Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
I.F.J. Nash, Peritus International Ltd, P.M. Roberts, VerdErg Ltd., C.Teh, Peritus International Ltd.
Pertius International Ltd, Export House, 6 Cawsey Way, Woking, Surrey, UK, GU21 6QX
Ian.nash@peritusint.com
Abstract
In the present day of increasing hydrocarbon demand, the direction of oil exploration has moved to ever increasing
offshore depths and more remote land masses with harsher environments. To this end, our industry has to adapt to
the increasing challenges that have to be faced to ensure that these hydrocarbons can still be economically
recovered. The flow assurance strategies that are currently being deployed to achieve successful hydrocarbons
recovery from these increasing technically challenged areas, increasingly demand an integrated approach to the
design of the transportation systems. It is no longer the case that each element of a hydrocarbon development can
be designed in isolation.
Flow Assurance is not just an analytical routine to predict the pressure and temperature profiles of single and multi-
phase pipelines, but an advanced tool-set that models the flow of hydrocarbons from the well bore all the way to
the process facilities and beyond. The tools now used in Flow Assurance have improved the engineers insight into
the critical parameters to the point where informed design improvements can be made that could not previously
have been justified.
The paper will consider the problems faced by todays ever more extreme transportation requirements, review
current advanced methodologies for flow assurance for transportation systems and show how integration of flow
assurance into systems design vastly improves and in some case enables hydrocarbon developments.
Observations will be provided in the form of three short case presentations that have implemented advanced
techniques to achieve robust solutions. Specifically:
Flow assurance issues and implications for ultra deep transportation pipelines
Planning for the removal of hydrates from wet gas field developments
Understanding Carbon Capture and Storage transportation systems
Introduction
From the early beginnings of the offshore oil and gas industry, exploration and production activities have moved
from shallow water of 100 m (1960s) to deepwater of ca. 500m (1980s) and now to ultra-deepwater of ca. >2,000
m (2000s)as shown in Figure 1. Hydrocarbon reserves are now being recovered from high pressure-high
temperature reservoirs in excess of 690 bar/150C (10,000 psia/300F), increasingly cold water environments of
around 4C and with increasingly heavier crudes (APIs < 20), in order to satisfy the continuing and growing
demand for oil and gas to sustain world economies. Similarly onshore exploration and production activities have
also moved to more remote land masses with harsher environments.
This shift in exploration frontiers in turn required the industry players i.e. operators, drillers, equipment
manufacturers/suppliers, oil field chemical suppliers, engineering design and installation contractors and
researchers to keep pace by having to identify the additional flow assurance and design challenges to be faced
and to overcome them by improving the technology and developing new and robust integrated design and
operating strategies to avoid/mitigate/remediate these challenges.
2
Figure 1 Movement of Fields into Ultra Deep Water
Historical Perspective
Early flow assurance in transportation systems utilized the 1845 Darcy-Weisbach equation (Eqn. 1) [Ref. 7] and
developments of this such as the 1949 Lockhart-Martinelli method [Ref. 8] to determine the head loss or pressure
loss, due to friction along a given length of pipe to the average velocity of the fluid flow under single and 2-phase
conditions.
(Eqn. 1) p = I
D
.
D
.
Where the pressure loss due to friction p (units: Pa or kg/ms
2
) is a function of:
the ratio of the length to diameter of the pipe, L/D;
the density of the fluid, (kg/m
3
);
the mean velocity of the flow, V (m/s), as defined above;
Darcy Friction Factor; a (dimensionless) coefficient of laminar, or turbulent flow, fD.
Thermal profile analysis is the determination of the temperature profile along the pipeline as the contents are
cooled by conduction of heat through the pipe to the sea/surroundings. For steady state flow conditions, constant
fluid properties, uniform insulation and uniform ambient temperature along the pipeline section the thermal profile
will follow an exponential decay (Eqn. 2).
(Eqn. 2)
(x) =
amb
+ (
tn
amb
). exp_
h
tut
. x
Iluw
mass
. Cp
unt
]
Where:
T(x) is the contents temperature at distance x along the pipeline
Tamb is the ambient seawater temperature
Tin is the flowing inlet temperature
flowmass is the contents mass flow rate
Cpcont is the contents specific heat capacity
With the advent of powerful programmable calculators, such as the HP 41CV, it became relatively simple to
devope pressure drop and thermal profile calculators for single and two phase flow, which were used extensively in
the 1970s and early 1980s
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
1991 Zeepipe IIB 40''
1992 Campos Bain 10''
1993 Transmed 26''
1993 Auger 12''
1994 Marlim 12''
1995 Troll Olienor 10''
1995 Popeye 6''
1996 Mars 8''
1996 Mensa 12''
1997 Europipe 2 42''
1998 Roncador 10''
1999 Allegheny 12''
2000 Agaba 30''
2000 Malampaya 16''
2000 Ursa 18''
2000 Diana 18''
2000 Horn Mountain 12''
2001 Mica 8''
2001 Blue Stream 24''
2002 Canyon Express 12''
2004 Ceasar 24''
2004 Cleopatra 16''
2005 Cleopatra Lateral 16''
2005 Ceasar Lateral 24''
2005 Proteus 24''
2006 Okeanos Lateral 20''
2006 Atlantis Lateral - Ceasar 24''
2006 Atlantis Lateral - Cleopatra 16''
2006 Independence Hub - Atlas 8''
2009 Perdido 10''
2009 MedGaz 24''
2009 Cascade-Chinook 14''
2010 Block 31 - PSVM 12''
2009 Galsi 24''
2009 Jack-St.Malo 24''
2010 Southstream 32''
2010 MEIDP (SAGE) 24''
Water Depth (m)
Y
e
a
r
a
n
d
F
i
e
l
d
Installed
Under Construction
3
Todays Requirements
Todays exploration frontiers have much more onerous requirements than just calculating pressure and
temperature profiles and require the flow assurance engineer to have a detailed understanding of the way in which
hydrocarbon fluids react and changes as their environment changes. This need to understand in detail the
hydrocarbon fluid extends from the base of the well bore through to topsides process facilities and beyond.
Factors of significance can include:
Wet Gas Multiphase systems (Corrosion, slugging and hydrates)
Heavy Crudes (Wax, asphaltenes and emulsions)
CO2 (Corrosion, impurities, dense phase)
HPHT (Thermal management, cooling and heating)
Ultra-Deep (High pressures, Joule-Thompson cooling and flow velocities
Todays requirements to understand hydrocarbon fluids through their journey from the well to the topsides
processing facility needs much more complex calculation tools than programmable calculators. Detailed modeling
tools have been developed by SPT, Schlumberger and others for steady state, multiphase, thermal-hydraulic
simulation of both single-line and network models. Two such steady state programs are:
PIPESIM
and PIPESIM-NET
(with MULTIFLASH
and WELLFLO
(with ATI
or VMG
PVT) Steady State
OLGA
transient multiphase simulator is generally used for dynamic simulations to assess system operability in
terms of hydraulic flow stability (regular, terrain-induced and severe slugging), liquid management (pigging slugs,
liquid and gas surge loads into separator or slug catcher), hydrate and wax management during field start-up,
shutdown, depressurization and restart).
OLGA
(with PVTSIM
C
)
Resevoir Pressure (Barg)
HTHP Fields
Shallow Water Depth > 100m Lower Intermediate Water Depth 101m to 500m
Upper Intermediate Water Depth 501m to 1000m Deep Water Depth >1001m
Wet Gas Flow Meters Downhole Gauges
Hydraulic Control System
Down-hole Valves
Umbilicals
HIPPS
Flexible Pipe
Downhole Gauges
Control Fluid
Down-hole Valves
Umbilicals
Flexible Pipe
Pressure Sensors
Temperature Sensors
Combined P & T Sensors
Control Fluid
Hydraulic Control System
Downhole Valves
Umbilicals
Trees
Flexible Pipe
32
122
212
302
392
482
572
662
752
0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(
F
)
Pressure (psi)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(
C
)
Pressure (barg)
Subsea Components Availability/Development
Current Components
1 to 3 yrs Development
3 to 5 yrs Development
17
For fields where the operating pressure or temperature limits are marginally above current limits of subsea
equipment, the existing designs had to be qualified to handle the higher operating limits on pressure and
temperature. As the pressure and temperature range for these reservoir types gets even higher, there will
be a point when new designs for the subsea equipment will have to be sought.
Provide a high integrity pressure protection system (HIPPS) for the subsea system to isolate the
downstream system from being packed by the upstream system in the event of an unplanned shutdown
that could occur as a result of hydrate blockage, process trip at the host facility or inadvertent valve closure
either subsea or at topsides
Installing a cooling spool between the wellhead and the pipeline to handle HPHT fields where the wellhead
flowing temperature exceeds the design temperature limits for the pipeline and a P-I-P system will no longer
be suitable. As the contents in this spool will rapidly cool down to ambient temperature following a
shutdown, to avoid the risk of forming hydrates, these spools are usually designed to be inclined so as to
promote self-draining of liquids towards the insulated section of the pipeline if flow is stopped.
For some HPHT fields with shut-in pressures between 690 and 862 bar (10,000 to 12,500 psi), it may be
possible to justify avoiding the need for subsea HIPPS where the initial high shut-in pressures are short-lived
i.e. rapidly declining reservoir pressure. It may be possible to have the flowlines re-qualified for a higher design
pressure and the 10,000 psi rated subsea trees, subsea valves and flowline connectors re-rated to the higher
pressure using the existing body design with only minor hardware component changes and also modifying the
control system software to achieve the required improvement in response times to production upset scenarios.
Table 1 gives examples of some flow assurance solutions to HPHT field developments.
Table 1 Examples of Flow Assurance Solutions with HIPPS used in HP/HT Field Developments
For HPHT fields where the operating pressure and temperature range is manageable using standard equipment,
the high wellhead operating temperature offers the opportunity to develop fields much further away from the host
facility by using better insulated pipe-in-pipe (P-I-P) designs. The lowest U-value achieveable using P-I-P system is
ca. 0.7 W/m2/K.
With HPHT fields, it is not untypical to experience reverse JouleThompson (J-T) or expansion heating
phenomena during early field life (Ref. 10) when reservoir pressures are still high, resulting in tophole flowing
temperatures above reservoir temperature during this period (Figure 22). It is not until the reservoir pressure has
declined sufficiently or until the wellhead flowing pressure drops below a threshold value (inversion pressure) that
normal J-T expansion cooling will then prevail. Hence the temperature management strategy for these fields needs
to take into account these high temperatures during this early production period.
If the riser design temperature only has been exceeded, then a conventional insulated pipeline system is used but
with its insulation specification lowered accordingly to ensure that the arrival temperature at the base of the riser is
acceptable. However, with reduced insulation in the pipeline, the available cooldown time for the subsea system
following a shutdown is likely to be unacceptable for hydrates management. A back-up strategy e.g. electrical
heating of the pipeline is used to manage the hydrates risk during shutdown.
HP/HT Fields Operator Location
Production
Fluid
WHSIP
(bara/psia)
WHFT
(C/F)
Water Depth
(m)
Flow Assurance Solutions used for Pressure &
Temperature Management
Gulfaks StatoilHydro NCS Gas 689 / 9990 149 / 300 136
Subsea template wells tied back to platform;
Manifold HIPPS ; Pipeline bundle with active
heating using hot water circulation for
temperature/hydrate management
Kristin StatoilHydro NCS Gas 740/ 10730 162 / 324 315 - 375
Template wells with manifold HIPPS for
pressure management; Low insulation spec
flowline to keep temperatures within riser
design limit; DEH used for hydrate
management during shutdown and start-up
Jade Conoco Phillips UKCS Gas Condensate 759 / 11000 160 / 320 100
Unmanned wellhead platform with production
transfer via multiphase pipeline to Judy
platform; Dry Trees with Tree HIPPS; Methanol
injection for hydrate management;
Wax/Scale/Corrosion inhibitor injection
Kingfisher Shell UKCS Oil/Gas 689 / 9990 120 / 248 106
Subsea Tieback via twin Super-Duplex
pipelines to Brae Platform; Subsea HIPPS;
Temperature/hydrate management (no details
available)
Rhum BP UKCS Gas Condensate 709 / 10280 120 / 248 109
Satellite wells to subsea manifold and pipeline
to Platform; Manifold HIPPS; Trenched and
buried infield P-I-P flowlines and P-I-P pipeline
design for temperature/hydrate management
18
Figure 22 Joule-Thompson Expansion Heating / Cooling
:
Conclusions
Todays ever more extreme hydrocarbon developments have lead the industry in general and flow assurance
practitioners in particular to develop advanced methodologies for modeling and understanding the flow assurance
characteristics for transportation systems from the well bore all the way to process facilities, be they offshore or for
long distance tie-backs, to the beach. This detailed understanding of the way the product changes and reacts to its
conditions as it passes through the system has allowed an integrated, overall systems design approach to be
adopted. This flow assurance integration into systems design vastly improves and in some cases enables
hydrocarbon developments.
The software tools available today are able to model steady state single and multiphase conditions in both single
line and network systems. Transient analysis software tools are available to simulate dynamic conditions and
assess system operability in terms of hydraulic flow stability (regular, terrain-induced and severe slugging), liquid
management (pigging slugs, liquid and gas surge loads into separator or slug catcher), hydrate and wax
management during field start-up, shutdown, depressurisation and restart).
The ability to understand the driving flow assurance parameters associated with extreme hydrocarbon
developments has allowed:
design of advanced thermal insulation to avoid or manage hydrate/wax blockage/buildup
definition of the design limits for subsea equipment to enable the development of HPHT fields
definition of the transient design parameters to assess and mitigate pipeline walking and buckling
definition of requirements to successfully develop heavy oil systems
build appropriate remediation measures into systems
planning for the memoval of hydrates from wet gas field developments
understanding the requirements for and optimized sizing of slug catchers
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank colleagues at Peritus International for providing information updates on current limits for
the various technologies discussed in this paper.
Abbreviations
AA Anti-Agglomerate
DEH Direct Electic Heating
FWHP Flowing Wellhead Pressure
GPRT Gurarat Pipeline Receiving Terminal
HIPPS High Integrity Pressure Protection Systems
HPHT High Pressure High Temperature
J-T Joule Thompson
KHI Kinetic Hydrate Inhibitor
LDHI Low Dosage Hydrate Inhibitor
MEG Mono Ethylene Glycol
D
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
Downstream Pressure
19
MEIDP Middle East to India Deepwater Pipeline
MECS Middle East Compression Station
NCS Norwegian Continental Shelf
OGCS Offshore Gas Compression Station
OLGA