OIL & GAS Recommended Practice and Technology Qualification for Gas Fiscal … · 2016-04-11 · Technology Qualification Testing of DUAL Ultrasonic Metering concepts; for client

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded

29 MARCH 2016 EFM workshop Noordwijk SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER DNV GL © 2016 GCS.16.P.EFM-HJR RECOMMENDED PRACTICE & TECHNOLOGY QUALIFICATION

Ungraded

March 29th 2016

Dr. Henk Riezebos,

OIL & GAS Recommended Practice and Technology Qualification for Gas Fiscal and Sales Allocation Measurement Systems

1

Paper presented at European Flow Measurement

workshop 2016 in Noordwijk, Netherlands

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded

29 MARCH 2016 EFM workshop Noordwijk

CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Key drivers and industry needs for FISCAL and SALES ALLOCATION metering

systems

3. DNV GL recommended practice in Metering

4. What is TQ (TECHNOLOGY QUALIFICATION) and how does it help the industry?

5. Sales Allocation example: TQ of Ultrasonic flow meters in wet gas (results of a

JIP)

6. Fiscal metering example: TQ of double Ultrasonic Flow metering systems for

high end custody transfer systems

7. Conclusions

2

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


INTRODUCTION

3

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


About myself

4

Henk Riezebos – Senior Principal Consultant @ DNV GL

Born: 1958

Experience:

1987-1994: Gasunie Gas Transport System Modelling

1995- 2002 Gasunie Research Specialist acoustics &vibration

2002- 2009 Gasunie Engineering & Technology Sr.Specialist; Head of acoustics, flow metering & calibration

group

2009 – 2012 KEMA Manager Gas Flow and Gas Dynamics

2012-2013 DNV KEMA Principal Specialist in Metering and Flow Acoustics

2013 – now: DNV GL

Education: PhD, Physics, University of Groningen, 1987

Professional experience: 29 years

Years with DNV GL: 6

Sr. Principal Consultant in Metering and Flow Acoustics

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


DNV GL Globally organized to maximise customer value

5

OIL & GAS

MARITIME

ENERGY

BUSINESS

ASSURANCE

SOFTWARE

RESEARCH & INNOVATION

CYBERNETICS

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


DNV GL An innovation powerhouse

5%

6

of annual revenue reinvested

into research and

development every year

+65% of the world’s pipelines are now certified to DNV GL standards

100 joint industry projects

each year

70 internal technology

projects annually

170 industry standards and

recommended practices

Dedicated R&D centers in the

Netherlands, Norway, Singapore,

the UK and the US.

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


KEY DRIVERS IN FISCAL AND SALES ALLOCATION MEASUREMENT ORGANISATION AND SYSTEMS

7

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Metering of Money across the Gas Value Chain

8

End use Distribution Transmission Exploration &

Production

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Main industry DRIVERS for FISCAL METERING SYSTEMS

9

Drivers

1. No loss of $

2. Risk Control

Metering Money : Accurate cash register

A small and controlled hydrocarbon loss register

(UFG) implying a fair gas financial balance.

Detection/elimination of (large) systematic errors

Improved maintenance @ high risk systems

3. Cost control

4. Compliance

Reducing costs by optimising metering design

(CAPEX) and maintenance (OPEX)

Monitoring leading to lower recalibration intervals

Meeting metrological legislation requirements

Meeting contractual requirements Typical reqs:

Uncertainty in Energy < 0,75%

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Ultimate Goals of Metering Management / ref. ISO10012

Metering Management is balancing conflicting drivers towards optimum!

10

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Challenges in upstream metering

11

Upstream allocation

Next to many other activities, Woodside is the operator of the North West Shelf Greater Western Flank projects. These operations include offshore production, FPSOs, gas processing plants, LNG plants, etc. Woodside has a number of (joint venture) partners in these projects. Allocation agreements are in place between the partners. Contractually the volumes are allocated in a ‘fair and equitable’ way. No detailed allocation rules are in place.

Combining production of multiple production assets into one co-mingled stream

prior to the fiscal measurement.

Production Allocation: Multiphase typical need: Reservoir Management

Sales Allocation metering: Wet gas typical need: Measure money!

Production allocation Sales allocation

Part of billing out-of-concession

Multiphase regime:“wet” gas GVF>95%

Typical required uncertainty < 2%

Typical actual values: 3%-5%

Typical solution: Venturi, V-cone, USM

Multiphase regime: all oil & gas

Typical required uncertainty < 5%

Typical actual uncertainty >10%

Typical solution: MPFM

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


DNV GL RECOMMENDED PRACTICE in METERING

12

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


DNV GL Recommended Practices extended to metering

Classification Scheme for metering

DNV has developed many standards (OSS) and

recommended practices (RP) for pipelines offshore:

DNV RP-A203 Qualification of new Technology

RP for fiscal metering?

BENEFIT for trading partners

1. Rectification that

trading is fair (no biases, loss of €)

costs in line with financial risk (uncertainty)

controlled UFG/ imbalance

2. Solid Guidance in design and management

improved effort at stations with high risk/ low

classification

Benchmarking the metering against other industry

practices

3. Set of tools (audit scheme) to provide guidance in

case of risks/ metering disputes/ systematic errors

13

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


DNV GL classification of Type I (Fiscal Metering) Station

Classification of fiscal metering stations based on operational

uncertainty budgets in flow and energy

Classification based on fair trade principles

Clear relation between the financial risk of measurement and costs

(for CAPEX design and OPEX maintenance)

Size Economic Value (Trading value)

Class Reference Level

Uncertainty on Flow (Q)/ Energy(E)

4 0.1 M€ < T < 1 M€ per year I-B Q:1,0%, E:1.5%

3 1 M€ < T < 10 M€ per year I-A Q:0.7%, E:1.0%

2 10 M€ < T < 100 M€ per year I-AA Q:0.5%, E:0.8%

1 T > 100 M€ per year I-AAA Q:0.3%, E: 0.6%

14

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Allocation Metering (type II)

ACCURACY CLASS

Size

II-AAA

UE<2%

II-AA

UE<3%

II-A

UE<5%

1 Large Gas field

production; multiple

parties involved in

allocation

Recommended

Classification

Level

2 Medium Gas

production; >25% out of

concession

Recommended

Classification

Level

3 Medium or Small gas

field with limited

contribution of other

parties (typical <10%)

Recommended

Classification

Level

COST TOO HIGH

RISK TOO HIGH

Example classification system for Allocation in wet gas with GVF > 95%

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


TECHNOLOGY QUALIFICATION DNV GL approach Technology Qualification Process and Scope

16

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


The roles in Qualification of New Developments

17

Yes, we can!

Look at all

the great work we

have done!

Convince me, prove it

Wow, but is

it relevant and

complete?

Developer End-user

What is the residual risk?

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Why Technology Qualification?

18

New technologies imposes risks:

• PM risks (time/budget)

• Risks related to use of product

• Risks related to interaction with

other components in the system

Questions for flow systems:

• Is it Fit-for-purpose?

• Able to meet design criteria?

• Able to meet requirements in

real life operational conditions,

e.g. energy uncertainty < 0,75%

• Not (significantly) affected by

real life distortions, such as dust, pulsations

• Can it impose diagnostic signals to tell

the metrological requirements

are potentially at stake?

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Technology Qualification Statements from DNV GL

19

Qualification Work Process

Qualification Basis

Technology

Deployment

Selection of Qualification

Methods

Execute Qualification Plan

Performance Assessment

Technology Assessment

Threat Assessment

DNV deliverables

TA

TECHNICAL REPORT

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Technology

Assessment

Report

Statement of

Feasibility

Project

milestones

TQP

TECHNICAL REPORT

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Technology

Qualification

Plan

Statement of

Endorsement

TQ?

Yes No

New

Tech. Fall

Back

Certificate of

Fitness for Service

TECHNICAL REPORT

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Technology

Qualification

Report

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Technology Qualification Testing for Metering concepts

Reference:

FISCAL ability to meet DNV GL accuracy class I (fiscal) requirements on

the basis of operational flow uncertainty UQ

Level I-AAA UQ < 0,3% only achieved with double flow systems (USM, TM)

Level I-AA UQ < 0,5% flow systems with periodic flow proving (USM, TM)

Level I-A UQ < 0,7% single flow systems ok (USM, TM, Coriolis)

Level I-B UQ < 1%

SALES ALLOCATION ability to meet DNV GL accuracy class II

requirements

Level II-AAA UQ < 2% Note 1: uncertainty after allocation process

Level II-AA UQ < 3% Note 2: in general wet gas correction necessary

Level II-A UQ < 5%

Level II-B UQ < 8%

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Technology Qualification Testing for Metering concepts

Advantages of using the TQ scheme above:

1: This qualification offers more value to organizations involved in metering as

compared to OIML R137 or EN1776 as these schemes are very broad and not

discriminative enough to ensure best industry practices are implemented.

2: Moreover, the DNV GL scheme is not only focusing on the design aspects of the

metering technology but also includes operational metrological effects,

that do occur in practical applications (effects of drift, dust, liquids, pulsations,

etc.).

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Example TECHNOLOGY QUALIFICATION project for Ultrasonic meters in wet gas JIP to determine whether ultrasonic meters are fit-for-purpose solutions in Sales Allocation applications

22

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


JIP executed at DNV GL Multiphase Facility in Groningen Netherlands

23

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


How does wet gas flow looks when you see it…

24

Stratified Liquid = oil; WLR = 0.0;

Qgas = 453 m3/hr; Qliquid=7,6 m3/hr (LVF=1,7%) Frg=0,73 XLM=0,15

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


JIP Results: Multi-dimensional correction

25

Visual interpretation of over-reading function: - JIP data (solid) and data included from 4 references: Cameron, Flexim, SICK and Daniel (open circles)

- Extension to Frg = 5.5, p = 75 bar, D = 4” and 8”

Van Putten

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Example of corrected results of one manufacturer in core group

26

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

0 50 100 150 200 250

[%]

[%]

Testpoint @ DNV GL JIP tests

Err

or(

%)

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Conclusions from JIP

27

Ultrasonic flow meters in wet gas applications

In general perform well up to LVF of 5% (i.e. even if 30% of the surface can be filled up with

liquids) or even beyond

TQ result (statement of endorsement): USM have the ability to show performance within the

required uncertainty levels needed for Sales Allocation class II-AA(UQ~2-3%) after

correction for oil and water liquid fractions

No major challenges during execution of the test, no severe issues with the ULTRASONIC

meters

Correction algorithm is capable of correcting as long as the meter does not compensate for

the hold-up or cross section / profile distortion

Data from literature seems to support the current correction algorithm (e.g. extension to

FRg = 5)

RESULTS IN PPT AND FULL PAPER WERE PUBLISHED BY DNV GL (DENNIS VAN PUTTEN et al)

AT THE NSFM WORKSHOP October 2015 in TONSBERG.

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Example TECHNOLOGY QUALIFICATION project for Dual Ultrasonic meters in fiscal gas TQ project for manufacturer to determine whether its dual ultrasonic meters (two meters in one body) are fit-for-purpose solutions in high end Fiscal Metering gas applications

28

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Technology Qualification Testing of DUAL Ultrasonic Metering concepts; for client Emerson Daniel

Target of the TQ:

Can the Dual USM technology FISCAL ability to meet DNV GL accuracy

class I (fiscal) requirements on the basis of operational flow uncertainty

UQ

– Level I-AAA UQ < 0,3%

– Level I-AA UQ < 0,5%

Is the DUAL ultrasonic technology able to generate risk and (OPEX) cost

savings by

– early warning in case of operational metrological distortions

– prediction of potential extension of recalibration interval

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Analysis of real life operational metrological distortions

To define test matrix and properly support and

market this case:

Meter related 25%

Process related 75%

Process related metering errors can be due to

Process Conditions beyond design

Presence of dust and Liquids

Buildup of dirt on piping

Flow conditioner blockage

Dynamic flow processes (pulsations)

Noise e.g. valves

Typical distribution of

Real life process related distortions

Blockage Buildup

Liquid Flow disturbance

Valve noise Pulsations

Beyond design

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Different TQ testing options based on operational distortions

Dry gas test facility (relevant aspects to be selected)

1. Operational condition sensitivity (p/ T/ Q)

2. Sensitivity to Buildup (smooth/ rough pipes)

3. Sensitivity to Blockage

4. Sensitivity to Noise

5. Sensitivity to Pulsations

Multiphase flow facility

1. Sensitivity to Liquids

* Typical test last 2 weeks

* Supporting evidence:

Field testing results

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Different ability LEVELS of DUAL ultrasonic metering system (two independent meters in one body) to cope with operational distortions

Level 4: Metrological performance is either NOT (significantly) affected by the

distortion or can be fully corrected. Note: Significance level related to accuracy

class uncertainty ACL

Level 3: Diagnostics of meter system can detect it and correct for it partly

(diagnostic warning)

Level 2: Diagnostics of meter system can detect it and issue a diagnostic alarm

(no correction)

Level 1: Potential errors can be detected only by Advanced Diagnostics using

other measurement instruments, like p, T, GCs, etc.(e.g SOS checks)

Level 0: NO detection of metrological distortion

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Metering RISK table for Technology Qualification verification

Metering risk table for Technology Qualification of Flow Meters

Meter deviation level 4 level 3 level 2 level 1 level 0

NON SIGNIFICANT < SL

LOW < 0,3*ACL

MEDIUM < 0,7*ACL

HIGH < MPE

VERY HIGH > MPE

SL=Significance Level color meaning

ACL= class level LOW

MPE = max.perm.error MEDIUM

MPE = ACL + SL HIGH

AAA: ACL = 0,3% VERY HIGH

AA: ACL = 0,5% CRITICAL

Meter detection & diagnostic ability

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Certificate of Fitness-For-service

Certificate of

Fitness for Service

TECHNICAL REPORT

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Technology

Qualification

Report

NOTE: EXAMPLE of Certificate

Reference Accuracy class I-AA

Risk level for operational distortions

• Pressure LOW

• Temperature LOW

• Pulsations LOW

• Liquids HIGH

• Dirt Buildup LOW

• Blockage MEDIUM

• Noise MEDIUM

Recalibration / cost saving ability

HIGH

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


Conclusions from TQ of DUAL US metering systems

35

TQ for fiscal metering

Is an independent party verification of a technology (bridge the gap between developers and

end users)

Helps to focus on real life metrological distortions

Helps the industry to determine what the technology and cost savings potential is

Dual Ultrasonic flow meters in fiscal gas applications

Can be used to meet criteria for high end fiscal metering systems

With their high diagnostic capabilities they can produce early warnings in case of metering

risks and get potential cost savings by extension of recalibration interval

RESULTS OF TQ Test for Emerson Daniel Dual flow meters will be published soon.

DNV GL © 2016

Ungraded


SAFER, SMARTER, GREENER

www.dnvgl.com

Thank you for your Attention Further information? Contact

36

Energieweg 17, 9743 AN Groningen

P.O. Box 2029, 9704 CA Groningen

The Netherlands

www.dnvgl.com

Dr. Henk RIEZEBOS Sr. Principal Consultant Metering & Flow Acoustics

[email protected]

Tel: +31 50 700 97 48

Documents

OIL & GAS Recommended Practice and Technology Qualification for Gas Fiscal … · 2016-04-11 · Technology Qualification Testing of DUAL Ultrasonic Metering concepts; for client