Using Aspen HYSYS Upstream for Sizing and Scheduling of Gathering Systems

Authors: Francisco da Silva, James Holoboff, Ahad Sarraf Shirazi (Process Ecology Inc.)
30 June, 2015
Using Aspen HYSYS® Upstream for Sizing
and Scheduling of Gathering Systems
James Holoboff, Managing Partner, Process Ecology Inc.

© 2015 Aspen Technology, Inc. All rights reserved.2
Today’s Presenters
Irina Rumyantseva
Engineering Product Marketing, Aspen Technology
James Holoboff
Managing Partner, Process Ecology Inc.

Overview
• Introduction – Applications for Hydraulics / Dynamics
• Sizing and Scheduling of Gathering Systems
– The Challenge
– Approach to Solving Problem
– Model Development
– Automation
– Results
• Comparison - HYSYS Hydraulics vs. HYSYS Dynamics
• Conclusions

Company Background – Process Ecology
• Founded 2003, Calgary, AB
• Key Competencies
– Engineering consulting, process simulation
– Process engineering & optimization
– Air emissions estimation and management
– Software development

We’ve come a long way … Disney’s Black Hole movie (1979) vs. Interstellar (2014)
With Current Technology, We Can Accomplish Much More
Released 1979
State-of-the art at the time, but …
deemed the most scientifically
inaccurate film of all time (the
black hole is populated by drones
in a burning landscape).
Released 2014
Scientifically accurate, based on
Einstein’s relativity equations
Possible through modern computing
technology

Hydraulics / Dynamics Applications
• Estimation of Slug volume
• Dynamic Model-Based Production System
• Sizing / Scheduling of Gathering Systems

Application 1 – Estimation of Slug Volume
• Background
– Heavy fraction in natural gas condenses;; may result in slugs reaching facilities
– Sizing the slug catcher requires estimation of slug volume and duration
– Conventional Sizing methods may significantly oversize slug catcher
• Slugging Types
– Terrain –induced slugging
– Caused by change of elevation in pipeline
– Hydrodynamic slugging
– Caused by formation of wave on liquid surface as a result of faster moving gas phase
– Pig-Induced slugging
– Caused by pigging operations in pipeline. Pig is designed to push most of the liquid contents to
the outlet

Application 1 – Estimation of Slug Volume
Elevation Profile

Application 1: Liquid Holdup Profile
0
0.0005
0.001
0.0015
0.002
0.0025
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000
Liquid holdup
Distance from Compressor1 discharge (m)
Pipe 2 liquid holdup profile

Application 1: Estimation of Slug Volume
500
550
600
650
700
750
1440 2440 3440 4440 5440 6440 7440 8440
Pressure Drop (kPa)
Elapsed Time (min)
Pressure drop in Pipe 2b

Application 1: Estimation of Slug Volume
- Peak of ~ 550 bbl/day
- Most of the liquid is recovered within 1-2 hours

Application 2: Dynamic Model-Based Production
System
• Synchronized integration of a dynamic simulation model of the wells and production
facilities with real-time online data obtained from production field
• Accurate dynamic model of wells and production network
• Online real-time application which transfers data between historian and simulation
model

System

System
• System acts as “virtual instrumentation” for key unmeasured variables such as well flow
rates
• Can monitor performance of specific equipment and support decisions to switch to
production modes such as artificial lift
• Can be run as a look-ahead tool
• Can be used offline to run what-if scenarios
• Real-time models that match field data improve understanding of the overall system
• They provide the tools to translate data into decision support

Part II: Sizing and Scheduling of Gathering Systems
• What is HYSYS Hydraulics?
• What is the challenge?
• What was the approach to solving the challenge?
• What were the results and benefits?

What is HYSYS Hydraulics?
• A solution for integrated upstream asset modeling
• HYSYS Hydraulics can be run in steady-state and dynamic mode
• Flow Assurance - predicts hydrate, wax, asphaltene formation
• Can be used for slugging / pigging analysis
• Network solver – flexible boundary conditions
• Multiple phases, phase slip
• Includes recent fluid flow correlations - TUFFP (Tulsa University)
• Emulsion viscosity models

The Challenge: Network Sizing and
Construction Scheduling
• Challenges include:
– Multiphase flow (condensate) – phase interaction, slip, flow patterns, pressure drop
– Uncertainty in production data
– Uncertainty in exact pipeline routes
– Looping/networking of pipelines
– Location of multiple processing facilities
The Problem: What are the required
pipeline sizes in the different segments of
the gas gathering network, at various
stages of the gathering system?

Network Schematic
Plant A
Plant B
32 wells, 2 plants
Many looped lines
Wells are being drilled over next 8
years
Pipelines will be built as needed

Model Setup in HYSYS Hydraulics (Steady-State)
• Rigorous multiphase pressure drop and heat
transfer correlations
• Rapid estimation of unknown profiles using
Google Earth
• Automation tool to transfer forecast data to the
simulation model
• Automation tool reports/interprets simulation
results and identifies segments where
constraints are violated

Model Setup
• 32 wells, 2 plants, looped lines
• All pipelines / wells (for all future times)
modeled. Sections of model ignored
depending on modeled year/quarter.
• Well data imported from master
spreadsheet, based on selected model
year/quarter.

Automation Tool:
Enable Quick Configuration of Model
• Select Quarter/Year
• Load HYSYS case / Transfer Data
• Run
• As system is analyzed, if flowrates change, they can easily be managed in master
spreadsheet
• Key assumptions (well temperatures, plant inlet pressures) can be managed in master
spreadsheet

Model Constraints
• Plant A limit of 50 MMSCFD – suction pressure calculated to limit this rate
• Maximum pipe size – 12” (16” for short segments)
• Ratio of velocity to erosional velocity not to exceed 55%

Model Calibration
• 25-35 bbl/MMSCF liquids in
produced gas
• Selection of appropriate
pressure drop correlation
crucial
• Calibration done for well-
defined isolatable pipeline
• Tulsa correlation gave the
best match

System Analysis
• Model/automation tool enabled quick analysis of the system at each quarter
• Segments exceeding constraints could easily be identified, and modifications made
• In the example below, in consultations with client, 16” pipe (instead of 10”) was installed
to alleviate the high velocity

Results
• A series of recommendations for each quarter from 2015-2022 – where to add pipelines
and what size – i.e., the “drilling program”
• This enables capital spending to be determined over the next few years of production
• Trade-offs identified and reviewed: e.g., postpone capital spending with parallel lines

Benefits
• Provided critical data for scheduling and budgeting purposes
• Provided notifications regarding technical issues, such as potential reversal of flow
direction in certain network segments
• Model is now an asset for the client and can be used for future studies as conditions
change
Key Benefit: Projection was not a guess –
sound science and engineering was efficiently
used to develop the drilling program.

Are there advantages to using HYSYS Dynamics vs. HYSYS Hydraulics?
Part III: HYSYS Hydraulics vs. HYSYS Dynamics
• Why Consider HYSYS Dynamics?
– It is beneficial to consider alternatives within HYSYS
– HYSYS Steady-State cannot be used for this sort of analysis
– HYSYS Dynamics is well-established and has been used for many applications

Hydraulics vs. Dynamics- Results
• Plant A pressure
– In Dynamics, plant pressure can be directly calculated by
having a flowrate spec at plant A “sink”, while in Hydraulics
estimating plant A pressure (with a flow constraint) is an
iterative procedure
• Flow rate and direction in two branches from Plant A:
Parameter Name Unit Hydraulics Dynamics % Difference
Plant A pressure kPag 1,688 1,612 4.5
“Branch 1” flowrate MMSCFD 5.5 5.3 3.6
“Branch 2” flowrate MMSCFD 21.5 21.7 0.9

Well Pressure Predictions –
Hydraulics vs. Dynamics
Well Pressure (kPa)
Hydraulics
Pressure (kPa)
Dynamics
% Difference
b-74-A 1,338.6 1,303.6 2.6
c-51-A 1,218.5 1,212.5 1.0
c-54-A 1,423.1 1,348.3 5.3
c-17-H 1,634.3 1,482.9 9.3
15-1 1,820.1 1,468.9 19.1
c-64-H 1,936.0 1,473.2 23.9
The results are fairly close at some locations while they deviate 20% or
more at others

• Taking a closer look at 15-1 lateral pipe:
• Large elevation change over a few kilometers
• Pipe is modelled in 3 segments in HYSYS:
Segment No. Length (m) Elevation change (m)
1 930 14
2 1190 -20
3 1150 35
15-1 lateral Hydaulics Dynamics
Pressure drop 145 14

• Liquid holdup profile in Hydraulics:
• In Dynamics liquid holdup is proportional to liquid/vapour volume rates, and constant

• Pipe segment calculations in Dynamics ignore phase slip and assumes both phases are
moving with the same velocity
• This can result in significant differences in pressure drop.
• Conclusions
– Using Dynamics for modeling gathering network can potentially be easier to set up and converge,
but user must be extremely cautious when there is a large elevation change and significant liquid
expected in the network
15-1 lateral
Hydaulics
pipe
Pipe segment
Dynamics
Pipe segment
steady-state
Pressure drop 145 14 148

HYSYS Hydraulic Modeling of Gathering Systems
• Initial convergence of the model is
straightforward
• Steady-state solution provides liquid
hold-up profile in the pipes. Phase slip is
considered in model.
• Dynamic simulation of Hydraulic
flowsheet provides ability to predict
terrain-induced/pig-induced slug;; heat
transfer rigorously modeled
• Model is cumbersome to set up, as only two
pressure nodes can be connected to each
other
• Only a few unit operations are available in
the flowsheet
• Objects inside Hydraulics flowsheet are not
well-exposed in HYSYS API.
• Solver takes more time to converge
especially when there are multiple sinks.
Advantages vs. HYSYS Dynamics Disadvantages vs. HYSYS Dynamics

HYSYS Dynamic Modeling of Gathering Systems
• Takes into account equipment holdup
(system accumulation)
• More pressure drop correlations
available in Aspen Dynamics
• Quicker, easier transition to studying
transient behaviour
• Additional units operations: control
valves, PSVs, pumps, compressors,
etc.
• Hydraulics flow assurance tools (erosion,
corrosion, hydrates, deposit formation
and slugging) are not available in
dynamics
• For steady-state analysis: step-time
sensitive
• Phase slip is not considered in model
Advantages vs. HYSYS Hydraulics Disadvantages vs. HYSYS Hydraulics SS

Recommendations and Conclusions
• HYSYS Hydraulics can be used to address the challenge of sizing and scheduling
gathering systems
• Automation can be used to improve the efficiency and flexibility in configuring the model
• There are alternatives within HYSYS for large gathering system models
• HYSYS Dynamics can be a feasible alternative, and there are some advantages.
However, it must be used with caution for multi-phase systems.

Aspen HYSYS: Process Modeling Training
Aspen HYSYS: Process Modeling (EHY101)
July 6, 2015 – Virtual-Americas
July 13, 2015 – Frankfurt, Germany
January 27, 2015 – Bedford, MA
January 27, 2015 – Calgary, AB, Canada
http://support.aspentech.com/supportpublictrain/CourseInfo.asp?course=EHY101
• Learn to build process simulations using Aspen HYSYS.
• Discover how Aspen HYSYS allows rapid flowsheet construction and bi-directional calculations.
• Investigate how templates and subflowsheets can streamline and organize simulation efforts.
• Learn how to do preliminary cost estimation using Aspen Process Economic Analyzer from the
Aspen HYSYS Environment.

Modeling Heavy Oil & Gas Production and Facilities Using
Aspen HYSYS Upstream
Modeling Heavy Oil & Gas Production and Facilities Using Aspen
HYSYS Upstream (EHY2351)
July 13, 2015 – Virtual-EMEA
July 16, 2015 – Houston, TX
July 20, 2015 – Virtual-Americas
http://support.aspentech.com/supportpublictrain/CourseInfo.asp?course=EHY2351
• Use the new advanced capabilities of Aspen HYSYS to enable shared workflow between
production modeling and facilities modeling.
• Use the improved oil modeling tools in Aspen HYSYS for heavy oil models, hypothetical
components from lab data, tune transport properties to match field data.
• Use Aspen Hydraulics to perform hydraulic calculation and use Aspen HYSYS pipe segment for
Flow assurance calculation

Visit the Process Ecology Website
www.processecology.com
Q&A
James Holoboff
james@processecology.com
Irina Rumyantseva
irina.rumyantseva@aspentech.com

Using Aspen HYSYS Upstream for Sizing and Scheduling of Gathering Systems

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Using Aspen HYSYS Upstream for Sizing and Scheduling of Gathering Systems

Similar to Using Aspen HYSYS Upstream for Sizing and Scheduling of Gathering Systems (20)

More from Process Ecology Inc

More from Process Ecology Inc (9)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Using Aspen HYSYS Upstream for Sizing and Scheduling of Gathering Systems