Comparison MPFM performances at NEL Multiphase facility

Transcription

1 Comparison MPFM performances at NEL Multiphase facility Vicenza, 23 Gennaio Stefano Bernardi - Rev.A 14/09/2011 Subsea MPFM 1

2 Multiphase Test Facility Flow loop used: TUV NEL, East Kilbride, GLASGOW, UK TUV NEL has long been recognized as a world leading supplier of multiphase test and evaluation services. TUV NEL S multiphase facility is a purpose built facility designed to simulate full three-phase flows encountered in the oil and gas production industry. 23/01/2012 2

3 Schematic of the NEL Multiphase Facility Oil The facility is based around a 3-phase separator which contains the working bulk fluids. The oil and water are re-circulated around the test facility using two variable speed pumps. The delivery pressure of the nitrogen is up to 12 bar at the reference measurement location. After passing through the test section, the nitrogen is exhausted to atmosphere from the separator. The flow at NEL flow loop is very unstable and highly turbulent compare the real world. There heavy liquid slugs and the liquids are really stratified and not well mixed. 23/01/2012 3

4 Reference Measurement Quality Reference Instrumentation: Oil 1 ¼ and 3 turbine meters Water 1 ½ and 3 turbine meters Gas ½, 1 and 3 turbine meters Cross contamination monitors Fluid sampling The oil, water and gas reference turbine meters are calibrated against the UK primary national standard facilities at NEL. The pressure transmitters and platinum resistance thermometers are calibrated against standard equipment held in the multiphase laboratory. NEL Multiphase Facility uncertainty: Over the majority of the operating range of the NEL multiphase flow facility the combined uncertainties are: Gas flow < 1.5% Liquid flow < 1.0% Water cut < 1.0% Absolute 23/01/2012 4

5 MPFM Installation in Facility Test Section Test Procedure Test points from the blind test matrix were carried out by the NEL Facility operator in the order which best suits the facility operational efficiency. Each test point was logged once the facility operator was satisfied that the required flow condition had been achieved and was stable. Data logging was carried out for a period of 10 minutes per flow condition as requested by MPFM operator. 23/01/2012 5

6 MPFM tested Pietro Fiorentini Flowatch HS 2" #900 RTJ Roxar MPFM 2600 Grayloc 4GR40 Schlumberger PhaseWatcher Vx 52 mm 23/01/2012 6

7 Blind Test Reports Reference Pietro Fiorentini, Flowatch HS: EVALUATION OF A PIETRO FIORENTINI FLOWATCH HS MULTIPHASE FLOW METER, report no 2011/451 Roxar, MPFM 2600: EVALUATION OF A ROXAR MPFM 2600 MULTIPHASE FLOW METER, report no 2009/265 Schlumberger, PhaseWatcher: Paper: First-ever validation of a multiphase flow meter on extensive ranges of GVF (0-100%), WLR (0-100%), Pressure (4-30 bar), and flow regimes from stable to unstable in a well-controlled flow loop facility, 29th International North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop October, /01/2012 7

8 Pietro Fiorentini Flowatch HS performances Performance table: Test results conclusions: In a comparison against the manufacturer s performance specification, 72 of 75 of the meters individual measurements of liquid flow rate, gas flow rate and water cut were within the combined meter and facility uncertainty specification as described in section 6 of this report. More than 95% of all the Pietro Fiorentini FloWatch HS meter s individual measurements of liquid flow, gas flow and water cut, during this evaluation, were within the meter s current published uncertainty specification. 23/01/2012 8

9 Comparison MPFM performance PF Flowatch HS Roxar MPFM 2600 Schlumberger PhaseWatcher Vx 52 Liquid The liquid flow errors show a total spread of 6.1% with a mean offset of -0.11% and a standard deviation of 1.41%. The liquid flow errors show a total spread of 6.1% with a mean offset of -0.59% and a standard deviation of 1.77%. The liquid flow errors show total spread of 6.48% with a mean offset of 1.06% and a standard deviation of 1.44% Gas The gas flow errors show a total spread of 11.93% with a mean offset of 1.75% and a standard deviation of 3.34%. The gas flow errors show a total spread of 15.77% with a mean offset of -2.45% and a standard deviation of 4.7%. The gas flow errors show a total spread of 17.51% mean offset of -3.53% and a standard deviation of 4.26%. Water cut The water cut errors show a total spread of 5.5 % with a mean offset of -0.12% and a standard deviation of 1.18%. The water cut errors show a total spread of 3.87% with a mean offset of 0.42% and a standard deviation of 0.89%. It is found that the total spread is 2.32%, the mean offset is around 0.01% and a standard deviation of 0.54% 23/01/2012 9

10 Error in Meter-Indicated Liquid Flow Rate Versus Reference GVF Pietro Fiorentini, Flowatch HS Roxar, MPFM 2600 Schlumberger conclusion: It should be noted that the error betweenbothequipmentisalso inline with the uncertainty claimed for each of the devices that are within 1-1.5%. Schlumberger, PhaseWatcher Vx 52 23/01/

11 Error in Meter-Indicated Gas Flow Rate Versus Reference GVF Pietro Fiorentini, Flowatch HS Roxar, MPFM 2600 Schlumberger, PhaseWatcher Vx 52 23/01/

12 Error in Meter-Indicated Water Cut Versus Reference GVF Pietro Fiorentini, Flowatch HS Roxar, MPFM 2600 Schlumberger, PhaseWatcher Vx 52 23/01/