Offshore Flow Assurance

Disclaimer
This Report, including the data and information contained in this Report, is provided to you on an
“as is” and “as available” basis at the sole discretion of the Government of Alberta and subject to the
terms and conditions of use below (the “Terms and Conditions”). The Government of Alberta has
not verified this Report for accuracy and does not warrant the accuracy of, or make any other
warranties or representations regarding, this Report. Furthermore, updates to this Report may not
be made available. Your use of any of this Report is at your sole and absolute risk.
This Report is provided to the Government of Alberta, and the Government of Alberta has obtained
a license or other authorization for use of the Reports, from:
Shell Canada Energy, Chevron Canada Limited. and Marathon Oil Canada Corporation, for
the Quest Project
(collectively the “Project”)
Each member of the Project expressly disclaims any representation or warranty, express or
implied, as to the accuracy or completeness of the material and information contained herein, and
none of them shall have any liability, regardless of any negligence or fault, for any statements
contained in, or for any omissions from, this Report. Under no circumstances shall the Government
of Alberta or the Project be liable for any damages, claims, causes of action, losses, legal fees or
expenses, or any other cost whatsoever arising out of the use of this Report or any part thereof or
the use of any other data or information on this website.
Terms and Conditions of Use

Except as indicated in these Terms and Conditions, this Report and any part thereof shall not be
copied, reproduced, distributed, republished, downloaded, displayed, posted or transmitted in any
form or by any means, without the prior written consent of the Government of Alberta and the
Project.
The Government of Alberta’s intent in posting this Report is to make them available to the public
for personal and non-commercial (educational) use. You may not use this Report for any other
purpose. You may reproduce data and information in this Report subject to the following
conditions:
• any disclaimers that appear in this Report shall be retained in their original form and
applied to the data and information reproduced from this Report
• the data and information shall not be modified from its original form
• the Project shall be identified as the original source of the data and information, while this
website shall be identified as the reference source, and
• the reproduction shall not be represented as an official version of the materials reproduced,
nor as having been made in affiliation with or with the endorsement of the Government of
Alberta or the Project
By accessing and using this Report, you agree to indemnify and hold the Government of Alberta and
the Project, and their respective employees and agents, harmless from and against any and all
claims, demands, actions and costs (including legal costs on a solicitor-client basis) arising out of
any breach by you of these Terms and Conditions or otherwise arising out of your use or
reproduction of the data and information in this Report.
Your access to and use of this Report is subject exclusively to these Terms and Conditions and any
terms and conditions contained within the Report itself, all of which you shall comply with. You will
not use this Report for any purpose that is unlawful or prohibited by these Terms and Conditions.
You agree that any other use of this Report means you agree to be bound by these Terms and
Conditions. These Terms and Conditions are subject to modification, and you agree to review them
periodically for changes. If you do not accept these Terms and Conditions you agree to immediately
stop accessing this Report and destroy all copies in your possession or control.
These Terms and Conditions may change at any time, and your continued use and reproduction of
this Report following any changes shall be deemed to be your acceptance of such change.
If any of these Terms and Conditions should be determined to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable
for any reason by any court of competent jurisdiction then the applicable provision shall be severed
and the remaining provisions of these Terms and Conditions shall survive and remain in full force
and effect and continue to be binding and enforceable.
These Terms and Conditions shall: (i) be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
the province of Alberta and you hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Alberta courts,
and (ii) ensure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the Government of Alberta and your
respective successors and assigns.
Heavy Oil
Controlled Document
Quest CCS Project
Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design and
Operability Report
Project Quest CCS Project
Document Title Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design and
Operability Report
Document Number 07-2-LA-5507-0003
Document Revision Rev 01
Document Status Approved
Document Type LA5507-Design Philosophy
Control ID 248
Owner / Author Leonid Dykhno
Issue Date 2011-08-17
Expiry Date None
ECCN EAR 99
Security Classification
Disclosure None
Revision History shown on next page

07-2-LA-5507-0003
Revision History
REVISION STATUS APPROVAL
Rev. Date Description Originator Reviewer Approver
01 2011-08-15 Issued for Review Leonid Dykhno
 All signed originals will be retained by the UA Document Control Center and an electronic copy will be stored in Livelink
Signatures for this revision

Signature or electronic reference
Date Role Name
(email)
Originator Leonid Dykhno
Reviewer
Approver
Summary
Keywords
Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design Rev 01

and Operability Report
Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................ 7
1.0 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................. 8
2.0 FLOW ASSURANCE STRATEGIES.............................................................................10
2.1 Solids Management ...................................................................................................10
2.1.1 Hydrates ................................................................................................................10
2.1.2 Wax .......................................................................................................................10
2.1.3 Pour point ..............................................................................................................10
2.1.4 Asphaltenes ...........................................................................................................10
2.1.5 Scale .....................................................................................................................10
2.1.6 Corrosion ...............................................................................................................10
2.1.7 Emulsions ..............................................................................................................11
2.1.8 Slugging ................................................................................................................11
2.1.9 Injected Solids .......................................................................................................11
2.1.10 Chilly Choke.......................................................................................................11
2.2 Operational Considerations .......................................................................................11
2.2.1 Start-Up .................................................................................................................11
2.2.2 Steady-state ..........................................................................................................12
2.2.3 Shut-In ...................................................................................................................12
2.2.4 Flowline Venting ....................................................................................................12
3.0 BASIC DATA ................................................................................................................13
3.1 PVT and Reservoir Data ............................................................................................13
3.2 Fluid Compositions ....................................................................................................14
3.3 Water Samples ..........................................................................................................15
3.4 Hydrates ....................................................................................................................15
3.4.1 Hydrate Inhibition Requirements ............................................................................16
3.5 Chilly Choke ..............................................................................................................18
3.6 Wax and Pour Point...................................................................................................20
3.7 Asphaltenes...............................................................................................................20
3.8 Scale .........................................................................................................................20
3.9 Well Details ...............................................................................................................20
3.10 Flowline Details .........................................................................................................21
Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
3.11 Production Function...................................................................................................23

4.0 STEADY STATE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................24
4.1 Low Flow Events .......................................................................................................24
4.1.1 Wellbore Flowing Conditions..................................................................................24
4.1.2 Hydrate Risk ..........................................................................................................27
4.1.3 Hydrate Mitigation ..................................................................................................29
4.1.4 Flow Assurance Risks in Pipeline ..........................................................................30
4.1.5 Conclusions ...........................................................................................................30
4.2 Normal Production – Temperatures for Above-Ground Piping Sections.....................31
4.2.1 Figures for Steady State Temperatures at all Line Break Valves ...........................32
4.2.2 Figures for well pad locations 1 and 5 ....................................................................38
4.3 Normal Production – Flowline and Well Operating Envelopes ...................................40
5.0 TRANSIENT ANALYSIS ...............................................................................................47
5.1 Fluid Hammer ............................................................................................................47
5.1.1 Fluid Hammer in the Wellbore................................................................................48
5.1.2 Fluid Hammer in Flowline ......................................................................................57
5.2 Flowline Venting ........................................................................................................61
5.2.1 Description of heat transfer in model......................................................................61
5.2.2 Simplified flowline model for screening ..................................................................64
5.2.3 Detailed flowline model for venting ........................................................................69
5.2.4 Venting of Flowline Sections between LBVs ..........................................................75
5.3 Wellbore Venting and Placement of Subsurface Safety Valve ...................................77
5.3.1 Blowout in a well with a low reservoir productivity ..................................................81
6.0 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................83
List of Figures
Figure 3.1 Geothermal temperature profile for wells (4) ............................................................14
Figure 3.2 Model prediction and comparison with experimental data (5) ...................................16
Figure 3.3 Predicted hydrate curve for composition during normal operation ............................16
Figure 3.4 Methanol requirement for hydrate inhibition – Impact of temperature .......................17
Figure 3.5 Methanol requirement for hydrate inhibition – Impact of water content .....................18
Figure 3.6 Hydrate formation in relation to JT cooling across well choke (MultiFlash) ...............19
Figure 3.7 Hydrate formation in relation to JT cooling across well choke (STFlash) ..................20
Figure 3.8 Detailed flowline topography with location of LBVs and well branches .....................22
Figure 4.1 Flowing bottomhole pressure as a function of CO2 injection rate ..............................25
Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 4.2 Wellhead pressure (downstream of choke) as a function of the CO 2 rate .................26
Figure 4.3 CO2 density as a function of temperature .................................................................26
Figure 4.4 Wellbore temperature at different CO2 injection rates with hydrate curve .................27
Figure 4.5 Hydrate risk at 4 lbs H2O/MMscf water content ........................................................28
Figure 4.6 Hydrate risk at 6 lbs H2O/MMscf water content ........................................................28
Figure 4.7 Temperature at LBV-1 during steady state operation ...............................................33
Figure 4.10 Temperature at LBV-4 during steady state operation .............................................35
Figure 4.14 Impact of heat transfer coefficient on the temperature at LBV-1 .............................38
Figure 4.15 Arrival temperature at Well 1 ..................................................................................39
Figure 4.16 Arrival temperature at Well 5 ..................................................................................40
Figure 4.17 Schematic for operating lines upstream and downstream of well choke .................41
Figure 4.18 Operating line for Well 1 with the normal composition ............................................42
Figure 4.19 Operating line for Well 1 with the upset composition ..............................................43
Figure 4.20 Operating line for Well 5 with the normal composition ............................................44
Figure 4.21 Operating line for Well 5 with the upset composition ..............................................44
Figure 5.2 Maximum surge pressure in well upon shut-in..........................................................50
Figure 5.3 Minimum surge pressure in well upon shut-in...........................................................51
Figure 5.4 Increase in pressure above steady state values (Base Case) ..................................52
Figure 5.5 Increase in pressure above steady state values (low PI case)..................................53
Figure 5.6 Increase in pressure above steady state values (Low Injection Rate).......................54
Figure 5.7 Increase in pressure above steady state values (High Temperature Case-Summer)55
Figure 5.7 Change in pressure above and below SC-SSSV during blowout scenario...............56
Figure 5.8 Pressure surges upon closing LBV-1 .......................................................................58
Figure 5.9 Pressure surges upon closing LBV-3 and LBV-4......................................................59
Figure 5.10 Pressure increase in well branch upon closing well choke .....................................60
Figure 5.11 Schematic of heat transfer assumptions used in Olga models................................62
Figure 5.12 Effective heat transfer coefficient for the different soil descriptions at steady state .63
Figure 5.13 Prediction of pipe wall temperature for different heat transfer assumptions ............64
Figure 5.14 Pipe wall temperature given different initial conditions............................................65
Figure 5.15 Temperatures during venting and relation to the CO2 phase boundary...................66
Figure 5.16 Impact of leak size on transient pipe wall temperature ...........................................67
Figure 5.17 Impact of leak size on minimum pipe wall temperature...........................................68
Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.18 Impact of flowline length on pipe wall temperature .................................................69

Figure 5.19 Comparison between simplified and detailed model for a 4” vent ...........................70
Figure 5.20 Comparison between a 4” and 6” vent for the detailed model.................................71
Figure 5.21 Flowline temperature profiles during venting process (Scotford to Well 1) ..............71
Figure 5.22 Vent rate for a 4” vent.............................................................................................72
Figure 5.23 Vent rate for a 6” vent.............................................................................................72
Figure 5.24 Impact of soil properties and ambient temperature on pipe wall temperature .........73
Figure 5.25 Vent rate for 4” and 6” ............................................................................................74
Figure 5.26 Temperature/Pressure conditions during venting and relation to phase envelope ..75
Figure 5.27 Minimum temperatures during venting of section between LBV3 and LBV4 ...........76
Figure 5.28 Holdup at minimum temperature during venting between LBV3 and LBV4 .............77
Figure 5.29 Liquid level in well during blowdown (initial time) ....................................................79
Figure 5.30 Liquid level in well during blowdown (steady state) ................................................79
Figure 5.31 Temperature isotherms in well during blowdown (steady state)..............................80
Figure 5.32 Temperature isotherms in well during blowdown (initial time) .................................80
Figure 5.33 Safety valve setting based on single phase and hydrate criteria.............................81
Figure 5.34 Impact of reservoir injectivity on safety valve setting ..............................................82
List of Tables
Table 3.1 Summary of reservoir characteristics (3) ...................................................................13
Table 3.2 Fluid composition of injection fluid (3)........................................................................14
Table 3.3 Flowline and Branch details (3) .................................................................................21
Table 3.4 Summary of pipeline operating conditions (3) ............................................................22
Table 4.1 Summary of CO2 rates to avoid hydrate region..........................................................31
Table 4.2 Summary of winter operation operating envelope ......................................................45
Table 4.3 Summary of summer operation operating envelope ..................................................46
Table 4.4 Summary of number of injection wells required .........................................................46
Table 5.1 Summary of fluid hammer cases for the wellbore injection scenario ..........................48
Table 5.2 Material physical properties used in Olga modeling ...................................................62
Table 5.3 Summary of valve closing time base on single phase criteria in well .........................81

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
SUMMARY
This work outlines the flow assurance recommendations for the Quest project. The main flow
assurance issues expected are due to hydrates and cold temperatures. In both cases, these
issues can be mitigated by chemicals and/or operating procedures. Although it should be noted
that a conservative hydrate strategy was adopted and there is reasonable confidence that
hydrates formation is a very low risk in this system.
Based on the work performed in this study, several areas deserve additional study. These areas
mainly focus on the ability to adequately model the system with the tools currently available.
The thermodynamics used in steady-state calculations and for the hydrates curve are
reasonably robust, but the transient simulations have fundamental limitations. The OLGA
dynamic simulator cannot treat impurities or the solid state properly. The impurities will move
the phase envelop to higher pressures, for example. Other transient conditions such as start-
up, ramp-up or ramp-down requires a thorough understanding due to the non-intuitive behavior
shown already in this study. Due to vaporization, condensation and a high coefficient of
expansion of the dense phase, the time temperature and pressure history can be misinterpreted
which could lead to unwarranted actions.
However, that being said, the recommendations for additional hydrate data are highlighted for
technical completeness. These data will not have a material impact on the overall feasibility of
this system as a conservative mitigation strategy was recommended.
As part of this work, several recommendations were made.

 A flowline vent size of 4” or less is recommended
o Larger vent sizes result in the fluid temperature in the flowline to decrease below
the material integrity limits of the pipe.
 A surface controlled subsurface safety valve (SC-SSSV) setting of 1,000 m is
recommended
o Depth based on two criteria
 Maintaining a single liquid phase across the valve
 Preventing pressure surges from exceeding the maximum bottomhole
pressure
o Depth can be shallower, if valve can be assured of closing quickly
 Validate hydrate equilibrium data in single phase Liquid CO2 region at low water content
o Current hydrate strategy is based on most conservative predictions
o Potential to use a less conservative hydrate mitigation strategy
 Define detailed operating procedures based on final design
o Needed for flowline venting
o Needed for initial line fill
o Needed for initial displacement of wells

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
1.0 BACKGROUND
The Quest Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) project transports CO2 from the Scotford
upgrader in Alberta, Canada to an underground aquifer. This work is aimed at highlighting
potential flow assurance risks associated with this project.
The design capacity of the system is to be able to capture 1.2 Mtpa of CO2. To achieve this, a
12” flowline is routed from Scotford to a series of injection wells. The furthest injection well is
located about 84 km from the Scotford upgrader.
Flow assurance for Quest prospect during Conceptual, Selection and Define design phases has
considered the following 5 main aspects:
 Design of the Surface System (e.g. Pipeline, Valves, Wellbore)

o Thermal-hydraulic performance of the system
o CO2 Pipeline sizing and compressor requirements
o Maximum system capacity
o Insulation Requirements
o Vent-valve design
o Design requirements for above ground section of pipelines
 Operability of the System

o Operability for normal operation
o Low flow events
o Emergency pipeline Leak/Blowdown
o Emergency wellbore blowout
o System start-up
o Vent-line operability
o Liquid hammer impact
o Low-water content operability
 Solids Deposition Risk: Hydrates

o Dehydration limits
o Mitigation options
 Multiphase Flow Aspects

o Two-phase flow in pipeline and wellbores
o Slugging potential
o Liquid hammer

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
• Modeling Aspects
o Simulators applicability
o Impurities Impact

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
2.0 FLOW ASSURANCE STRATEGIES

This section describes the flow assurance strategies used to mitigate each of the flow
assurance risks. In addition, the flow assurance strategies associated with the main operating
modes (start-up, steady state, and shut-in) were also addressed.
2.1 Solids Management
2.1.1 Hydrates
Hydrates will be managed primarily by dehydration of the injection fluids to sufficiently remove
water to inhibit the formation of hydrates. Hydrate formation downstream of the well choke is
not expected. However, if hydrates do form, they will be managed by chemical (methanol)
injection. In exposed sections of the pipeline (low ambient temperatures) hydrate formation will
not be mitigated, but provisions will be made to remediate any hydrates formation should it be
required.
2.1.2 Wax
The injection fluid does not contain any wax.
2.1.3 Pour point
The injection fluid does not have any associated pour point issues.
2.1.4 Asphaltenes
The injection fluid does not contain any asphaltene.
2.1.5 Scale
Scale formation will be mitigated by dehydration of the injection fluid.
2.1.6 Corrosion
Corrosion of the flowline will be managed by ensure that the injection fluids are sufficiently
dehydrated.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
2.1.7 Emulsions
Emulsions are not expected to be an issue.
2.1.8 Slugging
Slugging is not an issue with these fluids. The proposed operating conditions require that the
fluid be in the single phase region. A previous study (1) looked at potential operation in two-
phase flow and did not identify any slugging behavior.
2.1.9 Injected Solids
To prevent any reservoir impairment due to injected solids, a filter will be installed at each
wellhead (2).
2.1.10 Chilly Choke
There is a large pressure drop taken across the well choke which results in some Joule-
Thomson cooling. At typical operating conditions, the temperatures observed are well above
any material integrity limits. Hydrate/ice formation may be an issue, but will be mitigated, as
described above. Based on typical operating conditions, the lowest temperature expected
downstream of the well choke is about - -10°C, which is not sufficiently low to cause any issues.
There is considerable cooling anticipated during a blowdown of the flowline. The vent pipe will
be constructed of a material that can handle the low temperatures. Low temperatures in the
flowline will need to be managed by correctly implemented operating procedures, to be defined
during detailed design.
2.2 Operational Considerations
2.2.1 Start-Up
Initial startup of the flowline could be the most problematic. Based on a previous study (1), the
initial line fill shows non-intuitive behavior, in that the pressure does not systematically increase
with increasing amounts of CO2 injected to the flowline. The CO2 condenses as the pressure is
increased and the liquid phase is highly compressible. As a result, the initial startup needs to be
carefully modeled, to accurately incorporate the startup procedure, i.e. the compressor output
as a function of time.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
2.2.2 Steady-state
There should not be any flow assurance related issues during normal steady state production.
2.2.3 Shut-In
The injected fluid is sufficiently dehydrated so that there should be not issues upon shut-in. The
only area of concern may the exposed section of pipe at the line break valves and the well pads.
Upon shut-in, there is insufficient water to form any type of blockage and upon restart and
deposits that were formed would be easily removed as the flow warms those bare sections of
pipe.
Fluid hammer was evaluated during a shut-in. In all cases, the pressure surge in the system
was less than the maximum system design pressure of 147.9 bar. Injection of the full design
rate of 1.2 Mtpa into well 1 while the system is operating at the maximum design pressure
resulted in pressure surges that were close to the maximum design rating of the pipeline. At the
normal operating pressures of 120 bar, the pressure surges predicted were all much less than
the maximum design pressure in the pipeline.
2.2.4 Flowline Venting
The venting of the flowline will need to be completed properly to ensure that cold temperatures
are not observed in the flowline. Once a better definition of how the system pressure will be
reduced, further simulation work is recommended to determine the detailed operating
procedures.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
3.0 BASIC DATA
3.1 PVT and Reservoir Data
A summary of the reservoir data is shown in Table 3.1. There is a considerable range of
reservoir injectivity values considered, so most simulations include some sensitivity to this
value, with the worst case being either the low or high value depending on the particular
scenario. Figure 3.1 shows the original geothermal gradient used in the wellbore modeling.
Note the reservoir temperatures do not match between Figure 3.1 and Table 3.1. The DTS
trace is believed to have been taken prior to establishing thermal equilibrium, so the linear
approximation is probably more accurate. This does not have any impact on any of the flowline
modeling or wellbore injection scenarios. The only time this difference in reservoir temperature
will have an impact is on the modeling of the wellbore blowout.
Table 3.1 Summary of reservoir characteristics (3)

Reservoir Temperature [degC] 60
Reservoir Pressure [bar] 200
Max allowable bottomhole pressure [bar] 280
Reservoir Injectivity [Mm3/d/bar]
Low 8,665
Base 22,800
High 349,000

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 3.1 Geothermal temperature profile for wells (4)
3.2 Fluid Compositions
Fluid compositions are defined in Table 3.2 for both the normal and upset cases. In all OLGA
simulations, due to limitations in the model, a pure CO2 stream was used.
Table 3.2 Fluid composition of injection fluid (3)

Component Normal Operation Upset Condition
Mole% Mole%
CO2 99.2 95
CO .02 .15
N2 0 .01
H2 .68 4.27
Methane .09 .57
Water <52 ppm 52 ppm

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
3.3 Water Samples
Free water is not expected in any injection scenario. The design case is to dehydrate the CO2
to less than 6 lbs/MMscf during injection. The performance of the TEG unit used to dehydrate
the CO2 is a function of the ambient temperature. During normal winter operations, i.e. colder
ambient temperature, the water content should be about 4 lbs/MMscf, while at the warmer
summer temperatures, the water content is increased to about 6 lbs/MMscf. During both the
anticipated winter and summer operations, all water is dissolved in the CO2 phase.
3.4 Hydrates
It is possible to form hydrates from mixtures containing CO2 and water. Figure 3.3 shows the
predicted hydrate curve for the normal operating conditions. As previously reported (1), over
the range of compositions expected between the normal and upset conditions, the impact to the
hydrate equilibrium conditions is very small. The dehydration of the injected CO2 effectively
inhibits any hydrate formation during normal operating conditions in the pipeline. Based on the
initial recommendations, dehydration of the injected CO2 was sufficient to prevent hydrates at
normal shut-in conditions of 0°C and 140 bar. However, hydrate formation was still possible
during events, such as JT cooling across the well choke.
As part of this work, the validation of hydrate equilibrium in the presence of a small amount of
water was investigated more closely. Figure 3.2 shows a comparison of the STFlash (in-house
Shell software) and MultiFlash (commercial software) and how well they predict the water
content of liquid CO2 near the region of interest for the Quest project. Note that STFlash
matched the data quite well, while MultiFlash under-predicted the data by an order of
magnitude. The data and STFlash show that water is quite soluble in liquid CO2. This implies
that hydrate formation in the presence of liquid CO2 is inhibited because the water is highly
soluble in the liquid CO2.
Figure 3.3 shows an update hydrate equilibrium curve for both STFlash and MultiFlash. In the
presence of free water, both programs predict nearly the same hydrate equilibrium curve. As
the water content is decreased, the two programs begin to diverge in their predictions. The
figure shows that the increase water solubility predicted by STFlash is sufficient to prevent the
formation of hydrates. Conversely, MultiFlash predicts hydrates are stable even in the presence
of liquid CO2. Note that this difference only occurs at low water content with liquid CO 2. At all
other conditions, the two programs predict very similar results.
Based on the data, the STFlash predictions would appear to be more accurate. However, note
that there is very limited data available to benchmark the models. And the data themselves are
difficult to measure and prone to errors. Therefore, to be conservative, the MultiFlash
predictions are still being used in developing the hydrate mitigation strategies, but it is
recognized that this may be overly conservative.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 3.2 Model prediction and comparison with experimental data (5)
Figure 3.3 Predicted hydrate curve for composition during normal operation
3.4.1 Hydrate Inhibition Requirements
In several of the cases, it is possible to form hydrates, which means that a hydrate mitigation
strategy is needed. One option is to use a hydrate inhibitor to prevent the formation of hydrates.
In this section, the dosage requirements for the prevention of hydrates using methanol are
given. The results are given in Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5. The first figure shows the impact of
temperature at a constant pressure. As is typical, the lower the temperature, the higher the
Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
methanol requirement to fully prevent hydrate formation. The methanol dosage requirement
continues to decrease with increasing temperature until the temperature is sufficiently high that
hydrates are no longer stable. The second figure shows similar results, but here as the
pressure was decreased, the methanol requirement is shown to decrease as well.
In both figures, the methanol requirement is shown as a function of the water content. For all
conditions given, the higher the water content, the higher the methanol dosage requirement
required to prevent hydrates. Also in both cases, there was a sharp break in the curve
predicted, which was the result of the differing water content of the fluid.
As with the prediction of the hydrate curve, methanol solubility in the liquid CO2 phase is difficult
to predict. Based on limited data, the actual methanol values may be twice as high as given in
the figures. Despite these high methanol dosage rates, given that the water content is low
(<50 ppm), the total methanol volume requirements will also be low. However, it is
recommended to experimentally validate the hydrate curve and methanol requirements to allow
for a less conservative design in the future.
Figure 3.4 Methanol requirement for hydrate inhibition – Impact of temperature

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 3.5 Methanol requirement for hydrate inhibition – Impact of water content
3.5 Chilly Choke
The Joule-Thomson curves are presented in this section. Based on the expected well choke
pressure drop, the temperature decrease was not sufficient to present any materials issues.
However, hydrate formation could be an issue. The JT cooling curves are presented along with
the MultiFlash predicted hydrate phase boundary (Figure 3.6). Hydrate curves are given on
each figure to correspond to the section below which hydrates are stable. At 6 lbs/MMscf, the
hydrate formation conditions were more severe, i.e. at a given pressure the hydrates form at a
higher temperature. Fortunately, during summer operation, when the higher water content is
expected, the temperatures are also higher. The figure details how much pressure drop is
allowed at the wellhead before hydrate formation is possible. At the higher water content, a
pressure d/s of the choke of about 45 bar is required before hydrates are stable. During winter
operation, the temperatures are colder, which means that less pressure drop is allowed before
hydrates can form.
Figure 3.7 shows a similar plot, but instead using the STFlash generated hydrate curve. There
is a very marked difference in the region of hydrate stability. In these cases, the pressure
downstream of the choke needs to be reduced to about 25 bar before hydrates are stable.
Given that the STFlash predictions are probably more accurate than the Multiflash predicted
values, the injection wells can probably operate without continuous hydrate inhibition. However,
the formation of hydrates cannot be sufficiently discounted, so it is still recommended to have a
hydrate mitigation strategy in place.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 3.6 Hydrate formation in relation to JT cooling across well choke (MultiFlash)

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 3.7 Hydrate formation in relation to JT cooling across well choke (STFlash)
3.6 Wax and Pour Point

There are no wax are pour point issues with the injection fluid.
3.7 Asphaltenes
There are no asphaltene components in the injection fluid.
3.8 Scale
Scale is not expected to be an issue. The injection fluid is sufficiently dehydrated that no free
water exists in the system.
3.9 Well Details

Details of the well geometry are unknown at this time. In all cases, it was assumed that the well
was a 2000 m vertical pipe. The well ID was assumed to be 100.5 mm (3.957”). In the steady
state models, a constant heat transfer coefficient of 11.36 W/m2-K was used. In the transient
simulations, a soil layer was included in the model.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
3.10 Flowline Details

The system was modeled per the details in Table 3.3 and Figure 3.8. The well branches were
not defined in detail. In this work, it was assumed that the well branches consisted of a 5km
horizontal line at each of the well locations indicated on the flowline topography.
Each of the Line Break Valves (LBVs) was included in the model along with the associated
above ground section lengths as defined in Table 3.3. These sections were modeled using the
given ambient temperature conditions and assuming a heat transfer coefficient consistent with a
bare pipe. The well pads were modeled similarly as a section located at the end of each of the
5 km well branches.
Table 3.3 Flowline and Branch details (3)

Main Trunk Line Well Branches
Diameter-OD [mm] 323.9 168.3
Diameter-ID [mm] 299.7 146.3
Wall Thickness [mm] 12.1 11
Length [km] 80.4 5
Minimum Burial Depth [m] 1.5 1.5
Average above ground length 20 25
at LBV or well pads

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 3.8 Detailed flowline topography with location of LBVs and well branches
Table 3.4 Summary of pipeline operating conditions (3)

Winter Summer
Conditions Conditions
Pipeline Inlet Temperature [degC] 43 49
Operating Pressure [barg]
Normal Min 80 80
Normal Max 110 110
Maximum Design 140 140
Flow rate [Mtpa]
Minimum 0 0
Expected 1.2 1.2
Ambient Temperature [degC] -40 35

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Ground Temperature at flowline burial depth [degC] 0 11

Heat Transfer Coefficient [BTU/hr-ft2-F]
Minimum 0.35 0.35
Maximum 1.0 1.0
3.11 Production Function
A production function was not assumed in this work. The CO2 was assumed to be injected at a
rate of somewhere between the extremes defined in
Table 3.4. Where appropriate, a range of flow rates were used to capture the complete
operating envelope. The operating procedures have not been developed as to define injection
rates into individual wells.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
4.0 STEADY STATE ANALYSIS
Steady state analysis for all simulations was completed using Unisim Design R390 using the
shell flow correlations v5. A detailed topography was using in Unisim as per Figure 3.8.
4.1 Low Flow Events
This study addresses potential flow assurance issues due to low flow in the Quest pipeline and
subsequent injection into the well. This low flow scenario was envisaged when a substantial
amount of the CO2 is diverted away from the injection wells into a 3rd party pipeline. This work
aimed to determine the minimum flow rate required in the Quest system and the resulting flow
assurance issues. The flow assurance risks identified for a low flow scenario included potential
for significant JT cooling across the well choke, which could result in hydrate formation. This
was in part addressed in the chilly choke section, but is elaborated on here with specifics of the
injection case. There is also the potential to under or over pressure the line if a sufficient
inventory of CO2 is not maintained in the flowline.
4.1.1 Wellbore Flowing Conditions
In these simulations, the flowing wellhead pressure (downstream of the choke) was important to
determine. In order to determine this value, the flowing bottomhole pressure is also required.
The FBHP can be determined given the reservoir pressure and the reservoir injectivity values.
These results are shown in Figure 4.1. Also given that there is a maximum FBHP, this figure
can be used to determine the maximum possible injection rate into a well.
These FBHP were then used to determine what the flowing pressure at the wellhead was just
downstream of the well choke (Figure 4.2). An interesting feature to these curves was that
there is a decreasing requirement in well pressure at low rates and then an increase as the
rates increase. The decrease in pressure is attributed to the CO2 density (Figure 4.3) increase
with decreasing temperature. At low rates, the fluid temperature in the well was near the
geothermal gradient. As fluid rates increased, an increasing amount of cold fluid was flowed
into the well and an increasing amount of the well was filled with colder fluids.
Figure 4.4 shows the temperature profile in the well at several of the lower injections rates. At
the lowest rates, there was a step-wise appearance to the temperature, which was due to the
discretization of the wellbore in Unisim and the application of a constant ambient temperature to
a given section. This effect can be minimized by using a smaller segment size in the well. As
the rates increased, this effect disappears. So the figure is probably not extremely accurate at
the low rates, but the general trend of a decreasing temperature in the wellbore is accurate.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
The lower temperatures in the well, at the higher rates, result in an increase in the CO 2 density.
The increase in density results in a larger hydrostatic pressure drop along the well. Over the
2,000 m length of the well, this slight difference in fluid density results in a noticeable change in
the wellhead pressure. At higher rates, the FBHP increases sufficiently and frictional pressure
drop begins to become important at which time the wellhead pressure begins to increase. This
meant that the decrease in wellhead pressure at low rates was a real phenomena and results in
a stable flow regime.
Figure 4.1 Flowing bottomhole pressure as a function of CO2 injection rate

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 4.2 Wellhead pressure (downstream of choke) as a function of the CO2 rate
Figure 4.3 CO2 density as a function of temperature

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 4.4 Wellbore temperature at different CO2 injection rates with hydrate curve
4.1.2 Hydrate Risk
Based on the Shell in-house software, the risk of hydrate formation is very low. However, due
to uncertainties in current hydrate equilibrium predictions, the hydrate strategy is based on the
more conservative predictions given using Multiflash.
Over a fairly wide range of rates, it is possible to form hydrates in the wellbore. Figure 4.5
shows the pressure at which hydrates begin to form along with the well injection curve. When
the injection curve is above the hydrate stability boundary, no hydrates are formed. Thus, the
injection rate needs to be high enough to raise the pressure downstream of the choke above
this boundary. Due to injection curve first decreasing and then increasing as explained
previously, the injection curve can cross the hydrate stability curve twice meaning that very low
or high injection rates are feasible without hydrate formation. Finally, too high of injectivity will
mean additional hydrate mitigation will be required to have a robust operating envelope.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 4.5 Hydrate risk at 4 lbs H2O/MMscf water content
Figure 4.6 Hydrate risk at 6 lbs H2O/MMscf water content
Figure 4.6 shows a similar result, but for CO2 injection with a water content of 6 lbs/MMscf. In
this case, the pressures at the wellhead are all relatively lower before hydrates can form.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Roughly, the 11°C results at 6 lbs H2O/MMscf at all wellhead pressures were similar to the 0°C
results at 4 lbs H2O/MMscf for the 8 MPa pressure. Note that the 0°C case with
6 lbs H2O/MMscf is not shown because the entire system, including the flowline, operated in the
hydrate region was not considered a feasible scenario.
4.1.3 Hydrate Mitigation

Based on the assumption of the conservative hydrate predictions, some form of hydrate
mitigation is required. Mitigation methods for hydrate prevention include increasing the
temperature, reducing the pressure, adding inhibitors, or reducing the water content of the CO2
further.
In reducing the pressure, the intent is to reduce the pressure drop across the well choke. For a
given PI and injection rate, the wellhead pressure downstream of the choke is fixed. To reduce
the pressure drop, one option is to lower the flowline pressure. Alternatively, the well choke
could be moved downhole, which would minimize the pressure drop across the choke. Another
method is to decrease the reservoir PI, which increases the wellhead pressure downstream of
the choke. Unless there is a requirement that one well be able to take the full flow rate of CO 2,
there is not a compelling reason to have a low reservoir PI. However, short of purposely
damaging the formation there is minimal control over this value. To minimize the hydrate risk,
the flowline should be operated at as low of a pressure as practical. However, this alone does
not eliminate the hydrate risk.
The addition of heat to the system is probably impractical, given that the hydrate risk occurs in
the wellbore over a relatively large length of the tubing. The predicted amount of methanol
required to inhibit hydrates is about 1-2 times the water content (on a mass basis). There is a lot
of uncertainty in this calculation, so this value could be off by +/- 100%. This means that the
injection rates are likely to be large for any significant flow rates into the well. Furthermore,
decreasing the water content of the CO2, while eliminating the hydrate risk, is probably difficult
to implement. However, if any hydrate risk in the system is deemed unacceptable, this option
should be explored further.
The best option for hydrate mitigation may be to do nothing. Given the small amount of water in
the CO2, the buildup of hydrates is slow. Based on the thermal modeling, only a small portion of
the wellbore exists in the hydrate region, so any hydrate that is formed is more likely to be
carried along with the cold fluids than it is to stick to the relatively warmer pipe wall. At these
conditions it is only possible to convert 20%-50% of the total water to hydrate. And given that at
shut-in conditions, the entire well is outside the hydrate region, a better hydrate strategy may be
to periodically switch the injection wells and allow any hydrates in the well to melt naturally. In
this strategy, some heat tracing of the exposed section of the wellbore downstream of the choke
is required to ensure that all of hydrates do indeed melt.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
However, in allowing hydrates to form, there is the possibility of creating free water in the
system as the hydrates melt. This free water could present a corrosion risk in the wellbore.
4.1.4 Flow Assurance Risks in Pipeline

Based on this analysis there is minimal flow assurance risk in the pipeline. The biggest concern
is likely to be keeping the pipeline in the single phase region.
There is a potential for pressure fluctuations in the pipeline due to the temperature variations
expected with the changing seasons. If there is no flow into the pipeline, the mass of CO 2 in the
pipeline and the pipeline volume are fixed. Since the density is simply the mass divided by the
volume, both of which are constant, this means that the pressure must change to keep the fluid
density in the pipeline constant. As the temperature is increased (winter to summer) the CO2
density tries to decrease (Figure 4.3), which means that system pressure must increase to keep
the fluid density constant. In changing the temperature from 0°C to 11°C, it is possible to
increase the flowline from 10 MPa to about 16 MPa due to this effect. Conversely, it is possible
to decrease the flowline pressure by about 6 MPa in decreasing the temperature in going from
summer to winter. This decrease in pressure is sufficient to move the flowline into the two-
phase region.
To mitigate this problem, there needs to be some flow into or out of the system, depending on
the change in temperature. In going from summer to winter, CO2 needs to be added to the
pipeline while in going from winter to summer CO2 needs to be removed (injected into the wells).
The mass of CO2 needed to maintain a constant pressure represents about 10% of the pipeline
volume (percent change in CO2 density over this temperature range). Assuming a 6 month time
frame to add this CO2 to the pipeline, this corresponds to an injection rate of about 0.01 Mtpa.
The rate could be higher if the duration for injection is shorter. The rate can also be managed
by the high and low pressure automated alarms and controls (venting at compressor and
closing of the well choke respectively).
4.1.5 Conclusions
Based on this assessment, there is some risk associated with a low flow scenario due to
hydrate formation downstream of the well choke. Based on this hydrate risk, the minimum flow
rates in the flowline/wells can be determined. The single phase criterion in the flowline is used
to determine the minimum flow rate required.
Table 4.1 summarizes the results of this analysis. Because of the nature of the flow curves,
there is a region at very low flow rates that is outside the hydrate region and an area at high
rates that is outside the hydrate region. It is only at intermediate rates between these values
where hydrate formation is possible. This region of hydrate risk depends strongly on the
flowline conditions (temperature, pressure, and water content) and the reservoir injectivity.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Considering the conservative hydrate criteria, the minimum flow in the well should not exceed
about 0.02 Mtpa in the low flow regime. Similarly, in order to ensure that enough CO 2 is
available to maintain pressure in the line, about 0.01 Mtpa is required. So at the low end of the
flow curve, maintaining flowline pressure in the single phase region (due to changing ambient
temperature) indicates that some availability of CO2 is required at a rate of about 0.01 Mtpa.
If this regime is not practical, then much higher rates are required to completely avoid any
hydrate risk. The recommendation in this case is to maintain the flowline at as low of a pressure
as is practical. But even in the most optimistic of cases, the required flow rate is greater than
0.3 Mtpa and more likely about 0.54 Mtpa for the base case assumptions.
At flow rates in the range of 0.01 to 0.54 Mtpa, some hydrate risk will be present. Although this
risk is low, so it is likely that the system could be operated by periodically switching from one
injection well to another. More detailed work needs to be done to determine this frequency but it
is likely to be on the order of weeks to months and not days. Some work would need to be done
to quantify the corrosion risk due to the presence of free water during hydrate dissociation. If no
hydrate risk is permissible, then other options, such as methanol injection or decreasing the
water content of the CO2 is required.
Table 4.1 Summary of CO2 rates to avoid hydrate region

WellHead U/S Choke Low PI Base PI High PI
Temp. Press. Water Rate < Rate > Rate < Rate > Rate < Rate >
[C] [Mpa] [lbs/MM] [Mtpa] [Mtpa] [Mtpa] [Mtpa] [Mtpa] [Mtpa]
0 8 4 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.33 0.02 0.92
0 10 4 --- 0.23 --- 0.54 --- ---
0 14 4 --- 0.42 --- 0.88 --- ---
11 8 4 --- 0 --- 0 0.09 0.52
11 10 4 --- 0 --- 0 0.06 0.60
11 14 4 --- 0 --- 0 0.06 0.63
0 8 6 --- --- --- --- --- ---
0 10 6 --- --- --- --- --- ---
0 14 6 --- --- --- --- --- ---
11 8 6 --- 0 0.03 0.26 0.02 0.81
11 10 6 0.03 0.03 0.02 0.31 0.02 0.89
11 14 6 0.01 0.13 0.01 0.38 0.02 0.99
4.2 Normal Production – Temperatures for Above-Ground Piping Sections

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
The steady state temperatures are presented at all the relevant line break valve (Figure 4.7
through Figure 4.13) and well pad locations (Figure 4.15 and Figure 4.16). All these locations
corresponded to the above ground sections in the system.
For all the LBV locations, the temperatures showed a similar trend to one another. At very low
rates, the temperature was close to the ambient temperature. As the rate was increased, the
temperatures became closer to the compressor discharge (line inlet) temperature at locations
close the Scotford end of the flowline. At locations further away from Scotford, temperatures
were much closer to the ambient temperature at the line burial depth.
Figure 4.14 shows the sensitivity of the heat transfer coefficient on the temperature at LBV-1.
As the heat transfer coefficient was increased, a relatively larger amount of heat was lost to the
surrounding soil. Hence the temperature at LBV decreased as the heat transfer coefficient was
increased. Temperatures at LBV-1 were always highest, due to closer proximity to the warmer
inlet conditions. As the distance from the Scotford end was increased, the heat transfer
coefficient had less and less impact since the fluid temperatures were close the ambient soil
temperature.
Similar results were observed for all the well pad locations (Figure 4.15 and Figure 4.16), but
since they were located relatively far from the Scotford end, they were most similar to the LBV-7
temperatures. Only well pads 1 and 5 are shown in this analysis as these two locations
represent the two bounds for all the well pad locations, so any temperature at the other well pad
locations is somewhere between these two extremes, which already show minimal variation in
the temperatures.
4.2.1 Figures for Steady State Temperatures at all Line Break Valves

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 4.7 Temperature at LBV-1 during steady state operation

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
4.2.1.1 Temperature sensitivity to heat transfer coefficient at LBV-1
Figure 4.14 Impact of heat transfer coefficient on the temperature at LBV-1
4.2.2 Figures for well pad locations 1 and 5

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 4.15 Arrival temperature at Well 1

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 4.16 Arrival temperature at Well 5
4.3 Normal Production – Flowline and Well Operating Envelopes
Figure 4.17 shows a simplified schematic of the operating lines upstream and downstream of
the well choke. The ‘Flowline Operating Lines’ take into account the pressure drop in the
flowline and the well branches and represents the pressure that would be expected upstream of
the well choke at a given flow rate. In this case it is assumed that all flow is routed from the
Scotford end to a particular well. In this work, wells 1 and 5 were again chosen as they
represent the range of operating conditions that can be expected. The ‘Well Operating Line’
was determined in the previous section. Again it takes into account the pressure drop along the
wellbore and incorporated the FBHP requirement as determined by the reservoir injectivity.
This pressure represents the pressure downstream of the choke required to flow a given rate
into the reservoir.
The difference between these two lines represents the pressure drop that would be taken at the
wellhead to achieve the given flow. The rate where these two lines cross represents where
there would be no pressure drop at the choke. At any injection rate higher than this, there
would not be sufficient pressure at the wellhead to achieve the desired injection rate into the
formation. There is also an additional constraint based on the maximum FBHP, which was

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
assumed to be 280 bar in this work. If the FBHP constraint is met (i.e. it crosses the well
operating line before it crosses the flowline operating line) then the maximum injection rate is
constrained by the maximum FBHP, which means that there is a pressure drop across the well
choke.
Figure 4.18 through Figure 4.21 show the operating charts for wells 1 and 5 with the normal and
upset gas composition. These figures include the flowline operating lines for the range of
expected flowline inlet pressures. The well operating lines cover the range of possible reservoir
injectivity values. The pressure drop at the two well pad locations shows some variation with
the different compositions and operating pressures. In the flowline at low pressure operation,
there is sufficient pressure drop along the flowline such that the system enters into the two-
phase region and gas is evolved. This gas evolution results in increased pressure drop, which
results in more gas evolution. Hence the reason Figure 4.18 and Figure 4.20 show a large
pressure decrease at high rates for the low pressure operations. Not surprisingly, the upset
composition, which has a higher free gas content, shows a larger pressure drop for a given rate
relative to the normal composition, as shown in Figure 4.19 and Figure 4.21.
Figure 4.17 Schematic for operating lines upstream and downstream of well choke

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 4.18 Operating line for Well 1 with the normal composition

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 4.19 Operating line for Well 1 with the upset composition

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 4.20 Operating line for Well 5 with the normal composition
Figure 4.21 Operating line for Well 5 with the upset composition

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 provide a summary of the operating conditions for a given well. Note
that the cases are classified based on the constraint that determines the maximum injection
rate.
 ‘No Constraint’, a single well was capable of injecting at the full design rate of 1.2 Mtpa.
 ‘Well PI constraint’ indicated that there was not sufficient wellhead pressure available to
achieve the desired injection rate with the given well PI value.
 ‘BHP constraint’ indicated that a bottomhole pressure of 280 bar was exceeded with a
higher injection rate.
This summary was also used to determine how many wells are required to inject the design rate
of 1.2 Mtpa, as shown in Table 4.4. For most typical operations 1-3 wells were required. It
should be noted that in the upset cases, more wells were typically required to inject a total of
1.2 Mtpa of CO2, which could cause operational issues if not recognized in time.
Table 4.2 Summary of winter operation operating envelope

No Constraint
Well PI Constrained
BHP Constrained
WINTER 80 bar 110 bar 140 bar 80 bar 110 bar 140 bar 80 bar 110 bar 140 bar
Low PI Low PI Low PI Base PI Base PI Base PI High PI High PI High PI

Well1-Norm Composition Max Rate [Mtpa] 0.38 0.47 0.47 0.76 1.02 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
WHP u/s choke [bar] 76 106 136 70 96 122 57 90 122
WHP d/s choke [bar] 76 91 91 70 96 112 50 50 50
WHT u/s choke [degC] -1 -1 -1 1 0 0 7 1 1
WHT d/s choke [degC] -1 -2 -2 1 0 0 7 -1 -2
Well1-Upset Composition Max Rate [Mtpa] 0.22 0.47 0.47 0.5 0.9 1.14 0.86 1.2 1.2
WHP u/s choke [bar] 70 108 136 68 98 122 60 88 120
WHP d/s choke [bar] 70 107 108 68 98 122 60 70 70
WHT u/s choke [degC] -1 -1 -1 1 0 0 2 3 1
WHT d/s choke [degC] -1 -1 -2 1 0 0 2 2 -2
WHP u/s choke [bar] 75 104 134 68 93 118 54 86 118
WHP d/s choke [bar] 75 91 91 68 93 112 50 50 50
WHT u/s choke [degC] -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
WHT d/s choke [degC] -1 -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -3 -4
WHP u/s choke [bar] 66 114 134 65 96 119 58 85 116
WHP d/s choke [bar] 66 114 115 65 96 119 58 70 70
WHT u/s choke [degC] -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -2 -1 -1
WHT d/s choke [degC] -1 -1 -2 -1 -1 -1 -2 -3 -4

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Table 4.3 Summary of summer operation operating envelope

No Constraint
Well PI Constrained
BHP Constrained
SUMMER 80 bar 110 bar 140 bar 80 bar 110 bar 140 bar 80 bar 110 bar 140 bar

WHP u/s choke [bar] 76 106 136 70 96 122 49 90 122
WHP d/s choke [bar] 76 91 91 70 96 112 49 50 50
WHT u/s choke [degC] 11 11 11 14 13 13 12 14 13
WHT d/s choke [degC] 11 10 7 14 13 12 12 12 8
WHP u/s choke [bar] 72 108 136 68 96 120 59 88 120
WHP d/s choke [bar] 72 107 108 68 96 120 59 70 70
WHT u/s choke [degC] 11 -1 11 11 13 13 11 14 13
WHT d/s choke [degC] 11 -1 10 11 13 13 11 12 8
WHP u/s choke [bar] 75 104 134 68 93 118 50 86 118
WHP d/s choke [bar] 75 91 91 68 93 112 50 50 50
WHT u/s choke [degC] 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
WHT d/s choke [degC] 11 10 9 11 11 11 11 9 8
WHP u/s choke [bar] 69 114 134 66 96 118 58 85 116
WHP d/s choke [bar] 69 114 115 66 96 118 58 70 70
WHT u/s choke [degC] 11 11 11 10 11 11 8 11 11
WHT d/s choke [degC] 11 11 9 10 11 11 8 10 9
Table 4.4 Summary of number of injection wells required

80 bar 110 bar 140 bar 80 bar 110 bar 140 bar 80 bar 110 bar 140 bar
Winter
Well1-Norm Composition 4 3 3 2 2 1 1 1 1
Well1-Upset Composition 6 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1
Summer

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
5.0 TRANSIENT ANALYSIS
Transient modeling was completed with Olga v6.3 using the single component option for CO 2
and with AFT Impulse version 4.0. Neither of these models included the impacts of impurities in
the flow stream. However, given that the fluid properties of pure CO2 and the base composition
are very similar the impact on the results of the transient simulations was minimal. The only
impact is due the base composition having a vapor-liquid region, whereas pure CO2 has a sharp
boundary between the liquid and vapor. However, most simulations take place in the single
phase region thus this has minimum impact on the results.
5.1 Fluid Hammer
The impact of fluid hammer was investigated both in the wellbore and in the pipeline. The
simulations consisted of closing the wellhead choke, the SC-SSSV, and the LBV. The SC-
SSSV impacts both the minimum and maximum pressure observed at the formation, which may
result in either back flow into the well or exceeding the formation fracture pressure. Similarly,
the sudden closing of the wellhead choke or a LBV can result in a pressure surge in the pipeline
that may exceed the design rating.
The fluid hammer simulations were completed using AFT Impulse and unlike OLGA, Impulse’s
fluid hammer calculation is based on a liquid phase only. Furthermore, Impulse computes
maximum theoretical pressure surge using the instantaneous water hammer equation which
depends on the liquid density, the change in fluid velocity, and the wave speed.
Impulse does not contain CO2 as one of the standard components. But a ‘pseudo’ component
can be created in Impulse that mimics the fluid properties of CO2. The fluid properties required
to run Impulse are the vapor pressure, liquid density, viscosity and the bulk modulus of
elasticity. Properties were obtained over the relevant temperature range from Unisim design
and PVTsim. A limitation of the software was that the fluid properties are only a function of the
temperature and not the pressure. The wave speed is a direct function of the density and bulk
modulus. Because both properties also depend on pressure, the input values were chosen so
that the resulting predictions would be conservative.
In addition, all fluid hammer simulations had the valve closing quickly, which in this work was
1 ms. The fast closing time was meant to represent worst case conditions. If any of the valves
are closed more slowly, the magnitude of the pressure increase/decrease would be reduced.
But in all cases, the maximum pressure surges observed were below any system limitations and
thus valve closing time should not be of concern. In order to correctly model the impact of
closing the valve more slowly, details of the valve are required. Namely, how flow through the
valve is impacted as the valve is closed.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
5.1.1 Fluid Hammer in the Wellbore
In the wellbore simulations, two scenarios were investigated. The first scenario looked at an
injection case where the SC-SSSV was suddenly closed and the pressure surge above and
below the valve was observed. In this case, the valve was assumed to be fully closed and did
not allow the transfer of fluid across the valve. The actual valve is a flapper design, which
allows fluid to be injected into the reservoir, but not from the reservoir to the wellhead. In the
second set of cases, a well blowout was simulated in which the SC-SSSV was suddenly closed.
5.1.1.1 Wellbore Injection
Although an unlikely event, the wellbore injection case looked at a scenario where fluids were
injected into the well and the SC-SSSV was closed suddenly. At a steady state injection rate of
1.2 Mtpa into a single well and given the base case assumption for reservoir injectivity, the BHP
was about 270 bar. In this work, the maximum bottomhole pressure was constrained to
280 bar, which means that the SC-SSSV needs to be set at a depth that results in less than a
10 bar increase in bottomhole pressure during one of these type of shut-in events. Although
this is an unrealistic case, it shows a number of sensitivities to illustrate the relative importance
of the various parameters.
Table 5.1 summarizes the different cases investigated in these fluid hammer simulations. The
base case was the injection of all CO2 (1.2 Mtpa) into a single well. The ‘Low PI’ case looks at
injecting the maximum rate of CO2 into a single well. Note in this case the maximum rate is
constrained by the maximum FBHP of 280 bar. The ‘Low Injection Rate’ case simulated a rate
that represented the maximum pressure drop, across the well choke, and hence the coldest
wellhead temperature. The ‘High Temperature’ case simulated the injection of CO2 into a single
well at the maximum rate during summer operation.
Table 5.1 Summary of fluid hammer cases for the wellbore injection scenario
Steady State
Mass Q WHP WHT BHP
Scenarios
Mtpa bar C bar
Base Case 1.2 120 0 272
Low PI 0.4 86 0 274
Low Injection Rate 0.3 31 -5 227
High Temperature (Summer) 0.7 112 12 270
The base case resulted in the largest pressure surges. Figure 5.1 shows the maximum
pressure expected upon closing the SC-SSSV while Figure 5.2 shows the minimum pressure.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
In the simulation the pressure surge travels, so all sections along the well do not experience the
maximum or minimum pressure at the same time.
In Figure 5.1, the maximum pressure observed at the bottomhole was about 280 bar for the
case where the SC-SSSV was set at 1,000 m. For any SC-SSSV setting deeper than 1,000 m,
the maximum bottomhole pressure is likely to exceed 280 bar. This means that the SC-SSSV
needs to be set at a depth shallower than 1,000 m in order to avoid the bottomhole pressure
exceeding 280 bar. Similarly, the bottomhole pressure should not be less than the reservoir
pressure in order to avoid the inflow of material from the reservoir upon shut-in. Based on these
simulations, the bottomhole pressure is not expected to decrease below a reservoir pressure of
200 bar. This shows that as the valve is set further from the source, the expected pressure
surge becomes larger, although the magnitude of the change is relatively small.
Figure 5.3 is similar to Figure 5.1, but shows the change in maximum pressure relative to the
steady state value. In this case, the maximum pressure surge is always expected to occur just
upstream of the SC-SSSV. The deeper the SC-SSSV is set, the larger in increase in surge
pressure. Similarly, Figure 5.4 Figure 5.5 and Figure 5.6 show the expected pressure increases
for the other cases investigated. Based on these results, the base case (i.e. highest rate and
highest pressure) resulted in the largest surge pressures.
Note that the sharp pressure spikes at well depths of 1000 m and 1500 m are the results due to
the vapor cavity forms and collapses as the conditions are near the vapor pressure curve.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.1 Maximum surge pressure in well upon shut-in

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.2 Minimum surge pressure in well upon shut-in

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.3 Increase in pressure above steady state values (Base Case)

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.4 Increase in pressure above steady state values (low PI case)

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.5 Increase in pressure above steady state values (Low Injection Rate)

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.6 Increase in pressure above steady state values (High Temperature Case-Summer)
5.1.1.2 Well Blowout
The well blowout scenario simulated the case where there was an open path between the
reservoir and the wellhead, which was at atmospheric pressure. The SC-SSSV was set at
1,000 m and is suddenly closed to prevent any further flow from the reservoir. The simulation of
a well blowout used this SC-SSSV depth to investigate the magnitude of the pressure surges
observed in the formation. Note that the bottomhole was open to the formation and the
formation should be capable of absorbing the pressure surge. In the worst case, the formation
injectivity is low enough that it is not capable of instantly absorbing the pressure surge, so the
magnitude of the pressure surge should not exceed the fracture pressure.
Figure 5.7 shows the magnitude of pressure increase or decrease expected at the SC-SSSV.
In the base case, the increase in pressure below the valve was about 20 bar. When this
pressure surge is added to the reservoir pressure, the maximum pressure expected in the
formation would be about 220 bar, which is well below the assumed fracture pressure of the
formation. However, note that the figure shows there is no pressure increase expected at the

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
bottomhole location due to the formation volume being modeled as a constant pressure
boundary.
In order for the formation to be impacted by the surge pressure, the injectivity of the formation
would have to be sufficiently low that the formation could not absorb the pressure surge quickly
enough. In a low injectivity case, the flow rate in the well would be lower, which means if the
SC-SSSV were suddenly closed, the pressure surge would be less than 20 bar, per the base
case and the pressure at the formation would still be less than the fracture pressure.
Based on these results and the sensitivities completed for the injection case, a SC-SSSV setting
of higher than 1,000 m will result in a higher pressure surge below the SC-SSSV. This would
indicate that it is better to set the SC-SSSV deeper. Note that the magnitude of the pressure
surges associated with the blowout case are less severe than the injection case. This is due to
the lower starting pressure in the blowout case and also the fact that the blowout rates are less
than the full design injection rate of 1.2 Mtpa. Based on these simulations, the pressure surge
was not significant at the SC-SSSV, and therefore, there are no limitations on the closing time of
this valve.
Figure 5.7 Change in pressure above and below SC-SSSV during blowout scenario
Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
5.1.2 Fluid Hammer in Flowline
It is also possible to experience pressure surges in the flowline upon closing a line break valve
or a well choke. In these simulations, worst case conditions are observed at high pressure and
low temperature, thus the pipeline inlet conditions assumed 140 bar and 0°C.
Several cases were simulated to observe the impact of closing one or more of the LBVs. Based
on the simulations, the closing of LBV-1 represented the highest pressure surge. The case
where the well choke was closed was also investigated. The big difference between the LBV
case and the well choke case is the smaller diameter pipe leading to the well choke. The
smaller diameter pipe results in larger fluid velocities, which result in greater pressure surges.
5.1.2.1 Closing of Line Break Valves
Figure 5.8 shows the scenario of closing LBV-1. In this simulation, the flowline was operated at
the full design rate of 1.2 Mtpa just prior to the valve closing. The pressure increase observed
at LBV-1 was about 3 bar. At a compressor discharge of 140 bar, the maximum pressure was
less than the pipeline design pressure of 147 bar. Figure 5.9 shows a similar case, but for LBV-
3 closing. In this case the pressure increase was higher, at about 5 bar, but the absolute
pressure was slightly lower due to the lower initial pressure at this location.
Similarly, Figure 5.9 shows the impact of closing two of the line break valves at the same time.
LBV-3 and LBV-4 were chosen as they are the two valves closest to one another. The valves
were both closed at the same time. This was meant to simulate the impact of trapped fluid in
between the valves. The magnitude of the pressure surge was less for the fluids trapped
between the two valves.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.8 Pressure surges upon closing LBV-1

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.9 Pressure surges upon closing LBV-3 and LBV-4
5.1.2.2 Closing of Well Choke
The closing of the well choke represented the highest risk since the piping leading to the choke
is of smaller diameter than the main trunk line. This smaller diameter results in a higher fluid
velocity, which in turn means the pressure surge can be expected to be higher as well, since the
two parameters are directly related.
The worst case was when all the CO2 was injected into well 1 at an operating pressure of
140 bar. Figure 5.10 shows the impact of the well branch length on the relative pressure
increase when the valve is closed. For a 5.3 km well branch, the pressure increase is about
23 bar. In order to remain below the pressure limit of 147 bar, the wellhead pressure must be
below about 124 bar. As per Figure 4.18, the pressure at wellhead 1, at the design rate of
1.2 Mtpa is about 122 bar. Note that Figure 4.18 through Figure 4.21 are only applicable for a
5 km well branch. This analysis shows that the pressure surges expected during this worst
case operation are just on the boundary of system design.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
In order to ensure these pressure surges are not an issue due to the closing of the well choke,
operation of the system at normal design pressure of 120 bar will ensure that the pressure
surges are sufficiently low. If operation at high pressure is required, then multiple wells are
required for CO2 injection.
Based on the fluid hammer simulations, the only potential issue due to pressure surges in the
system was the closing of the well choke. Note that this was only a concern in the case of
injecting the full design rate of 1.2 Mtpa into well 1 while the system was operated at the
maximum design pressure of 140 bar. This issue can easily be mitigated by operating the
system at the normal operating pressure of 120 bar. In the event that the high pressure is
required, then two or more wells would be required for injection of the CO 2. Additionally, the
well choke is expected to close more slowly than 1 ms, which will also lessen the magnitude of
the pressure surge, but without detail information regarding the choke design, it was difficult to
determine the actual impact.
Figure 5.10 Pressure increase in well branch upon closing well choke

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
5.2 Flowline Venting
A number of different simulations were completed looking at the aspect of flowline venting. This
was to model the impact of starting with a flowline initial filled with CO2 as a supercritical fluid
and then depressurizing the flowline to atmospheric pressure. The aim of these simulations
was to determine what size of vent line would be required and to establish rough guidelines to
be used in developing operating procedures during the venting process.
5.2.1 Description of heat transfer in model
Due to the transient nature of the venting process, the specifics associated with heat transfer
become much more important.
Figure 5.11 shows a schematic of the heat transfer assumptions used in the models. In the
steady state model, the ambient temperature was defined as the soil temperature at the flowline
burial depth. An overall heat transfer coefficient was defined (as given in
Table 3.4) and that effectively defines the rate of heat transfer from the fluid to the surrounding
soil. The first figure (with the 10mm) soil layer is representative of that steady state model
whereby there is minimal thermal storage capacity of the soil and a steady state temperature
profile is quickly developing from the pipe will to the defined ambient temperature. In order to
model the transient nature of the venting process, the soil layer has to be included. The soil
layer represents a large thermal mass that can and does change temperature during the venting
process. Note that the soil layer is defined as 2.8 m instead of the given 1.5 m burial depth.
This difference was due to the non-symmetric nature of the flowline burial and how it was
accounted for in the modeling. In the actual case, the top of the pipe ‘sees’ 1.5 m of soil, but the
bottom of the pipe ‘sees’ an infinite thickness of soil. In order to average out this impact, an
effective soil layer thickness of 2.8 m was used per the hydraulic guidelines (6).
Figure 5.12 shows the Olga predicted heat transfer coefficient for these different assumptions.
Note that there was not a large difference in the predicted values at steady state conditions. But
Figure 5.13 shows this impact that this assumption has on the pipe wall temperature during the
venting process. In cases with the soil layer included, the pipe walls temperatures were higher.
This higher temperature was related to the thermal mass of the soil, which also cooled during
the venting process.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.11 Schematic of heat transfer assumptions used in Olga models
Table 5.2 Material physical properties used in Olga modeling

Pipe
Soil
Wall
Thermal Conductivity [W/m-K] 43 2.6
Density [kg/m3] 7,820 2,240
Heat Capacity [J/kg-K] 473 1,256

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.12 Effective heat transfer coefficient for the different soil descriptions at steady state

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.13 Prediction of pipe wall temperature for different heat transfer assumptions
5.2.2 Simplified flowline model for screening
Due to the detailed nature of the venting simulations, a series of simplified models were used in
order to screen the most important parameters to be captured in the more detailed models that
included the full flowline length and detailed topography.
Figure 5.14 shows the results of simulations for a series of different initial starting pressures. In
some case the pressure was set to 39 bar, which was just above the single phase pressure and
in other cases the pressure was set to 140 bar, which was defined as the maximum system
operating pressure. In all cases, upon initiation of the venting process, the pressure rapidly
dropped from the starting condition to the two-phase pressure defined by the CO2 phase
boundary. This suggests that the starting pressure was not important, thus all simulations were
completed using an initial condition of 110 bar as per the design basis.
Figure 5.15 shows similar information to that in Figure 5.14, by showing the pressure-
temperature during the venting process. The pressure decreased with minimal change in
temperature until the system pressure reached the two-phase equilibrium line. After which the
pressure and temperature decrease along this two-phase line until all the liquid was vaporized.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
This condition depends on the specifics of the venting process, but was primarily related to the
rate of venting (i.e. vent size) relative the rate of heat transfer in the system.
Figure 5.14 Pipe wall temperature given different initial conditions

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.15 Temperatures during venting and relation to the CO2 phase boundary
Figure 5.16 shows the impact that the vent size has on the pipe wall temperature during the
venting process. With large vent sizes, the system pressure was decreased more rapidly. This
decrease in pressure was due to the vaporization of the liquid CO2 and subsequent loss from
the flowline. This meant that the rate of venting was equivalent to the rate at which the liquid
CO2 was vaporized. In order for the CO2 to vaporize, heat must be supplied from the
surroundings. At faster venting rates, less time was available to transfer heat from the
surrounds, so the temperatures decreased to colder values to supply the necessary heat. At
slower rates, heat can be transferred from further away from the pipe wall, so the soil
temperatures stay relatively warmer.
The downside to the smaller vent size was that it takes longer to depressurize the system. In
Figure 5.16, the minimum temperature roughly coincided with the time to vaporize all the liquid
CO2 in the flowline. Smaller vent sizes result in higher minimum temperatures, but much longer
times to depressurize. In the system, a balance is required to determine an optimal balance
between pipe wall temperature and venting time. Figure 5.17 shows the summary results of the
minimum pipe wall temperature versus the vent size. Based on this simplified analysis, in order
Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
to stay above a minimum pipe wall temperature of -45°C, the vent size needed to be about 5”.
These simulations served as the starting point for determining the required vent size during the
detailed simulations.
Figure 5.16 Impact of leak size on transient pipe wall temperature

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.17 Impact of leak size on minimum pipe wall temperature

Figure 5.18 shows an additional sensitivity done with the flowline length. Note that the minimum
temperature was not too different for these cases. The difference in behavior for the longest
flowline may be related to the total time for the system to depressurize. These longer times
allowed more of the surrounding soil to cool which implies that the soil properties become more
important in capturing an accurate representation of the system temperatures during the venting
process.
This is in contrast with Figure 5.16, which showed the coldest wall temperatures for the faster
venting process. The difference between these two examples is the rate of venting. With a
smaller vent size, the surrounding soil can transfer heat at a rate sufficient to keep up with
vaporization of the CO2. But for a given vent rate, the longer it takes to remove the liquid CO2
from the pipe, the cooler the liquid becomes.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.18 Impact of flowline length on pipe wall temperature
Based on the results from the simplified model, the most important parameters to correctly
account for during the venting process were determined. The minimum temperature in the
pipeline during the venting process was determined by the rate of CO2 vaporization and the rate
of heat transfer to the system. The vent size determined how quickly the CO2 was vented. An
accurate representation of the soil layers and properties was required to correctly model the
system thermal performance accurately.
5.2.3 Detailed flowline model for venting
Based on the results from the simplified model, the detailed model was used to determine the
specifics related to the venting process.
The detailed model was compared with the simple model for a comparable scenario (Figure
5.19). A similar trend was observed in that the rate of initial temperature decrease was similar.
The simple model (also the shorter flowline) achieved a minimum temperature earlier and then
the temperature began to increase. The longer flowline (80 km + well branches) took a longer
time to depressurize the system and hence reached a minimum temperature at a later time.
Similar to the simple model, the longer flowline resulted in a lower minimum temperature.
Also, the impact of vent size is shown in Figure 5.20 for a 4” and a 6” vent. As with the simple
model, the larger vent size resulted in lower temperature and faster depressurization times.
Also similar to the simple model, the vent size, in order to stay above a minimum pipe wall
temperature of -45°C, was between 4” and 6”. Due to uncertainties in the model and soil
Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
properties, it is recommended to use a vent size of 4” or less to ensure that the temperatures in
the flowline remain sufficiently high during the venting process.
Figure 5.19 Comparison between simplified and detailed model for a 4” vent

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.20 Comparison between a 4” and 6” vent for the detailed model
Figure 5.21 Flowline temperature profiles during venting process (Scotford to Well 1)

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.22 Vent rate for a 4” vent
Figure 5.23 Vent rate for a 6” vent

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
The minimum pipe wall temperature was sensitive to the heat transfer assumptions. The
ambient temperature (i.e. the temperature surrounding the soil layer), was defined as either -
40°C (ambient air temperature in winter) or 0°C (ambient soil temperature at burial depth during
winter). In Olga, the initial temperature of the fluid was specified. The Olga model assumed a
linear temperature gradient between the fluid and the ambient condition. It was not possible to
describe the actual temperature gradient in the system in the soil layer, but the 0°C
representation was probably the most realistic. If -40°C was used as the ambient temperature,
the soil temperatures were unrealistically cold and allowed more heat to be transferred away
from the pipe wall. Figure 5.24 shows that this assumption of the ambient temperature resulted
in about an 8°C difference in the minimum temperature observed. Similarly, the assumption of
a lower thermal conductivity resulted in a similar decrease in the minimum temperature.
Figure 5.24 Impact of soil properties and ambient temperature on pipe wall temperature
Figure 5.25 shows the vent rate observed for a 4”and 6” vent. In these cases, the rate of
venting was largely similar. The initial rate was impacted by the vent size and time to open
vent. But after the initial surge, the vent rates were very comparable. In these cases the rates
were defined by the rate of heat transfer.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.25 Vent rate for 4” and 6”
One of the flow assurance aspects to be considered during venting is the temperature and
pressure in the system relative the hydrate formation envelope. Upon venting, the temperature
in the flowline dropped sufficiently low that hydrate formation was possible. However, the flow
assurance risk associated with this step was small. The total water content of the CO2 was low
(<6 lbs/MMscf) which meant that the total volume of hydrate formed was small and highly
unlikely to form in sufficient volume to block the flowline. Once the pressure of the flowline
dropped sufficiently low, hydrates were no longer stable. And any hydrates that had formed
during the venting process would melt.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.26 Temperature/Pressure conditions during venting and relation to phase envelope
5.2.4 Venting of Flowline Sections between LBVs
Several additional simulations were completed to look at the impact of venting only a single
flowline section between the line break valves. The section between LBV-3 and LBV-4 was
chosen because that represented the section with the largest potential to trap liquids. During
the venting process, the liquid CO2 must vaporize along the phase boundary and as such, the
coldest temperatures are expected to be at the vapor-liquid interface, such as would be created
in an area of high liquid holdup.
The coldest temperatures were observed at the end furthest from the vent line, which in this
case was near LBV-4. Figure 5.27 shows the flowline profile as well as the temperature profile
when the minimum temperature was observed. Similarly, Figure 5.28 shows the liquid holdup at
the time when the minimum temperature occurs. When the system was vented from only one
end (LBV-3 end), the valley closest to the LBV-4 end trapped a significant amount of liquid and
as a result, that section was predicted to be very cold during the venting process. It appeared
that there was sufficient sweep velocity in the other parts of the flowline to prevent significant
liquid from accumulating and hence the low temperatures were not observed.
If the flowline was vented from both ends, the extremely low temperatures could be avoided. In
this case, the flowline was vented from the LBV-3 end until prior to the minimum temperature
being observed. Because the system minimum temperature followed the phase envelope, the
system could be depressurized to about 10 bar, which corresponded to a vapor-liquid
equilibrium temperature of about -40°C. Once a pressure of 10 bar was achieved, then the
Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
LBV-3 vent was closed and the remaining pressure was relieved from the LBV-4 end. This
served to remove the localized pockets of liquid holdup from the system and prevent the low
temperatures. Figure 5.28 shows that the liquid holdup was significantly reduced when
following this procedure and as a result, the minimum temperature observed in the flowline was
increased over the case of venting from only one end.
When venting the entire flowline, i.e. from Scotford to Well 5, similar behavior was not observed.
The Well5 end was at a relatively high spot, so less liquid can be accumulated there. However,
this assumed a relatively coarse geometry near the Well5 end. If even a few short valley
sections accumulate liquid CO2, there exists the potential to achieve very cold temperatures.
What these simulations showed was that the in general, the venting process maintained
temperatures above the material limit of the pipe except in localized spots, near the end of the
flowline furthest from the vent. However, these low temperatures can be mitigated if venting
procedure is followed then allowed for venting from both ends. The correct sequence and
timing of the venting at each end will need to be addressed once a more detailed plan for how
the system will be vented is determined.
Figure 5.27 Minimum temperatures during venting of section between LBV3 and LBV4
Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.28 Holdup at minimum temperature during venting between LBV3 and LBV4
5.3 Wellbore Venting and Placement of Subsurface Safety Valve
A series of simulations were completed looking at the wellbore venting process in more detail in
order to determine the placement of a subsurface safety valve. Initial work (1) on the venting
process during a well blowout focused on the steady state temperature and liquid levels in the
well. This work expanded that to include the transient effects associated with a well blowout. In
these cases, it was assumed that the wellhead was removed from the well, so there was a full
well diameter leak path from the reservoir to the atmosphere.
The placement of the subsurface valve depended on the timing in which it was closed. In this
work, two criteria were investigated. The first criteria was based on placing the valve in the
single liquid/dense phase region so that upon valve closing, there was not a significant pressure
drop across the valve. The second criteria was based on the hydrate stability region. The

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
desire would be to place the valve in a region where hydrates are not stable because the
presence of hydrates may prevent the valve from closing fully.
In these simulations, fluid was injected into the well, to establish steady state injection condition,
at the full design rate of 1.2 Mtpa, which established the coldest well temperatures. At time
zero, the well all flow was stopped. And at minute 6, a blowout of the well was started. The 6
minute lag between shut-in and blowout were to aid in the simulation stability. The blowout was
initiated to go from fully closed to fully open in 5 seconds. Figure 5.29 and Figure 5.30 show the
liquid level in the well as a function of time. Initially the liquid level was about 150 m into the
well. During the blowout the liquid level began to drop and over the course of about 5 minutes,
the liquid level dropped by about 500 m. If the time scale is expanded, Figure 5.30, the liquid
level continued to drop for several hours before reaching a final depth of about 1100 m.
Similarly, temperature isotherms can be plotted for the well, as seen in Figure 5.31 and Figure
5.32. Note that temperatures in the well began to recover after some time. Initially there was a
considerable amount of JT cooling occurring in the well due to the rapid depressurization. It
took some time for the relatively warmer reservoir fluids to warm the system. As seen in Figure
5.32, the coldest temperatures occurred early in the blowout process. In this figure the two
most relevant temperatures are based on the hydrate equilibrium temperature for a fluid with
4 lbs/MMscf (0°C) and with free water (10°C). During the initial blowout, the 4 lbs/MMscf
defined the relavent hydrate equilibrium condition. As the blowout continued, it was expected
that aquifer water would be produced along with the CO2, in which case the free water
temperature was more relevant. It was unknown how long it would take to see free water during
a blowout, but it is likely to greater than 5 minutes.
Figure 5.33 shows a summary chart of the valve setting for the different criteria. The liquid level
criteria defined the deepest setting requirement for the valve. It was previously assumed that it
would take some time to begin producing free water. If the time to produce free water was
greater than about 5 minutes, then the valve setting required is always determined by the liquid
level in the well. It should also be noted that the fluid surge impact on the bottomhole pressure
also needs to be taken into account.

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.29 Liquid level in well during blowdown (initial time)
Figure 5.30 Liquid level in well during blowdown (steady state)

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.31 Temperature isotherms in well during blowdown (steady state)
Figure 5.32 Temperature isotherms in well during blowdown (initial time)

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
Figure 5.33 Safety valve setting based on single phase and hydrate criteria
Table 5.3 Summary of valve closing time base on single phase criteria in well
5.3.1 Blowout in a well with a low reservoir productivity

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
As a sensitivity, the impact of a lower reservoir productivity was investigated. When the
reservoir productivity is lower, the bottomhole pressure is lower, which means the average
pressure in the well is lower. This lower pressure results in a lower liquid level as well. Figure
5.34 shows a comparison between the base and low PI cases. For the first minute of the
blowout, the depth setting requirement is about the same. For longer times, the lower PI case
requires the valve to be set deeper. Depending on the reservoir characteristics and the valve
closing time, this may be an issue and should be incorporated into the final design of the
subsurface safety valve.
Figure 5.34 Impact of reservoir injectivity on safety valve setting

Heavy Oil
07-2-LA-5507-0003
6.0 REFERENCES
1. Dykhno, Leonid, et al. Quest CCS Prospect: Flow Assurance for System Selection. s.l. :
Shell, 2010. GS.10.53258.
2. Peters, David, et al. Quest CCS: Flow Assurance - ITR 13-17 June 2011. [powerpoint
presentation] 2011.
3. Hugonet, Vincent and Perez, Carlos. Assumptions for system transient analysi Update - 6
Apr 2011. [email/document] 2011.
4. Hugonet, Vincent. Geothermal gradient. [Excel spreadsheet] 2010.
5. Song, Kyoo and Kobayashi, Riki. RR-99: The water content of CO2-rish fluids in
equilibrium with liquid water and/or hydrates. 1986. GPA Project 775-85.
6. Hydraulic Guidelines. s.l. : Shell, 2009. GS.09.51858.
7. Peters, David, Lacy, Rusty and Dykhno, Leonid. Quest CCS Prosect: Flow Assurance
Evaluation of Low Flow Events. 2011. intermediate report.

Heavy Oil

Offshore Flow Assurance

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Offshore Flow Assurance

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Disclaimer

(collectively the “Project”)

Terms and Conditions of Use

Project Quest CCS Project

Document Number 07-2-LA-5507-0003

Document Revision Rev 01

Document Status Approved

Document Type LA5507-Design Philosophy

Owner / Author Leonid Dykhno

Issue Date 2011-08-17

Expiry Date None

Revision History shown on next page

01 2011-08-15 Issued for Review Leonid Dykhno

Signatures for this revision

Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design Rev 01

3.11 Production Function...................................................................................................23

Figure 5.18 Impact of flowline length on pipe wall temperature .................................................69

Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design Rev 01

As part of this work, several recommendations were made.

Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design Rev 01

 Design of the Surface System (e.g. Pipeline, Valves, Wellbore)

 Operability of the System

 Solids Deposition Risk: Hydrates

 Multiphase Flow Aspects

Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design Rev 01

Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design Rev 01

2.0 FLOW ASSURANCE STRATEGIES

2.1 Solids Management

The injection fluid does not contain any wax.

2.1.3 Pour point

The injection fluid does not contain any asphaltene.

Scale formation will be mitigated by dehydration of the injection fluid.

Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design Rev 01

Emulsions are not expected to be an issue.

2.1.9 Injected Solids

2.1.10 Chilly Choke

2.2 Operational Considerations

Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design Rev 01

2.2.4 Flowline Venting

Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design Rev 01

3.0 BASIC DATA

3.1 PVT and Reservoir Data

Table 3.1 Summary of reservoir characteristics (3)

Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design Rev 01

Figure 3.1 Geothermal temperature profile for wells (4)

3.2 Fluid Compositions

Table 3.2 Fluid composition of injection fluid (3)

Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design Rev 01

3.3 Water Samples

Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design Rev 01

3.4.1 Hydrate Inhibition Requirements

Figure 3.4 Methanol requirement for hydrate inhibition – Impact of temperature

Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design Rev 01

3.5 Chilly Choke

Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design Rev 01

Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design Rev 01

3.6 Wax and Pour Point

3.9 Well Details

Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design Rev 01

3.10 Flowline Details

Table 3.3 Flowline and Branch details (3)

Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design Rev 01

Table 3.4 Summary of pipeline operating conditions (3)

Quest Pipelines Flow and Flow Assurance Design Rev 01