Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Oga Metering Guidelines 2019 Revised Dec 19
Oga Metering Guidelines 2019 Revised Dec 19
Measurement
Guidelines 2020
January 2020
Contents
1. Introduction
1.2.1 Production licences contain provisions in relation 1.2.7 The Guidelines will be kept under review and
to the measurement of petroleum including a may be amended as appropriate in the light
requirement that: “The Licensee shall measure of further experience and developing law and
or weigh by a method or methods customarily practice, and any change to the OGA’s powers
used in good oilfield practice and from time to and responsibilities.
time approved by the OGA all petroleum won
and saved from the licensed area.” 1.3 The OGA’s Metering Team
1.2.2 The purpose of these Guidelines is to set 1.3.1 The OGA’s Metering Team helps to ensure the
out the OGA’s expectations as to what will delivery of the MER UK objective by taking a
generally constitute ‘good oilfield practice’ for risk-based approach to the regulation of fiscal
the full range of fiscal measurement scenarios oil and gas measurement. The OGA’s focus will
that are likely to be encountered in practice. be on the areas of greatest fiscal risk to the UK
The Guidelines also set out the procedure Exchequer, including:
that licensees should follow to gain the OGA’s
• Points of sale of hydrocarbons produced on
approval of their methods for petroleum
the UK Continental Shelf
measurement.
• Measurement and allocation in shared
1.2.3 While responsibility to comply with the licence transportation systems containing non-UKCS
obligations in relation to the measurement of (principally, Norwegian) hydrocarbons
petroleum rests with the licensee, the OGA
recognises that in practice these matters may be
undertaken by the operator, on behalf of the joint
1
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2016/20/contents/enacted
4 1. Introduction | OGA Measurement Guidelines 2019
2
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/media/3540/stewardship-review.pdf
6 2. Overview of OGA Regulatation of Fiscal Oil & Gas Measurement & Allocation | OGA Measurement Guidelines 2019
https://nfogm.no/documents/north-sea-flow-measurement-workshop/
3
7 3. Petroleum Operations Notice 6 (PON 6) | OGA Measurement Guidelines 2019
3.1.1 Guidance on the OGA’s Field Development Plan 3.2 Method of Measurement
(FDP) expectations is available on the OGA
website4 3.2.1 Direct measurement approaches may be
regarded as adopting the following hierarchy (in
3.1.2 The FDP submission may include a basic ascending order of measurement uncertainty):
statement on the proposed method of
(i) Continuous single-phase measurement
measurement for the relevant field. In addition
of each phase, post-separation, in
to the FDP, an additional document, known as
dedicated meter runs designed to minimise
the Petroleum Operations Notice 6 (PON 6), is measurement uncertainty.
required.
(ii) Continuous, nominally single-phase,
3.1.3 The preparation of a PON 6 submission is measurement of each phase on the oil, gas
and water off-takes of a dedicated separator.
an iterative process, the purpose of which is
to establish in writing an agreed method of (iii) Continuous multiphase or wet gas
measurement for the field. measurement via a dedicated flow
meter, installed either topsides or subsea
3.1.4 The final content of the PON 6 must be agreed multiphase.
with the OGA prior to the start of production (iv) Intermittent, nominally single-phase,
from the relevant field. measurement of each phase on the oil, gas
and water off-takes of a test separator, with
3.1.5 The level of information required by the OGA interpolation of the flow rates of each phase
depends on the scale of the field development during the periods between these ‘well-tests’
under consideration and on the proposed – ‘flow sampling’.
hydrocarbon export route.
3.2.2 In some circumstances, a ‘by difference’
3.1.6 Where the hydrocarbon export route is directly solution may be appropriate, provided the field
into a shared transportation system, the method in question is a relatively large proportion of the
of measurement is likely to be determined by commingled total.
the need to comply with the pipeline entry
specifications. In such cases, the OGA will 3.2.3 The optimal measurement solution is one where
generally restrict its regulatory input to ensuring the desirability of low measurement uncertainty
that the Licensee complies with the relevant is weighed against the economics of the field
pipeline entry requirements development in question.
3.1.7 For new field developments where the fiscal 3.3 Initial Meeting
measurement point will be a secondary or
tertiary allocation point, the OGA shall at each 3.3.1 For a new field development, the Licensee
stage in the procedure seek assurances that the should present its proposals to the OGA at an
proposed method of measurement is acceptable initial meeting. From the above it should be clear
to the other interested parties. In assessing that the measurement approach is fundamental
the exposure in more complex multiple-entrant to the nature of a field development. Therefore
allocation systems, it may be useful to consider the meeting should take place at as early a stage
the resultant uncertainties not just in field terms, as possible, and certainly prior to the submission
but also in terms of the financial exposure to of the Field Development Plan to the OGA.
each equity holder in the system.
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/exploration-production/development/field-development-plans/
4
8 3. Petroleum Operations Notice 6 (PON 6) | OGA Measurement Guidelines 2019
3.3.2 In considering the proposed measurement 3.5 Testing and Calibration Activities
approach, the OGA will take account of the
specific economic and technical aspects 3.5.1 Prior to its installation and on-site
of the proposed field development. At this commissioning, the Operator should be able to
stage Licensees should provide the following demonstrate to the OGA, if requested, that the
information (together with any other information critical elements of a fiscal measurement station
requested by the OGA): have been tested and demonstrated to be fully
operational, with all necessary functionality and
• The reserves and anticipated production profile
all relevant calculations being performed to
of the field.
within the required tolerances.
• A process flow diagram, indicating the location
of the proposed metering and sampling points. 3.5.2 The OGA should be informed of the dates
Where ‘satellite’ fields are being considered, of all such testing activities. Exceptionally,
details of any space and weight constraints on representatives from the OGA may choose to
the ‘host’ facility should be included.
attend. At least 2 weeks’ notice should be given
• Details of the proposed measurement and to the OGA of the relevant dates.
allocation approach, including the metering
and sampling technologies, along with an 3.5.3 The OGA may request to be provided with
approximate measurement uncertainty figure. calibration reports for primary flow elements.
• Details of the proposed method and frequency
of re-verification of the metering technology. 3.6 Final PON 6 Submission
Where it is intended to adopt elements of
a ‘condition-based maintenance’ strategy, 3.6.1 The final PON 6 submission should include, as a
this should be considered at the design minimum, the following supporting information:
stage as it may necessitate the use of
additional measurement points and/or dual • A statement of the method of measurement to
instrumentation. be adopted (see 2.2. above).
3.3.3 Further to the initial meeting, the OGA may • A process flow diagram, indicating the location
require Licensees to carry out a cost-benefit of the proposed metering and sampling points.
analysis so that the optimal method of • Piping and instrumentation diagrams
measurement may be determined. In such showing the dimensions and configuration
cases, the cost-benefit analysis must be of the pipework immediately upstream and
submitted at a sufficiently early stage that none downstream of the metering and sampling
of the options under consideration would involve systems.
a delay in first oil and/or gas. • Proposed initial frequencies for the recalibration
of critical flow elements.
3.4 Approval to Proceed with Design
3.7 Formal Non-Objection from the OGA
3.4.1 Once the measurement approach has been
agreed in principle, the Operator will be given 3.7.1 Subject to the satisfactory completion of
approval to proceed with the detailed design. the PON 6 process (including any follow-up
The approval will normally take the form of a information requested by the OGA), the Operator
note making reference to material presented by will receive a letter of ‘non-objection’ to the
the Operator during the initial meeting, and/or proposed method of measurement from the
any subsequent cost-benefit analysis. OGA.
9 4. General Operating Principles | OGA Measurement Guidelines 2019
5
Pashnina, N & Daniel, P. “Determination of Optimal Calibration Intervals – A Risk-Based Approach.” 34th International North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop,
St. Andrews 2016.
Stockton, P. “Cost benefit analyses in the design of allocation systems.” 27th International North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop, Tønsberg 2009.
6
7
Sætre, C. et. al “A new methodology for cost-benefit risk analysis of oil metering system lay-outs.” 33rd International North Sea Flow Measurement Workshop,
Tønsberg 2015
8
https://nfogm.no/documents/north-sea-flow-measurement-workshop/
10 5. OGA Inspection of Fiscal Oil & Gas Measurement & Allocation Systems | OGA Measurement Guidelines 2019
5.1.1 Under the terms of the licence, the OGA has 5.2.2 A typical inspection of an offshore installation is
a right to inspect any measurement station of 2-3 nights’ duration. Operators are expected
used to determine quantities of hydrocarbon to co-operate in arranging inspections within
won and saved from a licensed area on the a window of Monday-Wednesday/Thursday or
UKCS. However, in keeping with the objective Tuesday-Thursday/Friday.
of MER UK, the OGA’s inspection programme
is generally targeted at the areas of greatest 5.3 Inspection Format and Follow-Up
financial risk to the UK [Exchequer], including:
5.3.1 During the inspection, the OGA will seek to
(i) Points of sale at onshore terminals in the UK
establish the extent to which the Operator of the
(ii) Measurement stations at entry points on measurement station is in compliance with the
shared transportation systems containing relevant pipeline requirements, and to assess the
non-UKCS hydrocarbons (principally, oil degree of control with which the measurement
and gas pipelines shared with hydrocarbons station is being managed.
originating on the Norwegian continental
shelf)
5.3.2 An overall ‘score’ for the measurement station
(iii) Measurement stations on trans-median or will be determined, based on two elements:
trans-boundary field developments
• Status during the inspection
5.1.2 For measurement stations that do not lie in the • Perceived risk of mis-measurement
above categories, the OGA will generally rely on
the measures put in place by pipeline Operators 5.3.3 Following the inspection, the OGA will report
to ensure that the standards of ‘good oilfield its findings to the Operator. An opportunity for
practice’ are maintained. feedback will be given to the Operator, and
timeframes for the resolution of the identified
5.1.3 The OGA may request access to reports issues shall be agreed.
produced on the key measurement stations
by independent inspectors appointed by the 5.4 UK/Norway Memorandum of
pipeline Operator. (Several pipeline Operators Understanding
already provide the OGA with this information on
a routine basis.) 5.4.1 The UK has a long-standing Memorandum of
Understanding (MoU)9 with the Government
5.2 Inspection Planning of Norway, setting out procedures for joint
surveillance activities on measurement stations
5.2.1 The OGA gives Operators as much notice as of common interest; an up-to-date list of these
possible of its intent to carry out inspections, measurement stations is maintained in the
and will endeavour to co-operate with associated Annex 1.
Operators’ offshore planning schedules.
In return, the OGA expects Operators to 5.4.2 As per the terms of the MoU, from time to
treat inspection dates, once agreed, as firm time, the measurement stations listed in Annex
commitments. 1 will be inspected jointly by the OGA and
representatives of the Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate.
9
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/exploration-production/production/petroleum-measurement/
11 6. Dispensation and Deviation Management | OGA Measurement Guidelines 2019
6.1 Dispensations
6.2 Deviations
7.1.1 From time to time, the OGA will meet with the management of measurement including:-
Operators of shared transportation systems on
• Pipeline balance
the UKCS, in order to review:
• Scheduling of independent inspections of
• The performance of the individual measurement stations
measurement stations on the pipeline, with
particular emphasis on those with relatively • Dispensation and deviation management
high throughputs
7.3.3 The OGA may ask pipeline operators to assess
• The pipeline Operator’s management of entrants’ performance on the basis of a number
measurement on the pipeline of key performance indicators, indicating, for
7.2 Metering Station Performance example:
8.1.1 The majority of the liquid hydrocarbons shuttle tanker. This is generally achieved using
produced on the UKCS is exported from measurement systems that are designed to
production facilities via shared pipelines. custody transfer standards. The OGA may
However, a significant proportion is exported from time to time inspect such measurement
direct to market via shuttle tankers. stations to ensure that appropriate measurement
standards are being maintained.
8.1.2 The point at which the sale of oil takes place is a
commercial decision on the part of the Operator. In the case of b), the fiscal measurement is
It may be either: likely to be beyond the jurisdiction of the OGA.
It is with this scenario that the remainder of this
a) at the point of offshore loading, based on the
chapter of the Guidelines is concerned.
Bill of Lading, or (more commonly)
b) at a ‘port of discharge’, based on the Outturn The OGA should be informed of the intended
location of the point of sale at the PON 6
In the case of a), the fiscal measurement stage, since this essentially determines the
takes place during the transfer of oil to the measurement and reporting requirements.
Definitions
As defined in Para. 1 of Schedule 3 to the Oil Taxation Act 1975 and the provisions
of section 282 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010, a sale is Arm’s Length if, and only if:
(a) the contract price is the sole consideration for the sale;
(b) the terms of the sale are not affected by any commercial relationship (other than
Arm’s Length Sale that created by the contract itself) between the seller or any person connected with
the seller and the buyer or any person connected with the buyer; and
(c) neither the seller nor any person connected with him has, directly or indirectly,
any interest in the subsequent resale or disposal of the oil or any product derived
therefrom.
The quantity delivered from the offshore installation to the shuttle tanker. This
Bill of Lading is normally determined on the basis of measurements made on the offshore
installation during the transfer to the shuttle tanker.
The quantity held on the ship, determined immediately following the transfer
Ship’s Figures from the offshore installation, and again immediately prior to offload at the port of
discharge.
8.2.1 Measurement of quantities of oil exported direct 8.3.1 The American Petroleum Institute (API)10 Manual
to market is required for the following reasons: of Petroleum Measurement, Chapter 17 (Marine
Measurement) recommends that Operators, as
(i) As referred to in paragraph 1.2.1 , there is a
part of their surveillance of the cargo transfer
licence requirement to determine quantities
process, track critical parameters at four key
won and saved from the licensed area, using
a method of measurement consistent with points. These are:
‘good oilfield practice’, and agreed at the • The total calculated volume delivered from the
PON 6 stage. offshore installation (Bill of Lading).
(ii) There is a fiscal requirement to determine • The Ship’s Figures, immediately post transfer
quantities of oil sold, since this forms the from the offshore installation.
basis of the calculation of profit from offshore
operations, which is subject to Corporation • The Ship’s Figures, immediately prior to offload
Tax and the Supplementary Charge. at the port of discharge.
• The total calculated volume measured at the
8.2.2 Having reviewed Bill of Lading versus Outturn port of discharge (Outturn).
data from over 500 cargoes delivered to ports
of discharge from the UKCS during 2014- 8.3.2 The OGA requires that the following parameters
2019, the OGA is currently satisfied that there are reported at each of the above points:
is no evidence of any systematic bias in the
• Gross Standard Volume.
determination of Outturn quantities. Moreover,
provided there is good agreement between • Net Standard Volume.
the Outturn figure and the Ship’s Figures • Sediment and Water.
immediately prior to offload, cargoes are typically
accepted without reference to the Bill of Lading. • Standard density.
8.2.3 Therefore, for cargoes sold on the basis of the in order that the integrity of the overall cargo
Outturn, the OGA does not set any expectation transfer process may be assessed.
on the uncertainty with which the Bill of Lading is
to be determined. 8.3.3 For each cargo transferred, the following
information should be provided:
8.2.4 The interests of all parties (including the
• A numeric cargo identifier.
Operator) at the port of discharge are normally
represented by an Independent Cargo • The date of the offload to the shuttle tanker.
Inspector whose task it is to ensure that • The identity of the shuttle tanker.
correct procedures are followed. A Marine
Cargo Expeditor may also be appointed by the • The location of the port of discharge.
Operator to represent their interests at the port
of discharge. 8.3.4 In addition, the OGA requires the following
information for each offload:
8.2.5 Where the sale of hydrocarbons is ‘Arms’
• Was a ‘Vessel Experience Factor’, or
Length’, the interests of Operator and
equivalent, used in the determination of the
Government are aligned, since it is in the
Ship’s Figures?
interests of both to ensure that the Outturn
is maximised. Where the sale is not at Arm’s • Did the sale take place at ‘Arm’s Length’?
Length, the OGA may require further details of • Is an independent cargo inspector’s report
the independent scrutiny of the quantity of oil available?
declared to have been sold.
• Is a marine expeditor’s report available?
10
www.api.org
15 8. Offshore Loading Systems | OGA Measurement Guidelines 2019
11
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/exploration-production/production/petroleum-measurement/
16 9. Production Separator Measurement for Allocation Purposes | OGA Measurement Guidelines 2019
9.1.1 The OGA will consider the use of dedicated 9.3.1 With the above requirements in mind, a review of
separator measurement for fiscal purposes separator capability should take place.
where this is dictated by field economics. This
is often the case when new satellite fields are 9.3.2 Provision should be made for adequate
tied back to older ‘host’ facilities. New modules secondary instrumentation (e.g. temperature,
may be provided with dedicated separators for pressure measurement) at locations where the
the satellite field. However, a more common parameters measured are representative of
scenario is where a pre-existing process those at the meter.
separator is dedicated to the new field. There
may be serious measurement challenges where 9.3.3 The OGA may require the Operator to perform
measurement systems are retro-fitted onto reviews of certain critical design aspects of the
separators that were not designed with fiscal proposed measurement system (for example,
metering in mind. the use of on-line versus off-line measurement
and analysis techniques) in order to determine
9.1.2 This chapter of the Guidelines is intended to the optimal solution from the cost/benefit
provide Operators with an indication of the standpoint.
OGA’s expectations where fiscal measurement
systems are installed on the outlets from process 9.4 Maintenance Frequencies
separators.
9.4.1 Initial recalibration intervals should be proposed
9.1.3 The use of test separators in fiscal applications at the PON6 stage, using a risk-based
is considered elsewhere in Chapter 10. approach.
9.2 Separator Design 9.4.2 The potential use of diagnostic facilities should
be strongly considered at the design phase.
9.2.1 While the measurement on the outlets of the
separators may be nominally ‘single-phase’, 9.4.3 Separator outlets must be provided with
it must always be borne in mind that this may adequate isolation valves so that the flow
not be the case in practice. Any departure from elements may be removed for inspection and/or
single-phase conditions may lead to a significant recalibration without requiring a process shut-
increase in measurement uncertainty. down.
separator and export metering may be modelled Unless direct mass measurement (via Coriolis
effectively; sampling is therefore an important meter) is sufficient for allocation purposes,
part of the overall measurement and allocation provision should be made for the determination
strategy. of liquid density. This may be based on direct
measurement or on the off-line analysis
9.5.2 Sampling may also be required in order that the of representative samples. In two-phase
water-in-oil content may be determined. applications where the water content is
determined via an off-line calculation based
9.5.3 Where samples are to be collected for analysis, on wet-oil- and base-densities, the reference
the frequency of sampling shall be agreed with density must be kept up-to-date since this
the OGA at the PON 6 stage, and may be technique is highly sensitive to changes in
reviewed from time to time thereafter. base density.
10.1.1 The use of test separator measurement systems 10.3.1 Where ‘Flow Sampling’ is the agreed method of
for field allocation purposes is possible under measurement, an agreed frequency of well tests
either of the following scenarios: should be agreed with the OGA, and stated in
the PON6.
• Where the agreed Method of Measurement for
the relevant field(s) is ‘Flow Sampling’, i.e. where
10.3.2 The OGA will normally require the Operator
fluids are allocated to one or more licensed
areas on the basis of periodic single-phase to carry out a review of the relevant well-test
measurements on the test separator. procedures. These should include details of:
• Where the agreed Method of Measurement • The planned duration of the well tests (this
for the relevant field(s) is based on multiphase should take into account the peculiarities of
metering, with the multiphase meter (MPFM) individual wells, e.g. long-distance tie-backs may
periodically verified against the test separator. require longer for the flow to stabilise).
10.1.2 Note: Wet Gas metering may be considered as a • The method by which well test details (e.g. well-
subset of Multiphase Metering for this purpose. head flowing pressure, choke position) shall be
recorded.
10.1.3 Flow meter performance during well testing may • The method by which fluid composition shall be
fall far short of the levels potentially achievable determined during the well test.
in single-phase laboratory applications.
Nevertheless, these uncertainties may be 10.3.3 The relevant procedures should be made
minimised by the adoption of best practice. available for review by the OGA.
10.2.2 The relevant considerations in such 10.4.2 The Operator should prepare written procedures
circumstances are similar to those already for the periodic comparisons. These should
described for dedicated process separators. include details of:
However, it must be borne in mind that the
• The flow stability criteria required for the test to
measurement challenges are likely to be more
take place.
pronounced in Test Separator applications.
• The planned duration of the comparisons.
10.2.3 The choice of meter for the gas and liquid • The basis on which the comparison shall be
phases should be considered carefully. made (e.g. mass, volume at standard conditions
– per phase, and total).
10.2.4 Sampling facilities should be provided to enable
• The method by which fluid composition shall be
representative samples to be obtained. determined during the comparison.
19 10. Test Separator Measurement for Allocation Purposes | OGA Measurement Guidelines 2019
11.1.1 The use of multiphase flow meters (MPFMs) in 11.2 Typical Applications of MPFMs
allocation applications is now well established
on the UKCS. The OGA and its predecessors 11.2.1 Multiphase measurement may be appropriate
have long accepted that their use in such in production allocation applications where
applications is essential if the remaining hydrocarbons from more than one field are
reserves in the North Sea are to be exploited. commingled in a shared production facility, and
where cost-benefit considerations indicate that
11.1.2 The increased use of MPFMs is attributable single-phase measurement of each field cannot
to this fact, and also to the undoubted be economically justified.
improvements in meter performance that have
been achieved over the past two decades. 11.2.2 There are a number of challenges surrounding
the use of MPFMs, most notably associated
11.1.3 The uncertainties that can be achieved by with sampling and meter verification.
MPFMs are typically application-dependent
and may not always be quantifiable. However, 11.2.3 The table below indicates some of the typical
measurement uncertainty can be minimised by configurations in which MPFMs have been used
the adoption of best practice in meter selection, in fiscal applications in the UK sector of the
maintenance, operation and verification. This North Sea.
section of the Guidelines outlines the OGA’s
expectations on Operators with this overall aim
in mind.
MPFM subsea, Comparison of MPFM with test Allocation to satellite field relatively
measuring all wells separator. Relatively complex straightforward.
from a single satellite comparison in view of significantly PVT data required periodically; frequency higher
field. different process conditions at where individual well characteristics believed to
MPFM/Test Separator, and in view of be significantly different. However, in practice it
distance between these. Procedures may be difficult or impossible to update initial PVT
must take account of possibility of data.
slugging in flow line, etc.
MPFM subsea, Comparison of MPFM with test Highly complex allocation issues.
measuring all wells separator. At least one MPFM manufacturer offers the
from more than one Relatively complex comparison in possibility of a ‘switching’ facility whereby
satellite field. view of significantly different process individual wells or groups of wells may be flowed
conditions at MPFM/Test Separator, separately through the MPFM.
and in view of distance between PVT data required periodically; frequency likely
these. Procedures must take to be higher than in the above case, since fluid
account of possibility of slugging in characteristics likely to show greater variability.
flow line, etc. However, in practice it may again be difficult or
impossible to update initial PVT data
21 11. Multiphase Measurement in Allocation Applications | OGA Measurement Guidelines 2019
11.4 Service and Maintenance Agreements no prior knowledge of the fluid conditions in the
flow loop.
11.4.1 To a greater extent than for any other type
of primary flow element used in oil and gas 11.7.2 The aim of such tests is to compare the flow
measurement, the successful operation rates (oil, gas, water) indicated by the MPFM
of MPFMs requires the continued active with the values measured by the reference
participation of the meter manufacturer standard flow rates for each phase over the
throughout the life of the field. Therefore, full range of anticipated operating conditions.
service and maintenance agreements should Where it is not possible to test the MPFM over
be set up at the outset. The possibility of the full operating envelope, it may nevertheless
remote monitoring by service engineers should be worthwhile to perform a dynamic calibration
be utilised wherever possible. of the meter; this may serve as a ‘dynamic
functionality check’. Where the comparison
11.5 Onshore MPFM Calibration is on a volume basis, it should be referred to
a common set of conditions (e.g. standard
11.5.1 Operators are strongly urged to exercise conditions) and must take account of possible
caution in interpreting claimed MPFM transfer between phases.
uncertainties. These figures are likely to be
based on empirical test data. Where such test 11.7.3 The calibration fluids may be either ‘process’
data is used to support the decision to use a (live crude, hydrocarbon gas, formation water)
particular meter, Operators must establish that or ‘model’ (e.g. oil, water, nitrogen). The
the data is not ‘selective’ (i.e. ‘best case’). latter set-up is by far the most common; not
only is it far less hazardous to operate but
11.6 Onshore Calibration - Static Testing the PVT characteristics of the fluids are likely
to be relatively well understood, so that it
11.6.1 The static tests performed on a MPFM vary becomes possible to compare the reference
from one model to another. However, the measurements with those of the MPFM with
general purpose of such tests is to establish minimal additional uncertainty.
a reference based on a known fluid inside the
measurement section of the MPFM. 11.8 System Integration Test
11.6.2 This may consist of measurement of: 11.8.1 Before the MPFM and its associated
secondary instrumentation is installed offshore,
• Geometric dimensions,
testing should take place to ensure the
• Calibration of differential pressure cell, correct operation of the system as a whole
• Verification of γ-ray count rates in calibration (communication between devices, data hand-
fluids (oil, gas, water), depending on the over, etc.). This is particularly important in
working principle of the primary measurement subsea applications.
elements.
11.9 Offshore Calibration – Static Testing
11.6.3 Such calibrations are normally carried out
irrespective of the conditions in which the 11.9.1 The aim of in situ static testing is to verify that
meter will ultimately be used. the MPFM characteristics have not shown any
significant change compared to the static test
11.7 Onshore Calibration – Flow Loop Tests results obtained onshore.
11.7.1 Operators are strongly urged to arrange for 11.9.2 Some models of meter require an initial static
dynamic (flow loop) tests to be carried out calibration using actual well fluids. Similar tests
prior to agreeing to the use of a MPFM in an may be repeated at regular intervals during the
allocation application. It may be appropriate to meter’s time in service. A comparison of these
test the meter ‘blind’, i.e. where the vendor has results over time serves as a useful health
check.
23 11. Multiphase Measurement in Allocation Applications | OGA Measurement Guidelines 2019
11.10.3 During the comparison, the MPFM and test • Obtaining a compositionally-representative
separator may be at significantly different sample from a multiphase fluid at isothermal
and isobaric conditions is likely to be one of the
conditions of pressure and temperature.
most challenging aspects of fiscal multiphase
Correcting the respective gas and oil
measurement. This is particularly true of
volumes measured during the comparison to subsea MPFM applications.
standard conditions requires knowledge of
the hydrocarbons’ composition, and involves 11.12.2 PVT information should be updated
additional uncertainty inherent in the process periodically. Operators should have in place
model. The possibility of mass transfer a programme whereby certain key events (for
between phases must also be taken into example, the start of water-injection) ‘trigger’ a
account. Comparisons of the MPFM and test new programme of sampling.
separator data should include the total mass
measured in all three phases.
12.1.1 The uncertainties that can be achieved by wet of liquid, over a limited range of meter
gas meters are typically application-dependent parameters (e.g. meter size and β-ratio) and
and may not always be quantifiable. However, operating conditions.
measurement uncertainty can be minimised
by the adoption of best practice in meter 12.2.3 Recent work by industry has highlighted the
selection, maintenance, operation and fact that despite the lack of attention on orifice
verification. This chapter of the Guidelines plate response to wet gas flows, there is in
outlines the OGA’s expectations on Operators fact much to recommend their use. Provided
with this overall aim in mind. the orifice plate does not sustain damage,
its response is repeatable, reproducible
12.1.2 Where multiphase flow meters are used in and therefore predictable. Flow visualisation
‘wet gas’ mode, the same considerations studies have shown that the risk of liquid
apply regarding meter selection, testing and being trapped behind the orifice plate has
calibration – Operators should consult Chapter been over-stated. Furthermore, a correlation
11 of these Guidelines for an indication of the has been developed for 2” to 4” meters that is
OGA’s expectations. essentially independent of β-ratio.
12.1.3 This chapter is intended to provide Operators 12.2.4 In general, differential pressure meters in wet
with guidance on the use of generic (non- gas applications behave more like their single-
manufacturer-specific) differential pressure phase equivalents as pressure is increased.
meters in fiscal wet gas applications.
12.2.5 The use of meter, and the correlation to be
12.1.4 The publication of the results of research work used, should be discussed with the OGA at
at North Sea Flow Measurement Workshops the PON 6 stage.
and elsewhere is an invaluable source of
information, particularly in the area of wet gas 12.3 Determination of Gas and
measurement where the information is likely to Liquid Density
be available via this route many years before it
appears in a standard. 12.3.1 The liquid and gas densities may be
determined by laboratory analysis of
12.2 Differential Pressure Meters representative samples. Sampling of wet gas
flows is not trivial and careful consideration
12.2.1 When wet gas flow passes through a must be given to the design and operation
differential pressure (ΔP) meter, the presence of the sampling system. The use of fully-
of liquid results in an increase in the measured automated flow-proportional sampling
ΔP. As a result, the meter over-estimates the systems is generally precluded by the marginal
gas flow rate. The degree of over-estimation nature of wet gas field developments, so
depends on a number of factors – the that intermittent manual sampling is the most
Lockhart Martinelli parameter, the gas to commonly-employed tactic. In such cases,
liquid density ratio (essentially the operating the question of sampling frequency must be
pressure), the gas densiometric Froude carefully considered.
number and the water-liquid ratio.
12.3.2 There are specific practical issues arising from
12.2.2 Venturi meters are most commonly used in the nature of many of the nominally ‘dry’ gas
wet gas applications. A number of correlations fields in the southern sector of the UK North
have been developed in order to correct the Sea. Many of these have been shown to begin
over-reading of Venturi meters in the presence to produce significant quantities of liquid as
25 12. Wet Gas Measurement in Allocation Applications | OGA Measurement Guidelines 2019
13.1.1 As part of the OGA’s wider Stewardship ability to detect trends – rather than in the
process (See Reference [1] at end), the uncertainty of the single-phase measurements.
OGA’s Metering Team may periodically review
Operators’ strategies and procedures for well 13.2.4 Recent work has suggested that even well-
testing. maintained and well-operated separators will
have uncertainties in the range of 2-4% on
13.1.2 The flow rate of each of the three phases (oil, liquid (water and oil, separately), and 2-5%
gas and water) produced by a well is typically on gas. Where conditions are less than ideal,
determined by periodic ‘well testing’, whereby errors above 5% on liquid, and 10-15% on
flow from the well is diverted either to: gas, are often encountered. [2]
(i) a test separator, equipped with single- (ii) ‘Reconciliation’ of well test results
phase meters on each of the outlets, or
13.2.5 In most cases, single-phase measurements
(more rarely)
of the commingled production from all of
(ii) a multi-phase flow meter (MPFM). the wells in the field takes place at a lower
uncertainty downstream of the test separator.
These single-phase flow rates are typically Production from each individual well is ‘pro-
used as input to reservoir models. rated’, so that the sum of production of each
phase from each well matches that produced
Unfortunately, the well testing process is from the reservoir as a whole. In practice,
subject to a relatively high level of uncertainties reconciliation factors tend to be systematically
and systematic measurement errors may be below 1 (and in the range 0.85-0.90). [2]
expected to occur.
13.2.6 In pro-rating volume production rates from
13.2 Factors Affecting Well-Test Results each phase for each well, transfer between
(i) Single-phase measurements the phases must be considered. Thus, if the
operating pressure is lower at the point where
13.2.1 The nominally single-phase measurements the commingled production is measured
of oil, gas and water on the outlets of a test than it was at the test separator, transfer
separator are likely to be subject to installation from the liquid to the gaseous phase may
effects, leading to measurement bias. take place. This process may be modelled,
but the modelling process (which is itself
13.2.2 The calibrations conditions of the single-phase inherently uncertain) depends on knowledge
meters (assuming they have been calibrated of the physical properties of the hydrocarbons
at all) are unlikely to be representative of those produced by the well; this is determined by
experienced by the meters in service. Space laboratory analysis of samples obtained during
and residence-time constraints may result the well test.
in non-ideal flow profiles at the meters. Flow
through the meters may be only nominally 13.2.7 The effect of the reconciliation exercise is that
single-phase; gas breakout at the oil meter well test results are given an inherent bias. The
and the presence of liquids in the gas meter scale of the bias depends on the magnitude of
are likely in many typical test separator the reconciliation factor; the absolute effect on
applications. an individual well is proportional to the share of
that well’s production to that of the reservoir as
13.2.3 In practice, Operators have typically been a whole.
more concerned with the repeatability of the
meters used in well-test systems – and in the
27 13. Well Flow Rate Determination for Reservoir Management | OGA Measurement Guidelines 2019
13.4 OGA Review of Well Testing 13.4.4 Where intermittent well flow rate determination
is clearly unsatisfactory, the OGA may
13.4.1 The OGA may from time to time review recommend the use of non-intrusive (‘clamp-
Operators’ well-test strategies and procedures on’) technologies to provide continuous flow
for individual assets. rate measurement.
12
https://www.ogauthority.co.uk/media/5900/oga_se6_integrated_fields_july_2019.pdf
Copyright © Oil and Gas Authority 2020
Oil and Gas Authority is a limited company registered in England and Wales with registered number 09666504 and
VAT registered number 249433979. Our registered office is at 21 Bloomsbury Street, London, United Kingdom, WC1B 3HF
www.ogauthority.co.uk