Agar Corporation - OW Paper: Field Study BP Amoco

| Search For Rep | Contact Us |

Home

Literature

App Notes - General Process Lube Oil Pulp Mill

App Notes - Oil-Gas Production Automatic Tank Dewatering Free Water Knock-Out Heater Treaters Heavy Oil Well Testing Production Separators Steam Flood Two Phase Separation Waste Water Treatment

App Notes - Refining/Chemical Alkylation Acid Control Amine Production Amine Refining Automatic Tank Dewatering Caustic Wash Desalters Foam Detection Merox Oil Skimming Slop Oil Sour Water

Brochures Corporate Brochure Hydrate Detectors ID-200 ID-200 A ID-200 H MPFM 50 OW-200 OW-300

White Papers - ID ATD KOC Performance Desalting Detection Foam Detection Reduce Oil In Wastewater Prevention is Better Tank Storage Waste Water

White Papers - MPFM Field Study - Venezuela High Temp In Heavy Oil Well Testing

White Papers - OW Field Study - BP Amoco Field Study - California Heavy Oil High Temp

Sales Flyers Cost of Slop Oil Downstream Application Throughput Upstream Application

Print Printable View

BP Exploration Alaska
900 E. Benson
Anchorage, AK 99508
Phone: 907-561-5411
Fax: 907-564-5200

BP EXPLORATION ALASKA

AGAR INSERTION WATERCUT METER EVALUATION

Executive Summary

The objective of this project was to evaluate the Agar OW-202 WaterCut Meter. The test plan included proving the accuracy, repeatability, and reliability of the meter according to the acceptance criteria set to justify purchase of the meter. The Agar WaterCut Meter concentration readings were referenced to results from lab analysis performed on grab samples.

For most wells tested, the offset in water concentrations between the meter readings and lab procedure results was less than 5%. On a few wells, the offset was as high as 7%. The average offset in water concentrations between the comparison for each well tested was 4.2%. However, it must be noted that on nearly every well test the meter water concentration reading was roughly near the lab sample result at some point during the five minutes of data collection. The time averaging over the full five minutes caused the inaccuracy to be larger than reality.

The water concentration results from the Agar meter were consistently lower than those from the referenced data. The offset in the meter concentration reading from the lab results can be attributed to gas breakout. When gas breakout occurs, the meter will read one percent gas as one percent oil. The best results on each well tested can be seen in the following table:

Figure 1: Table listing best results obtained on each well during test period.

WELL	LAB RESULT	WC METER READING	DIFFERENCE
2-14	87.2	83.0	4.2
2-56	1.5	0.0	1.5
1-27	80.4	80.1	0.3
1-61	88.2	83.1	5.1
1-63	73.2	71.7	1.5
1-33	26.0	21.0	5.0
2-36	89.0	86.8	2.2
1-35	50.0	48.7	1.3
2-38	91.7	88.4	3.3
1-49	93.5	89.3	4.2
2-04	84.4	78.7	5.7
2-40	11.2	6.1	5.1
1-55	71.9	68.3	3.6
1-65	84.9	81.8	3.1
1-49	93	92.6	0.4

Note: The WC meter reading is an average of the water concentration readings collected every second for five minutes from the meter.

The Agar meter performs well with respect to variations in fluid velocity, viscosity, salinity, pH, and temperature. The meter proved appropriate for use in both stable and unstable conditions. The meter is consistently accurate over the entire range 0-100% water. The meter was easy to install, set-up, and calibrate. Based on the positive results obtained and facilitation of the meter, the meter will be purchased for use on the MPI HF Test Separator.

Conclusion and Recommendation

From the data obtained, one can see that the meter has a high level of accuracy, repeatability, and reliability. Not only will the meter improve the accuracy of water concentrations, other benefits of the meter also exist. The benefits are as follows:

Higher degree of accuracy - The meter is more accurate than the old shake-out method due to human error while performing lab procedures. Another factor which improves meter accuracy is continuous meter measurement throughout the entire test period. The water concentration obtained from the meter over the test period can be averaged to obtain a representative water concentration. The grab sampling technique does not give a representative sample.
Facilitate effort required to obtain watercut percent - It will require less manpower. It will eliminate the need for the operations team to pull grab samples daily. The operations teams will only have to spot check the meter once per month. The reduction in man-hours is estimated at 2 hours per day. Please note that the two hours include time spent performing lab procedures as well as grabbing samples.
Reduce exposure to hazardous fumes - Without having to regularly pull grab samples and perform shake-out lab procedures, exposure to gas fumes, H2S, and hydrocarbons will be minimized.
Aid in enhanced oil recovery - Due to the better optimization of high watercut well, an estimated production increase of 150-250 BOPD can be achieved. With on an oil recovery value of $1.50/ barrel, the internal rate of return can be seen in the following table:

Production	IRR
Increase (BOPD)	120 DAYS	150 DAYS	200 DAYS
150	- 40%	- 25%	0%
200	- 20%	0%	33%
250	0%	25%	67%

Based on the results and the benefits of the meter, I recommend purchasing the Agar OWM-202 Watercut meter. During the test period, the Agar meter demonstrated performance according to the acceptance criteria and will achieve the project objectives. The test meter will be purchased for use on the MPI HF Test Separator. A second meter installation is currently being considered for the SDI HF Test Separator.

In closing, I must note that the quality of the Agar field support was excellent. Their level of commitment to the project was demonstrated by designing/building a second probe and supplying the technical field support required to successfully commission the meter after the first probe did not achieve the desired results.