6-7 To compare the two simulators, this article uses only Olga's steady-state function, applying both it and Pipesim to an actual multiphase wet gas transmission pipeline and comparing the results with those of field data for a range of gas flow rates. Users of both Pipesim and Olga, however, have noted differences in output even when using the same mass flow rates, gas-liquid compositions, and geometrical data. The history-matched model Amapetco built allowed it to increase network capacity and cut expenses. Simulation scenarios included gas only, oil only, and multiphase flow. 4 The company also sought to overcome flow assurance problems brought about by hydrate formation and other issues.
Pipesim olga slb full#
(Amapetco) in Egypt last year used Pipesim in an effort to optimize multiphase subsea flow and produce its reservoirs to full potential. Careless selection of existent correlations and equations, however, without attention to the nature of the issue, may lead to considerable errors in prediction results. An accurate simulation or prediction can help in the design of the pipe network and in selection of the proper solution to potential operating problems. Predicting the behavior of a multiphase system, even in steady state, is complex. These changes make liquid and solid hydrate formation probable, 2 in turn creating an unsteady pressure profile in the pipe. 1 Frictional loss, elevation change, Joule-Thomson effect, and heat exchange between the pipe and its surroundings lead to pressure and temperature changes. In the movement of natural gas through pipes, the associated pressure and temperature of the fluid flow are subject to change throughout the pipe.
Pipesim olga slb software#
Pressure-drop predictions can vary greatly depending on the software used. Gas flow rate can affect liquid holdup and thus pressure-drop prediction. Pipesim, however, does not reliably predict pressure drop at low natural gas flow rates and should be matched with field data to ensure accurate predictions. Hope this helps? RE: PIPESIM vs.Olga software can be used to simulate multiphase pipeline flow at a wide range of rates without the need to match results to field data. The bottom line is be guided by the output of the programs but apply common sense and engineering judgement. However, I would recommend against grossly oversizing lines as this could result in operational problems such as severe slugging. It is therefore advisable to take a conservative approach when sizing lines. The error in pressure drops can be significant. Therefore, it is not adviseable to view the results from programs as being absolutes. For example, many experiments have used relatively small diameter glass or perspex pipes to enable the investigators to observe the flow regimes present. Practically all two phase flow correlations have been developed from experiments that have a limited relation to real world situations. Regarding accuracy I'd make the following comments. Additionally the modelling of process equipment items such as line heaters was a little basic.
Pipesim olga slb windows#
The initial windows versions of Pipesim had some irritating bugs but these have probably been ironed out by now. Full compositional models using equations of state and black oil compositional modelling is possible. Pipesim has a very wide range of correlations that are very suitable for modelling oil and gas systems. In the UK it has become virtually the industry standard for offshore oil and gas work. For basic pipeline feasibility work I have found the program to be very useful and reasonably easy to use. I am not familiar with Pipephase but have used Pipesim in the past.