You are on page 1of 14

IPTC 15287 Hydraulic Evaluation of Transport Gas Pipeline on Offshore Production

Zhaira Nava, PDVSA Produccin Costa Afuera; Marisela Rojas, PDVSA Intevep; Nelson Martnez, Ministerio del Poder Popular para la Energa y Petrleo; Jorge Trujillo, Yobiris Rigual and Camilo Gonzlez, PDVSA Intevep
Copyright 2011, International Petroleum Technology Conference This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Bangkok, Thailand, 79 February 2012. 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 res tricted 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 +1-972-952-9435

Abstract Gas production has increased due to increasing in demand of energy worldwide. Flow assurance studies in transport systems related to offshore pipelines must be performed since the design in order to reduce operational costs and failures. This paper presents the flow assurance study of a hydrocarbon pipeline of 120 km, which transports 650 MMscfd of gas production from offshore fields to onshore facilities. Fluidynamics parameters were studied in order to optimize internal diameter and process equipment required for handling of liquids present in the transport systems. Design parameters were evaluated, such as: fluid, gas superficial velocity and liquid erosion rate, pressure drop and temperature. The selection of the optimal diameter pipe from the point of hydraulic and thermal focused on one export system that meets the most technical aspects of flow assurance established for the study, with the 28" internal diameter pipe that presented those operational conditions. The designed and applied methodology in this paper was aimed to optimize the transport scheme of offshore gas production based on a compositional and thermodynamic analysis of the feed gas and liquids streams flowing throught the system as well as a compilation and analysis of information required to define the numerical simulation model in steady and transient states. In this sense, a sensitivity analysis was conducted at operating conditions: gas and liquid flow, pressure, temperature, pipe diameters, and the hydrate formation curve to establish safe operating limits in order to minimize potential flow restriction problems, plugging and damage to the pipeline and process equipment, thus ensuring reliability in the desing of the pipeline. Introduction Transportation of natural gas through subsea pipelines could be affected by problems of flow blockage. Low temperature, long transport distances, fluid composition bathymetry at offshore environments influences multiphase flow behaviour. . The economic viability of an offshore project is mainly subject to the costs of drilling and pipelines. The subsea pipelines represent at least 25% of the total project cost and this is one of the reasons for the flow assurance studies. Prediction and mitigation of flow blockage in pipelines is part of a flow assurance philosophy and should be applied on from the beggining phase of a project in order to minimize operational problems, increasing guarantee of having a continuous transport of a multiphase flow throughout the productive life of wells. Flow assurance is a thermodynamic and hydraulic analysis used to develop control strategies to avoid flow stoppage by solid formations such as hydrates, asphaltenes, scale, paraffin, and corrosion problems. Furthermore, this analysis allows establishing operational strategies, based on thermal behavior of the system, at different stages of production: startup, restart, shutdown, warm up, cooldown, etc. In this study, flow assurance philosophy is applied in an export pipeline of gas and liquid with the aim of selecting the internal diameter that optimize hydraulic and thermal fluid behaviour allowing achieve maximum recovery of gas and liquid as possible by maximizing the energy reservoir. The analysis takes into account the accumulation of liquid, the erosion ratio, superficial gas velocity, superficial liquid velocity, pressure drop and temperature. Sensitivities are also performed with the production profile (gas / water / condensates) of fields and different pipe diameters. Flow assurance philosophy applied to offshore natural gas pipelines The development of offshore infrastructure begins with reservoir studies when a production plan for the reserves is proposed. This plan considers the location of wells, fluid production per well and different scenarios for the exploitation of hydrocarbons. The scenario will be selected taking into account flow assurance analysis and field architecture: production or

IPTC 15287

service platforms, floating production storage and offloading systems, flowlines, field architectures (single well tieback, cluster well manifold, daisy chain tieback or multi well template), export pipeline, transport of single or multiphase flow. Steady state flow assurance The steady state flowline model can be generated with the use of software such as PipeSim and Pipephase. The steady state flow assurance study has the following objectives: Determine flowline size based on the maximum and the minimum allowable flow rates and pressure drop. Reduce the risk of hydrate formation during operation. This requires evaluating temperature and pressure distributions along flowline in steady state condition. Choose an insulation combination that prevents the temperature at riser base of a tieback subsea system to fall below the minimum value for cooldown at the whole range of production rates. Riser base temperature is determined as a function of flow rate and the combined well bore/flowline insulation system. Determine the maximum flow rate in the system to assure the arrival temperatures do not exceed any upper limits set by the separation and dehydration processes or the equipment design (Bai 2005). Metodology was carried out in an export pipeline (multiphase flow) begining with a steady state analysis using multiphase flow simulation tools. Field and production environment data were collected: fluids composition, production profiles, pressure and temperature during field lifetime, bathymetric profile, field architectures and processing schemes viewed as part of the business plan, etc. Fluid consists of non-associated natural gas, coming from two fields located offshore (fields A and B). These fluids contain condensable liquid hydrocarbons with an amount of 0.3 GPM for field "A" and 5.3 GPM for field "B". Figure 1 and Figure 2 shows phase envelopes of each fluid and Figure 3 the hydrate formation curve.
1000 900 800 700

Pressure (psia)

600 500 400 300 200 100 0 -300


Critical point

-250

-200

-150

-100

-50

Temperature (F)

Figure 1. Phase Envelope of field A


3000

2500

Pressure (psia)

2000

1500

1000

500

0 -300 -250 -200 -150 -100


Critical point

-50

50

100

150

200

250

300

Temperature (F)

Figure 2. Phase Envelope of field B

Hidrate curves. One of the purposes of this study is to identify the hydrate formation tendency of the system for different operating scenarios and to establish operating conditions of pressure and temperature in order to prevent hydrate formation. In offshore projects there are several ways to prevent the formation of gas hydrates which are: reducing pressure below the pressure of hydrate formation for a given temperature, maintaining the temperature of the gas flow above the temperature of

IPTC 15287

hydrates formation for a given pressure, removing the water by reducing the dew point of water vapor in the gas flow below the operating temperature, using inhibitors (chemicals) which decrease the risk of hydrate formation. A study with various inhibitors was performed to compare the operating temperatures with the hydrate formation temperatures. Several hydrate inhibitors were evaluated such as: methanol (MeOH), monoethylene glycol (MEG) and triethylene glycol (TEG). Different simulation runs were conducted using PIPESIM to generate hydrate pressure and temperature curves varying hydrate inhibitor content. Based on these curves (Figura 4) there isa certain risk of hydrate formation considering the lowest seabed temperature (63 F). For this study is prefered the injection of TEG as a hydrate formation inhibitor with a TEG/water ratio greater than 1:10. Figure 4 shows an acceptable safety margin to operate the system with a temperature differential near to T = 20 F and without risk of hydrate formation for seabed temperature conditions. However, for future stages of engineering a more rigorous study is required for evaluating and selecting the inhibitor that satisfies other parameters such as economic factors, storage, reliability, volumes required and others.
6000

5000

4000 Pressure (psia)

3000

2000

1000

0 0
Field "A"

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Field "B"

Field "A + B"

80 90 100 Temperature (F)

Figure 3. Hydrate formation curve


6000 5500 5000 4500 4000 P ress u re (p s ia) 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 -100 -90 -80 -70 -60
Unhibited MEOH/water 1:20 MEG/water 1:20 TEG/water 1:20 MEOH/water 1:10 MEG/water 1:10 TEG/water 1:10 MEOH/water 1:5 MEG/water 1:5 TEG/water 1:5 MEOH/water 1:4 MEG/water 1:4 TEG/water 1:4 MEOH/water 1:3 MEG/water 1:3 MEOH/water 1:2 MEG/water 1:2 Seabed temperature

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Temperature (F)

Figure 4. Hydrate curve with different inhibitors

The export pipeline route starts from a production platform located offshore and ends at the onshore processing facilities (1100 psig), with an approximate length of 120 km. Bathymetry has water column of 130 m in the deepest point, with a temperature about 63 F. Onshore air temperature is close to 80 F. Two options were evaluated: a multiphase flow export pipeline and single-phase flow pipeline. For the evaluation of single-phase flow gas and liquids separation was assumed. Then, thermal and hydraulic behaviors as a function of internal diameter were evaluated over the productive life of the fields for selecting optimal diameter. Technical criteria were as follows: Minimal pressure drop in the pipelines: < 400 psi Management inventory liquid holdup Superficial gas velocity between 10 and 25 ft/s (Su 2003).

IPTC 15287

Erosion ratio less than 1 (API 1991) Onshore delivery Pressure: 1100 psig Maximum operating pressure: 1500 psig Onshore liquid slug catcher capacity: 4700 bbl The internal diameters evaluated in the transport systems were: 26", 28", 30", 32" and 34" for multiphase flow. For pipelines of single phase: 24", 26", 28", 30", 32"and 34" for gas and 75/ 8, 83/ 4, 93/4, 113/4, 12 y 13 for the liquid. Transient flow assurance In an offshore project, one of the purposes of evaluating the transient condition of hydrocarbon transportation systems is to define operational strategies for mitigating and controlling flow fluids obstruction caused by the precipitation of solids such as hydrates and scale and avoiding corrosion. The transient regime is related to the changes in the system over time. Transient flow modeling in pipes can be obtained by software packages such as OLGA (SPT Group), LEDA (SINTEF), IMPLIED (Invensys) and others. The transient analysis includes the following scenarios: Start-up and shut-down Shutdown Blowdown and warm up Pigging operations Pipeline packing and blowdown Liquids sweeping At transient conditions, fluid temperatures and pressure must exceed the hydrate dissociation limit. Then, in this case, it will be necessary to propose a control treatment like pipeline insulation or hydrate inhibitor injection, or both. Transient hydraulic analysis performed for pipeline multiphase flow is based on determining hold up growing in the transport system and the time it reaches the equilibrium condition, in order to optimize design. Flow assurance study for export pipeline Steady state numeric simulation model The steady state model was developed using the simulation tool PIPESIM, and was built in detail considering the bathymetry existing from the field located offshore (inlet) to the installations onshore (delivery). Figure 5 shows the seabed profile along the export pipeline route.
80 60 40 20 E levation (m) 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140
0 10 000 20 000 30 000 40 000 50 000 60 000 70 000 80 000 90 000 100 000 110 000 120 000 130 000 Sea level Bathymetry

Distance (m)

Figure 5. Water depth profile of the export pipeline

Hydraulic analysis considers Xiao mechanistic model and Eaton Holdup correlation to estimate the friction losses and the liquid holdup, respectively. The steady state model assumes that operational conditions (flow rate, temperature and composition) are constant over time, as well as external conditions (ambient temperature, bathymetry, currents) Multiphase transport system. In the case study, all the wells are produced simultaneously, and gathered through a daisy chain arrangement in the field A and B trunk line to a platform and then sent to the onshore reception facilities through a 120 km export line. Both gas fields are mixed at the initial point of the export pipeline (offshore platform). Behavior of the multiphase pipeline for each of the studied variables is discussed bellow: Figure 6 shows that gas temperature is highly dependent on seabed temperature due to the low heat capacity of gas, so that fluid reaches thermal equilibrium quickly.

IPTC 15287

80 78 76 74 Temperature (F) 72 70 68 66 64 62 60
0 10 000 20 000 30 000 40 000 50 000 60 000 70 000 80 000

60 40 20 0 Elevation (m)
1000

-20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140


90 000 100 000 110 000 120 000 130 000

Distance (m)
Temperature Bathymetry

Figure 6. Temperature profile in multiphase transport system

Analysis of the temperature profile along the export pipeline, shown in Figure 6, identifies the sections in which the heat exchange with the environment can reach operating temperatures which can promote the appearance of hydrates. According to the results obtained, the fluid heat exchange with the environment on the seabed occurs rapidly, reaching a temperature of 63 F in the underwater section. Once the pipeline starts the climb in the area of higher elevation, the temperature of the product stream is rapidly approaching 77 F and after the passage of the slope, the stream reaches again the seabed temperature (73 F). When pipeline arrives to shore, then equalizes environmental temperature (78 F). Figure 7 shows the results of the pressure drop in the export pipeline for different gas flow rates (between 50 and 1000 MMsfcd) and internal diameters of pipe 26", 28", 30", 32" and 34". All curves show an inflection point: on the left side there is a decreasing in pressure drop with increasing gas flow and an increase in pressure drop when increases the diameter of the pipe. On the right side of the inflection point, the pressure drop is directly proportional to the gas flow and is inversely proportional to the diameter of the pipe. At low gas flow rates, the dominant factor is the accumulation of liquid and at high gas flow rates (right of the inflection point), the friction factor predominates, as in the case of line 26" internal diameter (Figure 8). Criteria designs suggest a low liquid holdup and friction losses to maintain the pipeline integrity and have a good hydraulic performance. Figure 7 show that pipes between 28" and 32" ID achieve both conditions. Futhermore, in these diameters the system can be operated in a wider range of gas flowrates, which increase operating flexibility. However, optimal diameter selection considers other parameters of flow assurance. Figure 8 shows the inlet pressure required in the export pipeline for different gas flow rates and diameters of pipe. The minimum inlet pressure is reached at 26 ID pipeline with a gas production of 200 MMscfd maximum inlet pressure for this export line has been defined to be 1500 psig.
1000 900 800 700 Pressure drop (psi) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0
26" 28"

100
30"

200
32"

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Gas flowrate (MMscfd)


34" Inside diameter Maximum pressure drop

Figure 7. Pressure drop in multiphase transport system

IPTC 15287

2000 1900 1800 1700 1600 1500 1400 1300 1200 1100 1000 0
26" 28"

P re s su re a t in le t (p sig )

100
30"

200
32"

300

400

500

600

700

800 900 1000 Gas flowrate (MMscfd)

34" Inside diameter

Maximun operating pressure

Figure 8. Inlet pressure in multiphase transport system

Another parameter evaluated is the superficial gas velocity, shown in Figure 9. Superficial gas velocity shows a behavior directly proportional to gas flow and inversely proportional to the diameter of the pipe. The shaded area establishes that pipe diameter selected must be inside 10 and 25 ft/s gas velocity limits where a stable operation is achieved promoting a low holdup. Between 7 and 10 ft/s average operation is stable but with small liquid accumulation. For speeds below 7 ft/s, the operation becomes unstable (Su 2003). For the case 26" ID, this condition is reached when gas flow rate is about 360 MMscfd. For pipeline between 28" and 34" ID, stable operation begins from 400 and 600 MMscfd respectively. Then, smaller internal diameters allow handling lower gas flow rates. System becomes unstable when gas flow rate is less than 230 and 400 MMscfd for 26 and 34 ID respectively. It is important to note that the selection of the optimum diameter for hydrocarbon transport systems should consider gas production profile of fields along the productive life, as well as the decrease in pressure from the reservoir.
30

25

Superficial Gas velocity (ft/s)

20

15

10

0 0
26"

100
28"

200
30"

300
32"

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

34" Inside diameter

Gas flowrate (MMscfd)

Figure 9. Superficial gas velocity in the multiphase pipeline

To avoid erosion condition, API RP 14 E recommends that erosion ratio (gas and erosion velocity) remains below 1. Moreover, the Engineering Design Manual of PDVSA recommends an erosion ratio between 50 and 60 %, when the limitation of noise is an important consideration. For all cases, both erosion ratio conditions are met (Figure 10).

IPTC 15287

1.0 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0
26"

Erosion ratio (-)

100
28"

200
30" 32"

300
34"

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Inside diameter

Gas flowrate (MMscfd)

Figure 10. Erosional ratio in multiphase transport system

Figure 11 shows the results of holdup in the transport system for different gas flow rates and internal pipe diameters. Large liquid holdup or inventory is accumulated in the export pipeline. The larger the ID the higher is liquid inventory as gas velocity is lower.
160 000

140 000

120 000 Total liquid content (bbl)

100 000

80 000

60 000

40 000

20 000

0 0
26" 28"

100
30"

200
32"

300

400

500

600

700

800 900 1000 Gas flow rate (MMscfd)

34" Inside diameter

Onshore slug catcher capacity

Figure 11. Liquid inventory in multiphase transport system

Bathymetry influences the holdup in areas along export pipeline. In deepest and steepest sections of the pipeline route, liquid accumulation can reach the maximun holdup. Figure 12 shows 650 MMscfd case, where holdup reaches about 40 % in the first half of the route.
100 90 80 Liquid holdup (fraction) 70 60 50 -40 40 30 20 10 0
10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 35 000 40 000 45 000 50 000 55 000 60 000 65 000 70 000 75 000 80 000 85 000 90 000 95 000 0 5 000 100 000 105 000 110 000 115 000 120 000 125 000

80 60 40 20 0 -20 Pipeline elevation (m)

-60 -80 -100 -120 -140

Distance (m)
26" 28" 30" 32" 34" Inside diameter Bathymetry

Figure 12. Liquid holdup along the export pipeline for 650 MMscfd

IPTC 15287

Figure 13 to Figure 17 present the results of varying the delivery pressure onshore and internal diameter, from values of 700 psig to 1300 psig, maintaining gas flowrate at 650 MMscfd. Figure 13 and Figure 14 show the mixture velocities reached in the export pipeline. The maximum mixture velocity at the inlet is reached in smaller diameter pipes. It is important to mention that in pipe 34" the limit of velocity is reached for oulet pressure over 1200 psig. None cases exceeds maximum velocity of 25 ft/s, however outlet gas velocity is over this limit in much cases, which limits operational conditions. For example, pipe 26" ID reaches the maximum threshold set velocity (25 ft/s), if gas is delivered at a pressure of 700, 800, 900 and 1000 psig. Importantly for the delivery pressure of 1100 psig, all pipe diameters evaluated have acceptable velocity for normal operation.
25

M ix tu re ve lo c ity a t in le t (ft/s )

20

15

10

5 600
26" 28"

700
30"

800
32"

900
34" Inside diameter

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

Onshore delivery pressure (psig)

Figure 13. Inlet velocity of the mixture to the export system


50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 600
26"

700
28" 30"

800
32"

900

1000
34" Inside diameter

1100

1200

1300

1400

Figure 14. Oulet velocity of the mixture the export system

Figure 15 and Figure 16 shows the inlet pressure to the pipe and the pressure drop obtained for the different diameters evaluated considering the variation in oulet pressure at onshore. The analysis of these figures allows selecting pipe taking into account energy balance in order to choose optimal pipe. According to PDVSA standards, maximum allowable pressure drop in the export line should Figure 16. This condition is satisfied by ID of 28. Figure 17 shows total liquid inventory in the pipeline and allows to visualize how large should be the slugcatcher located onshore in case of no rampup strategies are implemented. Just as small diameter pipes generate the highest gas velocities and pressure drop, also have the lowest accumulation of fluid, as speeds of gas generate an excellent sweep inside the pipe. For a nominal pipe diameter of 28" values of gas velocity are above the threshold of 10 ft/s and there is an acceptable pressure drop, which indicates compliance with the premises established for the design of transport system.

IPTC 15287

2000.0 1900.0 1800.0 1700.0 P ressu re at inlet (p sig) 1600.0 1500.0 1400.0 1300.0 1200.0 1100.0 1000.0 900.0 800.0 600
26" 28"

700
30" 32"

800

900
34" Inside diameter

1000

1100

1200 1300 1400 Onshore delivery pressure (psig)

Maximum operating pressure

Figure 15. Inlet pressure in the export system


700.0 650.0 600.0 550.0 P ressu re dro p (p si) 500.0 450.0 400.0 350.0 300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400

Figure 16. Pressure drop in the export system


28 000 26 000 24 000 To tal liqu id in ven tory (bb l) 22 000 20 000 18 000 16 000 14 000 12 000 10 000 600
26" 28"

700
30" 32"

800

900
34" Inside diameter

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

Onshore delivery pressure (psig)

Figure 17. Total liquid inventory in the export system

Single phase transport system. Evaluation of gas transport system. The results obtained in the analysis of flow assurance variables showed a pattern similar to the study of multiphase transport system. 28 ID exposed an acceptable thermal and hydraulic behavior for export pipeline of single phase flow where pressure drop in the system is less than 400 psi for gas flow rates less than 600 MMscfd. Superficial gas velocity is between 10 and 25 ft/s (stable behavior) for a wide range of gas flow rates (350 850 MMscfd). Erosion ratio less than 1 for all diameters and gas flow rates studied and the greatest liquid accumulation occurs for a gas flow of 50 MMsfcd with a total liquid holdup of 60000 bbl.

10

IPTC 15287

Evaluation of liquid transport system. The behavior of the transport system of liquid (water and condensate) is shown in this section. The analysis includes the variation of internal diameters of pipeline between 75/8 and 13 and liquid flow rates between 5 MBPD and 30 MBPD. The variables analyzed to evaluate the hydraulic behavior of the liquid are the same that were studied for gas: pressure drop, superficial velocity (in this case for liquid). 93/4 inch and 103/4 inch internal diameter showed a good hydraulic behavior for liquid export pipeline where pressure drop in the system is less than 2000 psi for all liquid flow rates and diameters evaluated (Figure 18). Superficial liquid velocity at the inlet and at the outlet of pipeline between 2 ft/s and 6 ft/s for a wide range of liquid flow rates: 9000 bbl/d - 27000 bbl/d (Figure 19 and Figure 20).
4 000

3 500

3 000 Pressure drop (psi)

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0 0 5 000 10 000 15 000 20 000 25 000 30 000 35 000 Liquid flowrate (bbl/d)
7,625" 8,75" 9,75" 10,75" 11,75" 12" 13" Inside diameter

Figure 18. Pressure drop for single phase export pipeline


12 11 10 9 V elocity at inlet (ft/s) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0
7,625" 8,75"

5000
9,75"

10000
10,75"

15000
11,75" 12"

20000

25000

30000

35000

Liquid flowrate (bbl/d)


13" Inside diameter

Figure 19. Liquid velocity at inlet for single phase export pipeline
12 11 10 9 V elocity at outlet (ft/s) 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0
7,625"

5000
8,75" 9,75"

10000
10,75"

15000
11,75" 12"

20000

25000

30000

35000

Liquid flowrate (bbl/d)


13" Inside diameter

Figure 20. Liquid velocity at outlet for single phase export pipeline

IPTC 15287

11

Transient numeric simulation model The study of flow assurance in transient state is applied in the design of flowlines and pipelines of multiphase flow in offshore environments. This analysis establishes the operational strategies of the transport system throughout the productive life of fields. Additionally, this analysis optimizes the design of process equipment required to transport production fluids, in a safe and continuos manner. The hydraulic transient analysis developed in this study for the pipeline multiphase flow is based on determining the rate of accumulation of fluid in the transport system and the time to achieve a equilibrium condition. The study considers the export pipeline multiphase flow 28" ID which showed a good hydraulic performance for flow assurance philosophy evaluated at steady state. The results of this evaluation are shown below: Figure 21 shows that steady state condition is reached in approximately 49500 s (14 h) with an accumulation of liquid in the export pipeline of 40800 bbl. This value is used to establish the operational strategy of liquid management upstream and downstream of the system, for example, sweep liquids and pigging frequency, equipment required for separation and their capacity. Field B has a higher amount of liquid hydrocarbon than Field A. The analysis of the results of total liquid content in the export pipeline allows to define strategies for liquid and gas separation offshore like an option for the recovery of condensates. Applying offshore strategies, the size of process equipment required onshore could be minimized as well as the problems associated with subsea multiphase transport systems. Additionally, the recovery of liquid hydrocarbons represents a business oportunity. Sensitivities were performed with 50% and 100% of the maximum gas flow in order to consider the production profile. The results are shown in Table 1.
50 000

40 000 T o tal liq u id co n ten t in b ra n c h (b b l)

30 000

20 000

10 000

0 0
50%

20 000
100% Field production

40 000

60 000

80 000

100 000

120 000

140 000 Time (s)

Figure 21. Liquid holdup in the export pipeline Table 1. Total liquid holdup as a function of production profile

Field production (%)

Required pressure (psig)

Total liquid holdup (bbl)

50 100

1295 1500

47014 40800

Figure 22 to Figure 24 display the results of the transient hydraulic evaluation for the variables of pressure drop, fluid temperature and gas velocity. Pressure required at inlet of the pipeline is 1500 psia with a pressure drop of 400 psi (3.3 psi/km). Performing a thermal analysis in gas transport systems temperature profile of fluid is obtained. Heat transfer takes into account environment condition to predict any problems that may affect the flow. In this study, the fluid reaches 63 F in the subsea sections increasing up to 80 F above sea level. Figure 24 shows how superficial gas velocity (SGV) remains within limits to assure stable operation (10 ft / s 25 ft/s) and supporting the optimal internal diameter selection. At gas flowrate over 600 MMscfd in 28" ID export pipeline will not present problems of erosion velocity. Table 2 summarizes the main results obtained in modeling steady and transient states: flow assurance studies at steady state allow to determine the optimal diameter of flowlines and pipelines at early stage of the project and these studies are complemented with the transient evaluation to establish safe operating limits minimizing the flow blockages or damages on pipelines and process equipment downstream.

12

IPTC 15287

1900 1800 1700

80 60 40 20

1600 P re s s u re (p s ig ) 1500 1400 1300 1200

0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100

1100 1000
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000

-120 -140
70000 80000 90000 100000 110000 120000 130000

Distance (m)
50 100 200 300 400 500 650 700 800 900 1000 Gas flowrate (MMscfd) Bathymetry

Figure 22. Pressure profile in the export pipeline (28" ID)


90 88 86 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 68 66 64 62 60 58 56 54 52 50 0 Distance (m)
50 100 200 300 400 500 650 700 800 900 1000 Gas flowrate (MMscfd) Bathymetry

80 60 40 20 0 -20 -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000 110000 120000 130000 P ip e lin e e le v a tio n (m )

T e m p e ra tu re ( F )

Figure 23. Temperature profile in the export pipeline (28" ID)


20 19 18 S u p e rfic ia l v e lo c ity g a s (ft/s ) 17 16 -20 15 -40 14 -60 13 12 11 10
0 10 000 20 000 30 000 40 000 50 000 60 000 70 000 80 000

80 60 40 20 0 P ip e lin e e le v a tio n (m )

-80 -100 -120 -140


90 000 100 000 110 000 120 000 130 000

Distance (m)
Superficial velocity gas Bathymetry

Figure 24. Superficial velocity gas in the export pipeline (28 ID)

P ip e lin e e le v a tio n (m )

IPTC 15287 Table 2. Summary of results at steady state and transient conditions for a gas flowrate of 650 MMscfd and 28 ID pipeline

13

Variables Internal diameter (in) Pressure (psig) Pressure drop (psi) Ranges of VSG (ft/s) Total liquid holdup (bbl) Minimum liquid holdup (%) Maximum liquid holdup (%) Erosion ratio Inlet temperature (F) Liquid rate (bbl/d)

Steady State 28 1502 403 12 - 19 20405 2 34 0.28 - 0.41 80 57555

Transient State 28 1500 400 12 - 16 40800 5 26 0.20 - 0.38 79 59208

Conclusions Flow assurance analysis was applied to optimize the internal diameter of an export pipeline in a multiphase offshore transport system. Main conclusions are listed below: 1. Thermal evaluation shows risk of hydrate formation. Therefore, a study was carried out to select type and dosage of hydrate formation inhibitor. TEG at a 1:10 injection ratio has been selected on a preliminary basis. 2. 26 ID pipeline pressure drop is higher than acceptable limits. On the other hand, 32 and 34 ID pipelines allow and important liquid holdup or inventory which can impose contraints on transient operations (pigging frecuency) and slug catcher sizing. 3. 28 ID pipeline pressure drop, liquid inventory and superficial gas velocities are acceptable according to preestablished design criterias. 4. It is not expected erosion to be an issue as erosion ratio (gas velocity to erosion velocity ratio) is far bellows accepted limits. 5. Flow assurance studies should be approached from the initial phases of the project and the analysis must be developed during the whole life of the fields. Note: This paper presents results applied in a pre-feed stage. Detailed analysis should be carried out in futures engineering phases. Nomenclature Inch F Fahrenheit grade bbl Barrel FPSO ft/s GPM h ID in km m MBPD MMscfd PDVSA psia psig s SGV Floating Production Storage and Offloading Foot per second Gallons per Mcf Hours Inside diameter Inch Kilometer Meter Thousand Barrel Per Day Million standard cubic feet per day Petrleos de Venezuela Pounds per square inch absolute Pounds per square inch relative Second Superficial gas velocity

14

IPTC 15287

References 1. AMERICAN PETROLEUM INSTITUTE. Recommended Practice for Design and Installation of Offshore Production Platform Piping Systems. 1ra edicin. API N RP 14E. Octubre 1991. p. 23. 2. BAI, Yong y BAI Qiang. Subsea Pipelines and Risers. 1ra ed. Oxford: Elsevier Ltd., 2005. 812 p. ISBN: 0-080 4456-67. 3. Ellul, I., G. Saether y M. Shippen. The Modeling of Multiphase Systems Under Steady State and Transient Conditions: A tutorial. Artculo PSIG 0403. 4. Erickson, D. y M. Mai. Application of Transient Multiphase Flow Technology Journal of Petroleum Technology. Artculo SPE 52757. 1990. 5. Forsdyke, I. Flow Assurance in Multiphase Environments. SPE Internacional symposium on oilfield chemistry. Artculo SPE 37237. Texas, EEUU. 1997. 6. Hagesaether, L., K. Lunde, F. Nygard F y H. Eidsmoen. Flow Assurance Modeling: Reality Check and Aspects of Transient Operation of Gas Condensate Pipelines. Offshore Technology Conference 2006. Artculo OTC 17894. Texas, EEUU. 2006. 7. Harun, A.F., S. Cochran y T. Choate. Optimization of Ramp Up Operations in a Dual Large Diameter Long Distance Subsea Wet Gas Pipeline System. SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition. Artculo SPE 77652. Texas, EEUU. 2002. 8. PDVSA. Dimensionamiento de Tuberas de Proceso. En: Manual de ingeniera de diseo. Vol. 13 - III. PDVSA N 90616.1.024. Noviembre 1993. p. 6. 9. Su, C., Rydahl, A. y Shea, R.H. Liquid Inventory Management in Wet Gas Pipelines; editado por Scandpower Petroleum Technology, Inc. En: Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc. (SPE). N 81177. Abril 2003. p.1.