IPTC 11193

Planning and Executing Long Distance Subsea Tie-Back Oil Well Testing:
Lessons Learned
Amrin F. Harun, SPE, BP America*

Copyright 2007, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology
Conference held in Dubai, U.A.E., 46 December 2007.
This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review
of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference
and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not
necessarily reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its
officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor
Society Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum
Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an
abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must
contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write
Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
Three subsea oil wells in a water depth ranging between 5200
and 5400 ft in the Gulf of Mexico are tied back to a Tension
Leg Platform via a flowline network of a single 2.3 miles
pipe-in-pipe connected to a 17 miles dual active-heating
flowline. During normal operation these wells flow to a
common separator at the topsides. Production allocation to
each well is done by subtracting the topsides separator
measurement by the subsea multiphase flow meter reading
dedicated to one of the wells and manually splitted between
the other two wells. When the topsides separator started
showing some water production, more rigorous well testing is
required to know where the water comes from. The
information is crucial for the depletion plan of the field. Since
well testing would cause some production deferment, its
objectives were expanded to include subsea pigging valve
integrity testing, subsea multiphase flow meter validation, and
rigorous fluid sampling. The program was executed smoothly
and met all its objectives. The formation water was identified
from the unexpected well; thus suggested re-visiting the
reservoir model. Although not predicted by the transient
simulation works, slugging was experienced when the weakest
well was producing by itself but it was managed through
topsides choking. The key success for the smooth operation
was a well-thought plan developed by a multi discipline team
and the guidelines based on transient simulation works.
Introduction
King and King West oil fields are 100% BP operated and
located in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM). The fields consist of
three subsea wells, i.e. King D5 and D6 wells and King West
D3 well located in a water depth ranging between 5200 and
5400 ft. They are tied back to the Marlin Tension Leg
Platform (TLP) located in 3200 ft water depth. D3 well is
connected to D5 well through a 2.3 miles, 6 by 10 inches pipe-

in-pipe flowline. D5 and D6 wells are then connected to the

TLP via a 17 miles, 8 by 12 inches dual active heating
flowlines (Figure 1). The flowlines connecting D5 and D6
wells to the TLP are designated as the West and East
flowlines, respectively. A remotely operated subsea pigging
valve located close to D6 well is normally open. D5 and D6
wells are producing from the same reservoir while D3 well is
producing from another reservoir. For reservoir management
purposes, D3 well is equipped with a subsea multiphase flow
meter (SS MPFM) located in a jumper between the wellhead
and the flowline.

8x12 Dual ActiveHeating Flowline

MPFM

Pigging Valve

Fig. 1- King/King West Field Layout

Marlin TLP processes production stream coming from 3

dry tree wells (two oil wells and one gas well) and 5 subsea
wells (three oil wells and two gas wells). The well fluids go to
three three-phase separator (HP, Test, and IP) set at the same
pressure (Figure 2). The oil flows through the LP separator
and the gas goes to the compression system before they both
going to the export system. The produced water is treated and
dumped overboard. D3, D5, and D6 wells are normally flow to
the IP separator. However, the topsides piping and manifold
systems allow any well to flow to any separator providing it
does not upset the plant, mainly the water treatment process.
D5 and D6 wells oil and gas production is allocated by the
IP separator measurement after subtracting D3 well production
measured by the SS MPFM. A certain ratio for each phase,
obtained from reservoir simulation works, is then applied to
split D5 and D6 oil and gas production. Since they are
producing from the same reservoir, there is not much concern
about the exact split of these two King wells. When

* Now with BP Egypt

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11193

production curtailment occurs, D3 well sometime flows by

itself; thus giving the opportunity to verify the SS MPFM
performance against the topsides measurement.

To maximize the value of well testing program, the

objectives have been expanded as follows:
1. Identify the water producer well among King/King
West wells.
2. Evaluate the SS MPFM performance.
3. Test the SS pigging valve integrity.
4. Conduct rigorous oil, gas, and water sampling
program.
5. Confirm the wellbore and flowline network model.
Planning Activities
Due to amount of pressures to justify production deferment
against the value of data obtained from the well testing
program, a thorough planning must be developed to assess the
feasibility of the program. Multi discipline team consisting of
subsurface, production chemistry, and operations evaluated
different aspects to ensure all the objectives can be achieved.
To present the business case to the management, the following
activities had been performed: transient simulation works,
thorough fluid sampling planning, SS MPFM performance
testing plan, and operability assessments.

Fig. 2- Marlin TLP Process Flow Diagram

The operators had reported that a small amount of water

(about 50 B/D or less than 1% water cut) was dumped
occasionally from the IP separator, which was believed to be
the condensed water. However, since the beginning of 2005,
the water has been dumped more often with an average rate of
100 B/D. Based on the current geological model, the
subsurface team believes that the water should come from D5
well. Since the depletion plan, including a new drilled well,
for King/King West fields require better understanding of the
reservoir, more surveillance becomes necessary to confirm the
water producer well.
Well Testing Issues
To identify the water producer well, the wells must be tested
individually. This can only be accomplished by closing the
pigging valve and having two separators to receive fluids from
each flowline. However, this also means production deferment
particularly these three wells produce more than 80 percent of
the TLP total oil production. To justify the well testing
program, the following questions must be answered to
convince the management:
1. Will the main objective to identify the water producer
well be met?
2. Due to a small amount of water, can it be detected
within a short period of time?
3. How long the wells need to be tested?
4. Due to a small amount of water, how long will it take
for the water holdup in the flowline to build up and
stabilize?
5. How much production deferment does this well
testing cost?
6. Will slugging occurr causing plant shutdown or
unstable measurement?
To answers all the above questions, transient simulations
works must be performed to determine: stabilisation time in
the flowline and slugging tendency due to rate reduction and
time for water holdup in the flowline to reach equilibrium.

Transient Simulation Works. Because of long distance

tie-back system, most of the operations during well testing
involve transient flow. In addition, rate reduction due to
flowing one well from each flowline could encounter
instabilities and lead into slugging. Therefore, transient
simulation works become necessary to predict hydraulic
nature of the well testing program particularly to answer the
following questions:
1. How long the flowline will stabilize after a well is
shut-in or opened? This will impact the well testing
duration which consequently the production
deferment.
2. Will the flowline slug due to less flow rate? This is to
predict if slugging can still be managed and will not
upset the platform.
3. How long does it take for water holdup in the
flowline to reach an equilibrium or steady state
condition? This is to ensure that the small amount of
water will reach the topsides within a reasonable time
and measurement is representative.
4. What is the flow rate for each well? This will
determine the amount of rate reduction during well
testing.
Transient simulation works had been performed using
OLGA 2000 commercial software as a transient multiphase
flow simulator. Three-phase simulations, where water is
treated as a separate aqueous phase, were performed for all of
the simulation cases in this study. There can be slip between
hydrocarbon liquid and aqueous liquid, particularly at low
rates, and three-phase modeling will indicate higher liquid
holdup than would two-phase modeling. More detailed
theoretical background of the software can be found in
Bendiksen et al.1 and Nunnes et al.2. By having the wellbores
and the flowlines in the model, the simulator will do the
computations and provide the following:
1. How long it will take for pressures and fluid rates in
the system and liquid holdups in the flowline to
stabilize once a well is opened or shut-in. This will be

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11193

used as criteria to determine the stabilization time in

the flowline.
2. How long it will take for water holdup in the flowline
to reach steady state condition. This will indicate no
more water build-up in the flowline and the water
measured at the topsides will be representative.
3. Slugging tendencies coming to the topsides once a
well is opened or shut-in.
The wellbore and flowline network model is shown in
Figure 3. Due to limitations in the software version used for
this project, the East flowline must be modeled in reversed
fashion since the network model must converge into one node.
The model requires reservoir and topsides pressures as the
boundary conditions. The model also requires a PVT file for
each branch in the network. The influx from the reservoir into
the wellbore is governed by productivity index constants. The
software will then calculate pressures, temperatures, fluid
rates, and holdups throughout the network as a function of
time. Fluctuation in pressures and flow rates coming to the
topsides and flow patterns in each branch are the indication of
slugging tendency, which need to be confirmed by using
slugtracking module in the software.
The steps to simulate the well testing program were taken
as follows:
1. Flow all three wells normally.
2. Close the pigging valve to allow D3 and D5 wells
flowing through the West flowline and D6 well
through the East flowline.
3. Close D5 well to allow D3 well to flow by itself
through the West flowline.
4. Open D5 well and close D3 well to allow D5 well to
flow by itself through the West flowline.
For each step, the following observation was made:
1. How long it will take for wellhead pressures in each
well and the rates coming to the topsides to stabilize.
2. How long it will take for liquid (particularly water)
holdup in each flowline to reach equilibrium.
3. If pressures or fluid rates continue to fluctuate and
slug flow regime is identified, slugging tendencies
were further investigated using slugtracking module.
The prediction was then benchmarked with the actual
data when slugging was actually observed at the
topsides.
D3 Reservoir

D3 Wellhead D3 Flowline

D5 Reservoir

D5 Wellhead

West Flowline
Topsides

D6 Reservoir
East-West Flowline
East Flowline
Topsides

D6 Wellhead

Fig. 3- Wellbore and Flowline Network Model

Fluid Sampling Planning. Since the opportunity to get

fluid samples from each King/King West well is very rare,
thorough sampling program was planned carefully by the
production chemist engineer. For further geochemistry and
flow assurance studies, the following sampling program was
designed:
1. Record Basic Sediment and Water (BS&W) for every
4 hours by taking samples from the separator oil
outlet. For consistencies, BS&W will also be taken
from the sampling point located at the topsides
manifolds.
2. Check and document injection rates for any chemical
injected into the King/King West system for every 6
hours. These include methanol, demulsifiers,
defoamers, and corrosion inhibitors.
3. Obtain three corrosion inhibitor residuals during test
(beginning, middle, and end of test).
4. Obtain 15 1-gallon oil samples from the separator oil
outlet at the end of the test.
5. Obtain 2 1-gallon gas samples using evacuated
cylinders at the end of the test.
6. Obtain 2 500-cc oil samples using water filled
cylinders at the end of the test.
7. Obtain 1 500-cc water sample using evacuated
sample cylinder at the end of the test.
8. Retain 2 6-oz oil samples at the end of the test for
potential oil fingerprinting.
9. Obtain water analysis of HP separator just prior to
putting D6 well and document which well(s) were in
HP separator.
10. Test for CO2 and H2S using Draeger tube.
Due to such an intensive sampling program, an outside
contractor, rather than the operators, would be hired to
specifically manage all the sampling duties. This turned out to
be the right decision.
SS MPFM Performance Testing. The reliabilility of SS
MPFM performance is very critical not only for D3 well
production allocation but also to indicate water onset for
hydrate management since D3 flowline is not part of the active
heating King flowlines. Unfortunately, the meter has
experienced two serious problems:
1. For the last two years, it has given false water reading
that also impacts its oil and gas measurements.
2. The densitometer part of the meter has failed to give
any measurement, resulting in erroneous phase
fraction and rate calculations.
The first problem has been resolved by injecting 1 gal/min
methanol. This practice has become a part of standard weekly
well testing for D3 well. It is believed that the problem is due
to static charge build-up caused by high rates coming from the
well and the dryness nature of the oil. As an aqueous phase,
methanol seems able to discharge the static charge build up.
The theory will be confirmed once D3 well starts producing
some water. For the second problem, a fixed density value
based on the last reading when the densitometer was still
working has been manually inputted. However, since the
operating conditions continue to change, this number should
be adjusted accordingly which then subject to uncertainties.
Therefore, the meter vendor has suggested a different

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11193

algorithm, called a non-gamma mode, to by-pass the density

calculation completely.
Since during well testing D3 well will flow by itself to a
dedicated separator, it becomes an opportunity to verify the
meter performance in both fixed-density and non-gamma
modes and compare them against the topsides measurement.
Therefore, the following program was planned when D3 well
flows by itself:
1. Set the meter in the fixed density mode.
2. Inject methanol at 1 gal/min until water reading
becomes zero and oil and gas readings are stable.
3. Stop methanol injection.
4. Switched the meter to the non-gamma mode.
5. Inject methanol at 1 gal/min until water reading
becomes zero and oil and gas readings are stable.
6. Stop methanol injection.
7. Compare the meter readings for each mode against
the topsides separator measurements.
Operability Assessment. Intensive discussions were
conducted with the operation team to ensure the well testing
program could be executed in safely manner and meet all its
objectives. The following concerns were addressed:
1. The integrity of the subsea pigging valve. Will it
completely isolate the West from East flowlines?
2. The accuracy of water measurement at the topsides.
3. Impacts on water treatment process due to keeping
the rest of Marlin wells into one separator.
4. Slugging tendency due to rate reduction
The subsea pigging valve is normally open and it is
designed to be open if there is a mechanical failure. The
depletion plan for King/King West fields involves closing the
pigging valve to mitigate slugging issues during late life. The
accuracy of measurements also critically depends on the
complete isolation of the West from the East flowlines.
Therefore, it is important to confirm that the pigging valve can
be fully closed. For this reason, a remotely-operated vehicle
(ROV) is required to witness the valve closing operation. To
avoid an extra cost for an ROV mobilization, it was agreed
that the well testing program should be executed while some
other subsea works involving an ROV were being performed
around the King field area. To minimize erosion across the
valve, the standard operating procedure requires pressure
balance across the valve during opening or closing the valve.
Based on the above discussion, the pigging valve operation
would be performed as follows:
1. Since pressure gauges are located at the wellhead,
adjust the topsides choke to create wellhead pressure
(WHP) differences between D5 and D6 wells that
would create a pressure balance across the valve. The
water depth difference creates approximately 50 psi
hydrostatic pressure between D5 (to be shallower)
and D6 wells.
2. Confirm pressure balance across the valve by reading
the WHP gauges at D5 and D6 wells.
3. Spot an ROV at the valve location.
4. Close the valve remotely from the topsides.
5. Observe any change in WHP.
6. Fly the ROV to confirm that the valve is closed.
7. Cycle the valve several times under ROV watch to

confirm the valve stem movement to fully closed

position.
8. Keep the valve in closed position throughout the
duration of the well test.
9. Open the valve once the well test program is
completed by applying pressure balance across it.
Measuring water production accurately from a well with
water cut less than 1% is already a challenging task. The
turbine meter in the water outlet of the separator is not sized to
measure such small amount of water. Therefore, water rate can
only be measured by dumping the water manually during the
well test period. To maintain accuracy, the initial water level
indicator must be set at a certain level prior to well testing. At
the end of the well test the water must be dumped until the
water level indicator drops to the initial setting. Oil sample is
also collected from the oil outlet of the separator to obtain
BS&W to measure the amount of water mixed in the oil
stream. The demulsifier injection rate must be adjusted so that
the correct BS&W would be obtained while the stability of
subsequent water treatment process was also maintained. Both
amount of the dumped water and water mixed in the oil stream
were then added to obtain a total water production rate. For
consistencies, BS&W measurement would also be obtained by
collecting oil from the sampling point located at the topsides
manifolds.
Due to 17 miles distance between the well and the
separator, there were concerns whether a representative water
measurement can be obtained when only one well produces
into the flowline. Water could continue building up in the
flowline; thus a true measurement at the topsides could never
been obtained within the well testing duration. The only way
to answer this question is by predicting the time required for
water holdup to reach its steady state condition, which was
one of the expected outcomes of the transient simulation
works.
Since the well testing program requires two dedicated
topsides separators, the remaining wells have to go to one
separator. There were concerns that mixing the produced
water and condensate from different wells might cause phase
separation and subsequent water treatment process. However,
the problem could still be managed to a certain extent by
adjusting the chemical dosages (demulsifiers, water clarifier,
etc.).
The main concern was the slugging tendency due to rate
reduction during well testing. Although it would not
necessarily shutdown the plant, slugging becomes a
troublesome for the operators to continuously monitor the
entire processing system, among others separators
performance and export oil pumps, and adjust some process
variables manually. The current slug management is by
adjusting the topsides choke, which consequently cause some
production deferment. Therefore, one of the main objectives
of transient simulation works was to assess slugging
tendencies during well testing.
Transient Simulation Results
Slugging Analysis. OLGA Slugtracking module has been
used for slugging analysis. For each case being simulated, the
simulator was first run without the slugtracking module until
steady state condition was reached. The same case was then

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11193

350

300

Slug Length (m)

250

200

150

100

50

0
0

0.5

1.0
Time (hr)

1.5

2.0

Fig. 6- Slug Length Coming Topsides from East Flowline

2000

1500

Slug Length (m)

re-run for a short period of time, typically for 2 hours

simulation time, with the slugtracking module. The results
were then benchmarked with the actual data observed at the
platform. The actual data was also used as the base line to
assess if a new operating condition will result in
unmanageable slugging.
In May 2006, all King/King West wells were producing at
an average of 33000 BOPD, 54 MMscfd, and 100 BWPD.
During normal operation all subsea and topsides production
chokes are typically at fully open position and the normal
arrival pressure at the topsides is about 400 psig. Using all the
available rates, pressures, and temperatures data, Figures 4 and
5 show the total liquid rate coming to the topsides from the
East and West flowlines, respectively. Unfortunately, these
rates can not be compared to the actual data since all fluids
normally go to one separator. Note that the rates are expressed
at separator condition, not stock tank condition. Note also
since the East flowline is modeled in reversed fashion, the
rate is expressed in negative value. Figures 6 and 7 show
slug length coming to the topsides from the East and West
flowlines, respectively. Since no slugging was observed at the
TLP at this condition, these figures were used as the base lines
for assessing slugging tendency for other operating condition.
The 24-hour simulation without slugtracking show flow rates
split between the West and East flowlines to be 45/55 for oil
and 65/35 for gas (Figures 8 and 9).
0

1000

500

-10,000

-20,000

0
0.5

1.5

2.0

-40,000

20,000
-50,000

15,000

-60,000

-70,000

-80,000

0.5

1.0
Time (hr)

1.5

2.0

Fig. 4- Total Liquid Rate Coming Topsides from East Flowline

50,000
45,000

10,000
West Flowline
5,000

-5,000

-10,000

East Flowline

-15,000

40,000

-20,000
0

35,000
Total Liquid Rate (B/D)

1.0
Time (hr)

Fig. 7- Slug Length Coming Topsides from West Flowline

Oil Rate at Standard Condition (B/D)

Total Liquid Rate (B/D)

-30,000

10

15

20

25

Time (hr)

Fig. 8- Oil Rate Split Between West and East Flowline

30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
0

0.5

1.0
Time (hr)

1.5

2.0

Fig. 5- Total Liquid Rate Coming Topsides from West Flowline

In the same month, some operating problems had forced

D6 well to be shut-in for a couple days and due to rate
reduction the operator had to pinch back the topsides choke to
manage slugging. The topsides chokes in the West and East
flowlines were pinched back to 23% and 61%, respectively.
These actions resulted in 900 and 400 psig arrival pressures in
the West and East flowlines, respectively. Figures 10 through
13 show the comparison of the total liquid rates and slug
length between these conditions with the base line. The
comparisons show no significant difference between the two

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11193

cases, which confirms that slugging were manageable for both

cases as proven by the actual condition.

350

300
Base Line

150
Slug Length (m)

Gas Rate at Standard Condition (MMscfd)

250

100
West Flowline
50

Choking due to D6 Shut-in

200

150

100

0
50
0

-50

East Flowline

0.5

1.0
Time (hr)

1.5

2.0

Fig. 12- Slug Length Coming Topsides from East Flowline:

Choking Due to D6 Shut-in vs. Base Line

-100

-200

2000

10

15

20

25

Time (hr)

Fig. 9- Gas Rate Split Between West and East Flowline

Base Line
1500

Slug Length (m)

-10,000

Total Liquid Rate (B/D)

-20,000
-30,000

1000
Choking due to D6 Shut-in

-40,000

500

-50,000
Choking due to D6 Shut-in

Base Line

-60,000
-70,000

0
0

-80,000

0.5

1.0
Time (hr)

1.5

50,000
Base Line
Choking due to D6 Shut-in
40,000
35,000
Total Liquid Rate (B/D)

1.5

2.0

2.0

Fig. 10- Total Liquid Rate Coming Topsides from East Flowline:
Choking Due to D6 Shut-in vs. Base Line

30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0
0

1.0
Time (hr)

Fig. 13- Slug Length Coming Topsides from West Flowline:

Choking Due to D6 Shut-in vs. Base Line

-90,000

45,000

0.5

0.5

1.0
Time (hr)

1.5

2.0

To further analyze slugging tendencies, simulations were

performed if no choking were performed when D6 was shutin. Figures 14 through 17 show the comparison of the total
liquid rates and slug length between the no-choking case with
the base line. The comparisons in the East flowline (Figures
14 and 16) show more intermittent liquid rate and longer slug
for no-choking case as compared to the base line, which could
be the indicator for unmanageable slugging. Meanwhile, the
comparison in the West flowline (Figures 15 and 17) show no
significant difference, which indicates that slugs do not occur
in the west flowline. Comparing to the choking case (Figures
10 and 12), a lesson can be drawn that slugging due to D6 well
shut-in (located in the East flowline) can be managed by reallocating more fluids to the East flowline by pinching back
the topsides choke in the West flowline. This action does
cause some production loss. However, it is still better than
having unstable operating condition at the platform and more
labor intensive situation to manage the operation.

Fig. 11- Total Liquid Rate Coming Topsides from West Flowline:
Choking Due to D6 Shut-in vs. Base Line

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11193

2000

0
-10,000

Base Line
1500

-30,000

Slug Length (m)

Total Liquid Rate (B/D)

-20,000

-40,000

-50,000

D6 Shut-in but No Choking

1000

Base Line

-60,000

500

-70,000
D6 Shut-in but No Choking
-80,000
0

0.5

1.0
Time (hr)

1.5

2.0

Fig. 14- Total Liquid Rate Coming Topsides from East Flowline:
D6 Shut-in but No Choking vs. Base Line

0.5

1.0
Time (hr)

1.5

2.0

Fig. 17- Slug Length Coming Topsides from West Flowline: D6

Shut-in but No Choking vs. Base Line

60,000
D6 Shut-in but No Choking
50,000

Total Liquid Rate (B/D)

Base Line

40,000

30,000

20,000

10,000

0
0

0.5

1.0
Time (hr)

1.5

2.0

Fig. 15- Total Liquid Rate Coming Topsides from West Flowline:
D6 Shut-in but No Choking vs. Base Line
450
D6 Shut-in but No Choking
400

Slug Length (m)

350
Base Line

300
250

Flowline Stabilisation Time. The time for the total liquid

rate coming topsides to become stable can be used to predict
stabilisation time in the flowline after operating condition
changes. Starting with all three wells flowing, Figures 18 and
19 show it takes about 8 and 5 hours for the East and West
flowline to stabilize, respectively, after the pigging valve is
closed. Another parameter to estimate flowline stabilisation
time is the time for liquid holdup in the flowline to reach
steady state after operating condition changes. Figure 20
shows it takes about 7 hours for the West flowline to stabilize
after the pigging valve is closed and D3 well is shut-in to
allow D5 well flows by itself. The figure also shows about
7500 BOPD net loss due to D3 shut-in and rate increase from
D5 when flowing by itself. Since the existing reservoir model
suggested D5 well to produce some water, the simulation was
run with D5 well producing 100 BPD of water. Figure 21
shows water holdup in the flowline reaches equilibrium after 6
hours. It means that after 6 hours the topsides separator should
measure the true water production from D5 well even with D3
well shut-in since there will be no more water accumulation in
the flowline. The figure also shows that water holdup in the
West flowline has to reach new equilibrium from 6.3 to 10.4
bbls after D3 well is shut-in as the oil and gas rates in the
flowline change.

200

-5,000

150
100

0
0

0.5

1.0
Time (hr)

1.5

2.0

Fig. 16- Slug Length Coming Topsides from East Flowline: D6

Shut-in but No Choking vs. Base Line

The same exercises were continued to investigate different

scenarios to be encountered during well testing including
when the pigging valve is closed, only one well is allowed to
flow in the West flowline, and flow two wells through a single
flowline by closing one of the topsides chokes. The results are
summarized in Table 1, which also show the oil and gas rates
reduction for each scenario.

Total Liquid Rate (B/D)

-10,000
50

-15,000

-20,000

-25,000
0

10

15

20

25

Time (hr)

Fig. 18- Total Liquid Rate Coming Topsides from East Flowline
After Pigging Valve is Closed

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11193

Table 1 Simulation Results Summary

30,000

Wells

Pigging
Valve
Status

Total
Oil
(BOPD)

Total Gas
(MMscfd)

Slugging

Oil
Reduction
(BOPD)

Gas
Reduction
(MMscfd)

Stabilization
Time (hrs)

D3,
D5, D6

Open

33100

53.7

No

D3,
D5, D6

Closed

33100

48.6

No

5.1

D5, D6

Closed

25600

45.8

No

7,500

7.9

D3, D6

Closed

28200

31.1

No

4,900

22.6

Total Liquid Rate (B/D)

25,000

20,000

15,000

10,000
0

10

15

20

25

Time (hr)

Fig. 19- Total Liquid Rate Coming Topsides from West Flowline
After Pigging Valve is Closed
27,000

2,000
1,964

24,000

1,891

22,000

1,818

20,000

1,745
Total Liquid Volume

18,000

Total Liquid Volume (bbls)

Total Liquid Rate (B/D)

Total Liquid Rate

26,000

1,673

16,000
0

1,600
15

10
Time (hr)

Fig. 20- Total Liquid Holdup in West Flowline (black) and Total
Liquid Rate Coming Topsides from West Flowline (red) After
Pigging Valve is Closed and D3 Shut-in
11

Total Water Content (bbls)

10

10

12

Time (hr)

Fig. 21- Water Holdup Build-up in West Flowline After D3 Well

Shut-in

The same exercises were continued to investigate different

scenarios to be encountered during well testing. The results
are summarized in Table 1, which also show the oil and gas
rates reduction for each scenario. Using both flowline,
stabilization time in the flowline due to changes in operating
condition ranges between 5 and 8 hours. Thus, the well testing
program can be executed within reasonable time.

Finalizing the Program. After completing the simulation

works and many discussions with all the parties involved
consisting of subsurface, production chemistry, and operation
teams, the well testing program was finalized. Supported by
mainly transient simulation works, the management was
convinced that the program was operationally feasible and the
objectives of the well testing could be met. Since the
production data and fluid samples to be obtained during well
testing are essential for depletion plan of the field, the
production deferment.during well testing would be acceptable.
The final key objectives of the well testing were:
Identify the water producing well among King/King
West wells.
Verify SS MPFM performance and test non-gamma
mode.
Conduct rigorous oil, water, and gas samples from
each well.
Confirm the subsea pigging valve integrity.
To accomplish the above objectives the high level well
testing program was finalized as follows:
1. Move all wells from HP to Test separators (Day-1)
2. Align the East flowline to allow D6 well flowing to
HP separator
3. Close the subsea pigging valve
4. Shut-in D5 well to allow D3 well flowing by itself to
IP separator
5. Evaluate SS MPFM performance by injecting
methanol to D3 well
6. Test SS MPFM performance in non-gamma mode
7. Open D5 well, shut-in D3 well, keep D6 well in HP
separator (Day-2)
8. Open the SS pigging valve, open D3 well (Day-3)
9. Keep D6 well aligned to HP separator and D3 and D5
wells to IP separator.
10. Back to normal production mode by aligning the East
flowline to IP separator (Day-4)
11. Conduct rigorous oil, gas, and water sampling
throughout the test
The whole well testing program would take four days with
an estimated rate reduction as follows:
Day-1: 4900 BOPD and 22.6 MMscfd due to net
impact of D5 well shut-in and pigging valve closed.
Day-2: 7500 BOPD and 7.9 MMscfd due to net
impact of D3 well shut-in and pigging valve closed
Day-3: Nil
Day-4: Nil

www.petroman.ir

IPTC 11193

Executing the Program

Closing the Subsea Pigging Valve. The program was
started with a Joint Safety and Environment Assessment
meeting to ensure all personnels involved in the program
aware of any safety and environment issues during execution
of the program. The program was executed as planned started
by moving the remaining wells to Test separator to allow the
other two separators be dedicated for the program. The
topsides valves were adjusted to align the East flowline, where
D6 well would flow by itself, into HP separator. The West
flowline was kept aligned to IP separator (Figure 22). The
orifice plate at the gas outlet of each separator was fixed with
the correct size to ensure measurements would be within the
recommended range. Subsea operation team was contacted to
ensure that an ROV was in the area prior to closing the subsea
pigging valve. To anticipate slugging potential due to pigging
valve closing, the topsides chokes in the East and West
flowlines were pinched back to 20% and 50%, respectively.
After pressures equalization was confirmed across the pigging
valve, the valve was cycled for three times while witnessed by
the ROV. The WHP in D5 and D6 wells responded
accordingly supporting what had been witnessed by the ROV.
The pigging valve was kept closed after the ROV left the
location. These activities confirmed the integrity of the
pigging valve to isolate the West from East flowline; thus, the
program could proceed as planned.
PI9620-3
TI9610-1

WEST
HP

PI9620-5/6

P
HV9620-KF

HV9622-1

TI9620-3
T

East Flow line

IP
HV9621-1
Test

production was ramped slowly by opening the topsides choke

from 20 to 40% within 8 hours period. The choke was further
increased to 55% within 2 hours period. This is much longer
than 5 hours stabilization time predicted by the simulation.
One of the reasons could be because the simulations were run
with the topsides choke in fully open position prior to closing
the pigging valve while in reality the topsides chokes were
pinched back at 20%. However, as explained later, the
topsides choke was pinched back again to 22% to reduce the
rate fluctuation coming to the topsides. This indicates that the
operating condition was worse than predicted by the
simulation. One of the reasons could be due to lower reservoir
pressure since the program was executed two months after
simulation works.
SS MPFM Performance Testing. The SS MPFM
performance was set in fixed density mode. Once D3 well
flowed by itself in the West flowline, methanol was injected at
1 gal/min but the water anomaly reading did not drop to zero
as usual. Methanol injection rate was then increased up to 3
gal/min when the water reading dropped to zero. The injection
rate was reduced back to 1 gal/min but the water anomaly
reading started to appear. Thus, the injection rate was
increased back to 3 gal/min. After 1 hour, the meter gave
stable oil and gas measurements at 15622 BOPD and 17.3
MMscfd. Methanol injection was stopped and the meter was
switched to non-gamma mode. After the meter was stabilized,
methanol injection was again initiated at 3 gal/min. After 2
hours, the meter gave stable oil and gas measurements at
14219 BOPD and 21 MMscfd. Methanol injection was then
stopped. The SS MPFM performance testing was finished and
the meter was kept in non-gamma mode.

HV9620-1
HV9630-KF

HV9620-KG
PI9630-3
P

West Flow line

HV9630-KG
T

PI9630-5/6
P

HP
HV9632-1

TI9630-3
T

IP
HV9631-1

TI9615-1

Test

EAST

HV9630-1

Fig. 22- Topsides Valves Arrangement to Align East Flowline to

HP Separator and West Flowline to IP Separator

Testing D3 well in the West Flowline. The program

continued by shutting-in D5 well to allow D3 well flow by
itself in the West flowline. D3 well production was ramped-up
slowly by opening the topsides choke from 50 to 100% within
1 hour period. The simulation was predicting 5 hours
stabilization time for the West flowline. The difference could
be because the simulations were run with the topsides choke in
fully opened position prior to shutting-in D5 well while in
reality it was pinched back at 50%. This shows that pinching
back the topsides choke in anticipation of slugging shorten the
flowline stabilization time. The water level in IP separator was
set to begin 24 hours test.
Testing D6 well in the East Flowline. D6 well had
already been flowing by itself in the East flowline into HP
separator since the pigging valve was closed. D6 well

Slugging in the East Flowline. The gas and oil rates

measurements from HP separator, where D6 well was flowing
into, kept fluctuating. Thus, the topsides choke was pinched
back from 55% to 22% within 8 hours period. The gas and
liquid rate measurements from HP separator were much
smoother but 22% opening caused 725 psig back pressure to
D6 well. This fact indicated that the East flowline was
slugging but still manageable through toposides choking.
Since this was not anticipated by simulation works, further
investigation is needed. The water level in HP separator was
set to begin 24 hours test for D6 well.
D3 Well Testing Results. The 24 hours period for D3 well
test was finished and the separator measurement gave 14900
BOPD, 22.8 MMscfd, and 0 BWPD. This confirms that D3
well does not produce water. Comparisons with the MPFM
measurements indicate that the meter performs better in nongamma mode. Thus, it was kept in non-gamma mode. The
fluid samples for D3 well were collected as planned. The
estimated rate for D3 well based on simulation works was
16600 BOPD and 18.3 MMscfd. Since the simulation works
were based on May 2006 data while the well testing was
executed in July 2006, the rate differences could indicate that
the reservoir pressure has already decreased and the gas oil
ratio (GOR) has already increased. D5 well was opened and
D3 was shut-in. The water level in IP separator was set to
begin 24 hours test for D5 well.

www.petroman.ir

10

IPTC 11193

D6 Well Testing Results First 24 Hours. The first 24

hours test period for D6 well was finished. The rate was
measured at 7700 BOPD, 14.9 MMscfd, and 271 BWPD
(3.6% water cut). The result was surprising since the reservoir
model did not suggest water comes from D6 well. To further
confirm the test results, D6 well was tested for another 24
hours. The fluid samples were collected as planned. The
estimated rate for D6 well based on simulation works was
11500 BOPD and 12.8 MMscfd. For similar reasons as D3
well case, the rate differences could be attributed to lower
reservoir pressure and higher GOR.

1.
2.

3.

4.

5.
D5 Well Testing Results. The 24 hours period for D5 well
test was finished and the separator measurement gave 15800
BOPD, 24.3 MMscfd, and 0 BWPD. The result confirms that
D5 well does not produce water, which contradicts the
reservoir model. The fluid samples were collected as planned.
The estimated rate for D5 well based on simulation works was
15200 BOPD and 27.1 MMscfd. Besides the reservoir
pressure must be already much lower, the difference in gas
rate could be due to some inaccuracies in assigning gas
proportion between D5 and D6 in the beginning.
D6 Well Testing Results Second 24 Hours. The
second 24 hours test period for D6 well was finished. The rate
was measured at 7700 BOPD, 15.1 MMscfd, and 219 BWPD
(2.8% water cut). The water rate was a bit lower than the first
24 hour test. One of the reasons could be due to a short
disruption with demulsifier injection into the separator that
might cause some water carried by the oil stream. However, it
confirms that D6 well is the water producing well, not D5
well.
End of Well Testing. The subsea pigging valve was open
while the East and West flowlines were still aligned to HP and
IP separators, respectively. Since more fluids were now
produced through the East flowline, HP separator dumped
another 83 bbls of water. This was expected since the East
flowline had to reach new water holdup equilibrium as the oil
and gas rates going through the flowline were increased. With
the pigging valve open, HP separator measured 15500 BOPD,
24.7 MMscfd, and 123 BWPD. Meanwhile, IP separator
measured 16900 BOPD, 25.1 MMscfd, and 0 BWPD. Note
that the water rate measurement was much lower than the
previous result. The reason is because after the pigging valve
is opened D6 well, as the weakest well, suffers more back
pressure from the other two wells. This further confirms that
the water comes from D6 well. The flow rates split between
the West and East flowlines was 52/48 for oil and 50/50 for
gas, which were not the same as predicted by the simulation,
which needs further investigation. When all the wells were
aligned back to IP separator, the separator measured 31700
BOPD, 51.1 MMscfd, and 166 BWPD, which confirms that
the simulation works were based on higher oil and gas rates.
Conclusions
The well testing program was executed smoothly and all the
objectives were met. Some lessons learned that can be drawn
from this project are as follows:

6.

7.

Good and thorough planning by the multi-discipline

team is the key success of the whole program.
Transient simulation works played an important role
in predicting the impact of transient operations; thus
help assessing the feasibility of the program.
Pre-cautions must still be exercised to anticipate
slugging since the simulation works are not always
based on the correct input data and assumptions.
The well testing has provided invaluable information
about the well performance and fluid sampling for
reservoir surveillances and depletion plan of the field.
The production deferment is higher than predicted by
the simulation due to some extra pre-caution that the
operators took to avoid process upsets during
transient operations, which is a good practice.
Besides better input data, the wellbore and flowline
network model needs more refinement to better
predict slugging tendency and fluid split between the
flowlines.
Pinching back the topsides chokes in anticipation of
slugging shorten the flowline stabilization time and
good practices for managing slug.

SI Metric Conversion Factors

ft X 3.048*
E-01 = m
ft3 X 2.831 685 E-02 = m3
bbl X 1.589 873 E-01 = m3
psi X 6.894 757 E+00 = kPa
in X 2.54
E+00 = cm
gal X 3.785 412 E-03 = m3
Nomenclature
BS&W
= Basic Sediment and Water
GOR
= Gas Oil Ratio
HP
= High Pressure
IP
= Intermmediate Pressure
MPFM
= Multi Phase Flow Meter
ROV
= Remotely Operated Vehicle
SS
= Subsea
PVT
= Pressure-Volume-Temperature
TLP
= Tension Leg Platform
WHP
= Wellhead Pressure
Ack
The author wish to thank Ahmed Shoreibah, BP Marlin
Production Engineer, Todd Blanchard, BP Production Chemist
Engineer, Errol Dupre, BP Marlin Production Supervisor and
the entire BP Marlin Operations Team for their assistances
that resulted in successful King/King West well testing
program. The permission granted by BP management to
publish this paper is greatly appreciated.
References
1. Bendiksen, K.H., Malnes, D., Moe, R., and Nuland, S.:
The Dynamic Two-Fluid Model OLGA: Theory and
Application. SPEPE, May 1991, 171-180.
2. Nossen, J., Shea, R.H., and Rasmussen, J.: New Developments
in Flow Modelling and Field Data Verification, BHR Group
2000 Multiphase Technology, 209-222.

www.petroman.ir