OTC 18381

Flow-Assurance Field Solutions (Keynote)

N.D. McMullen, BP America Inc.

Copyright 2006, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2006 Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 14 May 2006.
This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program 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 Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
OTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society Committees of the Offshore
Technology Conference. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this
paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Offshore 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, OTC, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
This paper is the keynote address for the OTC Special
Sessions on flow assurance.
Major hydrocarbon resources are now being developed in
greater water depths. There are still compelling arguments for
wet tree development. Subsea technology continues to be
challenged to perform beyond that which has been proven.
Though greater confidence in some areas of flow assurance
technology is needed, there is a greater need to understand
where future development costs may be reduced. To achieve
this it is necessary to assess risks more precisely so that
investment costs may be minimized. To meet this objective
requires willingness to take on pilot studies, and effective
knowledge sharing among operators.
The intent of this paper is to provide the continuing1 context
for the remaining papers of this days sessions. It is a general
statement of the authors position on flow assurance
technology and is intended to help stimulate debate.
Introduction
Flow Assurance addresses the petroleum extraction process
from the reservoir sandface to surface process facilities and
beyond.
Issues in this focus area include key aspects of fluid
mechanics, heat transfer, oil field chemistry, and process
instrumentation and control. It is important that we can
predict fluid pressure and temperature as a function of
reservoir behavior over field life, the performance of energy
boosting methods and means of reducing pressure and
temperature losses. We need to manage corrosion, erosion,
wax deposition, scale deposition, and hydrate formation. The
effect of unsteady flow on the stability of process controls and
equipment continues to limit the operating range of subsea
systems.

These flow assurance issues require the application of multiple

disciplines, in particular a combination of production
chemistry, multiphase hydrodynamics, thermodynamics and
materials science. Add to that the need to have a strong
understanding of operational constraints, and it becomes clear
why expertise in flow assurance remains highly valued by the
industry.
Are We There Yet?
Expansion to harsher environments has stimulated research
and field validation. Multiphase flow technology had to
develop rapidly to support system design in arctic, hilly
terrain, and deepwater environments. Systems became more
complex including S-shaped risers, free-standing risers, coiltubing gas lift, and split-purpose subsea operations. Over the
years, field trials have been conducted, and field data collected
to validate predictive codes. The intent of all this was to build
our confidence in capability to address multiphase flow issues
in ultra deepwater developments. We have done so well in this
technology in recent years that one could possibly assert that
little more development is required.
In parallel, on the production chemistry front, hydrate
research continues to forage into kinetic modeling, the
potential for cold flow systems, and implementation of
antiagglomerant technology in the field. Good headway has
been made in kinetic inhibitor development, but subcooling
requirements demanded by deepwater development still
cannot be met. Anti-agglomerate development is now being
implemented selectively in black oil systems, and is often
included in emerging hydrate management strategies.
Wax management continues to be treated in an empirical
fashion. Some headway has been made with improvements in
modeling that more effectively represents field systems. Much
of this results from a combination of laboratory experiment
and field trials. There is still much to be learned about wax
deposition and we may be faced with additional concerns
should future subsea systems be built with less thermal
protection in the face of potential future cold flow systems.
We are still waiting for the promised delivery of subsea
processing as a solution to our flow assurance challenges.
These systems were to be developed and proven to
complement the flow assurance engineers toolkit. Still the
most challenging is water-oil separation in the well or at the
deepwater wellhead, as a design alternative to reduce hydrate
inhibitor usage and manage flowline and riser hydraulics.

Gas/liquid separation and multiphase boosting still have the

potential for addressing recovery and riser stability issues.
Also, the major issue of sand separation and disposal at the
wellhead remains unconquered. Each of these challenges
involves a combination of process, instrumentation, control,
and electrical technologies. Ultimately we believe successful
development of seabed processing capability will unlock
currently uneconomic reserves and maximize the value of
existing infrastructure.
In the short term, we continue to face major challenges, for
example: wax deposition modeling, reservoir souring, scale
management, design of systems to tolerate sand production,
and understanding the interaction between multiphase flow
and corrosion.
Regardless, many deepwater production systems are in
operation around the world and yielding invaluable operating
data. The central challenge in deepwater flow assurance is
how we, as an industry, can more effectively use that data
collectively to keep pushing the design envelope. Building
confidence is key to being able to address risk associated with
reduced-cost systems.
Importance in Deepwater
Flow assurance plays a critical role both from a technical
and an economic perspective. Our design problems have
become greater and the cost of solving them went up.
Lower seabed temperatures typically in the 1-4C range
at 1500 3000m depth - made the wax and hydrate problem
worse. Large elevation differences across deepwater marine
risers not only make evacuation of liquids for hydrate
management difficult, but also intensify slugging to the point
where riser operating ranges have become significantly
narrowed. Low energy reservoirs in deepwater require
pressure assist sooner, yet the technology for seabed
processing and/or pumping is still waiting to be implemented.
High costs and environmental concerns can frustrate our
ability to obtain uncontaminated fluid samples. Concerns
about the effect of chemical additives on downstream
processing are a significant and real concern.
At the same time, insulation costs rise in deepwater, and
any form of intervention in the event of a mechanical failure
becomes almost prohibitively expensive. Little headway has
been made in intervention cost-reduction.

OTC 18381

Still Pushing the Envelope

The economic viability of a deepwater subsea tieback is
driven by the cost of drilling and pipelines. Pipelines can be at
least 25% or more of tieback costs. Adoption of a traditional
approach to flow assurance leads to sub economic
development schemes, because pipeline costs are too high.
We are starting to see alternatives to standard tieback
design emerge in Angola and the Gulf of Mexico. To make
targets economic, single flowline options are being explored
sometimes supplemented with parallel service lines.
Additional risk is taken on with these designs and must be
mitigated. When prospects start off as sub economic in view
of rising oil price, radical rethinking on flow assurance
questions can transform field architecture and hence
economics.
More importantly perhaps is the operating experience that
seems to point out that we may have built too much
conservatism into our systems, and therefore built sub-optimal
developments. For example, there are several Gulf of Mexico
oil developments that were built to prevent hydrate plugging
that in fact have never plugged in any upset condition
encountered. And on the other hand gas flowline2 and dry tree
examples of hydrate plugging abound.
The papers to be presented today will explore where weve
gotten to, what weve had to deal with, and hopefully will
stimulate us all to pursue the potential for optimal system
development in the future.
Taking on the Risk
Our future deepwater multiphase systems will need to
work with predictable, but significantly higher levels of risk
than we see today. This means working within the hydrate
formation region, or below the wax appearance temperature,
or inside the asphaltene deposition region, or near to or within
severe slugging conditions.
The challenge is therefore not only about confidence
building, but how the technical community can keep pushing
the envelope in a prudent fashion with an eye toward rapid and
cheap intervention. If we can find low-cost ways to quickly
remove plugs in systems, we are likely to consider designs that
have a higher inherent risk of plugging. Sources of risk relate
to:

Flow assurance still has a profound effect on field

development architecture. Alongside drilling costs and
reservoir complexity, it is one of the key considerations in
making the decision on whether we develop with wet or dry
trees. Development costs per barrel are generally lower for
subsea developments compared to stand alone hubs, so it is
clearly important to maximize tiebacks once hub and
pipeline/tanker export infrastructure is in place. And we
certainly have many more hubs available than we did five
years ago.

Understanding fluid properties and obtaining quality

fluid samples
Complexity of modeling fluid mechanics and heat
transfer.
Understanding and predicting plugging.
Insufficient field data.

Fluid Properties
It is absolutely essential to retrieve quality fluid samples.
Elimination of drill stem testing reduces release of
hydrocarbons to the environment and risks to drilling
operations, but in turn adds to the challenge of obtaining

OTC 18381

useable samples. Most MDT samples are contaminated with

drilling fluids that interfere with accurate assessment of wax
deposition and hydrate inhibitor qualification. Improvement
in sampling techniques, better downhole equipment, or
improved laboratory procedures are needed to reduce risk
associated with contaminants. An alternative here is to have an
accurate assessment of the effects of contaminants on our
systems of measurement.
Modeling Complexity
Complexity of design in deepwater requires mathematical
models that do not exist or require specialized model
construction.
Complex heated bundles and specialized
bundles require computational tools that may not be the best
representation of physical systems leading to potential
problems in installed systems. Flow Assurance considerations
tend to drive design to complexity. Greater risk tolerance may
lead to simpler, cleaner designs that are more predictable and
less costly. For example a computational fluid dynamics
model of tree heat transfer becomes unnecessary if we
eliminate the need for insulation.
Understanding and Predicting Plugging
The underlying principle of all subsea designs is driven by
the mandate to not plug the system. Since prediction is a
challenge, the logical approach is avoidance through design.
Improved understanding of mechanisms leading to plugging
may unlock new possibilities in cleaner simpler design that
would appear to be taking on greater risk when compared to
todays approach. Where plugging is a certainty, rapidly
deployed cheap intervention would be a valid alternative to
complex and expensive design alternatives.
Field Data
In the past there has been a concerted effort to collect
multiphase flow, wax deposition, and hydrate inhibitor
performance data from field operations. We all recognize that
future deepwater development success depends on our
willingness to risk current production to obtain key
performance data and operating experience for future
production gain.
In the past, data has been difficult to collect. In view of
new e-field initiatives3 within the industry and a willingness
to instrument production systems far beyond that which has
been done in the past opens many new opportunities for
understanding and comparing actual operations to our models.
Given the added real-time process data now available, we
need to expand our horizons and look to new, innovative ways
to exploit this valuable information.
Conclusions
So is this the beginning of the end when it comes to deepwater
developments? Are we there yet? Many new systems are in
place now around the world and operating successfully.
Within the next year some of the largest if not the largest in
the world will go online. We now know that many were
conservatively designed, and were we to recreate them today,
costs could potentially be reduced. We also now have access

to real-time data for conducting validation work. This is an

enormously powerful tool, and if we work collaboratively with
other operators, there is a huge opportunity for moving
technology ahead rapidly. At the same time future challenges
are not escalating as rapidly as in the past, at least in the
environmental theater. It is unlikely that temperatures will go
lower, although high pressure and high temperature challenges
will be there for us in the future. We may likely find
ourselves facing challenges associated with less attractive
reservoirs and enhanced recovery process issues. Time will
tell.
References
1.

2.

3.

Walker, D. B. L., McMullen, N. D., The Challenges of

Deepwater Flow Assurance: A BP Perspective, paper
OTC 13075 presented at OTC 2001, Houston, April 30 May 3, 2001.
A.F. Harun, T.E. Krawietz, Hydrate Remediation in a
Dry-Tree Well in the Gulf of Mexico: A Lesson Learned,
paper OTC 17814 presented at OTC 2006, Houston, May 1,
2006.
R. Gudimetla, A. Carroll, Gulf of Mexico Field of the
Future: Subsea Flow Assurance, paper OTC 18388
presented at OTC 2006, Houston, May 1, 2006.