Technical conference and
Exhibition held in Dallas, Texas, 1-4 October 2000.
SPE 77351 WET GAS METERING: TRENDS IN APPLICATIONS AND TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS 9

35. Zanker, K., and Brown, G.,“The Performance of a

Multipath Ultrasonic with Wet Gas”, North Sea Flow
Measurement Workshop, Gleneagles, Scotland,
October 2000.
36. Zanker, K., “An Ultrasonic Meter for Stratified Wet
Gas Service”, North Sea Flow Measurement
Workshop, Kristiansand, Norway, October 2001.
37. Ting, V.C., "Utilization of an Inline rotary Separator
as a Wet Gas Meter", 19th North Sea Flow
Measurement Workshop, 2001
38. Morrison, G.L., "Universal Slotted Orifice Flow
Meter Flow Coefficient Equation for Single and Two
Phase Flow", 5th International Symposium on Fluid
Flow Measurement, Wash. D.C., USA, April, 2002
39. ”Characterization of the Performance of Multiphase
Flowmeters”, Report No: 035/2000, March
17,2000,National Engineering Laboratory, UK
40. Ngai C.C., Brown M.D., and Mehdizadeh P.,
“Performance Test of a High Gas Volume Fraction
Multiphase Meter in a Producing Field” SPE paper
38784 presented at the 1997 ATCE held in San
Antonio, Texas, 5-8 October 1997
41. Framo Engineering Technical Bulletin, March and
August 1998
42. Leggett R. B., et al, “Multiphase Flow Meter
Successfully Measures Three-Phase Flow at
Extremely High Gas Volume Fractions – Gulf of
Suez, Egypt” SPE paper 36837 presented at the 1996
SPE European Conference, Milan Italy, 22-24 Oct.,
1996
43. Marrelli, J. D., et al, “Duri Area 10 Expansion:
Optimal Matching of Separation and Metering
Facilities for Performance, Cost, and Size:”
Proceedings of ETCE 2000: Energy Sources
Technology Conference & Exhibition, New
Orleans, Louisiana, February 14-17, 2000,
ETCE2000/ER-10165
10 PARVIZ MEHDIZADEH SPE 77351

Table 1: Gas and liquid parameters for Type I wet gas metering systems at Lockhart Martinelli Number =0.02

Pressure, Gas Density, Liquid Density, GVF LGR, bbl/

psia (bar) lb/cuft (Kg/m3) lb/cuft (Kg/m3) MMSCF (m3/ million std m3)
3,000 (200) 12.5 (200) 37.5 (600) 0.9886 8(44)
750 (50) 3.1 (50) 37.5 (600) 0.9943 17 (98)
150 (10) 0.6 (10) 37.5 (600) 0.9975 43 (243)

Table 2: Type I metering devices and gas flow over-readings range - With no liquid flow corrections

Metering Devices Volumetric Over-reading References

range (%) for X≤0.02
Coriolis 0 to 6 Karnik (19)
Inverted Venturi (v- 0 to 1.5 Ifft (20)
cone)
Orifice -1.7 to 2 Ting (21), McBrien (22), and Mattar
(23)
Turbine 0 to 0.75 Jones (24) and Hodges (25)
Ultrasonic 0 to 10 Zanker (26)
Venturi 0 to 5 Britton (27) and Hodges (25)
Vortex 0 to 6 Ting- (28)

Table 3: Gas and liquid parameters for Type II wet gas metering systems
@ Lockhart-Martinelli number, X =0.3

Pressure, psia Gas Density, Liquid Density, lb/cuft GVF LGR, bbl/
(bar) lb/cuft (Kg/m3) (Kg/m3) MMSCF (m3/M std m3)
3,000 (200) 12.5 (200) 37.5 (600) 0.85 118 (662)
750 (50) 3.1 (50) 37.5 (600) 0.92 262 (1,471)
150 (10) 0.6 (10) 37.5 (600) 0.96 649 (3,644)
SPE 77351 WET GAS METERING: TRENDS IN APPLICATIONS AND TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS 11

Table 4: Commercial Type II wet gas metering systems

Metering Devices Manufactures Volumetric uncertainty References

Vendor Spec.
Dual Differential Dualstream II by ISA Gas ±5% Lund (30)
Liquid ±10%
Dual Venturi with Vortex WGM by Agar Gas ±2% Agar (14)
Liquid ±2%
Extended Venturi OneStep by FMC Gas ±2%; GVF<. 95 Fincke (31)
Liquid ±6%
Orifice with Sampling Vega by TEA Gas ±3% Andreussi
Liquid ±3% (32)
Venturi with Tracer Sampling MultiTrace by Petrotech Gas ±2% De Leeuw
Dualstream I by ISA Liquid ±10% (33)

Table 5 - MULTIPHASE METERING SYSTEMS USED FOR TYPE III WET GAS METERING
Uncertainty values are per vendor’s specification – meters are designated as NS (no separation) or PS (partial separation)

Meter Velocity Composition GVF Range Liquid Rate Gas Rate Water Cut
Method Method % %(Rel. %(Rel. Err.) %Uncertainty
Err.)
VenturiX Venturi Densitometer 0-91 5 or 2.5FS 10 or 5
5FS
NS 153Gd
Roxar Venturi and Densitometer 0-98 5 -14 10 2-15
NS Cross Correlation 137 Cs
MixMeter DP, mixer Densitometer 10-90 5 10 5
NS 137 Cs
DUET Cross CorrelationX- Densitometer 5-65 10 10 3-6
65-95 10
NS 137Ce, 241Am
Agar 400 PD & Vortex Dielectric 0-99.5 2 5FS+5 R
PS
12 PARVIZ MEHDIZADEH SPE 77351

GOM Gas Production

Deep Water
Shallow Water
6.00

5.00
Gas Production - TCF
4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year

Fig. 1- Gas production from Gulf of Mexico’s deep waters is expected to account for a larger fraction of the gas
production in the region.

Wet Gas Type: Definitions by GVF and LM parameter

Superficial Velocity = Gas or Liquid Volumetric Rate / Pipe Area
Constant Gas Fraction in Pipeline is Along Diagonal Lines
Constant Volumetric Flow Lines are Dashed

100
LIQUID: sVl scfd (ft/sec) =(Volumetric Liquid Rate

Constant
Volumetric
Flow Lines

10

Type III
/ Pipe Area)

1 Wet Gas Type II-III Type II

Boundary
GVF=85% - 96%

Wet Gas Type I-II

Boundary
GVF=98.9 - 99.8%
Type I
0.1
1 10 100
GAS: sVg scfd (ft/sec) = (Volumetric Gas Rate / Pipe Area)

Fig.2 - A proposed map for classifying a wet gas streams, on the basis of superficial velocity for gas and liquid.
Three types of “wet gas” have been defined on the basis of the superficial velocity of gas/liquid, Gas Volume
Fraction, and Lockhart Martinelli parameter.
SPE 77351 WET GAS METERING: TRENDS IN APPLICATIONS AND TECHNICAL DEVELOPMENTS 13

1 .4 5
1 .4 0
1 .3 5
1 .3 0
1 .2 5
GMFR

1 .2 0
1 .1 5 14 Bar
48 Bar
1 .1 0
76 Bar
1 .0 5 1 5 B a r R e f [3 ]
4 5 B a r R e f [3 ]
1 .0 0 9 0 B a r R e f [3 ]
0 .9 5
0 0 .0 5 0 .1 0 .1 5 0 .2 0 .2 5
L o c k h a rt M a rtin e lli N u m b e r, X

Fig. 3 - Performance plot showing the over-reading Gas Mass Flow Ratio (GMFR) of a venturi meter as a function of
Lockhart-Martinelli Number. Most of the over-reading in Figure 3 is distributed in the range of 1 to 1.05 or 0 to 5% for
X≤0.02. This figure also shows the performance variation at different pressures and fluid properties associated with the lower
pressures.

Fig. 4 – Commercial Type II wet gas metering systems, such as the MultiTrace shown in this photo, use tracer
injection/dilution technique to measure the volume of liquid in the stream.
14 PARVIZ MEHDIZADEH SPE 77351

Fig. 5 - Commercial Type II wet gas metering systems, such as the DualStream II shown in this photo, use two or
more dissimilar devices to determine the gas and liquid flow rates in-line.

Reduction of Determination Determination Determination

Application of
Uncertainty by of of of
Multiphase
Mixing or Mixture Liquid and WaterCut or
Model
Separation Density Gas Rate Composition

Fluid 2-P & 3-P Density

Microwave
Dielectric
Data Output
Properties Separation Nuclear Momentum Processing
Inlet 1 Energy Rotary WaterCut High Freq.

Partial or
PD Nuclear Microwave
2 Energies Dielectric
Rates
Fluid Turbine
Modeling
Multi Rates Incomplete Low Freq.
Separation. Density
Nuclear Oil
Phase 2 Energies Capacitance
Virtual
Fluid No
Flow Conditions Condition -
Orifice
Venturi
Inductance
WaterCut Conductance Metering Water
ing Nuclear
Density Vcone
>Multiple
Facilities
Partial Mix
Nuclear
>2 Energies
Vortex
Coriolis Energies Coriolis Comparison
Sampling &
Gas
Full Mix Feedback
@P,T
Reservoir: High P,T; Welltest
Low GVF, (Xg) Pipeline Meter
Sales Line: Low P,T;
High GVF , (Xg)
Fig. 6 – Multiphase Metering Systems used for Type III wet gas measurements use a variety of devices and
metering strategies shown in this schematic to measure oil, water, and gas flow rates in a stream.