1 Copyright 2012 by ASME

Proceedings of the 2012 9th International Pipeline Conference

IPC2012
September 24-28, 2012, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
IPC2012-90584



STANDARDIZATION AND DELEGATION OF PIPELINE SIZING CALCULATIONS



Dan Garwood
Chesapeake Midstream
Oklahoma City, OK, USA



ABSTRACT
For all pipeline projects, a method must be chosen to select
the pipe diameter. These methods range in complexity from
someones gut feel to transient multi-phase optimization
studies. Regardless of the projects complexity or scope,
pipeline sizing calculations require some common decisions.
The pipeline designer must decide what fluid flow rates or
ranges of fluid flow rates to use in the design. The designer
must also determine what criteria to use to select the pipe size
(usually fluid velocity, pressure loss, and/or pressure loss
gradients).

More complex and rigorous analyses of pipeline projects
have some significant advantages. On some projects they may
save money by avoiding over-sizing that can occur due to
conservative assumptions that are often used in less rigorous
analyses. More rigorous analyses typically have the advantage
of being run by a very experienced engineer, who is likely to
understand the fundamental principles of the calculations better
than a less experienced engineer who might run a less rigorous
analysis.

There are also disadvantages to the more rigorous design
approaches. The software required is often expensive, and
training required may also have a significant cost in time and
money. The pool of users capable of performing such studies
may also be very limited. Complex, rigorous design studies also
require more extensive assumptions, which may lead to wider
variations in results from one engineer to another. The
increased complexity of the analysis makes it more difficult to
convey the assumptions to management--limiting the
transparency of the design process.
This paper describes a standardized approach to the
pipeline sizing process. This approach allows the pipeline
designer to delegate portions of the design work to personnel
who are not experienced hydraulics engineers. For more
complex projects, the standardization is limited to
recommended pipe sizing criteria based on velocity, pressure
loss, and pressure gradient. For less complex projects, two
spreadsheet-based tools have been developed to further
standardize the process and allow delegation of design tasks to
those not familiar with more complex pipeline design tools.

INTRODUCTION
A pipeline design process must first ensure that the
pipeline will be safe and comply with regulatory and code
requirements. Design aspects such as wall thickness, materials,
and corrosion control are typically the focus when considering
safety and compliance. Proper selection of pipe diameter also
contributes to safe and compliant operations by limiting back
pressures and keeping fluid velocities in a safe range.

In addition to ensuring a safe and compliant design, a
pipeline sizing process must balance reliability, cost of service,
and responsiveness. Reliability depends in part on the quality of
the materials and equipment chosen, but largely on the quality
of the design. A well-designed system will have enough
capacity and flexibility to move the required volumes at the
time of construction and several years into the future at a
reasonable cost. In general, the more time that is spent on
design and analysis, the more reliable and cost effective the end
result. The cost of the time spent in design and analysis must
also be considered. There are labor costs for the engineers and
managers who analyze and debate the different options, but this
cost may be small compared to the money at stake for the
2 Copyright 2012 by ASME
pipelines customers. Upstream producers of natural gas and oil
may have billions of dollars worth of product to sell that cannot
be sold until a pipeline is in place to transport the product.
Customers require reliability and cost control, but if the pipe is
not there when they need it, the value of the pipeline companys
services is greatly diminished.

Another important balance to consider is between custom
design and standardization. In most situations, some amount of
customization is inevitable and even desirable. It is important to
have people thinking about and identifying situations where
safety, reliability, cost, and responsiveness can be improved.

There are significant benefits to standardizing processes
and design practices. Standardization allows a company to
make the best use of its collective experience and minimize
unnecessary repletion of design work. Standardization also
improves the transparency of financial decision making. It
gives managers and investors, who may not have a technical
background, a clear picture of how design decisions are made
and what to expect from the pipeline design process.

One of the most critical decisions that must be made for
each pipeline project is pipe size. Oversized pipes can lead to
lower velocities, which increase the risk of internal corrosion.
Undersized pipes can lead to excessive pressures, which lead to
unplanned releases of fluid through pressure relief valves or
ruptures. Undersized pipes limit the flexibility and capacity of
the gathering system. Oversized pipes add unnecessary cost and
take longer to build. An overly rigorous sizing process can
increase the costs and increase the time required to get the
pipeline in service. An insufficiently rigorous sizing process
can lead to poorly chosen pipe sizes with negative impacts on
safety, reliability, cost, and responsiveness.

For any company that designs and builds new pipelines,
the pipe sizing process is critical to financial and operational
results. The pipeline sizing process presented here is a method
designed to balance the need for quick and responsive decision-
making with the need for accurate and reliable design
calculations. It provides guidelines to determine how much
design and analysis is required based on the complexity of a
proposed project. A full gathering system design will be
conducted by an experienced engineer using nodal analysis
software specifically designed for pipeline system design. A
small simple pipeline will be designed by someone who may
have much less experience, using spreadsheet-based tools. An
intermediate level of detail is also established for those projects
with a complexity somewhere in the middle.

This process has been developed in the context of gas
gathering system design, but the concepts may be applicable to
other pipeline and transportation design processes, where there
is a wide range of project complexity.
NOMENCLATURE

c = an empirical constant
d = internal diameter of pipe (in.)
E = pipeline efficiency factor (fraction)
f
f
= Fanning friction factor
L = length of line (ft.)
P
1
= inlet pressure (psia)
P
2
= outlet pressure (psia)
P
b
= base absolute pressure (psia)
pm = gas/ liquid mixture density at flowing pressure and
temperature (lbs/ft3)
S = specific gravity of flowing gas (air = 1.0)
Q = flow rate of gas, cubic feet per day at base conditions
T
avg
= average temperature ( R)
T
b
= base absolute temperature ( R)
V
e
= fluid erosional velocity (ft/ sec.)
Z
avg
= average compressibility factor

PIPELINE SIZING PROCESS
The pipeline sizing process begins with identification of a
fluid that needs to be transported from a supply or reservoir to
an end user, or to another pipeline that will eventually get the
fluid to the end user. In the case of gas gathering systems, this
may be a simple pipeline to carry gas from a single well to a
existing pipeline system. If there are multiple wells to be drilled
in an area, the sizing process becomes more complex. The
future volumes to be produced in that area should also be
considered in the design to avoid the expense of a second or
third pipeline in the future. In some cases the gas must be
transported a significant distance before reaching a suitable
end-user or downstream pipeline. In these cases, the design
must consider the most effective method to transport the gas.
This often means compressing the gas to a higher pressure than
that at which the wells can produce. It also means that the
design work is no longer for a single pipeline but for a gas
gathering system. There will be multiple pipelines to gather gas
from the individual wells to the compression facilities, and
potentially other pipelines to transport the gas to the
downstream pipeline.

In this pipeline sizing process, projects are divided into
three categories, which drive the level of design work that will
be required.

The first category is a well connect project. A well connect
project is a single pipeline between a well pad and an existing
pipeline. There may be multiple wells drilled on the same well
pad, but if a project is in the well connect category, it is
expected that all gas entering the pipeline will come from that
single point. Well connects are generally relatively short
projects of less than two miles.

The second category is a simple lateral. A simple lateral is
a pipeline that will transport gas from no more than five well
3 Copyright 2012 by ASME
pads along a linear path. The line does not branch. Projects in
this category may be longer than well connects, but no more
than five miles.

Projects in the well connect and simple lateral categories
may be sized by less experienced personnel using spreadsheet
based tools. All pipeline projects that do not meet the criteria
for well connects or simple laterals are sized as part of the
gathering system level design process, which uses more
complex software and requires more experienced personnel.

Pipelines that are not simple laterals or well connects are
considered infrastructure. In some cases simple laterals may
also be considered infrastructure, but for this paper, well
connects, simple laterals, and infrastructure will be considered
three distinct pipeline categories.

WELL CONNECTS
Because of the simplicity of the projects and the high
project volume, well connect projects require a consistent and
simple method for selecting the pipe size. Well connects are
somewhat unique compared to other pipeline projects due to the
finite gas volume they are designed to carry. On larger
infrastructure pipeline projects, designed to carry gas from
multiple wells, the overall gas volume expectation rises with
time. On well connects, there are a certain number of projected
wells for the single well pad, and no other flow is expected to
go through the well connect pipe. This flow peaks when the
wells are drilled then decline over time. The other difference is
in the number of wells affected by the pipeline. The pressure
drop in an infrastructure or simple lateral will affect all of the
wells upstream. Because of this, we consider not only total
pressure drop, but pressure drop per unit length. The pressure
drop in a well connect pipeline will affect only the single well
pad. Because of this limited scope of influence, we choose to
ignore pressure drop per unit length in well connects. Well
connects are sized only on total pressure drop and velocity.

In order to encourage consistent application of this sizing
philosophy, and to make the calculations broadly available to
personnel of different experience levels, a spreadsheet-based
tool is has been developed for sizing well connect pipelines
(Annex A). One of the key features that makes the tool
accessible to the broadest user group possible is the automatic
pipe size recommendation. Based on a few key pieces of
information (e.g., well connect length, pressure at the tie-in
point, drilling schedule and the formation of the wells being
drilled), the tool recommends a pipe size.

One of the keys to automating the pipe size
recommendation is providing a simple and reasonably accurate
method for predicting the volume flow rate through the pipeline
over time. This is accomplished by loading in proforma volume
decline curves for each of the formations to be drilled. The
proforma curves are developed by reservoir engineers and
represent the typical relationship between flow rate and time for
a well in a given formation. The user selects the appropriate
curve for the area from a dropdown list. The user also enters a
drilling schedule, which is important when there is more than
one well to be drilled on a pad. The projected flow versus time
(flow profile) for the pad is calculated based on the drill
schedule and selected proforma curve. Based on this profile,
three values are calculated- average flow rate, T90 flow rate,
and peak flow rate. Average flow rate is the average over the
time period between the first well drilled and one year past the
date of the last well drilled. The T90 flow rate uses the same
time period, but it is the 90
th
percentile flow rate. In other
words a flow rate such that 90% of the days in the time period
have a lower flow rate and 10% of the days in the time period
have a higher flow rate. Peak flow is the highest flow rate that
occurs in the time period.

These flow rates are used along with the design
information entered by the user to calculate pressure drops and
velocities for each of the three flow rates. These values are each
calculated for 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 16 in. nominal pipe sizes.
The design information input by the user includes pipeline
length, MAOP, class location, downstream operating pressure,
average gas temperature, specific gravity, pipeline efficiency,
fittings equivalent length, maximum incline, corrosion
conditions, and noise sensitivity. Pressure drops are calculated
using the general energy equation as published in the GPSA
Engineering Data Book, Eq. 17-15.

= S8.77_
I
b
P
b
] E_
1

]
_
(P
1
2
-P
2
2
)
SI
m
I
ug
Z
ug
_
0.5
J
2.5



The result of these calculations is a table shown in the
results section of the output page (Annex A). The tool steps
through each pipe size, recommending the smallest pipe size
that does not violate any of the limits. These limits are another
key to the automation of this tool. The first limit is the
maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP). The tool will
not recommend a pipe size where the resulting upstream
pressure is greater than the MAOP at peak flow. The next limit
is velocity. Erosional velocity is calculated by the method
described in API 14E, Equation 2.14.

I
c
=
c

pm


The empirical constant c ranges from 100 to 200. Higher
values of c allow higher pipeline velocities without violating
the erosional velocity limit. The constant c is determined
automatically based on user input on two drop-downs. One is
corrosion conditions. Users can choose from solids present,
no solids, wet gas, no solids, NACE design, no solids, dry,
filtered gas, and no solids, corrosion inhibited. If solids are
4 Copyright 2012 by ASME
present, a warning appears, indicating that the erosional
velocity calculation is not valid when solids are present and that
additional engineering work will be required. Wet gas or the
presence of significant quantities of HS or CO2 (indicated by
NACE design) will drive the c value down. Dry filtered gas or
the presence of a corrosion inhibition program in the area
allows c to be higher. The other input that affects the c value is
whether the above ground piping will be within 100 ft. of a
building. The constant c is reduced for the sake of noise
reduction if above ground piping will be within 100 ft. of a
building. The tool will not recommend a pipe size with a
velocity that exceeds erosional velocity at peak flow.

The final limit is total pressure drop. There are two tiers to
the pressure drop limit. Because the peak flow scenario
typically occurs only for a short period of time, there was a
desire to find another design point, in addition to peak flow.
This is the purpose of the T90 flow rate. There is one maximum
pressure drop for the peak flow scenario, which is the highest
allowable pressure drop. There is another pressure limit, which
is lower, which is applied to the T90 flow rate. The philosophy
is that long-term the well connect pipeline should be below the
T90 max pressure drop. However, for a brief period (10% of
time) it is acceptable to have a higher pressure drop, but only
up to the peak flow maximum pressure drop.

The peak flow maximum pressure drop and the T90
maximum pressure drop are automatically calculated by the
tool. The calculation is based on a table of approved pressure
drops for a range of downstream pressures from 50 psig to 1000
psig. There is one table for peak flow and one for T90. Each set
of acceptable pressure drops is curve fit to create an equation
that the tool uses to calculate acceptable pressure drops for any
downstream pressure from 0 psig to 1480 psig.

The tool highlights the recommended pipe size based on
the MAOP, erosional velocity, and pressure drop criteria, A
table is also displayed showing how many days the pipeline
would be outside of the defined limits if a smaller size were to
be selected. This, along with the results table, gives the user or
a supervisor who will be reviewing the project, the opportunity
to see at a glance how the recommendation was made and what
it would look like to go one pipe size up or one pipe size down.

A simplified tool like this has some disadvantages. One
key assumption is a constant downstream pressure. As long as
the volume of gas in the downstream pipe is large compared to
the volume from the well connect, this assumption is very close
to true. If the downstream pipe has a relatively small volume, or
if the pipe is already very full, the additional volume from the
well connect may significantly increase the downstream
pressure. Broadening the user base also increases the
probability of a poor pipeline sizing decision. If a user enters
one number wrong in the inputs, the recommended pipe size
could be double what it should be. This is especially true of
major factors like downstream pressure or the number of wells
to be drilled. Someone who is experienced sizing pipe will have
a decent intuition for what the pipeline diameter should be in a
given situation, and recognize the problem. A less experienced
user may not notice the difference and move forward with the
erroneous pipe size.

Probably the largest source of risk with a spreadsheet-
based tool like this is that the project is detached from the larger
system. This can lead to short-sighted pipe sizing decisions.
One example could be a pipeline that one assumes is a well
connect with only one pad to connect. A look at the larger
system might reveal several wells that should be connected to
this pipeline in the future. The project could move forward with
a small pipe diameter that will have to be looped within a year
or two, when the expense of looping could have been avoided
by going up a pipe size on the original pipe. This kind of data
does not require a full system model to see. It is typically
available in a GIS system but it is easier to miss when not using
a system-wide model. The risk of these kinds of problems is
limited by the experience level of those approving projects. If a
size is significantly out of line, it will probably be noticed
before the expenses are approved. The overall risk from this
kind of issue is also mitigated by limiting the scope of the tool
to relatively inexpensive projects of less than two miles.

SIMPLE LATERALS
Simple laterals are generally longer and have larger
diameters than well connect pipelines, but may still be very
simple projects. For laterals with no more than four well pads
and no more than five miles in length, a full nodal analysis may
not always be necessary. For these projects, another
spreadsheet-based tool has been developed, called the Lateral
Sizing Tool. This tool is based on the Well Connect Tool, and
uses the same equations and proforma data to calculate the
volume profile.

The key difference in the inputs (See Annex B) is that there
are multiple well pads for which drill schedules can be entered.
All of these pads are assumed to be connected in series, in the
order they appear in the tool. Instead of one pipeline length, the
length between each well pad is entered. The tool uses the
selected proforma curve and the drill schedules entered to
calculate a flow rate versus time for each pad. The graph on the
tool displays the total flow rate through the pipeline over time.

While the full flow profile over time is displayed, one
point in time must be selected for the calculations. The tool
automatically selects the time when the peak flow rate for the
whole lateral occurs. It then uses the individual well pad flow
rates associated with that point in time to calculate the pressure
drops and velocities in the pipeline. Because the laterals are
longer pipelines and their sizing affects more wells, pressure
drop per unit length is not ignored. Unlike the Well Connect
Tool, in this tool the pipe sizing recommendation is not
automated. This reduces the potential for delegation. Where the
5 Copyright 2012 by ASME
Well Connect Tool is often used by non-engineers, this tool is
generally limited to engineers or more experienced non-
engineers. It requires making an engineering judgment in
applying established pressure drop per mile and velocity limits.
It also requires a decision on whether the whole line should be
one size. In many cases, it may make sense to reduce the
diameter for the upstream portion. The primary advantage in
terms of delegation is expanding the users beyond those
engineers who are familiar with the nodal analysis software.
The Lateral Sizing Tool also provides an at-a-glance
comparison of different pipe sizes, which would take much
longer to perform and document with nodal analysis software.

The disadvantages and risks of using this tool are similar to
that of the Well Connect Tool. It assumes a fixed downstream
pressure which may not remain fixed depending on the relative
volumes of the new lateral and the existing downstream
pipeline. There is somewhat less risk of a completely erroneous
pipe size recommendation because the recommendation is not
automated. It requires more judgment on the part of the user,
who should be somewhat more experienced than the average
person using the Well Connect Tool.

The results of this tool are in the form of four tables,
showing pressure at each well pad, velocity in each segment of
pipe, pressure drop in each segment of pipe, and pressure drop
per mile for each segment of pipe. These values are displayed
for nominal pipe sizes of 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 20 and 24 inches.
The user will typically start by eliminating pipe sizes which
result in unacceptably high well pad pressures. The user will
check for excessive velocities then settle on the final pipe size
recommendation based on keeping pressure drop per mile
within an acceptable range.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Infrastructure pipe requires a more rigorous design effort
usually by more experienced personnel. The level of experience
can vary with the scope of the infrastructure project. Designing
infrastructure pipe, especially at a system level, requires many
engineering judgments to balance competing demands. There is
the balance between reliability, cost, and speed. There are also
balances to be struck related to pipe size, compression, and
operability. There is the balance between the size of suction
pipe and the number of compression facilities. There are
decisions about the pressure range for the system. There is the
balance between the cost savings of reducing pipe size on part
of a line with less flow versus the additional cost of more
scraper facilities. There are many decisions to be made which
make complete standardization of the process impractical.

There are, however, several areas of the infrastructure pipe
sizing process for which standardization has proved effective.
The only parts of the process for which we have a formal
standard are the naming and storage of nodal analysis files and
the format used to present these analyses to management. We
have a standard format for file naming so that people can easily
understand the scope of an analysis. The file name contains the
geographic region, the specific gathering system, the date, and
an indication of whether the model describes a current or future
state. It also indicates whether the models describes the primary
plan (a master model) or if it describes a possible alterative
scenario. The standard also describes a central location where
these models are to be saved, so that they are always accessible
even when the engineer who built it is not.

The standard also describes the formatting to be used when
presenting the nodal analyses to management. We color by
nominal pipe diameter according to a standard scheme. We
display the flow rate and velocity for each pipe that is practical
(depending on the scale of the print, values for smaller pipes
may not be displayed). We specify a legend describing the pipe
sizing color scheme, a north arrow, and a scale. This common
format allows management to make decisions more quickly,
without spending as much time trying to figure out what the
model is trying to represent. We have found that for some, the
colors on the pipe are difficult to differentiate, so we often add
the pipe diameter as text, along with the flow rate and velocity.
An example of our presentation format is included in Annex C.

Another area where we have standardized our process is
around pipe sizing criteria. The guidelines for this area are not a
formal standard. They are intended to be more flexible,
especially for more experienced hydraulic engineers. These
guidelines provide limits on velocity and pressure drop per
mile. The velocity limits are based on the API 14E erosional
velocity calculation. The pressure drop per mile criteria is tiered
by average pipeline pressure. We try to limit pressure drop to 5-
8 psi/mile in systems below 200 psig average pressure. We use
8-12 psi/mile for 200-600 psig, and 12-20 psi/mile where the
average pressure is 600-1200 psig. We recognize that for very
short pipelines, these limits may be overly conservative, which
is one of the reasons we dont use the psi/mile criteria on well
connects. We also recognize that for very long pipelines, these
numbers may be too high, especially at the high pressure
ranges. The pipe size for very long pipelines is usually
determined primarily on total pressure drop. Very short
pipelines, especially at high pressure, will usually be sized
primarily by velocity. Most infrastructure pipelines for gas
gathering are somewhere in the middle, and the primary factor
that drives the pipe size is pressure drop per mile. Based on this
assumption for average gas gathering pipelines, and using the
specified pressure ranges, we have developed a pipeline
capacity table. The table shows at a given pressure, and for a
given pipe size, how much capacity one can expect from a
pipeline. It is generally most accurate for lengths between 2 to
10 miles. The table is a rough guideline, but is useful for quick
discussions about how much capacity one can expect from a
pipe, and what would happen by going up or down one size.

6 Copyright 2012 by ASME
The Well Connect Tool and the Lateral Sizing Tool each
have a built-in method for calculating the design flow rate for
the pipe being sized. This is more difficult to standardize for
system level design. We typically design these gathering
systems based on a volume forecast produced by reservoir
engineers. Some of these forecasts have a near-term peak, but
often the projected peak will be 10 or 20 years in the future. We
do not yet have a written standard in this area, but we have
established a common practice of basing our sizing on the
projected volumes five years into the future. We will design to
the highest volume projected in the next five years. If that peak
volume does not occur until the 3
rd
to 5
th
years of the forecast,
we may also discount the forecast somewhat to reduce the risk
of over-sizing the infrastructure. If we see strong volume results
in the first two years, we still have time to expand our capacity
as needed. The five year mark was chosen based on an internal
study which compared the cost of increasing pipe size now to
looping pipe in the future. We found that the break-even point
was somewhere near the five year point. In other words, when
the time value of money is considered, we could loop a pipe in
five years for approximately the same cost as increasing the
size of a current pipeline project.

In addition to improving the quality and consistency of our
infrastructure design work, and improving the decision-making
process by communicating more clearly with management, this
standardization effort is improving our training process for new
engineers. Just having these things in writing reduces the time
required for initial training and especially reduces the time
spent on follow-up questions.
CASE STUDY 1
This process was applied in one area with extensive new
drilling plans, and very little existing infrastructure. The initial
design work began with a nodal analysis, projecting pipe sizes
for all of the projected drilling areas. Questions would often
arise such as What if we went a size up?, or What would the
pressure look like if we went a size down? Initial efforts to
answer these questions required approximately 30 minutes of
work to load the nodal analysis and look at the requested
scenarios. This time was reduced to about five minutes using
the Lateral Sizing Tool.
In the same area, we also used the Well Connect Tool to
size well connect pipes. The nodal analysis uses volumes
averaged over a large area that work well for sizing
infrastructure and major laterals. These volumes do not
accurately reflect the short-term peak volumes seen on well
connect pipelines shortly after the wells are drilled. Because of
this difference, and the difference in design philosophy (well
connects use total pressure drop rather than pressure drop per
unit length), the nodal analysis was not well-suited for sizing
well connect pipes. To size the well connect pipe using the
nodal analysis, a different version of the hydraulic model would
have been required. For the approximately 300 wells to-date in
this area, this would have required approximately 25 hours of
modeling. As each AFE was written, the model would have to
be accessed, requiring another 50 hours of work. These hours of
work also reflect usage of the nodal analysis licenses which
increases costs. Instead of using the nodal analysis for the well
connect sizing, the Well Connect Tool was used. The Well
Connect Tool analysis could be completed in about 10 minutes,
meaning about 50 hours of total work, versus 75 with the nodal
analysis. This work was spread across eight people, with only
about five hours done by an experienced hydraulic engineer
who reviewed and signed off on each tool.

CASE STUDY 2
In another area, there was significant concern with the
lateral sizing process. The area was comfortable with the sizing
on infrastructure and well connects, but there was a proposed
pattern of drilling that had the potential to overpressure laterals
sized with the typical nodal analysis methods. The first
approach to this problem was a more advanced type of nodal
analysis, running an automated series of steady-state analysis,
representing different points in time and identifying the peak
flow rate and pressure conditions over those points in time.
This process produced accurate results, but took 2-3 days per
lateral. The Lateral Sizing Tool was used in this scenario, to
reduce the analysis time to 2-3 hours for each lateral.

CONCLUSION
The best opportunities for standardization and delegation
appear when the scope of a companys operations is such that
there is a broad range of complexity in design projects. This is
especially applicable when the quantity of simple repetitive
projects, like well connects, is very high. Simple tools can be
developed to standardize and simplify the process to the point
that very little training is required to make decisions on the
simplest projects.

All pipeline projects have some risk of oversized or
undersized pipe. Less experienced designers using spreadsheet-
based tools increase that risk to some degree. This increased
risk is largely mitigated by the automation of the tools and the
review process that occurs before these projects go to
construction. The additional risk associated with these tools is
also balanced by the increased efficiency and responsiveness
they bring to the pipeline sizing process.

The increased standardization of the pipeline sizing
process is also very effective on larger pipeline design projects.
Even though these projects allow more flexibility in design, the
standardization with regard to pipeline sizing criteria and
presentation of the data to management can be very beneficial.
This standardization improves communication with
management. They know what to expect from the designers
work and can more quickly reach the decisions they need to
make. Putting the standards and guidelines in writing also
speeds development of newer engineers and decreases the time
required to train them.
7 Copyright 2012 by ASME

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
John Seldenrust and Jason Sarakatsannis deserve credit for
driving this pipeline sizing process forward from the
management side. Carl Fenderson developed the spreadsheet-
based tool was the basis for the current well connect tool.
Kenton Bulson came up with the idea for the Lateral Sizing
Tool and made sure it got built. Michael Dew, Tom Meadows,
Bill Walko, Nathan Weber and Jimmee Smith all made
significant contributions to the standardization of the
infrastructure design process.
REFERENCES

GPSA Engineering Data Book, 12
th
Ed., 2004, p. 17-4.


API Recommended Practice 14E, Recommended Practice
for Design and Installation of Offshore Production
Platform Piping Systems, 5
th
ed., Oct. 1991, Reaffirmed
Mar. 2007, p. 23.
8 Copyright 2012 by ASME
ANNEX A
WELL CONNECT TOOL LAYOUT


9 Copyright 2012 by ASME

ANNEX B
LATERAL SIZING TOOL LAYOUT


10 Copyright 2012 by ASME
LATERAL SIZING TOOL LAYOUT (CONT.)

11 Copyright 2012 by ASME
ANNEX C
NODAL ANALYSIS PRESENTATION