Copyright 2004, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 2629 September 2004.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in a proposal submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to a proposal of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The proposal must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract

The application of Multiphase Meters (MPM) over the past
decade or so has, in the main, been in deployment of meters in
small quantities (i.e. ones and twos) and there are few
applications where MPMs have been deployed in bulk.
Petrozuata in Venezuela is such an operation where 37 MPMs
were deployed and have been in use for over 5 years.

This paper describes the facility and the operations where
MPMs have been selected, tested and implemented. The
paper also describes the difficulties experienced and the
operational results from the extensive use of such
measurement techniques.

INTRODUCTION

Petrozuata is a joint venture Strategic Association owned by
ConocoPhillips (50.1 percent) and Petrleos de Venezuela,
S.A. (PDVSA), the national oil company of Venezuela (49.9
percent). The project is a fully integrated crude oil processing
and petroleum business, located in the state of Anzotegui,
Venezuela. It began commercial operations on April 12, 2001,
however Extra Heavy Crude Oil (EHCO) began flowing in
mid 1998. Petrozuatas primary function is to produce EHCO
from the Zuata region of the Orinoco Oil Belt; transport it to
the Jose industrial complex on the north coast of Venezuela;
upgrade it into 19 to 26.5 degree API synthetic crude; and
market it along with 14 degree API gas oil and associated by
products e.g. LPG, sulfur and petroleum coke.

The Petrozuata project is now an operational oil producing
business with over 5 years production experience. The
Strategic Association has a 35-year operating life and will
require the drilling of more than 750 wells with an estimated
recovery of approximately 1.6 billion barrels of Extra Heavy
Crude Oil (EHCO) during this period. This facility uses the
ConocoPhillips proprietary coking technology to upgrade
heavy crude oil into lighter synthetic crude and has a
nameplate capacity of 120,000 barrels per day (BOPD). At
present, Petrozuata produces more than 125,000 BOPD of
EHCO. The synthetic crude oil produced by Petrozuata is used
as a feedstock for ConocoPhillips' Lake Charles, Louisiana,
refinery and the Cardn refinery in Venezuela, operated by
PDVSA.

Since 1997, Petrozuata has drilled more than 260 wells (at
present there are 195 active producers) in an area of 56,000
acres of the Zuata region with the expectancy of drilling a
further 490 wells over the next 30 years in order to drain the
reservoir. Wells are clustered around 37 production pads as
shown in Figure 1.















Figure 1 The Petrozuata Field and Well Pads

Conceptual engineering for the Petrozuata project was carried
out in the early 1990s, and a substantial body of engineering
was put forward for the use of multiphase technology for both
pumping and measurement. Initial engineering required steam
flood of the reservoir; however, this was later changed such
that production is now based on the use of cold horizontal
wells in unconsolidated sands with the extensive use of single
and multi-laterals (1). Production is moved around the field
via 11 off 2000 hp multi-phase pumps (MPP), with the EHCO
diluted with naphtha. Within the field, the production is
metered and allocated using 37 multi-phase meters (MPM),
one located at each production pad as shown in Figure 2. The
diluted crude is processed (degassed and dewatered) at a
central processing facility, after which, it is fiscally metered
and pumped to the upgrader via a 125 mile 36 inch pipeline.

SPE 89870
Petrozuata - An Application of Multiphase Metering Technology
Luigi Bortolin SPE, Petrozuata C.A.; Parviz Mehdizadeh SPE, Production Technology Inc; Gordon Stobie, ConocoPhillips
KL-32
FuturePads PadswithMPPs
*
*
ConstructioninProgress
BC-22
GH-31
JK-25
HI-25
LM-25
IJ-27
GH-29
DE-24
DE-22
DE-26
IJ-31
LM-25
LM-21
BC-24
GH-33
JK-23
DE-20
Gas Well 79X
IJ-29
LEGEND
San Diego
de
Cabrutica
Cabrutica
Bridge
Atascosa
Bridge
Water
Disposal
Well .
20 Diluent &
36 Blend Pipelines
BC-26
LM-21
Gas Well
II-17G
BC-17
FG-25
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
HI-22
FG-19 HI-19 FG-19
GH-25
MPP
FG-19 BC-14 DF-14
DF-17
JK-14
JK-20
JK-17
LM-14
FG-19 FG-22
KL-28
N
-1
4
NO-18
NO-21
NO-24
NO-27
IJ-33
D
-1
6
BC-20
LM-21 LM-17
LM-21 LM-19
LM-21 LM-23
LM-21 LM-21
Water
Disposal
Well .
Complete
DrillingReady
*
MainStation&ZuataPumpStation

EngineeringinProgress
2 SPE 89870
Heavy and Extra Heavy Oil Production

Two of the major problems recognized early in the process
development of the Petrozuata field were the process issues
posed by the oil viscosity, and gas-oil foam and oil-water
emulsions.


















Figure 2 -Typical multiphase metering installation skid
at a well pad.

The EHCO was originally intended to be produced using
thermal techniques to reduce the viscosity. Early in the project
design phase, the thermal approach was changed. Diluent is
now injected at the wellhead or downhole to reduce the
viscosity. The diluent-based production scheme is found to be
an effective method for reducing the viscosity as shown in
Figure 3. It can be seen that a relatively small volume of
diluent has a significant impact on the mixed fluid viscosity.
In addition the day and night environmental temperature
variations also have a significant impact on the fluids
viscosity.
















Figure 3 Effect of diluent on the viscosity of the
Petrozuata crude.

The diluent injection is done early in the process to reduce the
pumping power requirement. Foaming, due to the reservoir
conditions and diluent injection, poses problems in production
measurement, as there is the possibility of high shrinkage
factors as shown in Figure 4. The shrinkage must be accounted
for in the volumetric measurements. The large shrinkages as
seen in Figure 4, complicates the comparison between the
multiphase meter reading and tank volumetric readings, that
were used as the basis for many of the initial MPM
performance evaluations. With such large shrinkages, the
multiphase meter and the test tank are essentially measuring
two different fluids. The MPM reads instantaneous volumetric
flow rates of oil, water, and gas. The test tank would be
measuring the liquid foam volume that consisted of less oil
and more gas.


Figure 4 Volumetric shrinkage in crude due to diluent addition.

There is some thought that foam forms outside the reservoir,
and if the oil is maintained under pressure, foam could be
avoided and separators could be used for testing. This is not
the case in the Petrozuata reservoir, where the oil is foamy at
reservoir level. Small isolated gas caps are contacted while
drilling and drained during the initial production phase, which
means that the reservoir pressure (originally 750 psig) is
below the bubble point.

Early on in the design phase, it was perceived that a large
number of wells and production pads over a substantial area
would be required to successfully drain the reservoir.
Traditional oil and gas extraction techniques would have
required flow stations or pads containing a test and a
production separator such that gas (and possibly water) could
be separated from the hydrocarbon liquids. Knowing the crude
oil viscosity and density, such separators would have been
relatively large to accommodate the residence time and would
have required heaters and chemicals to control foaming (and
possibly assist in oil-water separation).

Conventional gravity based test separators and their associated
equipment are high cost items and would have imposed a
CAPEX cost of around $1-2MM per unit plus the associated
operating costs. In order to reduce such costs, the project
initiated a study in the conceptual engineering phase to
determine whether multiphase production of fluids from the
remote wells and pads to a central processing facility was a
feasible option. The study concluded that multiphase pumping
0
10
20
30
40
50
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time - Hours
%

S
h
r
i
n
k
a
g
e
6% Dil - Well 1
22%Dil - Well 4
SPE 89870 3
of the well stream products was feasible. Once the design had
moved to a central processing focus for pumped multiphase
products, the requirement for the multiphase measurement at
the well pads became an integral part of the design.

Qualification of Multiphase Metering Technologies

ConocoPhillips recognized in the 1980s that multiphase flow
measurement would be a key to enhanced production
operations and in reducing the cost of field production
allocation and measurement. Early on, the operational
limitations and cost of ownership of test separators and well
testing was understood. Consequently, the Company has spent
considerable efforts (in time and money) in the advancement
and understanding of multiphase flow metering. The Company
concentrated on applications for extreme production areas
i.e. offshore, where small in-line MPMs would score heavily
over relatively heavy, cumbersome and expensive test
separators. As a result there was considerable support in-house
for multiphase metering and measurement technology
assessments. These were supported by pilot tests at the
ConocoPhillips multiphase test facility at North Maurice
Field in Lafayette, LA. These activities were further
supplemented by participation in a number of general and
dedicated heavy oil based Multiphase Meter Joint Industry
Programs (4,5).

The technology awareness heightened the potential benefits
that multiphase measurement technology could bring to
projects such as Petrozuata. Early in the Petrozuata project,
based on a cost benefit analysis, comparing multiphase
pumping and multiphase meters versus conventional well
testing, the project concluded that there was a high probability
of successful implementation of multiphase measurement
technology if a number of multiphase measurement techniques
were tested and a single vendor selected for further joint
development and testing. In pursuit of this objective, a
technology assessment was conducted in the early 1990s in
order to establish what was available. From the current (2004)
perspective, it is difficult to remember that MPM technology
and systems were in prototype form and some aspects of the
technology we recognize today were not available. The
technology review commenced with a desktop exercise and
considered six MPM systems available.
The technology review considered such factors as:
Current deployment
Known/reported performance
Types of service
Whether it was an integral meter or a system
Data communication
Sizing, API gravity, viscosity and temperature history
System availability, service and costs

The technology assessment identified four metering vendors,
representing different technologies that were available and had
already passed a number of initial performance qualification
tests. These system vendors were selected for further
evaluation.
These MPM systems used different measuring strategies and
techniques. Their operating principles are described in
references 2 and 3. After a number of initial qualification tests
to check the performance of these meters under simulated field
conditions (4), the Agar MPM was selected for this particular
application and for further pilot testing in the field. The
operating principle of the Agar metering system is described
in reference 6. The primary reasons for selection of the Agar
meter were:

Meter performed well over a wide range of viscosities.
The measurement strategy and techniques were less
sensitive to fluid properties. This allowed the meter
to operate in varying well fluids.
The metering system provided capability to conduct
volumetric verification tests of the measuring devices
against the initial (factory) settings.

Production and Well Testing Pilot Tests

Two sets of pilot tests were conducted to assess the design and
performance of the Agar meter under more realistic field
conditions. These tests were conducted at the San Diego Norte
and Bitor fields in Venezuela. The field and fluid conditions at
these sites are summarized in Table 1. These conditions
afforded the project an opportunity to check the performance
of the meter for handling high viscosity production streams
and varying field temperatures. It also afforded a chance to see
how the meter reacted to the influence of low viscosity
diluents, injected into EHCO, and the resulting variable
mixtures of diluent and heavy crude. The flow rates available
from the wells also provided an assessment of the meters
turndown performance.

Table 1 Field/Fluid Conditions for the Pilot Tests

Place
& Date
Liquid
BPD
(API)
Viscosity
Gas
MCFD
WC
%
Temp.
F
Press
Psig
GV
F
%
San
Diego
Norte,
Q2-95
100-1800
(13-14)
200-
2000cP
0-50 2-10 80-200 40-140 40
BITOR

Q1-96
2,000
(14)
2000-
3000cP
@100F
20-30 2.5 140 60 40

A further objective of these pilot tests was to address a number
of issues of concern with regards to the multiphase
measurements in heavy oil production. The issues of concern
are discussed in the following sections.

Diluent injection into an EHCO slugging flow stream would
cause viscosity variations. These could range from the
viscosity of heavy crude to that of pure diluent. Diluent
injection in foamy oil tends to finger through the foamy
mixture and is not homogeneous. The impact of varying
viscosity on Venturi flow measurement devices used in MPM
was not fully understood.
4 SPE 89870
Diluent injection control is difficult in a slugging flow and the
diluent proportion is variable, giving rise to a range of
densities in the fluid. This problem was known to have caused
multiphase measurement problems in other heavy oil
developments. Figure 5 is an example of the comparison
between the MPM and tank test measurements for the three
different wells and different diluent injection rates. The
instantaneous tank test measurements for 3 wells are shown in
Figure 5. In the actual qualification tests for MPM the tank
tests were obtained after 30-40 hours residence time. These
tests showed that the multiphase meter was able to address the
issues discussed in the above sections and measured liquid
rates under field conditions accurately.
















Figure 5 Comparison of the instantaneous flow rates measured
by MPM and tank tests as a function of diluent injection.

Following the successful conclusion of the San Diego Norte
and Bitor tests, the Agar MPM was selected for use in the
Petrozuata heavy oil development. Lessons learned from the
pilot test resulted in revisions to the MPM hardware and
software, as well as, the testing procedures used later at
Petrozuata. Forty-four (44) Agar MPFM 302 meters were
procured in three batches. Only 37 units have been used at any
one time. The balance (seven units) is to be used for future
well pads and spares, allowing complete units to be installed if
there were ever a serious failure. This is thought to be the most
extensive use of multiphase meters by a single operator
anywhere in the world.

High gas void fractions (GVF) are generally a problem for
multiphase meters, and it was not known early on whether
GVF would be a problem especially if thermal recovery
techniques (presence of steam) were employed. High GVF
wells are now tested with a portable MPM incorporating a
partial gas separator.

Field Installation and Start Up Issues

The MPMs were installed during 1998 and 1999. Prior to
dispatching from the vendor in Houston, the meters went
through a Factory Acceptance Test (FAT). The FAT covered a
wide range of flow rates, water cuts and gas volume fractions.
During the deployment, design improvements were
incorporated into each batch of the meters delivered as
dictated by field experience and evolution in hardware and
software.

The introduction of this new technology highlighted the need
for educating field personnel in the technology, equipment and
its maintenance. Initially, the vendor provided training classes
for key project engineers, and Petrozuata provided training for
the field operators. On site, the vendor provided field support
at the start up, and also assisted field technicians with training
and hands on assistance with system maintenance and
operations. The presence of the vendor at the site was a
significant assist to the technology acceptance.

Sand production was one of the issues that had to be
addressed. Sand production rates are often specified as 0.5%
by volume. The rate is however rarely a constant. It will rise
and fall during production and may be 0.1% for extended
periods, and at that level is not a problem. However, events
such as shut downs and start-ups can cause sand production to
peak for a short period at 5% or more. The PD meter within
the Agar multiphase metering system (6) is susceptible to
foreign matter and may become worn, scored, or seized.
Following the experience at Petrozuata, the site upgraded the
external screens and the vendor was able to redesign the PD
meter to increase its tolerance to foreign matter with sand
tolerance up to the required level. The redesign consisted of
more robust materials of construction and machined PD meter
gear lobes to increase resistance to erosion products. It is
important to note that the meter is still basically susceptible to
gross ingress of large solids and foreign elements. Well start
up is a time when sand may be present in the flow stream.
During this time the multiphase meters are bypassed until the
wells have cleared any erosional materials.

Another problem observed early on was plugging in the
pressure and differential pressure transmitter impulse tubings.
This instrument tubing was originally filled with silicone oil in
order to prevent contamination and plugging. This required an
intensive manual effort to ensure that the silicone oil was kept
topped up and was not 100% successful. To overcome the
manual effort, the vendor was requested to develop a more
suitable system. A semi-automated system, requiring minimal
effort to recharge the impulse tubing lines has been provided
by the vendor and has performed well. Subsequent instrument
failures due to bitumen plugging have been significantly
reduced.

Periodic Verification of the MPM Performance

A periodic meter verification test procedure was developed
and used in order to verify that the meter is operating
correctly. The volumetric verification test was accomplished
by flowing a single-phase liquid at 10% and 50% of the full-
scale flow rate of the PD meter through the MPM. This allows
the metering components to be tested and compared with the
initial factory calibration. The MPM is made up of three flow
meters in series (6). When it leaves the factory, all three flow
meters agree with each other, over the operating range, to
better than 0.5%. If any drift becomes apparent, it can be
evaluated with respect to any action or replacement. The
Comparison Between the MPFM and The Tank flow rate
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
1
3
7
7
3
1
0
9
1
4
5
1
8
1
2
1
7
2
5
3
2
8
9
3
2
5
3
6
1
3
9
7
4
3
3
4
6
9
5
0
5
5
4
1
5
7
7
6
1
3
6
4
9
6
8
5
7
2
1
7
5
7
7
9
3
8
2
9
8
6
5
9
0
1
9
3
7
9
7
3
1
0
0
9
1
0
4
5
1
0
8
1
1
1
1
7
1
1
5
3
1
1
8
9
1
2
2
5
Time [minutes]
F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e

[
b
p
d
]
TANK
MPFM
well 2
well 4
well 2
well 2
well 6
dil 11.5%
dil 13.4%
dil 6.5%
dil 26.6%
dil 22.7%
IJ-27
SPE 89870 5
vendor recommends that this self-verification test (SVT) be
carried out every 6 months. The current practice is to conduct
SVT every 3 months and after every repair.

Initially, this test was carried out using water at the site. To
test with water required the meter to be disconnected and
water brought to the remote pads. With 37 operational meters,
being checked every 3 months, it was seen that the verification
test was a major manpower and resource commitment. The
volumetric verification test procedure was modified so that
these tests could be carried out using diluent while the meter
stayed online. This required small meter modifications to add
a diluent recirculation line. This modification reduced the
maintenance workload significantly and allowed MPM testing
to be conducted with ease.

MPM Performance Envelope

The MPMs performed well from start up, however some of
the wells produced at rates, that were significantly lower than
anticipated. These rates were below the low end of the meters
performance envelope, which was specified to max liquid rate
of 5,000BPD. Rather than re-ordering smaller meters, the
vendor was requested to study the problem and determine if
the performance envelope could be extended. Initial tests with
flows between 150 - 660 BPD showed that the MPM error
could range from 40% to +25%. Following an extensive
series of tests and a comprehensive analysis of the flow data
using stock tank measurements the vendor was able to build a
model to curve fit the meter at the low flow conditions.
Upon implementation of the modified software, the tests were
repeated. The curve fit removed the systematic bias and
reduced the error band significantly. The improvement in
MPM performance is shown in Figure 6.

-50.00
-40.00
-30.00
-20.00
-10.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000
3" MPM Capacity - Oil Flow Rate (BPD)
D
i
s
c
r
e
p
a
n
c
y

%
Mid Range Test Points
Low Range - Stage 1
Low Range - Stage 2
MPM Specifications

Figure 6 Discrepancy with tank tests in low flow rate before and
after the software modifications, Mid range test points and MPM
performance specifications.

Operation and Maintenance of MPMs

As with any new technology, the MPM system encountered a
number of problems due to factors associated with operating
conditions. Several field conditions contributed to
maintenance rates that were higher than expected. Moisture
ingress due to the wet environmental conditions, sand and
foreign matter entry into the PD meter, and blockage of the
impulse tubes due to heavy oil were the major factors
affecting the MPM performance. Lack of robustness in some
electrical and electronics components were also significant
hardware factors.

It is believed that the 37 MPMs in service have logged about
75,000 hours of testing service. Tables 2 to 4 show the
hierarchy of equipment, environmental and operational factors
that contributed to the meters initial malfunctions. Many of
these factors can and have been addressed with proper
maintenance and operator training. Consequently, the
frequency of malfunction associated with a number of these
factors such as incorrect operation, calibration, grounding, etc
have decreased. Shortly after start up, a major computerized
management system called SAP was implemented and the
SAP Maintenance Module has been used to monitor the MPM
maintenance data.

Over a 21 months period, from January 2001 to September
2002, there were 97 well testing equipment failures (Table 2).
This amounted to an average failure rate of 4.6 per month. A
review of these reported failures has shown that some were
due to mis-reporting and operational conditions and not
related directly to MPM itself. Of the 97 failure reports, 25
were directly related to malfunctions in the MPM. The failure
rate directly related to all 37 MPMs is therefore about 1.2 per
month as an average over the period (0.032 per month per
unit). A further review of the maintenance data from October
2002 to March 2004 (Table 3), when the MPM operations had
gained some maturity, shows that the average reported failure
rates had decreased from 1.2 failures per month to about 0.94
failures per month for all 37 MPMs (0.025 per month per
unit).

Table 2 Maintenance effort logged for Jan 2001 to
Sept 2002 (21 months) for Total 37 MPMs in service.

System/ Components System Reported
Failures
Net MPM
Failures
OWM Analyzer Antenna 8 5
DAS 23 3
DP Cell 10 3
PAMS 32 4
PD Meter 21 8
Pressure Transducers 1 1
RDC 2 1
Totals 97 25
Average Rate/month 4.6 1.2

During the latter part of 2003, a maintenance check/audit was
carried out on all of the meters. This audit assessed the role of
a number of operational factors, listed in Table 4, which
contributed directly to the meter malfunctions. Further studies
of the MPM maintenance requirements reveals that on average
each MPM requires about 120 man-hours per year of
maintenance effort and about $2500/yr in parts. For 37
multiphase meters this might appear expensive but is
6 SPE 89870
considered attractive compared to the cost of a conventional
well test system.

Table 3 Total Maintenance effort logged Oct-02 to
Mar-04 (18months) for Total 37 MPMs in service.
System
Components
Reported
Failures
Hardware
Component Failures
WC Analyzer
3 3
DAS
7 3
DP Cell
4 3
PAMS
4 2
PD Meter
15 5
DP Cell
3 1
RDC
0 0
Totals
36 17
Average Rate/month
2 0.94


Table 4 Hierarchy of Operational Factors Causing
Multiphase Meter Malfunctions
Failure Factor No. Of
Failures
Percent
(%)
Accumulative
Percent (%)
Moisture ingress 4 29 29
Incorrect operation 2 14 43
Incorrect Data files 2 14 57
Grounding 2 14 72
Loss of calibration 1 7 79
Unwanted Elements
(Dirt)
1 7 86
Damaged/loose
components
1 7 93
Over spin - PD 1 7 100
Obstruction 0 0 100
Wear 0 0 100
Electrical connections 0 0 100
Power failure 0 0 100

Well Testing and Operational Lessons

A number of lessons were learned in the large-scale
deployment of MPM technology and its application to well
testing and production measurements. These are summarized
in the following sections.

1-During the testing of high gas rate wells, the safety
interlocks, used to protect the MPM from overspin, would
react to small gas surges and put the meter into bypass.
Working with the manufacturer and reviewing specific meter
installations and details of the gas slugging and overspin
potential, the limits were broadened which allowed a higher
number of wells to be tested without special equipment.

2-The type of MPM used in this project requires the
manufacturer to build-in safeguards that are adapted to the
flow range and which represents a conservative protection
strategy. By working directly with the vendor and more
accurately describing the operating parameters, the meter
capacity can be increased without sacrificing safety or
increasing costs significantly.

3- The MPM used in the project was designed for lower solids
content than has been seen in the field. This primarily affects
the PD meter in the MPM by increasing wear. The PD meter
design was modified to add machined slots on the meter lobes
and hardened surfaces within the meter body. This is now
standard on all new meter purchases and the existing meters
were retrofitted. The field has also implemented better
upstream screens to catch sand and larger foreign bodies. To
date this has virtually eliminated solids related failures (other
than line plugging).

4- The initial instrument impulse tubing on the MPM had a
buffering fluid, but repeated calibration failures due to
bitumen plugging was experienced and required regular
manual cleaning. Skids were retrofitted with a purge system
using glycerine as the fill fluid. This system allows an operator
to purge the instrument impulse tubing with a manual pump
without opening the lines.

5- Initially the metering systems were not designed to
interface with the field SCADA. These systems had to be
retrofitted to allow full data exchange with the field SCADA
system. This capability now allows on-line control room
monitoring of well tests and a higher level of interaction for
automatic well testing. Control room operators now initiate
well tests without the need for field operator intervention. This
is a great time saver as production pads are widely spaced.
The ease of operation and reduced well test period means that
wells are tested twice per month, increasing reservoir
surveillance.

6 - Many of the wells have low water cuts (less than 2% WC).
The water-in-oil metering section of the MPM was originally
specified for 0-100% watercut application. At less than 2% of
full scale, with 1-2% absolute watercut error, reported
watercut does not always represent the water volumes
produced. Manual shakeouts are used on wells to supplement
water readings within the MPM. Operators perform these
tests routinely to validate well tests and check the wells for
solids content. Many EHCO fields operate with low water
cuts. The need for full range (0-100%) water cut
measurements in the early stages of field development should
probably be challenged. This section of the meter is expensive
and having the ability to add it later when water breakthrough
occurs may be an option to be considered.

MPM Field Performance Production Measurements

The MPMs have performed well from the start of operations.
Figure 7 shows the monthly allocation factors for the field
during the period 1999 through 2003. The allocation factor is
the ratio of the summation of well test divided by the fiscal oil
volumes on a per month basis. The allocation factor reflects a
number of parameters including the well testing practices
used, the frequency and duration of well tests, and
extrapolation of well test data to well rates. The allocation
factor is also an indicator of the accuracy and repeatability of
the MPM measurements. The drop to zero in field allocation
factor represents the period when a national strike occurred
and production was curtailed.

SPE 89870 7
In the early production stages, the typical daily allocation
factor was in the 20-25%. The monthly fiscalized oil field
allocation factor varied from -0% to +45% as shown in
Figure 7. This was perceived to be high and unacceptable and
was probably due to a combination of MPM measurement
uncertainty, as well as, external factors due to the plant start
up and the management and operational systems being
developed and fine-tuned. After the extension of the meters
dynamic range, the improved maintenance regime, the
improved MPM calibration and system familiarization, the
typical daily and monthly fiscalized allocation factor was
enhanced to about 10% to 0 % which is considered to be
satisfactory. However, it has been proven that daily allocation
factors of up to 3% could be achieved if MPM and well tests
practices are followed properly. Gas is not a major production
factor in the Petrozuata EHCO operations, and the actual total
daily gas production is about 30 MMSCFD. The gas monthly
allocation factor is around 5%.
Figure 7 - MPM Meter balance compared to the Fiscal meter data
January 1999 to December 2003

Another operational advantage, which came to light, was the
fact that the MPM technology allows a better look at the well
characteristics, as there is no vessel dampening of the well
production. Test separators mask the well flow rates with the
pressure and level controls needed to operate the vessels
safely. MPM usage has allowed the operator to fine tune the
wells with respect to the ESP speed and diluent injection to
maximize rates with minimal ESP wear and diluent injection.
An example of diluent optimization is shown in Figure 8.

Conclusions

Multiphase measurement technology has been an enabling
technology for the owners of the Petrozuata operation. The
installation of 37 MPMs in conjunction with the multiphase
pumps in place of separators, liquid pumps, and gas
compressors has paid significant dividends in CAPEX and
continue to pay year on year in OPEX.

The utilization of multiphase metering technology has
necessitated improved operator training, as would be with any
new technology. It is a fundamental requirement for the users
that their technicians and engineers are fully trained and
conversant with these new tools.

The high investment in prior research by PDVSA and
ConocoPhillips was important in bringing this technology to
fruition, especially as the proposal to move forward with
multiphase metering technology was made in the early 1990s.
In retrospect, the ConocoPhillips multiphase meter R & D was
at the time focused towards severe service (offshore locations)
so its implementation in an onshore area was surprising. The
early testing programs developed knowledge of the crude
characteristics and assisted the use of multiphase meters.
Extra Heavy Crude Oil vs Down Hole Diluent Injection Flow rate
1000
1500
2000
2500
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
Diluent Injection flow rate (BPD)
E
H
C
O

F
l
o
w

R
a
t
e

(
b
p
d
)
well IJ-25-1
28/8/98-29/8/98

Figure 8 EHCO flow vs. Diluent Injection optimization

The Petrozuata partners have a number of heavy oil projects
elsewhere in Venezuela and worldwide, where multiphase
metering technology is being considered. In many cases the
experience gained in the current operation will be of great
assistance elsewhere.

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank many current and former colleagues
in PDVSA and ConocoPhillips in the assistance and
encouragement in preparing this paper. They acknowledge the
work done by INTEVEP, Bitor and the many vendors, who
participated in the early testing, and Agar Corporation who
played a major role in making the MPM implementation a
success.

References:

1. Robles J. Application of Advanced Heavy-Oil-Production
Technologies in the Orinoco Heavy-Oil-Belt, Venezuela
SPE 69848, 2001 SPE International Thermal Operations
and Heavy Oil Symposium Porlamar, Margarita Island,
Venezuela 12-14 March 2000.
2. Mehdizadeh P., Multiphase Meters: Delivering Improved
Production Measurements and Well Testing Today,
Petroleum Engineering International, May 1998.
3. Falcone, G. et al, Multiphase Flow Metering- Current
Trends and Future Applications, SPE paper 71474
presented at the 2001 SPE-ATCE in New Orleans,
Louisiana, Sept 30 Oct. 3, 2001.
4. Colmenars, J. et.al.Multiphase Flow Metering Heavy Crude
Oil Field Evaluation 7
th
International conference
Multiphase 95, June 7-9, 1995: Cannes, France.
5. Stokes, Edward G., et al, Application of The First
Multiphase Flowmeter in The Gulf of Mexico, SPE
49118, Annual Technology Conference and Exhibition,
September 27-30, 1998, New Orleans, LA.
6. Mehdizadeh P., and Farchy D., Multiphase Flow Metering
Using Dissimilar Flow Sensors Theory and Field trials
Results, SPE 29847 presented at the SPE Middle East Oil
Show, Bahrain, 1995.
Monthly Field Allocation Factors 1999-2003
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
J
a
n
-
9
9
J
u
l
-
9
9
J
a
n
-
0
0
J
u
l
-
0
0
J
a
n
-
0
1
J
u
l
-
0
1
J
a
n
-
0
2
J
u
l
-
0
2
J
a
n
-
0
3
J
u
l
-
0
3
F
i
e
l
d

A
l
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n

F
a
c
t
o
r