Deepstar - Multiphase Flow

DEEPSTAR IV PROJECT
FLOW ASSURANCE DESIGN GUIDLINE
DSIV CTR 4203b-1

April, 2001
INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.
DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE
TABLE OF CONTENTS
POLICY STATEMENT
policy.pdf
1.0
INTRODUCTION
Sec1.pdf
2.0
FLOW ASSURANCE SUMMARY AND FUNDAMENTALS
Sec2.pdf
3.0
DESIGN PROCESS
Sec3.pdf
4.0
FLUID PROPERTIES AND PHASE BEHAVIOR
Sec4.pdf
5.0
MULTIPHASE FLOW
Sec5.pdf
6.0
STEADY-STATE HYDRAULIC SIMULATION AND LINE SIZING
Sec6.pdf
7.0
THERMAL MODELING
Sec7.pdf
8.0
TRANSIENT OPERATIONS
Sec8.pdf
9.0
HYDRATES
Sec9.pdf
10.0
PARAFFIN WAXES
Sec10.pdf
11.0
ASPHALTENES
Sec11.pdf
12.0
EMULSIONS
Sec12.pdf
13.0
SCALE
Sec13.pdf
14.0
EROSION
Sec14.pdf
15.0
CORROSION
Sec15.pdf
16.0
SOLIDS TRANSPORT
Sec16.pdf
17.0
SLUGGING
Sec17.pdf
18.0
SLUGCATCHER DESIGN
Sec18.pdf
19.0
PIGGING
Sec19.pdf
20.0
OTHER OPERATIONS
Sec20.pdf
21.0
(INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)
H-0806.35
01-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
22.0
HOST FACILITY REQUIREMENTS
Sec22.pdf
23.0
SYSTEM ECONOMICS AND RISK MANAGEMENT
Sec23.pdf
24.0
DEEPWATER ISSUES AND CASE STUDIES
Sec24.pdf
25.0
TYPICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Sec25.pdf
APPENDICES
SECTION 9 APPENDIX A: GAS HYDRATE STRUCTURES, PROPERTIES, AND
HOW THEY FORM
Sec9 App A.pdf
SECTION 9 APPENDIX B:
PROGRAMS
USERS GUIDE FOR HYDOFF AND XPAND

Sec9 App B.pdf
SECTION 9 APPENDIX C: HYDRATE BLOCKAGE AND REMEDIATION

Sec9 App C.pdf
SECTION 9 APPENDIX D: RULES OF THUMB SUMMARY
H-0806.35
ii
Sec9 App D.pdf
01-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
POLICY STATEMENT
H-0806.35
The Flow Assurance Design Guide (FADG) is of a general nature.

The FADG does not undertake to meet the duties of operators, manufacturers,
suppliers, or engineers to properly engineer and operate multiphase production
systems.
The FADG is not meant to be an instructional tool; however, it can be used to
supplement a course on flow assurance issues.
The FADG is primarily a tool for design engineers with a sound knowledge of
flow assurance operations.
Nothing in the FADG is to be construed as a fixed rule without regard to sound
engineering judgment.
The FADG is not intended to supersede or override any federal, state, or local
regulation.
The FADG does not inhibit anyone from using any other guide.
The FADG is not all encompassing. The guide does benchmark topics that are
typically addressed in a quality flow assurance analysis.
1-Dec-00
1.0
DEEPSTAR
INTRODUCTION
The Flow Assurance Design Guide (FADG) sets forth basic engineering requirements
and recommended practice deemed necessary for the reliable and cost effective design
and operation of multiphase production systems. Because flow assurance is a multidiscipline activity, the FADG addresses each discipline and explains how each fit in the
overall design process. The major flow assurance technologies covered in the guide are:
PVT and fluid properties

Steady state and transient multiphase flow modeling
Interface with the reservoir and the process equipment
Hydrate, paraffin, and asphaltene issues
Corrosion, erosion, and sand control
Each technology area will be discussed at a moderate level of detail. Basic behaviors
mathematical models, modeling techniques, experimental data, accuracy and uncertainty,
design tips and internal checks will be discussed. Hallmarks of good design practice will
be illustrated with numerous examples throughout the guide. Important reference
documents and published papers will be listed at the end of each major section.
Design engineers with a sound knowledge of flow assurance are the intended audience
for the FADG. The guide is not intended to be an introduction to flow assurance
technology.
H-0806.35
1-1
1-Dec-00
2.0
DEEPSTAR
THIS SECTION IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.
H-0806.35
2-1
1-Dec-00
3.0
DEEPSTAR
DESIGN PROCESS
This section describes the design methodology or process that the flow assurance
engineer follows in developing a successful, cost effective subsea production system and
its operating philosophy. The flow assurance design methodology flow chart is presented
in Figure 3-1 and forms the basis for the discussion on the design process. Links to the
relevant sections in the Flow Assurance Design Guide are also provided.
As illustrated in the design methodology chart, the flow assurance design process
involves several major steps:
Establish design basis

Thermal- hydraulic design and assessment of fluid behavior
- Perform hydraulic design
- Perform thermal design
- Assess fluid thermodynamic/phase behavior
- Assess transient thermal- hydraulic behavior
Interface with mechanical design

Establish operating strategies
Determine host facility requirements
Assess system economics
Each step can be addressed individually; however, all steps will be considered
collectively because they are inter-related. The chart shows some of the considerations
and/or decisions involved with each step. For purposes of illustration, design process
steps are generally shown to be sequential. However in practice, several of the steps will
need to be addressed simultaneously.
The flow assurance design process starts early in the field development effort, potentially
even before any wells have been drilled when the types and amounts of reservoir fluid
samples are specified. The general sequence begins with the development of the design
basis and then the thermal-hydraulic design and assessment of fluid behavior. During the
thermal- hydraulic design phase, the flow assurance engineer will begin to interface with
other design engineers, such as pipeline/flowline and facilities engineers. In what is
typically a parallel effort, the flow assurance engineer will interface with the subsea
mechanical designers and other engineers, will develop operating strategies, and will
assist in determining host facility requirements. An over-riding consideration in the
design process is system economics and risk management.
H-0806.35
3-1
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The design process will be iterative due to inevitable changes in the design basis, interim
results during the design, changes in system economics, and other changes. Such
iterations are indicated in the design methodology flow chart at the decision points in
which no would be the answer.
The flow assurance design process involves multiple technical interfaces.
engineering, completions engineering, pipeline/flo wline mechanical design,
controls engineering, facilities engineering, and operational personnel will
with flow assurance during the design process. The numerous interfaces
effective project management.
3.1
Reservoir
subsea and
all interact
necessitate
Design Basis
The first major effort in the design process is to establish the design basis. The flow
assurance engineer will be directly involved in terms of determining and documenting the
fluid characteristics, in terms of both PVT behavior and the potential for solids formation.
For the other aspects of the design basis, such as reservoir behavior, site characteristics,
and host facilities, the flow assurance engineer will need to ensure that the data needed
for the flow assurance analyses are included in the design basis. Thus the flow assurance
engineer will need to interface with those responsible for reservoir engineering,
metoceanic data, bathymetry, and surface facilities. These interfaces will continue
throughout the project. It is important to note that the design basis will need to be built
with conservatism to offset poor or missing data.
This step in the design process assumes that fluid samples have been collected. A
substantial amount of laboratory work may be required to determine the characteristics of
the fluid samples. Standard PVT measurements should be performed on the fluids, and
then fluid characterizations should be developed for use in thermal-hydraulic and other
modeling (reservoir and process). Section 4 discusses PVT behavior and fluid
characterization. The fluids should also be tested for potential solids formation such as
wax and asphaltenes.
3.2
Thermal-Hydraulic Design
The thermal- hydraulic design effort evaluates the lifecycle performance of the entire
production system. All parts of the system and all interfaces must be considered
throughout the operating lifetime of the development. This effort also should include
assessment of the potential for flow reductions due to solids formation.
H-0806.35
3-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
At the beginning of this step, basic design and operating principles should be set.
Examples include methods to be used to keep the production system out of the hydrate
formation region. For oil systems this could mean insulation. For gas system this would
require chemical inhibition. Another example would be to establish a lower limit on well
production rate and/or to use insulated tubing to prevent wax deposition in wellbores
during normal operation. This could be extended to the flowline, or wax may be
managed in the flowline with pigging and chemical injection. Such principles help guide
the flow assurance engineer through the design process; however, these principles should
be continuously evaluated in light of system operability and economics.
3.2.1
Hydraulic Modeling
Most system design attributes can be set on the basis of steady state analyses. Steadystate hydraulic models are used to determine the diameters for production tubing,
production flowlines, injection flowlines, and export pipelines. Criteria for line sizing
include pressure constraints, flow rates, and erosional velocity limits. As part of the line
sizing exercise and hydraulic assessment, changes in parameters such as production rates,
water cut, and GOR during the field life need to be evaluated. Artificial lift may also be
considered. Operating pressures will be calculated. Sections 5, 6, and 14 deal with
multiphase flow, line sizing, and erosion.
3.2.2
Thermal Modeling
Thermal modeling is typically combined with hydraulic modeling, thus thermal- hydraulic
modeling. Operating temperatures are calculated as a function of insulation level and
other parameters initially via steady state analysis. Section 7 covers thermal modeling.
3.2.3
Assessment of Transient Thermal-Hydraulic Behavior

The operation of subsea production systems and transport systems involves transient
processes, e.g. shutdowns, startups, and rate changes. It is during these transient
operations that issues like hydrate control and liquid handling become important system
design and operability drivers.
Examples of transient thermal- hydraulic modeling include wellbore warmup with restart,
flowline/riser cooldown upon shutdown, and depressurization. For deepwater oil
systems, the cooldown time to hydrate conditions has typically driven the insulation
level. Transient analysis may also include determining the potential for slugging and slug
characterization. Slugging can impact selection of line size, and thus the hydraulic and
line-sizing analysis may need to be re-iterated. Sections 8 and 17 cover transient
operations and slugging, respectively.
H-0806.35
3-3
1-Dec-00
3.2.4
DEEPSTAR
Assessment of Fluid Behavior and Solids Formation/Deposition

In this step, the thermodynamic behavior of the fluids is evaluated in view of the system
thermal and hydraulic performance to assure design criteria are met. Hydrate
dissociation curves are determined for the production fluids, and wax and asphaltene
formation envelopes are developed. The operating temperatures and pressures are
compared to these envelopes to predict when and where solid may form. Solids control is
responsible for many of the features of subsea design and operation including insulation,
chemical injection, pigging facilities, and special operating procedures for shutdown.
Methods for remediation of deposited solids also need to be developed. These methods
may require specific facilities in the design (e.g. solvent lines in the umbilical for
remediating asphaltene deposits in wellbores) and/or the development of special
procedures. Sections 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 discuss hydrates, wax, asphaltenes, emulsions,
and scale.
3.3
Interface with Mechanical Design

Flow assurance engineers and the engineers responsible for the mechanical design of the
subsea facilities must assure that characteristics such as line diameters, operating and
shut-in pressures, required insulation levels, and operating temperatures are consistent
within the system design. Information provided by the flow assurance effort is used in
the design of flowlines, pipelines, risers, subsea equipment (trees and manifolds),
umbilicals, and completions.
3.4
Operating Strategies
Operating strategies must be consistent with the system design and should be adaptable to
suit new circumstances in the event that fluid characteristics or other system
characteristics are found to be significantly different from those in the design basis.
Development of operating strategies is presented in Section 21.
3.5
Host Facility Requirements

The host facilities are a key part of the subsea system design, and its requirements and
capabilities must not be overlooked. Examples include the capacity, arrangement, and
control of receiving equipment (separators, slugcatchers, surge tanks, and flare knockout
drums), chemical injection storage and pumping, pigging equipment, normal and
emergency power, and control. Instrumentation, controls, and facility capabilities have to
be completely integrated into the overall system design and operability. Sections 18, 19,
H-0806.35
3-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
20, and 22 cover slugcatcher design, pigging, other operations, and host facility
requirements.
3.6
System Economics
There are numerous detailed design and manufacture activities and considerations that
are implicitly lumped into the Assess System Economics step. Section 23 covers system
economics and risk management.
H-0806.35
3-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 3-1: FLOW ASSURANCE DESIGN PROCESS
ESTABLISH DESIGN BASIS
Reservoir Behavior
as f(t)
Productivity Index
Production Profiles
Pres. vs. Depletion
Temperature
Fluid Behavior
PVT Characterization
Hydrates
Wax
Asphaltenes
Flowline
Routing
Bathymetry
Seabed Temp.
INTERFACE WITH
MECHANICAL DESIGN
Host Facilities
Separator Pres.
Acceptable Arrival
Temp.
Flowlines, Pipelines, & Risers

Subsea Equipment
Umbilicals
Wellbores
OPERATING
STRATEGIES
FLOW SYSTEM THERMAL-HYDRAULIC DESIGN AND FLUID

BEHAVIOR
HYDRAULIC DESIGN
Model
Wells
Model
Flowlines
Model
Wells
Select Tubing
and Flowline
Diameters and
# of Flowlines
No
Plateau and
EOL Conditions
Satisfied?
Hydrates
Wax
Asphaltenes
Scale
Model
Flowlines
Prediction
Control
Remediation
Select Tubing
and
Flowline
Insulation
ThermalHydraulics OK?
No
HOST FACILITY
REQUIREMENTS
ASSESS
TRANSIENT
THERMALHYDRAULICS
Yes
No
ThermalHydraulics and
Fluid Behavior
OK?
Yes
Reservoir, Flow
System, and Host Design
Compatible?
Yes
Processing Capabilities
Processing Pres./Temps.
Metering
Storage Volumes
Export Requirements
PCS
Chemical Injection Pumps
Chemical Storage
Flare Requirements
Utility & Emergency Power
Surge/Slug Volumes
Surge/Slug Control
Startup / Warmup
Shutdown / Cooldown
Turndown / Ramp-up
Depressurization
Slugging
Yes
No
Procedures
Valve Sequences
Pump Sequences
Chemical Injection
Rates
Activity Durations
ASSESS FLUID
PHASE
BEHAVIOR
THERMAL DESIGN
ASSESS SYSTEM
ECONOMICS
CAPITAL COST
OPERATING COSTS
NET PRESENT VALUE
No
System
and Economics
Optimum?
Yes
DONE
H-0806.35
3-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
4.0
FLUID PROPERTIES AND PHASE BEHAVIOR
4.1
Introduction
Modeling of oil and gas production, processing, and transportation system requires
knowledge of how the fluid behaves with changes in temperature and pressure. This
modeling work will require not only fluid properties (densities, viscosities, heat
capacities) but also the phase behavior of the fluids.
Multi-component phase behavior is a complex phenomenon, which requires accurate
determination if two-phase pressure loss, hold-up and flow regime are to be determined
with any degree of confidence.
The phase behavior will determine the vapor-liquid split and the thermodynamic
properties of each of the phases present, and it is important for the designer of such a
system to have a knowledge of what form this equilibrium takes, and how it may change
in different parts of the pipeline. Since it is expected that both temperature and pressure
will fall as fluids flow along the pipeline, it is possible that either condensation or
evaporation will take place within the pipe. This can have a significant effect on liquid
holdup and hence pressure drop. It also means that the CGR (or GOR) can vary
significantly depending on whether it is based on pipeline inlet or outlet conditions, and it
is therefore important to make it clear under what conditions it has been calculated.
In practice, experimentally determined phase behavior is often limited and one has to
employ some method of prediction. There are two approaches commonly employed in
the prediction of hydrocarbon phase behavior. These are the black oil method, which
assumes that only two components, i.e. gas and liquid, make up the mixture, and the socalled compositional approach, in which each hydrocarbon component is taken into
account. The methods have their own relative merits and are discussed in this section.
This section also addresses fluid sampling. Without appropriate sampling techniques,
sample handling, and analysis methods, the predictive methods used in modeling of the
production and processing of reservoir fluids will be in error.
H-0806.35
4-1
1-Dec-00
4.2
Reservoir Fluids
4.2.1
Phase Behavior
DEEPSTAR
Reservoir fluids are often described in terms of their phase behavior, which can be
defined as the relationship between the fluid phases (usually the gas and the
oil/condensate) and how the phases change with variations in temperature and pressure.
Single Component Phase Behavior
In describing phase behavior, a system consisting of a single, pure substance is
considered first. Such a system behaves differently from systems made up of more than
one component. A phase diagram (or phase envelope) is a plot of pressure versus
temperature showing the conditions under which the various phases will be present.
Figure 4.2-1 shows a phase diagram for a single, pure substance.
4000
Pure Component Phase Diagram
CRITICAL
POINT
Pressure
3000
LIQUID
SOLID
2000
VAPOR PRESSURE
CURVE
1000
TRIPLE
POINT
VAPOR
0
-50
50
100
150
200
Temperature
Figure 4.2-1: Phase Diagram for a Single-Component System

This phase diagram shows the temperature and pressure conditions under which the
vapor, liquid, and solid phases exist. Various components of the phase diagram are
defined below.
H-0806.35
4-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Vapor Pressure Curve

The curve that divides the vapor phase from the liquid phase is called the vapor pressure
curve. At conditions above the curve only liquid will exist, and at conditions below the
curve only vapor exists. At pressure-temperature points on the curve, vapor and liquid
will co-exist.
Triple Point
The triple point is a unique point on the phase diagram at which vapor, liquid, and solid
all coexist.
Critical Point
The upper limit of the vapor pressure curve is called the critical point. The temperature
and pressure at this point are referred as to the critical temperature (Tc) and the critical
pressure (Pc).
Sublimation and Melting Curves
The phase diagram also illustrates the sublimation curve and melting curve, which
separate the solid and gas phases and the liquid and solid phases, respectively.
Multicomponent Phase Behavior
Reservoir fluids are multicomponent mixtures and exhibit more complex phase behavior
than pure components. Figure 4.2-2 illustrates a phase diagram for a gas-condensate
system. This diagram does not include potential solid phases that occur in reservoir
fluids; the diagram focuses only on the vapor and liquid phases.
Instead of a single curve representing the vapor pressure curve as with single component
fluids, there is a broad region in which vapor and liquid coexists. This region is called
the two-phase region or phase envelope. The two-phase region is bounded on one side by
the dew point curve and on the other by the bubble point curve. The two curves join at
the critical point. Figure 4.2-2 also illustrates the dew and bubble point curves.
H-0806.35
4-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
7000
Multiple Component Phase Diagram
6000
CRITICAL
POINT
BUBBLE
POINT
CURVE
5000
Pressure (psia)
CRICONDENBAR
DEW POINT CURVE
VAPOR FRACTION = 100 MOLE %
4000
LIQUID
99
MOLE %
QUALITY
LINES
3000
95
MOLE %
CRICONDENTHERM
90
MOLE %
80
MOLE %
2000
1000
VAPOR
0
-100
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Temperature (F)
Figure 4.2-2: Multiple Component Phase Diagram.
Dew Point and Bubble Point

At a pressure below the dew point curve, the fluid will be single-phase vapor. As the
pressure is increased at a constant temperature, the vapor compresses until the pressure
reaches a point at which the first drop of liquid is formed. This is referred to as the dew
point. The pressure at which the first liquid drop forms is called the dew point pressure.
As the pressure is increased above the dew point pressure, more and more liquid forms.
At a pressure above the bubble point curve, the fluid will be single-phase liquid. As the
pressure is reduced at a constant temperature, the liquid expands until the pressure
reaches a point at which the first bubble of vapor is formed. This is referred to as the
H-0806.35
4-4
1-Dec-00
1000
DEEPSTAR
bubble point. The pressure at which the first gas is formed is the bubble point pressure.
As the pressure is decreased below the bubble point pressure, more and more gas appears.
Critical Point
As can be seen when comparing Figures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2, the definition for the critical
point for a single component is not the same as that for a multiple component mixture. A
rigorous definition of the critical point is that it is the point at which all properties of the
liquid and the gas become identical.
Cricondentherm and Cricondenbar
The highest temperature on the two-phase envelope is called the cricondentherm. The
highest pressure on the two-phase envelope is called the cricondenbar. These are
illustrated on Figure 4.2-2.
Quality Lines
Another feature in the two-phase envelope are quality lines. These lines indicate curves
on constant vapor or liquid quantities within the two-phase region. In Figure 4.2-2 there
are quality lines for 99, 95, 90 and 80 mole percent vapor. The quality lines all converge
at the critical point.
Retrograde Condensation
For many multiple component mixtures a phenomenon called retrograde condensation
can occur. If the mixture is at a pressure greater tha n the cricondenbar and at a
temperature greater than the critical temperature, it will be single-phase gas. If the
pressure is decreased isothermally, the dew point curve will be crossed and liquid will
form. A decrease in pressure has caused liquid to form; this is the reverse of the behavior
one would expect, hence the name retrograde condensation. As the pressure continues
decreasing, more liquid will form until at some pressure the amount of liquid starts
decreasing. Eventually the dew point curve will be crossed again.
Dense Phase Region
It is common practice to refer to the area above the cricondenbar as the dense phase
region. In this region it possible to move from a temperature well below the critical
temperature to one well above it without any discernible phase change having taken
place. At the lower temperature the fluid would behave more like a liquid and at the
H-0806.35
4-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
higher temperature it would behave more like a vapor, but in between it would not exhibit
any of the traditional signs of a phase change.
4.2.2
Components of Reservoir Fluids

Reservoir fluids contain a multitude of chemical components, which can be divided into
two groups: hydrocarbons and non- hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbon components include:
Paraffins (straight chain and branched)
Methane, ethane, propane, butanes, pentanes, hexanes, heptanes, octanes, etc.
Waxes
Naphthenes
Aromatics
Cyclopentane, cyclohexane, methylcyclohexane, etc.
Benzene, toluene, xylenes, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, etc.
Resins and Asphaltenes
Large molecules composed mainly of aromatic rings or carbon and hydrogen but
also can contain nitrogen, sulfur, oxygen, and metals
The non-hydrocarbon components of reservoir fluids include:
Water
Carbon dioxide (CO2 )
Sulfur compounds
Nitrogen (N2 )
Helium
Metals
4.2.3
Hydrogen sulfide (H2 S), mercaptans
Vanadium, nickel
Mineral salts
Types of Reservoir Fluids

Fives types of reservoir fluids can be defined: black oil, volatile oil, retrograde gas, wet
gas, and dry gas. These fives types of reservoir fluids have been defined because each
requires different approaches for reservoir management and production system design.
H-0806.35
4-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The reservoir fluid type can be confirmed only by observation in the laboratory; however,
some rules of thumb can help identify the fluid type. Three properties that can be used
with the rules of thumb are the initial producing gas-oil ratio, the gravity of the stock tank
oil, and the color of the stock tank oil.
The behavior of a reservoir fluid during production is determined by the shape of its
phase diagram and the position of its critical point. Each of the five reservoir fluid types
can be described in terms of its phase diagram.
Black Oils
The phase diagram for a black oil is presented in Figure 4.2-3. Indicated on the phase
diagram is the critical point and quality lines. The vertical line in the figure indicates the
pressure reduction at constant temperature that occurs in the reservoir during production.
As the reservoir of a black oil is produced, the pressure will eventually drop below the
bubble point curve. Once below the bubble point, gas evolves from the oil and causes
some shrinkage of the oil.
Black oils are characterized as having initial gas-oil ratios (GORs) of 2000 SCF/STB or
less. The producing gas-oil ratio will increase during production when reservoir pressure
drops below the bubble point pressure. The stock tank oil will usually have a gravity
below 45API.
hydrocarbons.
The stock tank oil will be very dark due to the presence of heavy
Volatile Oils
The phase diagram for a typical volatile oil, Figure 4.2-4, is somewhat different from the
black-oil phase diagram. The temperature range covered by the two-phase region is
somewhat smaller, and the critical point is much lower than for a black oil and is
relatively close to the reservoir temperature (but still greater than the reservoir
temperature). The vertical line in the figure shows the reduction in reservoir pressure at
constant temperature during production. For a volatile oil, a small reduction in pressure
below the bubble point can cause a relatively large amount of gas to evolve.
The dividing line between black oils and volatile oils is somewhat arbitrary. Volatile oils
may be identified as having initial producing GORs between 2000 and 3300 SCF/STB.
The stock tank oil gravity is usually 40API or higher, and the stock tank oil is colored
(usually brown, orange, or green).
H-0806.35
4-7
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Retrograde Gases
The phase diagram of a retrograde gas, Figure 4.2-5, has a somewhat smaller temperature
range than that for oils, and the critical point is further down the left side of the phase
envelope. The changes are a result of retrograde gas containing fewer heavy
hydrocarbons than the oils. Additionally, the critical temperature is less than the
reservoir temperature, and the cricondentherm is greater than the reservoir temperature.
During initial production, the retrograde gas is single-phase gas in the reservoir. As the
reservoir pressure declines, the dew point is reached, and liquid begins to condense from
the gas and form a free liquid in the reservoir. This liquid will normally not flow and
cannot be produced.
The initial producing GORs for a retrograde gas ranges from 3300 SCF/STB on the lower
end to over 150,000 SCF/STB (the upper limit is not well defined). The producing GOR
will increase after the reservoir pressure drops below the dew point. Stock tank gravities
of the condensate are between 40 and 60API and increase as reservoir pressure drops
below the dew point. The stock tank liquid will be lightly colored to clear.
Wet Gases
With wet gases the entire phase envelope will be below the reservoir temperature as
illustrated in Figure 4.2-6. Wet gases contain predominately low molecular weight
molecules. A wet gases will remain as single phase gas in the reservoir throughout the
production life; however, the separator conditions do lie within the two-phase region.
Thus, somewhere in the production system, the dew point curve will be crossed and
liquid will condense from the gas.
Wet gases produce stock-tank liquids with gravities ranging from 40 to 60API; however,
the gravity of the liquid does not change during the production life. Wet gases have very
high GORs, typically more than 50,000 SCF/STB.
Dry Gases
Dry gases are primarily methane with some light intermediates. Figure 4.2-7 shows that
the two-phase regions is less than the reservoir conditions and the separator conditions.
Thus no liquid is formed in either the reservoir or the separator.
H-0806.35
4-8
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
4500
BLACK OIL
4000
PRESSURE PATH
IN RESERVOIR
3500
BUBBLE POINT CURVE
90
Pressure (psia)
3000
2
CRITICAL
POINT
80
2500
70
60
2000
50
1500
40
30
1000
20
10 % LIQUID
500
SEPARATOR
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Temperature (F)
Figure 4.2-3: Black Oil Phase Diagram
H-0806.35
4-9
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
4000
PRESSURE PATH
IN RESERVOIR
1
3500
VOLATILE OIL
CRITICAL
POINT
Pressure (psia)
3000
BUBBLE POINT
90
CURVE
80
70
2500
60
50
40
30
20
2000
10 % LIQUID
1500
1000
500
SEPARATOR
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Temperature (F)
Figure 4.2-4: Volatile Oil Phase Diagram.
H-0806.35
4-10
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
5000
PRESSURE PATH
IN RESERVOIR
RETROGRADE GAS
Pressure (psia)
4000
DEW POINT CURVE
CRITICAL
POINT
3000
60
50
40
30
20
10 % LIQUID
2000
3
SEPARATOR
1000
0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Temperature (F)
Figure 4.2-5: Retrograde Gas Phase Diagram.
H-0806.35
4-11
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
3000
PRESSURE PATH
IN RESERVOIR
1
WET GAS
2500
DEW POINT CURVE
Pressure (psia)
2000
CRITICAL
POINT
1500
20 % LIQUID
10
5
1000
2
SEPARATOR
500
0
-50
50
100
150
200
250
Temperature (F)
Figure 4.2-6: Wet Gas Phase Diagram.
H-0806.35
4-12
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
3000
PRESSURE PATH
IN RESERVOIR
DRY GAS
2500
Pressure (psia)
2000
1500
1000
DEW POINT CURVE

CRITICAL
POINT
2
10 5
SEPARATOR
1% LIQUID
500
0
-100
-50
50
100
150
200
Temperature (F)
Figure 4.2-4: Dry Gas Phase Diagram.
H-0806.35
4-13
1-Dec-00
4.3
Black Oil Model
4.3.1
Black Oil Model
DEEPSTAR
The black oil approach to the prediction of phase behavior ignores the fluid composition
and simply considers the mixture as consisting of a gas and liquid phase in which the gas
may be dissolved in the liquid. The basic assumption of a black oil model is that
increasing system pressure (and reducing temperature) cause more gas to dissolve in the
liquid phases, and, conversely, decreasing system pressure (and increasing temperature)
cause gas to evaporate from the liquid phase. It was previously noted that retrograde
condensation involves the conversion of gas to liquid on reducing pressure. This is
contrary to the fundamental assumption of the black oil model and so the black oil
approach is only valid for systems operating at conditions far removed from the
retrograde region.
In a typical liquid reservoir, the reservoir condition is well to the left of the critical point
and so the expansion process involves the continual evolution of gas, i.e. the operating
point moves steadily across the quality lines to a condition of ever decreasing liquid
content. This type of process would be adequately represented by a black oil model.
For the gas reservoir, the reservoir condition lies to the right of the critical point so that
on expansion, (reducing pressure) the operating point moves across the quality lines to a
condition of increasing liquid content, i.e. retrograde condensation. This process could
not be represented by a black oil model.
As a general guide a black oil model should be adequate for describing crude oil- gas
systems, while a compositional model is necessary to describe wet-gas, gas-condensate
and dense phase systems.
The black oil model employs certain concepts and nomenclature, which require
definition. These are discussed briefly below:
Producing Gas Oil Ratio (GOR)
This is the quantity of gas evolved when reservoir fluids are flashed to stock tank
conditions. The units are standard cubic feet of gas per stock tank barrel of oil
(SCF/STB) measured at 14.7 psia and 60F.
The GOR of a crude is obtained by experimental testing. However, the GOR will vary
depending on how many flash stages are employed to get down to stock tank conditions.
H-0806.35
4-14
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The normal convention is to calculate GOR from the sum of gas volumes evolved from a
multistage flash procedure (normally this involves 2 or 3 flash stages). This more closely
represents conditions in the field with the pressure and temperature conditions chosen for
the first stage flash approximating to conditions likely to be experienced in the first stage
separator in the field.
Solution Gas Oil Ratio (R s )
This is the quantity of gas dissolved in the oil at any temperature and pressure. It
represents the quantity of gas that would be evolved from the oil if its temperature and
pressure were altered to stock tank conditions, 14.7 psia and 60F. Hence, by definition
the Rs of stock tank oil is zero.
The Rs crude at its bubble point is equal to the producing GOR of the reservoir fluids.
The volume of free gas present at any pressure and temperature is the difference between
the GOR and the Rs. The volume of free gas is corrected for pressure, temperature and
compressibility to compute the actual in-situ volume of gas and hence superficial gas
velocity. Rs can be evaluated from standard correlations such as Glaso or Standing.
These correlations require as input the oil and gas gravity and the pressure and
temperature conditions.
Volume Formation Factor (B o )
The volume formation factor is the ratio of the volume occupied by oil at any pressure
and temperature to the volume occupied at stock tank conditions. The units are pipeline
barrels per stock tank barrel (BBL/STB). The volume formation factor of stock tank oil
is thus 1.0. Through use of Bo the volume flow rate and density of the liquid phase can
be calculated. Standard correlations are available to compute Bo . These require as input
the oil and gas density, the Rs of the liquid at the conditions of interest, and the pressure
and temperature.
Live Oil Viscosity
The viscosity of the oil in a two-phase pipeline depends on the stock tank oil viscosity
(dead oil viscosity), the solution gas oil ratio at the conditions of interest, and the pressure
and temperature. Correlations are available to compute the live oil viscosity.
The correlations available for Rs, Bo and live oil viscosity will yield approximate values
only and where laboratory or field data is available, these should be used to adjust and
H-0806.35
4-15
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
tune these correlations. The way in which the correlations are tuned will depend on the
quantity of field data available.
The minimum physical property information required to run a black oil model is:
Stock tank oil gravity

Gas gravity
There is often some confusion about the definition of gas gravity and hence uncertainty
about the value of this data item. The majority of the correlations are based upon
multistage 23 stages) separation, and the gas gravity used should always be the total
gravity based upon the weighted average gravity from each stage:
n
Total gas gravity =
sg i * Gi
i =1
Gi
i =1
where:
sgi = gravity of the ith separator stage offgas
Gi = free gas GOR at the ith separator stage
n = number of stages in the separator train with the final stage at stock tank
conditions.
Total producing GOR

This should be taken as the sum of the gas volumes evolved from each stage of a
multistage flash.
4.3.2
Thermal-Hydraulic Simulation with the Black Oil Model

In thermal-hydraulic simulators, the black oil correlation models can be used to simulate
the key PVT fluid properties of the oil/gas/water system. These empirical correlations
treat the oil/gas system as a simple two-component system, unlike the more rigorous
multi-component compositional model methods (equations of state). As previously
described, the hydrocarbon is treated simply as an "oil" component (if present) and a
"gas" component related to stock tank conditions. All that is needed for most
H-0806.35
4-16
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
applications is a minimum of production data: oil gravity, gas gravity, solution gas/oil
ratio and, if water is present, the watercut.
When to Use Black Oil Fluid Modeling
Black oil fluid modeling is appropriate for a wide range of applications and hydrocarbon
fluid systems. In general, the basic black oil correlations will provide reasonable
accuracy in most PVT fluid property evaluations over the range of pressures and
temperatures likely to be found in production or pipeline systems. However, care should
be taken when applying the "black oil approach" to highly volatile crude oils or
condensates where accurate modeling of the gaseous "light ends" is required. In this
case, the modeler needs to consider using compositional modeling techniques, which
describe the fluid as a multi-component system.
To increase the accuracy of the basic black oil correlations for modeling multiphase flow,
thermal- hydraulic simulators typically provide the facility to adjust salient values of a
number of the most important PVT fluid properties to match laboratory data.
Specifically, the following points can be calibrated:
Oil saturated gas content at the bubble point (Rs )
Formation volume factor at the bubble point (Bo )
Formation volume factor at pressure above the bubble point to account for oil
compressibility above bubble point
Live oil viscosity at the bubble point
The above fluid properties are considered the single most important parameters affecting
the accuracy of multi-phase flow calculations. Calibration of these properties at the
bubble point and above can increase the accuracy of the correlations over all pressures
and temperatures.
This facility is typically optional, but the above calibrations will significantly improve the
accuracy of the predicted gas/liquid ratio, the flowing oil density and the oil volume
formation factor as a function of temperature and pressure. If the calibration data are
omitted, however, the thermal-hydraulic simulators will calibrate on the basis of oil and
gas gravity alone and thus, there will be a loss in accuracy. It should be noted that the
H-0806.35
4-17
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Black Oil calibration is only applicable to oil fluid types as it is not appropriate for a gas
fluid type.
4.4
Compositional Models
4.4.1
Equations of State
In a compositional model the predictions of gas and liquid physical properties are
performed through use of an equation of state, EOS. Any equation correlating pressure
(P), volume (V) and temperature (T) is known as an EOS. For an ideal gas the EOS is
simply:
PV = nRT
where:
n = number of moles of gas
R = Universal gas constant.
A gas is ideal if its molecules do not interact with each other and occupy no volume.
This is obviously not true, but the behavior of most real gases does not deviate drastically
from the behavior predicted by the ideal gas behavior. One way of writing an equation of
state for a real gas is to insert a correction factor into the ideal gas equation. This results
in:
PV = ZnRT
where the correction factor, Z, is known as the compressibility factor or z- factor. The
compressibility factor is the ratio of the volume actually occupied by a real gas at a given
pressure and temperature to the volume it would occupy at the same pressure and
temperature if it behaved like an ideal gas. The compressibility factor is not a constant.
It varies with changes in composition, pressure, and temperature.
To account for the non- ideality of most gas systems the ideal gas equation is modified to
include various correlating constants. The most commonly used equations of state used
in the oil and gas industry are called cubic equations of state because their mathematical
forms are cubic in terms of density or the z- factor. The two most popular equations of
state used in industry today are the Redlich-Kwong-Soave, the Peng-Robinson EOS, and
modifications of them.
H-0806.35
4-18
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
These cubic equations of state include terms to correct pressure for the forces of
attraction between the molecules. The actual pressure exerted by a real gas is less than
that of an ideal gas. Additionally, the cubic equations of state attempt to correct the
molar volume due to the volume occupied by the molecules.
The Peng-Robinson (PR) EOS, for example, is given by:
P =
RT
V b
a(T )
V (V + b) + b(V b )
where for any mixture :
b = i bi
i
i = mole mole fraction of component i

bi =
empirical constant for component i. This parameter represents the volume
occupied by the molecules.

a=
i
k ij =
i j (l kij ) ai a j
empirically determined interaction parameter for the two components, i
and j.
ai a j =
empirical constants for components i and j. These are a function of
temperature and represent the pressure contribution from the attractive forces.
The cubic equations of state can model liquids as well as gases and can be used to
calculate the vapor- liquid equilibria of hydrocarbon mixtures. The equation of state
allows a thermodynamically consistent method to evaluate the gas and liquid properties
when these two phases coexist.
The prediction of liquid densities was an area that ne eded improvement in original
development of the cubic equations of state. An empirical but effective way to improve
the accuracy of the liquid density predictions is to use the volume translation correction.
The volume translation is a linear correction of the predicted EOS volumes which does
not affect the equilibrium results from the original EOS. Therefore, this correction,
which is sometimes referred to as the Peneloux correction, is thermodynamically
consistent.
H-0806.35
4-19
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Another equation of state that is sometimes used in the oil and gas industry is the
Benedict-Weber-Rubin (BWR) equation and its derivative, the BWRS equation.
4.4.2
Viscosity
Viscosity, which is a transport property, cannot be evaluated from an EOS, but the EOS
provides compositional and property data that is needed in the viscosity models. Two
compositional methods to predict viscosity are commonly used: the LBC method (gas
and liquid) and the Pedersen method (gas and liquid). Preliminary testing has shown the
Pedersen method to be the most widely applicable and accurate for oil and gas viscosity
predictions. The Pedersen method is based on the corresponding state theory, as is the
LBC method.
Lower Alkanes
Predicted liquid viscosities using LBC and Pedersen methods have been compared to
experimental data for methane and octane as a function of both temperature and pressure
and for pentane as a function of temperature. For both methane and pentane the Pedersen
method predictions show close agreement with experimental data. For octane, the
Pedersen and LBC methods give comparable results. For the aromatic compound, ethyl
benzene, the Pedersen method is not as good as the LBC method.
Higher Alkanes
The results for higher alkanes eicosane and triacontane are mixed: the Pedersen method is
adequate for eicosane whereas the LBC method is slightly better than Pedersen for
triacontane. For triacontane both LBC and the Pedersen methods are inadequate.
However, in the majority of cases the higher hydrocarbons should be treated as petroleum
fractions rather than as single named components.
Petroleum Fractions
The LBC method describes viscosity as a function of the fluid critical parameters,
acentric factor and density. The LBC model is therefore very sensitive to both density
and the characterization of the petroleum fractions.
Water
The Pedersen method suffers the same drawback as the LBC method in that it is unable to
predict the temperature dependence of water, a polar molecule. To overcome this
problem, the Pedersen method has been modified especially for water so that it can
H-0806.35
4-20
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
accurately model the viscosity of water in the liquid phase. This was achieved by the
introduction of a temperature-dependent correction factor. However the prediction of the
viscosity of the gas phase is also affected, though in only a minor way.
Methanol
Neither the LBC nor the Pederson method can deal with polar components with the
Pederson method slightly worse than the LBC method. This is not surprising, as both
methods were developed for non-polar components and mixtures. The Pedersen method
works best with light alkanes and petroleum mixtures in the liquid phase. It performs as
well or better than the LBC method in nearly all situations.
The choice of the equation of state has a large effect on the viscosities predicted by both
methods. The LBC method is more sensitive to these equation of state effects than is the
Pedersen method.
4.5
Fluid Characterization
Petroleum reservoir fluids consist of thousands of different hydrocarbon molecules. The
diversity in chemical structure of the individual components increases with the carbon
number. In reality it is not practical to analyze for all of the components that may exist in
a reservoir fluid. Even if the separation and identification of each component present
were possible, the usefulness of such information would be limited. From a modeling
standpoint, it is desirable to keep the number of components small in using EOS to
minimize computation time requirements and round-off errors.
Standard composition analyses often stop at C7, C10, or C20. The gas chromatographic
analysis of pure hydrocarbon components up to C6 is routine. The physical and chemical
properties of these compounds (as required by an EOS) are accurately known. However,
compounds with higher carbon numbers are conventionally analyzed in terms of true
boiling fractions. The analysis is usually done in a gas chromatograph and provides the
mole fraction of all compounds that contain the same number of carbons in their
structure.
There are components that are too heavy and/or polar and are not volatile enough to be
separated by GC carbon number analysis. These components typically make up the
residue that is reported as the last carbon number component, and this residue consists of
all the components that have carbon numbers equal to or higher than the highest
H-0806.35
4-21
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
unseparable carbon number group. The residual group may be the C7+, C10+, C20+, or
C30+ fraction.
Because the components with carbon numbers C7 and higher are not separated as pure
compounds, their critical parameters are not known for use in EOS modeling. As a
result, a process is used to develop a set of pseudo-components to represent these
compounds and to determine the critical and other EOS parameters for these pseudocomponents. This process is referred to as the fluid or oil characterization process. An
EOS characterization refers to a list of hydrocarbon components and pseudo-components
and their critical properties and molecular weights, and it includes the binary interaction
parameters.
The fluid characterization procedure uses experimental data to assign equation of state
parameters to a set of pseudo-components. The experimental data often originates from
PVT experiments (e.g. constant mass expansion, constant volume depletion, differential
liberation, multistage flashes) of the reservoir fluid of interest. Viscosity data may also
be used. Because the characterization process will be using data for a specific reservoir
fluid, the resulting characterization will only be valid for that reservoir fluid. There are
no universal fluid characterizations.
The development of an EOS characterization proceeds through a series of steps:
All relevant experimental data is collected and reviewed. These data may include:
Constant mass expansion
Constant volume depletion
Differential liberation
Multistage flashes
Viscosity
Compositional analysis
Built experimental data into PVT simulation package.
Obtain initial estimate of EOS characterization based on compositional analysis and

select number of pseudo-components to be used.
In the PVT simulator, tune pseudo-component critical parameters to minimize error

between experimental data and EOS predicted results based on fluid characterization.
H-0806.35
4-22
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Tuning EOS models to the experimental PVT data can be more of an art than a science,
and it requires the use of appropriate software programs. This is at least partially a result
of the EOS models being highly nonlinear and the number of adjustable parameters in the
regression being large. Additionally, there is no rigorous way to arrive at the global
minimum of such a highly nonlinear function. Special non-linear regression techniques
have been developed that allow adjusting the constants of the EOS and the critical
properties of the pseudo-components to tune the EOS predictions to PVT measurements.
There are limitations associated with fluid characterizations. The pseudo-components are
assumed to behave as single, lumped components in phase behavior, but in reality they do
not. Some of the pure components lump ed in a pseudo-component may not in reality
move from one phase to another as the pseudo-component does in the simulation of the
fluid. To overcome inaccuracies in the use of EOS to describe the phase behavior of
reservoir fluids, characterization procedures need to be followed to generate the most
appropriate set of pseudo-components and their relevant properties.
The EOS characterization may only be applicable to some of the processes the fluid may
undergo (e.g. reservoir depletion, flowline transport, facilities processing). These
processes may be those for which data were available and used in the development of the
characterization. Thus, the range of applicability of the EOS characterization depends on
the type of PVT data used and the pressure and temperature range of that data
4.6
Fluid Sampling Guidelines

The following guidelines are merely recommendations to encourage the reader to
consider the implications and limitations of current technology when designing and
implementing a fluid sampling program. Most are not so much new technology as they
are common sense. These common sense guidelines were included because they are not
consistently followed.
The oilfield environment involves high temperatures and pressures, and flammable
liquids and gases. In such an environment, safety is the primary guideline. While some
safety recommendations have been included in the following report, we have not
attempted to fully address the issue. It is the responsibility of each company to
implement these guidelines safely.
H-0806.35
4-23
1-Dec-00
4.6.1
DEEPSTAR
Overview
Executive Summary
As field developments move to deeper water and subsea technology becomes more
widely used, paraffin and asphaltenes become more of a real problem than an annoyance.
Proper planning becomes critical and cannot be performed without data obtained from
representative fluid samples. CTR 901 was formed to address the special considerations
associated with collecting and handling fluid samples containing paraffins and
asphaltenes.
These guidelines were expanded somewhat beyo nd the basic goal of fluid sampling for
paraffin because it was recognized that in many instances the same sample would be used
for multiple reservoir fluid studies by a wide range of disciplines.
The following guidelines were developed with input from industry experts and with
vendor input. Issues related to sampling at surface facilities, sampling with downhole
flowstream samplers and sampling with downhole formation testers were addressed
individually.
Conclusions
In addition to the obvious concerns with obtaining a representative sample from the
reservoir, other problem areas must be understood and carefully addressed. First, all
equipment used in a sampling operation must be clean. Steam cleaning alone may not
remove previously deposited solids and these solids, which precipitate from one sample,
may dissolve in the next. Second, sample transfers are a major concern in the area of
sampling. In general, transfers performed on samples stabilized at reservoir conditions of
temperature and pressure should provide the greatest opportunity for representative
transfer. Response from the vendor community is that this is a realistic and attainable
goal. Consequently, vendor efforts have recently been directed toward the design and
testing of such a system. Ideally, proper planning and equipment selection can minimize
the number of transfers.
A major hindrance to getting samples to the lab exists in the area of availability of D.O.T.
approved transportation cylinders. While laboratories are increasing their capabilities to
analyze samples at reservoir pressure, the availability of suitable transportation cylinders
is lagging, especially above 10,000 psi. Vendors report that the cost and time associated
with obtaining D.O.T. approval for a specific cylinder design in the pressure ranges
required for deepwater development is prohibitive. While some vendors are pursuing this
H-0806.35
4-24
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
approval, none are currently known which can transport a sample at pressures higher than
10,000 psi.
Recommendations
4.6.2
Investigate all reasonable sampling options and carefully plan and document all
sampling operations. Coordinate planning efforts with all departments involved in
acquiring the sample or in the use of the data that will come from the sample.
Develop a prioritized analysis program for the sample detailing which analyses are
the primary purpose of obtaining the sample. Communicate with all vendors
involved in obtaining and analyzing the sample.
Condition the well to acquire a representative sample and minimize contamination.
Insist that sampling is performed by trained personnel.
Pay specific attention to equipment cleaning prior to sampling.
Minimize the number of transfers a sample will undergo. Perform transfers as near to
reservoir conditions of temperature and pressure as possible.
Do whatever possible onsite to verify that a satisfactory sample has been obtained
before concluding the sampling operation.
Introduction to Sampling Paraffinic and Asphaltic Fluids

Reservoir oils and condensate liquids may precipitate paraffins or asphaltenes upon
reduction of pressure and/or temperature, or evolution of solution gas. This may occur in
the formation, the tubing or surface facilities.
Precipitation in the Formation
Precipitation in the formation will preclude the acquisition of representative samples by
any sampling technique. Bottomhole sampling may be successful only if the precipitate
reaches an equilibrium state in the flowing fluid. Fortunately, while there are references
to this type of precipitation in the literature, it unlikely with most Gulf of Mexico crudes.
Precipitation in the Tubing
In this situation, the sampler should be lowered in the hole to a depth below where
precipitation is first known to occur. If the pressure at the sampler depth is at or below the
bubble point pressure, surface sampling is advised below.
H-0806.35
4-25
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Precipitation in Surface Facilities

Solid hydrocarbon precipitates could occur in surface separation facilities including
separator liquid sampling lines. If bottomhole sampling is precluded, surface sampling
would be the only option. However, traditional surface sampling techniques fail to yield
representative separator liquid sample. The separator gas sample, however, is considered
reliable. In this situation, the liquid sample is best obtained downhole. Upon retrieval to
the surface the liquid sample will contain solution gas. The sample is flashed at the
prevailing separator conditions of pressure and temperature to yield an equivalent
separator liquid sample. Such sample will contain any hydrocarbon precipitates.
Recombination with the separator gas sample in the produced gas-oil ratio should yield a
representative reservoir fluid sample.
4.6.3
General Job Planning Considerations

Following are the items which one should consider when planning a fluid sampling job.
Consideration of these items will help to define whether surface or downhole sampling is
required as well as the volume of sample required. It is important to note that data from
reservoir fluid studies are used by a wide variety of people. Any sampling effort should
be coordinated with all involved parties.
As planning for a sampling job begins, it is important to define the goals and objectives
of the job. This will help to ensure that everything needed from the job is obtained and no
unnecessary costs are encountered. Following are some of the items of information
commonly sought from fluid samples. Included in parentheses are brief statements of
how that particular information is used. As can be seen from this list a large number of
departments may have an interest in a particular sample. It is important to coordinate with
all interested parties when planning a sampling job to promote maximum sample
utilization.
1. Wax/Paraffin/Asphaltene/Flow-Separation
(System Design)
Studies/Chemical
Inhibitor
Stud ies
2. PVT/Reservoir Fluid Phase Behavior (Reservoir Management and System Design)

3. Hydrate Analysis (System Design)
4. PNA, SARA (Reservoir Management and System Design)
5. Geochemistry, Fingerprinting, etc. (Reservoir Management, Exploration)
H-0806.35
4-26
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
6. Water analysis, e.g. chlorides, scale, corrosion (Reservoir Management and System
Design)
7. Crude Assay (Refinery Information, Product Value Determination)
Fluid types may or may not be known before sampling takes place. Certain sampling
methods can be problematic for specific fluid types. In addition to the anticipated phase,
information may also be available concerning contaminants like H2 S, CO2 , Sulfur, etc.
It is important to attempt to tabulate how much sample is needed to accomplish the goals
and objectives listed above. In addition to the quantity needed for a specific set of goals
and objectives, backup samples may be needed. A table is included in section 4.4.14
which may be of assistance in determining required sample volumes.
It is important to give prior thought to the equipment that will be needed or available for
a particular job. This applies not only to sampling equipment but also to any site transfer
and transportation equipment. Company policy and experience may limit choices in this
area. It should be verified that all necessary equipment is available and suitable for the
job. Among the things to check are:
Pressure and temperature ratings of all equipment. Verify with vendors that
pressurized tools can be heated to the desired temperatures for site transfer as well as
being rated for downhole conditions.
Verify that sample containers for transfer and storage meet the goals and objectives of
the job. Items to consider in the selection of sample containers include:
Whether atmospheric, low pressure (i.e. in the range of separator conditions) or
high pressure (i.e. in the range of reservoir conditions) will be required. Verify
that all cylinders will be pressure tested prior to use.
Whether special cylinders are required (e.g. for H2 S, Hg, etc.)
In all but rare instances D.O.T. certification of transportation is required. Not all
currently available equipment, especially in the higher pressure ranges, has been
approved for transportation in the United States. Verify with the vendor that all
necessary equipment has been D.O.T. certified (or exempted).
A variety of transfer and displacement mechanisms are available in sampling and
transportation equipment. Company policy and experience may limit the available
choices as well as safety concerns. The following list details the available transfer
H-0806.35
4-27
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
mechanisms generally listed in order of preference. [Mercury is available but was

not listed due to environmental and safety concerns. Gas can be used as a
displaced fluid only (as opposed to a displacing fluid) but beware of the difficulty
of accurately obtaining the required voidage for transportation.]
Piston or diaphragm
Formation or saturated brine
Distilled water - Not recommended for acid gas
Potable water - May contain unknown contaminants
Consider in advance any onsite transfer to transportation vessel needs. These may
include:
Having a sufficient quantity of equipment on hand including backup equipment in
case of problems.
Method and degree of heating. Coordination with sampling tool vendors will be
necessary to obtain a heating program which is acceptable to all parties.
Additional technology is needed in this area to provide heating methods that
address the safety concerns of the vendors related to doing transfers at higher
temperatures.
Solvents and other supplies for cleaning all equipment prior to and during the
sampling operation should be available along with proper disposal containers.
Make sure all vendor and field personnel are properly trained and understand the
importance of your sampling job. Sampling in existing developments is sometimes
performed by field personnel who may:
not be properly trained in sampling
not understand the importance of obtaining a representative sample and
maintaining it during transfer and analysis, and
not understand the importance of supplying proper documentation of the sampling
effort.
Additionally, it is important in downhole sampling to make sure that the importance of

the job is understood by all decision making personnel, e.g. in the drilling department, so
that problems that arise can be properly handled.
H-0806.35
4-28
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Make certain that the laboratories involved have the proper capabilities for the type of
sample you are providing. The additional cost of taking a pressurized sample and
transporting it under pressure to the lab is wasted if the lab must reduce the pressure
of the sample to perform the transfer or to analyze the sample.
A key issue is onsite sample verification/validation. It is extremely valuable to verify

onsite that a hydrocarbon sample has been taken and, if possible, that it is
uncontaminated. In deep water developments in the exploratory phase it is extremely
costly to return to a well to resample. Additional technology is needed in this area.
Currently available technology and common sense methods include:
Visual observation
Check for and report any leaks.
Fittings and connections should be observed during tool disassembly to note
the presence of oil or mud. If only filtrate is found it can be observed under
UV light for florescence.
A sight glass rated for the same temperature and pressure may be installed in
the transfer assembly so that fluids may be observed during transfer.
Verify that opening pressure and temperature are consistent with expectations.
Check for a bubble-point at the surface and record the sample temperature during
the check and subsequent transfer for validation at lab.
Fluid analyzers are available in downhole tools which can give indication during
sampling of what fluid is entering the tool.
Verify proper mechanical operation of the tool including clocks, rupture disks,
etc.
Check the water cushion volume on formation testers to verify that a sample was
taken.
Bleed a minute amount of sample. This should only be done if there is a high
level of confidence in the safety of the operation and in the ability to limit
discharge.
Maximum utilization of sample is a key issue.
Establish a priority of analysis and verify the results of key items before
proceeding to lower priority items.
H-0806.35
4-29
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
If possible avoid splitting sample until main goals are achieved. Splitting samples
and recombining them has inherent opportunities for sample alteration.
Cost and time limitation are always a consideration and may limit the type and
volume of sample taken.
Reservoir and well specific characteristics will impact your sampling efforts.
Following are some items to consider:
Wellbore: hole diameter, rugosity, deviation, size of casing and other well bore
equipment, drilling problems which have been encountered, etc.
Again, verify that all equipment is rated for the reservoir temperature and pressure
anticipated in this wellbore. Also, verify that all equipment is rated for any special
contaminants anticipated.
If possible make some prediction concerning the maximum drawdown that can be
achieved without taking reservoir fluid through a phase change. Often this will
not be possible.
Formation: Formation pressure, permeability, formation consolidation and grain
size.
Mud system: Mud system, mudcake and their associated filtrates and fines. In
some cases, critical sampling needs may dictate in advance that the mud system
meet certain criteria, e.g. it is extremely unlikely that an uncontaminated oil
sample can be acquired with formation testers if oil based mud is used in the
drilling of the well. In some cases, it has been reported that even after two weeks
of drill stem testing oil based mud contamination could still be detected in the
flow stream.
4.6.4
Determine in advance what will be needed in the "Final Sampling Report" and
communicate this to all relevant parties. Include specific requirements for
presentation of data and conclusions as well as for onsite documentation of the
sampling job.
Surface Sampling
Pre-job Preparation
Verify that the well is properly conditioned for sampling (See section 4.4.9).
Verify all equipment has been properly cleaned (See section 4.4.10).
H-0806.35
4-30
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Verify that sufficient sample containers of appropriate type are available and on site.
Verify that all sampling equipment is prepared for sampling.
Job Execution
Sampling points on the surface depend on the objective of sampling and tests to be
performed. Examples of sampling locations for various test objectives are as follows:
The wellhead or choke manifold may be the best sampling point when checking
(qualitatively) for the existence of paraffins and asphaltenes. This would typically be
the surface sampling point usually having the highest temperature and pressure with
the least likelihood of deposition having occurred. Care must be taken with high
pressure environments by using appropriate high pressure sampling cylinders. This
sampling point is also feasible for dead oil sampling.
The separator is the most suitable place to sample if the objective is to reconstruct the
reservoir fluid. This would be done for such tests as PVT, hydrates etc. Consider that
the test separator may contain contaminants from previous testing. Attempt to
properly size the separator to allow sufficient throughput to clean any residue left in
the separator. The primary stage separator should be the one used for sampling.
Sampling points on the separator include:
Siphon tube - A siphon tube is available on some separators which extends from
an external sampling valve down into the oil pan of the separator.
Oil dump - oil
Meter runs - oil or gas
Top valve - gas
Sight glass for oil or gas. This may not be preferred if it is cooler than the rest of
the separator.
H-0806.35
Various sampling equipment configurations and procedures can be used. Example

configurations and procedures are given in section 4.4.10. These may aid in
determining the preferred configuration for a given surface sampling case.
4-31
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Verify valves are plugged on arrival and for shipping. Sample containers should also be
checked for leaks prior to shipping. This can be done by checking for bubbles after
applying "Snoop", Soapy water, or by submersion in water.
Properly label all cylinders and document relevant details of the test. An example form
has been included in the section 4.4.13 which may be sent to the location of the sampling
job.
4.6.5
Formation Testers Run in Cased and Open Hole

Generally, issues for open-hole and cased-hole formation testers are the same. The
primary difference lies in the method employed to isolate the tested interval.
Pre-job Preparation
Verify that well is properly prepared for sampling (See section 4.4.9).
Verify that all equipment has been properly cleaned (See section 4.4.10).
Pressure test sampling equipment to at least reservoir pressure plus 30 percent.
Give the vendor adequate time to prepare and verify proper operation of his equipment.
Verify that all activities are documented and reported to the customer. A sample
documentation form is included in section 4.4.13.
Job Execution
Sampling points and methods depend on the objective of sampling and tests to be
performed. Following are a list of issues to consider when executing your program:
The existence of a compositional gradient in the reservoir.
Existence of discrete lobes within the zone of interest.
Pressure gradient analysis for fluid density.
Location of the hydrocarbon sample with respect to the depth of the formation water
level to assure a representative sample.
H-0806.35
4-32
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Attempt to minimize filtrate contamination by flowing a volume of reservoir fluid out of

the formation prior to taking a sample. This can be accomplished through such actions as
the following:
Pump through modules or clean up chambers. The pump through modules allow
flowing an unlimited amount of sample through the tool to remove near probe
contamination. Clean up chambers allow flowing a limited volume of reservoir fluid
to auxiliary chambers.
Use fluid analyzers which can detect various differences in the fluid flowing into the
tool. Some currently available analyzers use either the resistivity or optical
characteristics of the fluids to make this differentiation.
Minimize the pressure drop while filling the sample chamber. Effectively this involves
the use of water cushions, throttling valves or chokes which may result in a longer
sampling period. Coordination with the drilling department will be necessary to arrive at
a mutually agreeable time period. Also, attempt to fill all void space within the tool with
water to prevent excessive drawdown at the instant the tool is opened.
It would be desirable to only sample one zone per run, even with a multi-sampler tool to
maximize the potential of taking an uncontaminated sample. These tools have portions of
the flow path which will be used for every sample taken. Sampling multiple zones in a
single run will cause some mixing of sample. The multi-sampler tools are better suited to
taking larger amounts of sample from a single zone.
Caution should be used to prevent pressure release during tool disassembly and sample
transfer at surface. This is a common sense statement but once pressure has accidentally
been released the damage has been done. Always assume you have a quality sample
during the transfer process even if downhole sensors or leakage at the surface suggest
otherwise.
Record any indication during disassembly of tool of downhole fluids: oil, gas, mud,
water, etc. This can be an early indication of whether hydrocarbons have been sampled or
whether only drilling fluid has been sampled.
Keep detailed documentation of sampling job. An example form has been included in the
appendix which may be sent to the location of the sampling job (See section 4.4.13).
H-0806.35
4-33
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Onsite Quality Verification

It is important to do everything possible to identify the quality of the sample before the
sampling equipment and/or rig leave the location. Returning for additional sampling will
rarely be feasible in deepwater developments (See section 4.4.3).
Onsite Transfer
The following points related to doing onsite transfer to transportation vessels should be
kept in mind:
Minimize number of transfers fluid will have to undergo. Every time sample is
transferred the likelihood of having an altered sample increases. The following
suggestions should be considered:
Consider sampling tools with transportable D.O.T. certified sample chambers.
Chambers which can be detached from the sampling tool and shipped to the lab
with the sample intact prevent onsite transfers.
If possible use transportation cylinders which can hold all of sample cylinder
volume so lab recombination will not be necessary. Subsampling into multiple
chambers means doing more onsite transfers and also more transfers when the
transportation cylinders arrive at the lab.
Sample chambers should be heated to reservoir temperature to guarantee a complete

remelt of crystallized paraffins in preparation for and during transfer of sample. Some
vendors discourage heating their sampling tools above a certain temperature. This is
typically related to concerns about uneven heating of the tool and not to temperature
limitations of the tool components. Communication with the vendor will serve not
only to educate the vendor to this need but also may result in a solution acceptable to
the oil company and the vendor.
Agitate heated sample and return to single phase before transfer to promote
homogeneity.
Verify sample quality after transfer if possible (See section 4.4.3).
Disassemble sample chamber and "swab" out all remaining oil and solids. Place these
solids and the swabbing cloth in a D.O.T. certified glass container for later analysis.
Report observations.
H-0806.35
4-34
1-Dec-00
4.6.6
DEEPSTAR
Chemically rinse the sample chamber until clean and place these samples along with
a virgin sample of the chemical used for rinsing in separate D.O.T. certified
containers (not plastic) for later analysis. Advance coordination with the vendor will
be necessary to identify appropriate cleaning solvents. For a more complete
discussion on cleaning see section 4.4.10.
Cased-Hole Sampling (Issues specific to downhole flowstream samplers run on or in

tubing)
Pre-job Preparation
Verify that the well is properly prepared for sampling (See section 4.4.9).
Verify that all equipment has been properly cleaned (See section 4.4.10).
Pressure test sampling equipment to at least reservoir pressure plus 30 percent.
Give the vendor adequate time to prepare and verify proper operation of his equipment.
Verify that all activities are documented and reported to the customer. A sample
documentation form is included in section 4.4.13.
Job Execution
It is desirable to run the sampler with surface readout of pressure to identify ail fluid
levels. This will aid in the proper positioning of the sampler in the fluid column to obtain
the most representative fluid and to avoid water. If a surface pressure readout is not
available then a separate run with a pressure gauge should be made first to identify fluid
contacts. The sampling tool should be positioned above and as near to the perforations as
possible.
The well may be sampled while shut- in but issues such as the following must be
considered:
Compositional gradients may result in the static fluid column from the pressure and
temperature gradient in that column.
Water may begin to settle in the bottom of the wellbore which may result in sampling
water.
The well may be sampled while flowing but issues such as the following must be
considered:
H-0806.35
4-35
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Drawdown across the perforations may cause gas to be liberated and the resulting
sample may be nonrepresentative.
At very low rates slugging may occur; again this may result in a nonrepresentative
fluid sample.
Minimize the pressure drop while filling the sample chamber to increase your chance of
sampling single phase fluid.
Caution should be used to prevent pressure release during tool disassembly and sample
transfer at surface. This will limit the usefulness of the sample and could prove very
costly in resampling.
Record any indication during disassembly of tool of downhole fluids: oil, gas, mud,
water, etc. This can be an early indication of whether the proper fluid has been sampled
(See also section 4.4.3).
Fluid should be compressed to maintain or obtain single phase condition during transfer.
Take backup surface samples if possible. This should be relatively inexpensive and may
prove invaluable if the bottomhole sample quality is questionable.
Keep detailed documentation of sampling job. An example form has been included in
section 4.4.13, which may be sent to the location of the sampling job.
4.6.7
Laboratory Transfer of Samples

Verify that all samples sent to the laboratory have been received and note condition of all
samples. Check labels on sampling cylinders and sampling data sheets for accuracy.
Verify that transfer equipment and lab storage vessels are clean before transfer (See
section 4.4.10).
Verify the transportation cylinder has not leaked.
Verify that opening pressure is the same as it was at the well site at the temperature at
which it was performed at the wellsite.
Repeat P-V check (i.e. bubble-point) that was done on site and at that temperature.
Stabilize temperature and pressure of the live fluid samples at reservoir conditions.
H-0806.35
4-36
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Agitate sample before transfer to promote sample homogeneity.

Disassemble transfer vessel and swab (if possible) all remaining oil and solids. Place
these solids and the swabbing cloth in a glass container for later analysis.
Chemically rinse the sample chamber with an appropriate solvent until clean and place
these samples along with a sample of the virgin solvent in separate containers for
analysis.
Keep detailed documentation of lab site transfer and analysis.
4.6.8
Technology Gaps
CTR 901 believes that additional R&D and implementation are needed in the following
areas. The items listed are either not currently available or don't exist in sufficient
quantities to meet projected Gulf of Mexico needs. In some cases the technology exists
but is not consistently implemented.
A sight glass in the transfer lines should be used during transfer to verify sample
quality onsite.
D.O.T. approved transportation cylinders to 10,000 psi with piston displacement

mechanisms.
D.O.T. approved high pressure cylinders (> 10,000 psi.) with or without piston
displacement mechanisms.
Pressure compensated transportation cylinders - these are needed for situations where
asphaltenes are suspected.
D.O.T. approved cylinders of sufficient volume to handle sample chambers are

needed to prevent having to subsample onsite.
Sample chambers that are transportable and DOT certified, preferably that can remain
at the lab for extended periods of time. These sample chambers would be part of the
sampling tool that could be removed and transported to the lab without having to
perform an onsite transfer. Ideally, they would remain at the lab until the priority tests
are completed and verified, possibly 60 days or so. Some vendors currently offer this
service. Unfortunately, not all vendors offe r this type of equipment and the equipment
available is limited in quantity and size and priced at a level that makes storage at the
lab during analysis very expensive.
H-0806.35
4-37
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Single phase samplers - These samplers use a nitrogen cushion to maintain reservoir
pressure on a sample as it is brought to the surface and cools. These are available in
the international market but only on a limited basis in the domestic market.
Downhole fluid analyzers that can accurately detect the difference between
hydrocarbons and all mud systems including oil based muds and synthetic oil muds.
Safe methods of heating sampling tools to 300F at the surface for transfers Currently, safety concerns with uneven heating has prompted some vendors to limit
the level to which they will allow their tools to be heated at the surface. Heating
methods acceptable to the vendors and customers should be feasible.
Improved transfer systems are needed which address the concerns in the previous
item. Also remote transfer capability is attractive from a safety standpoint.
Improved probe/reservoir interface in open- hole sampling tools. This is one of the
more common points of failure in formation tester samples.
Ability to truly control drawdown - Formation testers are needed which provide for a
reliable, predetermined drawdown. It is desirable to fill all void spaces in the tool and
chamber with a non-contaminating fluid. Additionally, the ability to variably
pressurize the pathways and chambers in the tool prior to and during sampling is
desirable.
Enhanced wellsite analytical capabilities are needed to verify samples before the rig
and sampling company leave the wellsite.
Variable rate downhole pump with ability to vent to annulus above top packer for
cased hole formation testers - This would permit large quantities of reservoir fluid to
be pumped away from sampling point to minimize contamination.
Improved agitation systems for transfers (balls, etc.) - Often these are not available.
These are needed to promote homogeneous sample transfers, especially when paraffin
deposition in the sampling tool is a concern.
Improved cleaning procedures - It is imperative that all sampling equipment be clean

prior to use. Steam cleaning alone does not always provide a tool that will take
representative samples. Coordination between vendors and industry personnel is
needed to identify acceptable solvents and cleaning procedures which can provide a
clean tool at an acceptable cost. Due to the limited availability of some sampling
equipment these procedures will often need to be carried out onsite.
H-0806.35
4-38
1-Dec-00
4.6.9
DEEPSTAR
Well Conditioning
Proper well conditioning is necessary for obtaining representative samples. The following
includes a general discussion of fluid phase behavior. An understanding of reservoir
fluids and phase behavior will assist in preparing an appropriate well conditioning plan.
Type Of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs
Hydrocarbon fluids fall into two main categories at reservoir conditions: liquids or gases.
Liquid hydrocarbons are referred to as bubble-point oils, and gases are refe rred to as
dew-point fluids.
Bubble-Point Reservoirs
Reservoir hydrocarbon fluid types are determined by the location of the point
representing the initial reservoir pressure and temperature with respect to the P-T diagram
of the fluid contained therein. If the reservoir temperature is below the critical
temperature and the reservoir pressure is at or above the bubble-point curve, the fluids are
characterized as bubble-point oils. Bubble-point oils range from black oils with gravity
and GOR generally below 400 API and 2000 SCF/bbl, respectively, to volatile oils which
generally exhibit higher gravity and GOR The literature is not in full agreement
concerning the criteria that characterizes the transition from black oils to volatile oils.
Gas Reservoirs
If the reservoir temperature is above the critical temperature and the reservoir pressure is
at or above the dew point curve, the fluids are characterized as dew-point gases. Dewpoint gases range from gas-condensates which release liquid condensate in the reservoir
below the dew-point (retrograde condensation), to wet gases which require reduction in
both P and T for any liquid to drop out. Gas-condensates and wet gases are characterized
by progressively higher gravities and GORs. Dry gases do not yield hydrocarbon liquid at
surface conditions.
Saturation Pressure
Bubble-Point Reservoirs
Bubble point systems are characterized by the coexistence of a liquid phase and an
infinitesimal amount of gas phase in equilibrium. The saturation or bubble-point pressure
(Pb ) is the fluid pressure in a system at its bubble-point. Pb is a function of system
composition and temperature. Oil reservoirs which exist above their bubble-point are
referred to as "undersaturated." Oil reservoirs which are associated with a gas cap are
H-0806.35
4-39
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
saturated at the gas-oil contact. The gas-cap may or may not exhibit retrograde
condensate behavior. In a saturated reservoir, the oil becomes progressively
undersaturated with depth below the gas-oil contact.
Dew-Point Reservoirs
Dew-Point systems are characterized by the coexistence of a gas phase and an
infinitesimal amount of liquid phase in equilibrium. The saturation or dew-point pressure
(PD ) is the fluid pressure in a system at its dew-point, and is a function of system
composition and temperature. Above the PD , the fluid exists as a single gaseous phase,
and exhibits retrograde condensation as the reservoir pressure falls below the original
dew-point pressure.
Prediction of Pb or PD
Knowledge of the type of hydrocarbon reservoir and its saturation pressure (bubble-point
or dew-point) is important for successful design and implementation of the sampling
operation. Estimates of saturation pressure can be obtained by using one or more of the
following leads:
Experience in same reservoir
Analogy with adjacent reservoirs containing similar hydrocarbons in same geologic

formation
DST and tubing gradient surveys
MER testing
Published correlations
Well Conditioning
Effect of Drawdown
Drawdown is defined as the difference between static reservoir pressure (Pe) and
bottomhole flowing pressure (Pwf), or delta p = Pe - Pwf . As long as Pwf is greater than or
equal to Pb or PD , single phase fluid will flow into the wellbore. Such fluid would be
representative of the original reservoir fluid.
Bottomhole sampling methods require that the fluid pressure at sampler depth be above
the saturation pressure.
H-0806.35
4-40
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Reservoirs where the drawdown will result in diphasic flow at or below sampling depth,
are best sampled at the surface separator.
Dry Gas Reservoirs
Constant gas composition with pressure drop prevails in reservoirs, tubing and at surface.
Gas well conditioning beyond cleanup stage for sampling is not necessary.
Adequate reservoir gas sample can be obtained at wellhead upstream (or downstream) of
choke.
It is advisable to determine "dry gas" state by sampling/analysis at high and low well
rates, and upstream (U/S) and downstream (D/S) of choke.
Wet Gas Reservoirs
Constant gas composition with pressure drop prevails in reservoirs, and possibly in
tubing and at surface U/S of choke.
As with dry gas reservoirs above, determine gas state U/S and D/S of choke. Generally,
wellhead sampling U/S of choke is representative.
The only well conditioning required involves initial well cleanup and flow at sufficiently
low choke to ensure high enough wellhead pressure for wellhead sampling.
If gas is two-phase U/S of choke, must sample gas and liquid at separator after reaching
constant GOR. Procedure would be similar to sampling gas condensate reservoirs.
Gas-Condensate Reservoirs
Pe substantially greater than PD with low drawdown assuring monophasic flow into the
wellbore:
Condition well by flowing at moderate rate to ensure cleanup of undesirable fluids.

Reduce choke size to achieve lowest possible steady-state rate as evidenced by
constancy of wellhead pressure, GOR and API gravity.
Very rich gas: Can be sampled with bottomhole or surface sampling. Additional
sample may be needed to obtain sufficient liquid due to shrinkage when bottom hole
samples are taken.
H-0806.35
4-41
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Medium to lean gas: surface sample to ensure adequate size sample dire to very high
shrinkage.
Pe slightly above or equal to PD - Diphasic flow into wellbore and possible condensate
drop-out in wellbore region. Well conditioning should be performed as indicated for
monophasic flow. Surface sampling early in life of reservoir is recommended.
Oil Reservoirs
Pe > Pb with low drawdown assuring monophasic flow into the wellbore:
Condition well by flowing at moderate rate to ensure cleanup of undesirable fluids.

Reduce choke size to achieve lowest possible steady-state rate as evidenced by
constancy of wellhead pressure, GOR and API gravity.
Bottomhole sampling is not recommended if the bottomhole flowing pressure at

sampler depth is not higher than Pb.
Pe slightly above or equal to Pb with finite drawdown causing diphasic flow in the
wellbore:
Condition well as indicated above and obtain surface oil and gas samples early in the
life of the reservoir.
Bottomhole sampling is possible in saturated reservoirs provided the sampled interval

is far removed from the gas-oil contact and at a pressure above Pb. Such cases also
require low drawdown as would prevail in high permeability reservoirs.
Well Conditioning for Surface Sampling of Oil and Gas Reservoirs

Before reliable separator gas and liquid samples can be taken, it is necessary to produce
the well for a sufficient length of time to bring about stable conditions. The well should
be opened on a suitable choke size small enough not to cause appreciable pressure drop
in the vicinity of the wellbore, but large enough (at least initially) to clean out mud
filtrate and liquid accumulation in the tubing, and prevent flow by heads. It is
recommended that a surface recording BHP gauge be placed in the well.
The criteria for well stability are:
Stabilized BHF pressure and temperature
Stabilized THP
H-0806.35
4-42
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Constant differential and static pressure readings on the gas offtake chart
Constant condensate (oil) production rate
Constant separator oil temperature
Stabilized GOR on 3 consecutive test runs of 4-hours each to within 5 percent
Stabilized composition as evidenced by on-site chromatographic analysis
It is preferred that sampling takes place when ambient temperature is not fluctuating and
is below that of separator temperature.
4.6.10 Tool/Cylinder Cleaning
All equipment, samplers, pumps, cylinders, lines, valves and fittings should be
thoroughly cleaned and free of hydrocarbons or other contaminants. The reader should
recognize that there are numerous methods, ma terials and chemicals that are acceptable.
Below we have listed some that are currently used by some DeepStar companies.
Valve packing glands should be limited to teflon, graphite, viton or vespel (polymide,
graphite, fluorocarbon putty) or other noncontaminating substances.
Thread compounds/lubricants should be limited to teflon tape or "Krytox" (perfluoro

ether plus 2 micron ground teflon) or other noncontaminating substances.
Example of a flow through cleaning method:
If paraffin or asphaltene deposits are suspected, disassemble containers and hand

clean. Assemble and flow through clean using remaining steps.
Flush with warm (~160F) toluene or other suitable solvent. Initially soak for 2
hours, agitate if feasible and drain. Continue process until effluent is visibly clear or
the refractive index as measured by light refractometer agrees with that for pure
toluene.
Follow with methanol to displace all toluene.
Flush with dry nitrogen.
4.6.11 Surface Sampling Configurations

Miscellaneous surface samp ling configurations have been submitted by various DeepStar
member companies. These are provided in the appendices of the CTR A901 final report
and are not included in the Flow Assurance Design.
H-0806.35
4-43
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
4.6.12 Sampling of Wells Cutting Water

The following discussion of sampling wells cutting water was an unsolicited submission
prepared by Ali Sinnokrot of Mobil. It is provided for use as submitted.
Well conditioning and cased hole sampling procedures for wells cutting water differ from
dry oil sampling procedures in one respect: the well should be flowing at all times during
the sampling operation at the smallest choke size; such that no water accumulation occurs
at the bottom of the well. The sampler should be lowered to the maximum depth while
staying above the stagnant water level.
Surface sampling procedures of wells cutting water are the same as those for black oil
reservoir.
Figure 4-1: Example of apparatus for sampling wells cutting significant amounts of water.
H-0806.35
Raise pressure in bottle 1 by 1000-2000 psi above the estimated Pb. Agitate contents
during pressuring. A positive displacement pump is used to raise the pressure
utilizing and immiscible fluid for non-piston type containers, or any convenient fluid
for piston type containers.
4-44
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Heat bottle 1 to about 1800 F while maintaining the pressure above Pb.
Allow the bottle to stand in a vertical position overnight. This allows all water to
separate out at container bottom.
Connect bottle 2 as shown in the diagram incorporating a two way valve and about 20
ft. of line loop downstream of the valve. Evacuate line and valve.
Commence sample transfer from bottle 1 to bottle 2 ensuring Pressure is safely above
Pb. Initially fill valve and line loop with reservoir fluid and pressure up to transfer
pressure.
Sample the fluid stream (using the two-way valve between the bottles) every 20 ml.
The sample will consist of a drop or two only to test whethe r the line contains any
water. At the first sign of water in the transfer line, shut the two-way valve followed
by the top valve on bottle 2. Any overlooked water in the transfer line will be caught
in the loop.
4.6.13 Documentation of Sampling Job

The following two figures illustrate an example two-page form which can be used to
document the sampling process.
H-0806.35
4-45
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
4.6.14 Volume Requirements for Fluid Evaluation Tests Standard Analyses

Table 4-1. Volume Requirements for Standard Analyses
STANDARD ANALYSES
Type of
Analysis
On-site
Description
Purpose
Minimum Qty
(cc)
Preferred Qty
(cc)
Flashed
or Dead
Flashed
or Dead
Live
Live
Other
Samples
Minimum Qty
(cc)
Visual Observation
verification
of
downhole
sample
Opening pressure
verification
Fingerprint for
contamination
Verify that a sample

10
10
250
250
To determine the
ability of production
to flow at various
temperatures and
pressures
100
200
To know fluid
properties at various
temperatures and
pressures
100
500
has been collected in

a sampling tool
Sample quality check @ lab
Compositional
analysis & GOR
Specific gravities
& API
Molecular weight
PVT
Constant-Mass
Expansion
Bubble point
Liberation of gas
Specific gravity
Compressibility
Viscosity
@ reservoir
conditions
with flashed fluids

as a function of T
Separator flash
Water
content in
Karl Fischer ASTM D4928
live sample
ASTM (BS&W) D-96-88
container
Cloud
point
methodsSelect at
least one
H-0806.35
Microscopy
Fundamental test to
determine oil in
place and measure
further fluid
properties
Can affect reservoir

estimates and
10
production solids
50
Determine onset
temperature for wax
precipitation
Differential Scanning
Calorimetry (DSC)
4-46
10
10
10
10
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
STANDARD ANALYSES
Type of
Analysis
Total
Sulfur
Nickel &
Vanadium
Total Acid
Number
Pour Point
Description
Minimum Qty
Preferred Qty
Other
(cc)
(cc)
Samples
Flashed
or Dead
Purpose
Live
Flashed
or Dead
Light Transmittance
200
200
Cold Finger
200
200
Filter Plugging (filtration)
200
200
20
20
20
20
10
10
50
160
X-ray fluorescence ASTM

D-4294
If low concentrations,
microcoulometry
ASTM D3120
Atomic Absorption/ICP
(Inductively Coupled
Plasma)
ASTM D-664-89 (IP177/83)
Determine value of
crude and limitations
for transportation
A
high
Live
Minimum Qty
(cc)
content
devalues crude. A
contaminant for the
refinery
Determine value of
crude,
affects
refinery,
transportation,
potential solids
&
Determine
temperature that a
ASTM D97-93 (IP 1567/86) crude will gel and no
longer flow in static
conditions
High Temp
Gas
Chromatography
(HTGC)
Provides information
for wax deposition
10
20
%
ASTM D-3279-90 (IP
Asphaltene 143/84)
Screening value to
estimate potential for
operational
problems.
Percent
asphaltene
also
affects crude value.
15
15
Elemental
Analysis
(C, H, N,
O, S)
Geochemistry? Input
data for value of
crude
20
20
H-0806.35
ASTM D-5291
4-47
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
STANDARD ANALYSES
Type of
Analysis
Description
Wax
Content
UOP 46-85
PNA or
SARA
Liquid Chromatograph
analysis
Purpose
Screening value to
estimate relative wax
problems. Low value
does not mean a wax
problem will not
occur
General information
of crude composition
Total if everything is selected
H-0806.35
Minimum Qty
Preferred Qty
Other
(cc)
(cc)
Samples
Flashed
or Dead
Flashed
or Dead
50
50
10
100
825
4-48
Live
460
1035
Live
Minimum Qty
(cc)
960
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Table 4-2: Volume Requirements for Detailed Solids Formation Studies and Other
Analyses
Type of Analysis
Description
Purpose
Minimum Qty (cc)
Preferred Qty (cc)
Flashed
or Dead
Flashed
or Dead
Live
Live
Other
Samples
Minimum
Qty (cc)
DETAILED SOLIDS FORMATION STUDIES
Paraffin
Rate of
deposition
Yield
stress (high
pour point
Determine severity of
wax problem Restart
pressure requirements
Volume requirements highly dependent upon

laboratory method
Determine severity of
problem
Volume requirement highly dependent on the

method
Must contact lab used for quantity (range 100

2000 ccs flashed/dead crude)
crudes)
Asphaltenes
Stability tests
Must contact lab used for quantity (range 20

100 ccs live oil)
Experimentally
Hydrate
Formation
conditions
measure
formation
conditions. Especially
for liquid dominated
systems.
Hydrate
formation potential
can be modeled using
25
50
PVT
data
and
reservoir properties.
OTHER ANALYSES
Water
Compositional
Determine potential
analysis
(API
for scale, corrosion,
RP45 rev in '96).
and
formation
Organic
acid
concerns
content
150
Drilling fluid
Compositional
analysis
100
Determine extent of
contamination
Any field solid

samples analyzed
inorganic
composition
Solids
H-0806.35
Organic/
chromat
ographic
analysis
Identify what the

solid is and if it will
also occur during
If
available
production
4-49
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Contact lab for

specific tests
available
Displacement
Compositional
fluid for on-site
analysis
fluid transfer
Cleaning
chemicals
Compositional
analysis
Identify extent of
contamination
and
100
sample integrity
Identify extent of
contamination
and
sample integrity
100
4.6.15 Wax Samples

To properly evaluate the potential for wax problems, it is necessary to obtain the most
representative samples possible. If the initial evaluation shows a significant waxing
potential, then large sample quantities from well testing will be required to fully
characterize the problem. These measurements and samples can be as important as PVT
or geochemistry data. To obtain a representative sample, it should ideally be taken at a
point in the system above the cloud point temperature before any wax crystallization has
occurred. In many cases, however, the type of sample (bottomhole, DST, surface sample,
etc.) and the sampling location may be dictated by other factors. Proper planning of the
sampling operation will result in the best chance of obtaining a representative sample. A
set of Fluid Sampling Guidelines was developed by the DeepStar joint industry project.
The recommendations from this report are listed below. The entire document can be
accessed through the Fluid Sampling Guidelines Table of Contents.
DeepStar Recommendations
1. Investigate all reasonable sampling options and carefully plan and document all
sampling operations.
2. Coordinate planning efforts with all departments involved in acquiring the sample or
in the use of the data that will come from the sample.
3. Develop a prioritized analysis program for the sample detailing which analyses are
the primary purpose of the sample. (Make sure you know why you are sampling.)
4. Communicate with all vendors involved in obtaining and analyzing the sample.
5. Condition the well to acquire a representative sample and minimize contamination.
6. Insist that sampling be performed by trained personnel.
H-0806.35
4-50
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
7. Ensure sample vessels are clean.

8. Minimize the number of transfers a sample will undergo. Perform transfers as near to
reservoir conditions of temperature and pressure as possible.
9. Do whatever possible on-site to verify that a satisfactory sample has been obtained
before concluding the sampling operation.
4.6.16 Asphaltene Samples
Two kinds of samples may be required for asphaltene analysis.
1. For asphaltene flocculation measurements single phase samples are required. This is
because there is some evidence that asphaltene precipitation may not be completely
reversible. That means that if asphaltenes precipitate in a sample container it may not
be possible to get all of the asphaltenes back into solution when the sample is
reconditioned to reservoir conditions. Once the intermolecular forces that stabilize
the asphaltene resin micelle is broken, the micelles may not be resolubilized in their
original configuration. For the sample to be completely representative, the oil must
be sampled and maintained as a single phase fluid.
2. For these type of measurements, it is suggested that you contact the laboratory where
the measurements will be performed as well as the company performing the
downhole sampling. Several vendors supply sampling systems which are designed
to keep the sample single phase.
3. For titration measurements at atmospheric pressure, wellhead or separator oil samples
collected under standard sampling procedures are sufficient. The figure below is an
example of a sampling vessel designed to keep the sample single phase.
H-0806.35
4-51
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 4-2:. Single Phase Wellhead Sampling Vessel.
4.6.17 Hydrate Samples

Fluid samples are required to allow the accurate identification of the hydrate formation
potential. Samp les may be required for several reasons:
1. To accurately characterize the phase behavior of the hydrocarbon fluid and obtain
compositional analyses. Typically, standard PVT type samples and PVT laboratory
analyses will provide sufficient compositional and hydrocarbon phase behavior
information to allow the prediction of the hydrate formation envelope. If possible, an
accurate analysis of the produced water is highly desirable since brine can reduce the
hydrate formation region.
2. To experimentally measure the hydrate formation conditions. In some cases, the
potential operating conditions may be beyond the current capability of the hydrate
prediction models. This is particularly true for high pressure reservoirs. Typically a
hydrate measurement will require on the order of 50 mls for each inhibitor
concentration. For instance, to determine the hydrate formation conditions for fresh
"condensed" water and formation water would require two separate tests.
3. To test threshold hydrate inhibitors. At this point, it is recommended that the
threshold hydrate inhibitors be tested on the actual fluids before deployment of the
H-0806.35
4-52
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
inhibitor in the field. Small scale laboratory testing will typically require
approximately 50 mls per test.
4. For large scale flow loop tests, much larger volumes are required. If you are
considering a large scale test, contact the flow loop operator to identify the exact
sample requirements.
5. For gas reservoirs, it may be possible to use a synthetic gas sample based upon the
compositional analysis from the PVT report for the hydrate measurements. For black
oil or condensate systems, actual samples should be used. Standard sampling
techniques used for obtaining samples for PVT measurements are sufficient. Please
see the DeepStar Fluid Sampling Guidelines for further recommendations.
Scale Samples
Samples from all potential water sources (both formation and injection waters) are
necessary to allow identification of scaling tendencies. Ideally, 150 mls of each water is
required. Some suggested procedures are:
1. Obtain water samples before any mixing of different waters or before any scale
precipitation occurs. This may require downhole samples.
2. Consider the reservoir implications in identifying where and what to sample. Which
waters will be mixing, where?
3. For separator samples, collect the samples in glass or plastic bottles filled to
overflowing, capped and sealed with tape.
4. It is recommended that the pH, carbonate, bicarbonate and sulfide concentrations be
measured on-site, as these components will change over time.
5. Ideally two identical samples should be collected at the same time. One should be
sampled as described above. The other should be acidified to a pH <2 in a glass or
plastic bottle filled to the top and taped shut. This preserves samples against solids
forming so an accurate analysis of dissolved cations can be obtained at the lab.
A source for additional water sampling guidelines is the ASTM standard D-3370.
4.7
Information Sources
Barrufet, M. A., A Brief Introduction to Equations of State For Petroleum Engineering
Applications, Harts Petroleum Engineer International, March 1998.
H-0806.35
4-53
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Chew, J. & Connally, C.A. "A Viscosity Correlation for Gas Saturated Crude Oils"
Trans. AIME, 216, p23, 1959.
Christensen, P.L., Regression to Experimental PVT Data, J. Can. Pet. Tech., Vol. 38,
No. 13, 1999.
Glaso, O. "Generalized Pressure-Volume- Temperature Correlations" J. Petrol. Technol.,
p785, May 1980.
Lasater, J.A. " Bubble Point Pressure Correlation", Trans. AIME, 213, p379, 1958.
Leontaritis, K. J., PARA-Based Reservoir Oil Characterizations, SPE 37252.
McCain, W. D., The Properties of Petroleum Fluids, PennWell Publishing Co., Tulsa,
OK, 1990.
Pedersen, K. S., Fredenslund, A., and Thomassen, P., Properties of Oils and Gas
Consensate Mixtures; Gulf Publishing Co., Houston, Texas, 1989.
Peng, D. Y. and Robinson, D. B., A New Two-Constant Equation of State, Ind. Eng.
Chem. Fundam., Vol. 15, pp. 59-64.
Soave, G., Equilibrium Constants from a Modified Redlich-Kwong Equation of State,
Chem. Eng. Sci., Vol. 27, pp. 1197-1203, 1972.
Standing, M.B. "A Pressure-Volume-Temperature Correlation for Mixtures of California
OIls and Gases," Drill. Prod. Practice, API, p247, 1947.
Vasquez, M. and Beggs, H. D., "Correlations for Fluid Physical property Prediction,"
SPE 6719, J. Petrol. Tech., p968, 1980.
H-0806.35
4-54
1-Dec-00
5.0
MULTIPHASE FLOW
5.1
Introduction
DEEPSTAR
The simultaneous flow of gas and liquid through pipes, often referred to as
multiphase flow, occurs in almost every aspect of the oil industry. Multiphase
flow is present in wellbore tubing, gathering system flowlines, and processing
facilities and has become increasingly important in recent years due to the
development of marginal fields and deepwater prospects. In many cases, the
feasibility of these prospects/fields hinges on cost and operation of the pipelines
and the associated equipment. Multiphase flow characteristics can have a
profound effect on both the design and operation of these systems. For example,
the type of flow regime (described in Section 5.2) can effect the pressure drop
along a pipeline. The amount of the pressure drop can affect either pipe size
and/or pumping requirements depending on the scenario.
Multiphase flow in pipes has been studied for more than 50 years, with significant
improvements in the state of the art during the past 15 years. The best available
methods can predict the type of multiphase flow characteristics much more
accurately than those available only a few years ago. The designer, however, has
to know which methods to use to get the best results.
The objective of this section is to present the basic principals of multiphase flow
and illustrate the current methods available to predict multiphase flow regimes,
pressure drop and liquid holdup. This chapter is arranged in the following order.
Flow regimes are discussed and described in Section 5.2. Section 5.3 describes
the flow models used to predict the flow regimes. The calculation of pressure
drop and liquid holdup based on the flow regime is discussed in Sections 5.4 and
5.5. Section 5.6 illustrates the effects of three phases.
5.2
Flow Regimes
In multiphase flow, the gas and liquid within the pipe are distributed in several
fundamentally different flow patterns or flow regimes, depending primarily on the
gas and liquid velocities and the angle of inclination. In general, flow regimes are
split into two major categories based on geometry: horizontal and vertical. The
term "horizontal" is used to denote a pipe that is inclined in a range between plus
or minus 10 degrees. The term "vertical" denotes upward inclined pipes with
angles from 10 to 90 degrees from horizontal.
H-0806.35
5-1
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Observers have labeled these flow regimes with a variety of names. Over 100
different names for the various regimes and sub-regimes have been used in
literature. In this guide, only four flow regime names will be used: slug flow,
stratified flow, annular flow, and dispersed bubble flow. Figure 5.2-1 shows the
flow regimes for near horizontal flow, and Figure 5.2-2 shows the flow regimes
for vertical upward flow. Descriptions of the flow regimes are as follows:
5.2.1
Stratified Flow
Stratified Flow generally occurs at low flow rates in near horizontal pipes. The
liquid and gas separate by gravity, causing the liquid to flow on the bottom of the
pipe while the gas flows above it. At low gas velocities, the liquid sur face is
smooth. At higher gas velocities, the liquid surface becomes wavy. Some liquid
may flow in the form of liquid droplets suspended in the gas phase. Stratified
flow only exists for certain angles of inclination. It does not exist in pipes that
have upward inclinations of greater than about one degree. Most downwardly
inclined pipes are in stratified flow, and many large diameter horizontal pipes are
in stratified flow. This flow regime is also referred to as stratified smooth,
stratified wavy, and wavy flow by various investigators.
5.2.2
Annular Flow
Annular flow occurs at high rates in gas dominated systems. In annular flow part
of the liquid flows as a film around the circumference of the pipe. The gas and
remainder of the liquid (in the form of entrained droplets) flow in the center of the
pipe. The liquid film thickness is fairly constant for vertical flow, but it is usually
asymmetric for horizontal flow due to gravity. As velocities increase, the fraction
of liquid entrained increases and the liquid film thickness decreases. Annular
flow exists for all angles of inclinations. Most gas-dominated pipes in highpressure vertical flow are in annular flow. This flow regime is also referred to as
annular- mist or mist flow by many investigators.
5.2.3
Dispersed Bubble Flow

Dispersed bubble flow occurs at high rates in liquid dominated systems. The flow
is a frothy mixture of liquid and small-entrained gas bubbles. For near vertical
flow, dispersed bubble flow can also occur at more moderate liquid rates when the
gas rate is very low. The flow is steady with few oscillations. It occurs at all
angles of inclination. Dispersed bubble flow frequently occurs in oil wells.
H-0806.35
5-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Various investigators have also referred to this flow regime as froth or bubble
flow.
5.2.4
Slug Flow
Slug flow for horizontal flow usually occurs at moderate gas and liquid velocities.
Slugs form due to high vapor shear causing the development of waves on the
surface of the liquid to grow to a sufficient height to completely bridge the pipe.
When this happens, alternating slugs of liquid and gas bubbles will flow through
the pipeline. This flow regime can be thought of as an unsteady, alternating
combination of dispersed bubble flow (liquid slug) and stratified flow (gas
bubble). The slugs can cause vibration problems, increased corrosion, and
downstream equipment problems due to its unsteady behavior.
Slug flow also occurs in near vertical flow, but the mechanism for slug initiation
is different. The flow consists of a string of slugs and bullet-shaped bubbles
(called Taylor bubbles) flowing through the pipe alternately. The flow can be
thought of as a combination of dispersed bubble flow (slug) and annular flow
(Taylor bubble). The slugs in vertical flow are generally much smaller than those
in near horizontal flow. Slug flow is the most prevalent flow regime in low
pressure, small diameter systems. In field scale pipelines, slug flow usually
occurs in upwardly inclined sections of the line. It occurs for all angles of
inclinatio n. Investigators have used many terms to describe parts of this flow
regime. Among them are intermittent flow; plug flow; pseudo-slug flow, and
churn flow.
H-0806.35
5-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 5.2-1: Flow Regimes for Near Horizontal Flow
H-0806.35
5-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 5.2-2: Flow Regimes for Vertical Flow
H-0806.35
5-5
1-Dec-00
5.3
DEEPSTAR
Flow Regime Prediction

There have been hundreds of multiphase flow design methods developed in the
past 50 years. As discussed in the previous section, the gas and liquid in the pipe
are distributed differently in each of the four major flow regimes (stratified,
annular, slug, and dispersed bubble flows). The prediction of the correct flow
regime is important for several reasons. For instance, the flow regime prediction
can show whether the line will operate in a stable flow regime or an unstable
regime. In addition, the prediction of liquid holdup and pressure drop is highly
dependent on the flow regime, with each regime exhibiting different behavior
when the design variables are changed.
Most software programs contain dozens of options to select for pressure drop,
liquid holdup, and flow regime predictions. Many of these methods only have
small ranges in which their predictions are accurate. This section of the guide
discusses prediction of flow regimes using different types of multiphase flow
correlations and models that are available. In addition, some recommendations on
which methods to use for certain applications are given.
5.3.1
Mechanistic Models vs. Correlations

Prediction methods for multiphase flow behavior have improved considerably
during the 50+ years that the subject has been studied. For many years,
multiphase flow prediction methods were correlations, based on curve fits of
experimental data. The correlations frequently use arbitrarily selected variables
and were based on limited databases, consisting almost entirely of low pressure,
small diameter data.
Extrapolations of these prediction methods to field conditions frequently proved
to be in serious error. In the 1960s and 1970s, several investigators undertook
experimental studies to try to understand the fundamental mechanisms of the
various flow regimes. In the past 15 years, models have been developed, which
are based on simulation of these mechanisms. These models, referred to as
mechanistic models, have proven to extrapolate best to field conditions.
The development of mechanistic modeling has created a marked improvement in
prediction capabilities. As noted previously, mechanistic models attempt to
model the physical phenomena associated with each flow regime. Mechanistic
models solve a set of simultaneous equations developed for a specific flow
H-0806.35
5-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
regime. Correlations for a few key parameters are required to solve the equation
set. Mechanistic models extrapolate to field conditions much better than the
multiphase flow correlations because the mechanistic models account for the
effects of all the major variables.
Several mechanistic models have been developed in the past few years. Tulsa
University has developed models for near vertical flow (Ansari) and a general
model covering all inclinations (Xiao). The physics in these models are good, but
the correlations built into them are based on small diameter, low-pressure data.
The OLGA-S mechanistic model is based on a wider range of data (diameters
from 1 to 8 inches and pressures from atmospheric to 1400 psi), and it is generally
believed to extrapolate best to field conditions.
On occasion, the conditions for a simulation may cause otherwise good
multiphase flow methods to give erroneous results. It is always a good idea to
check the results by use of another method to ensure that the answers are
reasonable.
The mechanistic methods simultaneously and consistently solve for both pressure
drop and holdup and as a result, can predict trends more accurately over a wider
range of variables (pressure, temperature, CGR, pipeline length and diameter)
than correlation based methods. A general failing of mechanistic models is their
poor performance for slugging and other intermittent flow regimes. If available,
comparison with field data or the results of suitable correlation methods is usually
advisable.
5.3.2
Flow Regime Transitions

Although the correlations and mechanistic models provide quantitative methods
for predicting transitions between flow regimes, some general comments can be
made about the flow regime transitions. These are:
Stratified flow occurs at low superficial gas and liquid velocities.
Dispersed bubble flow occurs at high superficial liquid velocities. Annular

flow occurs at high superficial velocities.
Slug flow occurs at moderate superficial gas and liquid velocities
H-0806.35
5-7
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The transitions between the flow regimes are frequently depicted in a flow regime
map, such as those shown in Figures 5.3-1 and 5.3-2. The flow regime map
typically has the superficial gas velocity (Vsg) on the X-axis and the superficial
liquid velocity (Vsl) on the Y-axis. The flow regime map is only valid for a single
point in the pipeline. As the angle of inclination, pressure and temperature
change with position in the pipeline, the flow regime map also changes.
Experimental studies of flow regime transitions have shown that each of the flow
regime boundaries reacts differently to changes in the system variables. Table
5.3-1 shows the sensitivity of the transitions to changes in the major system
variables.
Table 5.3-1: Sensitivity of Flow Regime Transitions to System Variables
Transition
Variable
Slug to
Dispersed
Bubble
Slug to
Annular
Slug to
Stratified
Stratified to
Annular
Angle of
Inclination
Small Effect
Moderate
Effect
Strong Effect
Strong Effect
Gas Density
Small Effect
Strong Effect
Strong Effect
Strong Effect
Pipeline
Diameter
Small Effect
Small Effect
Strong Effect
Moderate
Effect
Liquid Physical
Properties
Moderate
Effect
Small Effect
Moderate Effect
Moderate
Effect
The designer needs to carefully choose the method that will work best for the set
of conditions. The best methods are discussed in the remainder of this section.
H-0806.35
5-8
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 5.3-1: Example Flow Regime Map for Horizontal Flow
H-0806.35
5-9
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 5.3-2: Example Flow Regime Map for Vertical Flow
H-0806.35
5-10
1-Dec-00
5.3.3
DEEPSTAR
Evaluation of Correlations/Models to Predict Flow Regimes

Many people have attempted to develop simple flow regime maps, usually using
some arbitrary dimensionless parameter on each axis (e.g. Baker, Beggs & Brill).
These methods are inherently inaccurate since no single parameter can model the
sensitivity effects shown in the previous table. The only flow regime map
prediction methods that have been effective for a wide range of conditions are
those using mechanistic models to estimate the flow regime transitions.
In 1976, Taitel and Dukler published a landmark article describing a method of
predicting flow regime transitions by modeling the mechanism of each transition.
By modeling each transition, this method can show the same type of behavior
observed in the experimental work. The original Taitel-Dukler paper covered
flow regime transitions in near horizontal flow only, and one of the transitions
(slug-dispersed bubble) is very much in error. Taitel and his co-workers at the
University of Tel Aviv have subsequently published several articles that expand
the range of angles of inclination and correct the errors in the original paper. The
Taitel-Dukler paper and the latest paper from Tel Aviv model flow regime
transitions for all angles of inclination. The Taitel, et al. methods give reasonably
good predictions of the various flow regime transitions, and the accuracy of the
predictions has improved with each revision.
Another approach to the modeling of flow regime transitions is the method used
in the OLGAS method. It employs mechanistic models of each flow regime and
links the models by the assumption that the flow regime giving the lowest liquid
holdup is the correct one. This assumption holds up well in practice. The
OLGAS method predicts flow regime transitions with similar accuracy to the
Taitel, et al. models.
As in many aspects of multiphase flow, the flow regime prediction methods are
not exact. Errors of +/- 25 percent for the transition velocities are typical, even
for the best prediction methods. If the Taitel-Dukler map is used, the designer
should be aware of the gross errors in the slug to dispersed bubble transition. The
errors for this transition can be 1000 percent. The dispersed bubble to slug
transition typically occurs at a superficial liquid velocity of about 10 ft/sec.
Taitel-Dukler frequently predicts this transition velocity to be 50 to 100 ft/sec.
H-0806.35
5-11
1-Dec-00
5.4
Pressure Drop Prediction
5.4.1
Pressure Drop Calculation
DEEPSTAR
The pressure drop along a pipeline is one of the most important factors relating to
its operation. Accurate calculation of pressure drop is essential for the proper
sizing of the pipeline. An under-sized pipe will suffer excessive pressure drop
due to high fluid velocities, which can limit its throughput. An over-sized pipe
can suffer from excessive holdup, which can lead to slugging and may require a
high pigging frequency.
The design of a multiphase flow line requires knowledge of the physical
properties of the fluid, its phase equilibrium, the flow regimes which exist within
it and the profile of the route which it will follow. The through- life pressure drop
will indicate whether compression will be required at some point, and at what
point in the life of the field. This can seriously affect the economics of the field.
Unfortunately, pressure drop is one of the most difficult pipeline parameters to
calculate accurately.
In single-phase flow, flow resistance in a pipe is due primarily to pipe friction and
elevation differences. In multiphase flow systems, additional complexity arises
because frictional energy is not only dissipated at the pipe wall, but also at the
interface(s) between liquid and gas phases, usually resulting in slip between the
phases. In addition, whereas for single-phase gas flow, the pressure drop will not
be as dependent on the pipe elevation, in multiphase flow, it will be. In
multiphase flow, the overall rise height of the pipeline, along with local gradients
must be accounted for in the design.
The overall pressure gradient is composed of three additive elements:
pressure drop due to friction;

pressure changes due to elevation effects;
pressure losses due to inertia (acceleration).
The calculation of the constituent parts of the pressure gradient will be discussed
in the next three subsections.
H-0806.35
5-12
1-Dec-00
5.4.2
DEEPSTAR
Frictional Losses
In multiphase flow, frictional losses occur by two mechanisms: friction between
the gas or liquid and the pipe wall, and frictional losses at the interface between
the gas and liquid. The friction calculations, therefore, are highly dependent on
the flow regime, since the distribution of liquid and gas in the pipe changes
markedly for each regime.
In stratified flow, there is wall friction between the gas and the pipe wall at the
top of the pipe, and wall friction between the liquid and the wall at the bottom of
the pipe. There is also friction between the gas and liquid at the gas-liquid
interface. The interfacial friction can be similar in magnitude to the wall friction
if the interface is smooth, or it can be considerably higher if waves are present.
In annular flow, there is friction between the liquid film and the wall. There is
also considerable interfacial friction between the gas in the core of the pipe and
the liquid film. The interfacial friction is usually the larger component.
In dispersed bubble flow, friction occurs between the liquid and the wall. There is
negligible interfacial friction between the gas and liquid.
Slug flow has several frictional components. In the slug, the friction losses are
caused by the friction between the liquid and the pipe wall. In the gas bubble, the
frictional components are the same as in stratified flow, namely gas and liquid
friction with the pipe walls and interfacial friction between the gas and liquid.
The friction loss in the slug is usually much higher than the losses in the bubble.
5.4.3
Elevation Losses
Elevational losses may be the major pressure loss component in vertical flow and
flow through hilly terrain. The calculation of elevational losses is governed by
the following equation:
g sin
dp

= mix
dx elev
144g c
where:
(dp/dx)elev = Pressure gradient due to elevation, psi/ft
mix
H-0806.35
= Mixture Density, lb/ft3

5-13
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
= (l) (Hl ) + (g ) (1-Hl)

Hl
= Liquid Holdup
= Acceleration due to gravity, 32.2 ft/sec2
= Angle of inclination
gc
= Gravitational conversion factor, 32.2 lb-ft/(lbf-sec2 )
To calculate the elevational gradient, the liquid holdup must be determined.

5.4.4
Acceleration Losses
Although acceleration losses are present for all flow regimes, they are only
significant for two flow regimes: annular flow and slug flow. The mechanisms
for the losses in these two flow regimes are very different and will be discussed
separately.
In single-phase flow, acceleration losses can be calculated from Bernoulli's
equation. Acceleration losses represent the change in kinetic energy as the fluid
flows down the pipe. The expression for acceleration gradient is:
V dV
dp
dx accel 144g c dx
where:
= Density, lb m/ft3
V = Velocity, ft/sec
For multiphase flow, the same type of relationship holds except that it refers to
the flow of the mixed phase fluid. Most methods assume a no-slip mixture and
use the no-slip mixture density (ns) and the mixture velocity (Vm) in the
calculation of acceleration losses.
The kinetic energy acceleration losses are small for most oil industry applications.
The main exception is high velocity flow through low-pressure piping. Flare
systems would be an example of piping that has high acceleration losses.
Acceleration may account for 30 to 50 percent of the overall pressure loss in such
lines. For a typical high pressure gathering system line, acceleration is usually
less than 1 percent of the total drop and is frequently ignored.
H-0806.35
5-14
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
In slug flow, another source of acceleration contributes significantly to the total

pressure drop. As a slug propagates down the pipeline, it overruns and entrains
the slower moving liquid from the film ahead of the slug front. Accelerating the
liquid from the film velocity to the slug velocity can produce significant pressure
losses. The acceleration loss may be anywhere from <1 percent to more than 50
percent of the total pressure drop. Mechanistic models include this loss, while
most of the correlation based methods ignore this loss.
5.4.5
Sources of Error and Constraints in Pressure Drop Calcula tions

Due to the complexity of multiphase flow, uncertainties associated with pressure
drop calculations are significantly greater than those in single-phase flow, and
errors in excess of +/-20 percent must be anticipated. These errors will be
increased if the terrain is rugged, the fluid properties are not fully defined or if the
velocities are particularly high, or indeed low. This latter feature is a result of the
fact that many pressure drop methods are empirically based and are therefore
really only valid for the range of conditions over which they were derived. This
also means that significant variations in pressure drop can be expected from
different methods.
The total pressure drop in both phases must be the same (i.e. DPl = DP g ). In
addition, the gas and liquid velocities are both functions of liquid hold up and
flow rate only. This means that there are two equations with two unknowns
(pressure drop and holdup), and in theory it should be possible to solve them
simultaneously, provided fluid properties, pipe topography, etc. can be defined. It
is also necessary to define quantitatively the friction factor at the gas-liquid
interface. This has been the stumbling block in the development of rigorous
models because no one has yet been able to derive a general, universally accepted
formulation for interfacial friction.
DPh , the pressure drop due to head loss, is typically calculated assuming that no
recovery of head occurs in downhill pipeline sections - this is a common and
fairly successful approach in empirical multiphase flow pressure drop calculations
and emphasizes the importance of having topography details of all minor
undulations.
H-0806.35
5-15
1-Dec-00
5.4.6
DEEPSTAR
Pipewall Roughness
The relative roughness used here is defined as the absolute pipe roughness (which
can be thought of as the surface-to-peak height of undulations on the metal
surface) divided by the pipe diameter. This is then usually applied to a Moody
friction chart to find the friction factor. The Moody chart gives the Fanning
friction factor as a function of Reynolds number and relative roughness.
A new steel pipe is usually reckoned to have an absolute roughness of about 50
micron. In a 24- inch pipe this converts to a relative roughness of about .00008.
An aged, corroded pipe will have a much rougher sur face and a corresponding
higher relative roughness value. There can be a factor of about two between the
pressure drop that can be expected between the new and the aged pipe. Since
flow rate is roughly proportional to the square root of pressure drop, this implies
that the new smooth pipe could have a capacity 40 percent greater than the very
rough pipe.
It is possible to generate a smoother surface than 50 microns by the use of
internally lining or coating the pipe. A roughness (smoothness?) of 10 microns is
feasible by this means, converting to a relative roughness of about 0.000016. The
Moody chart shows that at the maximum Reynolds number this produces a
friction factor of about 0.00115. The increase in capacity that might be expected
by coating or lining the pipe is therefore 6 to 7 percent.
5.4.7
Drag Reducing Agents

The previous section showed that significant pressure drop reduction might be
obtained by reducing the friction between fluid and pipe wall. A possibly a
cheaper option would be to use additives, the so-called drag reducing agents
(DRA's) to alter the frictional properties of the fluid. DRA's have been available
since about 1979 and have been used to reduce pressure drop, or increase
throughput, in liquid pipelines. They consist of polyolefins with molecular
weights in excess of 500,000 and are added to the oil at concentrations typically
between 15 and 100 PPM. One manufacturers DRAs can be supplied as water
or oil soluble products. The oil soluble type comes either as a solid suspension or
a gel formulation. Poor results have been reported in multiphase systems with the
gel type.
H-0806.35
5-16
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
DRA's have recently been experimented with in relation to multiphase pipelines.

Ohio University has shown that pressure drop reductions can be achieved in
stratified, slug and annular flow, but only at relatively low flows. The pressure
reduction was maximized at high water cuts. It seems that DRA's alter the flow
regime maps, with the transition from stratified to slug flow occurring at higher
velocities, increasing typically from 0.2 m/s to 0.8 m/s. The DRA has a surfactant
effect, reducing surface tension, but not leading to significant foaming or
emulsification. Work at Strathclyde University suggests that the mechanism by
which they work is the suppression of vortex formation and propagation in
turbulent flow, thus reducing energy loss. It is unlikely that DRA's will work in
systems with high GOR's (i.e. low CGR's).
Trials with DRA's in multiphase systems have been carried out by Norsk Hydro,
and they report reductions in pressure drop of about 50 percent, with additions of
a DRA at levels of 60 to 100ppm.
5.5
Liquid Holdup Calculation

Liquid holdup is the amount of liquid contained in a multiphase pipeline at
particular flow conditions. Pipeline liquid holdup is a factor of major importance
for operability of a pipeline. Differences in holdup at different flow conditions
represents the liquid that will be swept out of the line during flow rate changes
and the holdup at a particular time will be produced as a slug of liquid if the line
is sphered. These aspects affect slug catcher sizing and peak onshore liquid
processing requirements and are discussed in detail in later sections.
5.5.1
Causes of Liquid Holdup

The formation of liquid holdup is as follows. The liquid phase is normally carried
though the line by drag forces exerted by the gas phase. In upward sloping
sections of the pipeline line this drag must overcome both frictional and
gravitational forces - this causes liquid to accumulate in these sections so as to
reduce the flow area for the gas, increasing the drag to that required to carry the
liquid uphill.
The accumulation of liquid in uphill sections means that use of a representative
topography for a pipeline is vital in predicting liquid ho ldups - in particular the
topography must include the total upward distance through which the pipeline
H-0806.35
5-17
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
(i.e. including all intermediate climbs). If only limited topographical data is

available, Gregory (1991) recommends use of the terrain allowances.
Below a certain gas flow rate (which is different for each pipeline and is often
referred to as the sweep velocity) the holdup rapidly increases as the gas velocity
is further lowered. In this region the holdup appears to depend far more on gas
velocity than upon the amount of liquid in the fluids.
Above the sweep velocity the holdup only slightly decreases as gas velocity is
further increased. In this region the hold-up appears to be almost entirely
dependent upon the amount of liquid in the fluids.
5.5.2
No-Slip Holdup
The no-slip holdup is calculated by assuming homogeneous flow throughout the
length of the pipeline. If there were no slip between the gas and liquid phases,
both phases would move through the pipe at the mixture velocity. The liquid
would occupy the volume fraction equivalent to the ratio of the liquid volumetric
flow rate to the total volumetric flow rate. In multiphase flow terminology, this
equates to the liquid holdup being equal to the ratio between the superficial liquid
velocity and the mixture velocity:
Hl,ns
= No-slip liquid holdup

= Vsl/Vm
where:
Vsl = Superficial Liquid Velocity (actual ft3 /sec of liquid / pipe crosssectional area)
Vm = Mixture Velocity
In practice, no-slip conditions can only be achieved at extremely high gas
velocities where the pressure drops are uneconomic and there is a risk of erosion.
The no-slip holdup thus represents the minimum holdup possible in a multiphase
pipeline. At typical pipeline operating conditions of 4C and 70 barg, the no-slip
holdup can be estimated as 0.045 percent of the pipeline volume for each 1
BBL/MMscf of CGR.
H-0806.35
5-18
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Under most conditions, the liquid phase, which is more dense and viscous, moves
more slowly than the gas. When this occurs, the liquid holdup (Hl) is greater than
the no-slip holdup. Under these conditions, the actual gas velocity is greater than
the mixture velocity, and the actual liquid velocity is smaller than the mixture
velocity. The expressions for the actual gas velocity (Ug ) and the actual liquid
velocity (Ul) are:
Ug =
Ul =
5.5.3
Vsg
1- H l
Vsl
Hl
Sensitivity of Hold-Up to Major Operating Variables

The holdup in each flow regime has its own sensitivity to the important operating
variables. A summary of the effect of the major operating variables on the liquid
holdup is presented in Table 5.5-1.
Table 5.5-1: Influence of Operating Variables on Liquid Holdup
Slug Flow
Annular
Flow
Stratified
Flow
Dispersed
Bubble Flow
Superficial Gas
Velocity
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Superficial
Liquid Velocity
Strong
Strong
Strong
Strong
Gas Density
Moderate
Strong
Strong
Strong
Pipeline
Diameter
Moderate
Weak
Weak
Weak
Angle of
Inclination
Moderate
Weak
Very Strong
None
Liquid
Properties
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Weak
H-0806.35
5-19
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
As seen in Table 5.5-1, the influence of the major variables on the holdup is very
different for each of the flow regimes. As a result, it is impossible to develop a
general holdup correlation that will apply to all the flow regimes. Unfortunately,
almost all of the commonly used ho ldup models available in commercial software
try to do this. They work poorly over much of the operating range as a result.
The only way to accurately predict liquid holdup is to use mechanistic models for
each of the flow regimes.
5.5.4
Prediction of Liquid Holdup

Many pipeline design correlations exist which generate or include an estimate of
liquid holdup; the section below describes the most commonly used ones. All
these correlations can be used for a single step calculation, treating the whole
pipeline length as a single inclined section (though note the comments in section
5.5.1 concerning total climb) but this will give poor results. Ideally all methods
should consider each individual climb in the pipe in turn in a multi- step
calculation. This can be performed using a spreadsheet set up for the purpose or
one of the proprietary software packages.
5.5.5
Mechanistic Models
Mechanistic models calculate liquid holdup as part of their overall solution to the
flow condition in each section of a pipeline. These models work at a more
fundamental level than the correlation methods as discussed in the prediction of
flow regimes.
5.5.6
Field/Experimental Holdup Data

Only limited field data of hold-up in gas-condensate pipelines is available in the
open literature.
Northeast Frigg: A prolonged flow trial was performed by Elf on the 17.3 km,
16-inch flowline between the N.E. Frigg field and the Frigg central processing
platform. This is the most comprehensive set of field data available in the open
literature (Hansen, 1991) including both transient and steady state data and
distinguishing between condensate and aqueous liquid phases.
Marlin and Barracouta: Cunliffe (1978) reported hold-ups in the Marlin (108 km
long, 20- inch diameter) and Barracouta (49 km long, 18- inch diameter) pipelines.
Baker, et al., amongst that used this data in their comparisons of holdup
H-0806.35
5-20
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
correlations. Details of pipeline topography and fluids composition (save overall

CGR) are not included in the paper.
Viking and Frigg: Holdup data from the Frigg (330 km long, 32- inch diameter)
and Viking (138 km long, 28- inch diameter) was reported in the comparison work
of Baker and co-workers. Again topography and fluids composition (aside from
overall CGR) were not reported.
South Morecambe: A 38.45 km, 36- inch line which is normally operated with
routine pigging to clear accumulation of condensate and injected MEG. The
fluids contain relatively little liquid having a CGR of approximately 2.5
BBL/MMscf. A series of trials were conducted in early 1988 measuring steady
state hold-up at one flow condition (McAllister, 1988).
Amethyst: A 50 km, 30- inch multiphase line which is normally pigged daily to
avoid build- up of condensate and water (the fluid CGR varies from 5 to 20
bbls/MMscf and usually includes about 1 bbl/MMscf of water, methanol is
injected offshore for hydrate prevention). Measurements of holdup in the line
were made in 1992.
PIPER: The PIPER rig was constructed and operated by BG R&T in 1995 to
provide data for validation of multiphase modeling methods. The 1995 work
(Molyneux, 1996) studied holdups in a 3-inch pipeline dip operating at typical
field velocities. Fluids used were air and water at 10 barg. Holdup results were
compared with PLAC predictions, and the comparison was remarkably good.
5.6
Three Phase Flow

In most of this guideline, discussion considers two-phase, or gas- liquid, flow. In
the majority of oil/gas field applications, there will actually be three phases
present (gas, oil or condensate, and water). The rigor prediction of three-phase
flow is still developing, though three-phase flow software is currently
commercially available. Most simulation software packages use two-phase
models with a mixed liquid stream using averaged properties for the oil and water.
The use of two-phase models with averaged properties generally gives acceptable
results unless either: emulsions are present, or the flow rates are low enough to
cause stratification of all three phases.
H-0806.35
5-21
1-Dec-00
5.7
DEEPSTAR
Information Sources
Agrawal, S.S., Gregory, G.A. & Govier, G.W. " An Analysis of Horizontal Stratified
Two Phase Flow in Pipes" Can. J. Chem. Engng. p280-287, 51, June 1973.
Baker, A. & Gravestock, N. "New Correlations for Predicting Press Loss and Holdup in
Gas/Condensate Pipelines" BHRA 3rd Int. Conf. on Multiphase Flow, The Hague
18-20th May 1987.
Baker, A., Nielsen, K. & Gabb, A. "Field Data Test New Holdup, Pressure- loss
Calculations for gas, Condensate Pipelines" O&G J. p78-86, March 21th, 1988.
Baker, A., Nielsen, K. & Gabb, A. "Holdup, Pressure- loss Calculations Confirmed"
O&G J. p44-50, March 28th, 1988.
Baker, A., Nielsen, K. & Gabb, A. "Pressure Loss, Liquid-holdup Calculations
Developed" O&G J. p55-59, March 14th, 1988.
Beggs, H.D. & Brill, J.P. "A Study of Two Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes"
Trans.Pet.Soc.AIME, p607, 256, 1973.
Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P., A Study of Two-phase Flow in Inclined Pipes, J. Pet. Tech.,
June 1967, P. 815.
Cunliffe, R.S. "Condensate Flow in Wet- gas Lines can be Predicted" O&G J. p100-107,
30th October. 1978
Eaton, B.A., Andrews, D.E., Knowles, C.R., Silberberg, I.H. & Brown, K.E. " The
Prediction of Flow Patterns, Liquid Hold- up and Pressure Losses Occurring during
Continuous Two-phase Flow in Horizontal Pipelines" J. Pet. Tech., p815-828, June
1967.
Gregory, G.A. "Comparison of Methods for the Prediction of Liquid Holdup for Upward
Gas- liquid Flow in Inclined Pipes" Can. J. Chem. Engng. p384-388, 53, August 1975.
Gregory, G.A. "Multiphase Flow in Pipes - Notes for a Professional Development
Course Neotechnology Consultants Ltd., Calgary 1991.
Gregory, G.A. & Fogarasi, M. "A Critical evaluation of Multiphase Gas- liquid Pipeline
Calculation Methods" BHRA 2nd Int. Conf. on Multiphase Flow, London, 19-21st June
H-0806.35
5-22
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Calculation Methods" BHRA 2nd Int. Conf. on Multiphase Flow, London, 19-21st June
1985.
Hansen, T.E. "The Northeast Frigg Full Scale Multiphase Flow Test" BHRA Multiphase
Production Conference, Cannes, 19-21st June, 1991.
Hughmark, G.A. "Hold-up in Gas- liquid Flow" Chem. Engng. Prog. P62, 58, 1962.
Lockhart, R.W. & Martinelli, R.C. " Proposed Correlation of Data for Isothermal
Two-phase, Two Compone nt Flow in Pipes" Chem. Engng. Prog. p45, 39, January
1949.
Mandhane, J.M., Gregory, G.A. & Aziz, K. "A Flow Pattern Map for Gas- liquid Flow in
Horizontal Pipes" Int. J. Multiphase Flow, p537, 1, 1974.
Mandhane, J.M., Gregory, G.A. & Aziz, K. "Critical Evaluation of Friction
Pressure-drop Prediction Methods for Gas- liquid Flow in Horizontal Pipes" J. Pet. Tech.
p1348-1358, October 1977.
McAllister, J.S., Hydrocarbons GB Ltd. memorandum and attached technical note dated
15th April 1988.
Minami, K. & Brill, J.P. "Liquid Hold-up in Wet Gas Pipelines" SPE 14535, SPE
Production Engineering, p36-44, February 1987.
Molyneux, P.D. "The Measurement of Multiphase Flow in a Pipeline Dip and
Comparison of the Results with PLAC Predictions" BG R&T Internal Report GRC R
1360, April 1996.
Mukherjee H. & Brill, J.P. "Liquid Holdup Correlations for Inclined Two-phase Flow
J. Pet. Tech., p1003-1008, May 1983.
Mukherjee, H. and Brill, J.P., Pressure Drop Correlation for Inclined Two-phase Flow,
J. of Energy Resources Te ch., Vol. 107, P.549, 1985.
Oliemans, R.V.A. "Modeling of Gas-condensate Flow in Horizontal and Inclined Pipes"
Proc. ASME, Pipeline Engng. Symp., ETCE, p73, Dallas, February 1987.
Oliemans, R.V.A., Two-phase Flow in Gas Transmission Pipelines, ASME paper
76-Pet-25, Sep. 1976.
H-0806.35
5-23
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
76-Pet-25, Sep. 1976.

Palmer, C.M. "Evaluation of Inclined Two-Phase Liquid Holdup Correlations Using
Experimental Data" MS Thesis, U. of Tulsa, 1975.
Taitel, Y. & Dukler, A.E. "A Model for Predicting Flow Regime Transitions in
Horizontal and near Horizontal Gas- liquid Flow" AIChE J., p47-55, 22, 1976.
H-0806.35
5-24
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING, INC
DEEPSTAR
6.0
STEADY-STATE HYDRAUIC SIMULATION AND LIN E SIZING
6.1
Introduction
The majority of pipelines are sized by use of three primary design criteria:
available pressure drop; allowable velocities; and flow regime Line sizing is
usually performed by use of steady state simulators, which assume that the
pressures, flowrates, temperatures, and liquid holdup in the pipeline are constant
with time. This assumption is rarely true in practice, but line sizes calculated from
the steady state models are usually adequate. Thermal considerations, including
steady-state temperature drop, and the effect on steady-state hydraulics is
discussed in Chapter 7, entitled Thermal Modeling.
For a more rigorous pipeline sizing, the simulations could be done using transient
simulators. Transient simulators allow changes in parameters such as inlet
flowrate and outlet pressure as a function of time, and calculate values for the
outlet flowrates, temperatures, liquid holdup, etc. as a function of time. If the line
is operating in slug flow, the line size calculated from the transient model might
be different from that calculated from a steady state simulator.
These
considerations will be discussed later in Chapter 8, entitled, Transient
Modeling.
This chapter is arranged as follows. Sections 6.1 and 6.2 discuss some general
guidelines for pressure drop and fluid velocity design criteria (The third design
criteria, flow regimes are discussed in Chapter 5). Section 6.3 presents some
general guidelines to follow when using steady-state simulators.
6.2
Pressure Drop Design Criteria

No clear-cut criteria exist for determining the amount of pressure drop to be
allowed in a pipeline design. Allowable pressure drop is a function of the
parameters of the system being designed. The following are some guidelines for
specific systems:
For plant piping, rule of thumb values for pressure gradients, such as a
frictional gradient of 0.2-0.5 psi per 100 ft. of equivalent length, are generally
used.
H-0806.35
6-1
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
In the design of a gathering system, the ideal way to choose allowable

pressure drops is to simulate the system from the reservoir through the
processing plant as a function of time. This approach will account for the
changes in reservoir pressure, flowrate, and composition that the gathering
system must handle during the life of the field.
If it is not feasible to do the rigorous simulations for a gathering system, the

allowable pressure drop can be estimated from the initial wellhead pressure
and the processing plant inlet separator pressure. A rule of thumb to use for
this method is to take 1/3 of the difference between the wellhead pressure and
the separator pressure as the allowable pressure drop in the pipeline. The
remainder of the difference would equal the initial choke pressure drop. This
approach would allow for future operation at reduced reservoir pressures.
A rule of thumb estimate of allowable pressure drop for long distance

gas/condensate pipelines is to allow 10-20 psi per mile for frictional pressure
drop at design rates.
The pressure drop in the line should be compared with the allowable pressure
drop. It should be pointed out that pressure drop is not always a maximum at
the highest flowrate. If the pipeline contains inclined or vertical elements, it is
possible that the highest pressure drop may occur at a low flow condition due
to high elevational losses at low flows.
6.3
Velocity
The velocity in multiphase flow pipelines should be kept within certain limits to
ensure proper operation. Operating problems can occur if the velocity is either
too high or too low, as described in the following sections. It is difficult to
accurately define the point at which velocities are "too high" or "too low. This
section of the guide will try to quantify limits, but these limits should be
considered as guidelines and not absolute values
For the maximum design velocity in a pipeline, API RP-14E recommends the
following formula:
Vmax =
H-0806.35
C
Pns
6-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
where Vmax = Maximum mixture velocity, ft/sec

Pns = No-slip mixture density, lb/ft3
=
( Pg V sg ) + ( PlV sl )
Vm
g = Gas Density, lb/ft

l = Liquid Density, lb/ft
C = Constant, 100 for continuous service, 125 for intermittent service.
This equation attempts to indicate the velocity at which erosion-corrosion begins
to increase rapidly. Many people think this equation is an oversimplification of a
highly complex subject, and as a result, there has been considerable controversy
over its use. For wells with no sand present, values of C have been reported to be
as high as 300 without significant erosion/corrosion. For flowlines with
significant amounts of sand present, there has been considerable erosion-corrosion
for lines operating below C = 100.
The use of the API equation has been the subject of several research projects. It
has been generally agreed that the fo rm of the equation is not sophisticated
enough, and should include additional parameters. Unfortunately, no other
equation has been proposed which has gained acceptance in the industry as an
alternative to the API equation. As a result, the recommended maximum velocity
in the pipeline is the value calculated from Equation 6.1 with a C value of 100.
It should be noted that Equation 6.1 is also used by many people as an estimate of
the maximum velocity for noise control.
The concept of a minimum velocity for the pipeline is an important one and
should be considered in the design of the line. Turndown conditions frequently
govern the design of the downstream equipment. Velocities that are too low are
frequently a greater problem than excessive velocities, so that the designers
natural tendency to add "a bit of fat" to the design by increasing pipe diameter can
cause severe problems in the operation of the line and the downstream facilities.
At low velocities, several operating problems may occur:
Water may accumulate at low spots in the line. If there is an appreciable

amount of CO2 or H2S in the well stream, this water may be very corrosive.
H-0806.35
6-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Liquid holdup may increase rapidly at low mixture velocities. A large

accumulation of liquid may cause problems in downstream separators or slug
catchers if the line is pigged or the rate is changed rapidly.
Low velocities may cause terrain induced slugging in hilly terrain pipelines
and pipeline-riser systems.
It is not possible to give a simple formula quantifying the velocity when the
phenomena discussed above will occur. The minimum velocity depends on many
variables, including: topography; pipeline diameter; gas- liquid ratio; and
operating conditions of the line. A ballpark value for the minimum velocity
would be a mixture velocity of 5-8 ft/sec. The actual value of the minimum
velocity can only be quantified by simulation of the system using the methods
discussed.
6.4
Steady State Simulators

This section contains some general guidelines on the use of steady state
simulators. The topics covered include:
Phase Equilibrium and Physical Properties

Pipeline Elevation Profile
Interpretation of Results
6.4.1
Phase Equilibrium and Physical Properties

Accurate prediction of the phase behavior and physical properties for the fluid
flowing through the pipeline is essential to a good simulation of the pipeline
operation. The estimates of these parameters depend in large part on the quality of
the input data available.
During conceptual design work, the only data available may be an estimate of the
oil rate and gas-oil ratio. After well tests have been performed, compositions of
the wellstream and PVT data may be available as well as projections of the
flowrates of oil, gas and water as a function of time. Obviously, as the accuracy of
the input data improves, the quality of the pipeline simulation improves. For
details on physical property prediction, refer to Chapter 4, entitled "Physical
Property Data and Prediction".
H-0806.35
6-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Steady-State Simulators generally have two fundamentally different models

available for estimation of phase behavior and physical properties. The black oil
model estimates the phase behavior and physical properties by use of a series of
correlations that are based on operating temperature, pressure and some global
parameters such as specific gravity of the oil and gas. Compositional models use
an equation of state to estimate the quantity of liquid and gas at the operating
conditions; then, correlations are used to estimate the physical properties.
The decision on whether to use the black oil model or compositional modeling
depends on the available information and the type of system that is being
modeled.
The choice of models for gas-condensate and volatile oil systems is clear.
Compositional models should be used for any gas-condensate or volatile oil
system. This recommendation covers gas-oil ratios above about 3500 SCF/bbl.
The accuracy of compositional modeling depends, in a large part, on the
characterization of the heavy ends of the well stream. The materials heavier than
hexane (C6+) are usually characterized by use of pseudo-components or cuts.
The heavy ends could be characterized by one C6+ cut, or by a series of cuts
corresponding to various boiling ranges. In general, the accuracy of the
predictions increases when more cuts are used. Steady-State Simulators require
two of the following parameters to characterize a cut: specific gravity; molecular
weight, or normal boiling point. In many cases, the mole fractions for cuts
heavier than C6+ may have been measured in the PVT analysis, but cut properties
were not noted. In cases like this, the customary assumption is to use the
properties of the corresponding normal paraffin as the cut properties. This adds
some error to the analysis, but it is unavoidable in many circumstances.
If the compositional model is used in steady-state simulators, the only variable
that can be easily manipulated to match experimental data is the liquid viscosity.
Generally, steady-state simulators do not have an option that will automatically
adjust the phase equilibrium calculations to match experimental data. It is
possible to manually modify the phase equilibrium calculations, but it requires
considerable effort, and the methods to do this are beyond the scope of this guide
and specific to the particular simulator.
H-0806.35
6-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Although it is possible to get good estimates of the phase equilibrium for 3-phase
(gas-oil- water) systems, the available software does not allow rigorous simulation
of three-phase flow. The models present in steady-state simulators can only do
two-phase (gas- liquid) flow calculations. Steady-state simulators average the
properties of the liquid hydrocarbon and liquid water, and use that average in the
two-phase flow methods. Volumetric averaging, however, may not give good
values for the viscosity and surface tension of the mixture. If the oil and water
form an emulsion, the viscosity estimate may be off considerably using simple
volumetric averaging, because the viscosity of an emulsion can be as much as 50
times as high as the viscosity of the oil or water. If it is likely that an emulsion
will form, the Woeflin method, which is available in steady-state simulators,
should be used to estimate the viscosity of the emulsion.
For lower gas-oil ratios, the choice of models is more difficult. Compositional
models should give more accurate phase equilibrium results, but the physical
property estimates from the compositional models may not be as good as the
black oil model. (Section 4 illustrates this point.) As a result, it cannot be stated
categorically that either the black oil model or the compositional model is
superior for low gas-oil ratio systems. General practice with Steady-State
Simulators has been to use the black oil model for lower gas-oil ratio streams.
If tests of the phase equilibrium and physical properties have been done as part of
the wellstream analysis, steady-state simulators allow the users of the black oil
model to adjust the model predictions for solution GOR, densities, and liquid
viscosity to match experimental values. The pipeline predictions after PVT
matching should be considerably better than those obtained with use of the
standard correlations.
6.4.2
Pipeline Elevation Profile

The pipeline elevation profile used in the simulation can have a significant impact
on the calculated pressure drop. Because the liquid holdup in upwardly inclined
flow is greater than the holdup in downward flow, the elevational pressure drop in
uphill legs is greater than the pressure recovery in downhill legs. As a result,
elevational losses can account for much of the pressure drop in hilly terrain
pipelines, even if the inlet and outlet of the line are at the same relative elevation.
H-0806.35
6-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
If the velocities in the line are high, the uphill and downhill holdups may be close.
As the mixture velocity decreases, there will be an increasing difference between
uphill and downhill holdups.
The following table illustrates how sensitive the liquid holdup is to mixture
velocity at various angles of inclination from horizontal. The feed stream is a
gas-condensate with about 4 bbl/MMSCF of liquid present. (The values shown
are predictions of the OLGAS model.)
Table 6-1:
PIPELINE
INCLINATION
ANGLE,
DEGREES
LIQUID HOLDUP (BBLS/MMSCF)
2.7
4.1
5.4
8.1
16.2
-2.0
0.0041
0.0053
0.0064
0.0091
0.0115
-1.0
0.0052
0.0068
0.0085
0.0108
0.0122
-0.5
0.0068
0.0087
0.0108
0.0124
0.0126
0.0
0.0224
0.0218
0.0198
0.0156
0.0131
0.2
0.5797
0.4134
0.2249
0.0179
0.0134
0.5
0.5961
0.4988
0.3846
0.0317
0.0135
1.0
0.5997
0.5000
0.4314
0.3023
0.0144
2.0
0.6009
0.5024
0.4337
0.3428
0.0158
MIXTURE VELOCITY FT/SEC
Using the values in the table below, a comparison of two models for a given
section of a pipeline has been made. In the first model, the pipeline segment
consists of two equal length sections of -0.5 degree and +0.5 degree each. The
second model consists of a single horizontal pipeline segment. The liquid
holdups for the two models are:
H-0806.35
6-7
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Table 6-2:
MIXTURE
VELOCITY, FT/SEC
HOLDUP FOR -0.5

DEGREE AND +0.5
MODEL
HOLDUP FOR
HORIZONTAL
MODEL
2.7
4.1
0.3015
0.2538
0.0224
0.0218
5.4
0.1977
0.0198
8.1
0.0221
0.0156
16.2
0.0131
0.0131
The liquid holdups are far apart at low velocities and are the same at higher
velocities. This comparison makes two points:
1. The pipeline profile must be realistic if the calculations of liquid holdup and
pressure drop are to be accurate.
2. Low velocities cause severe problems in prediction of the pipeline
performance.
For very low velocities, it would be necessary to know the pipeline elevation
profile within an accuracy of about one pipe diameter in order to get accurate
holdup predictions. This is generally not practical.
In many cases, the pipeline topography is not known when the preliminary
pipeline sizing calculations are run. Frequently, in offshore pipeline design, the
designer only knows water depths at subsea wells or platforms. Instead of
assuming a straight- line pipeline profile, it is recommended that the designer add
some terrain features to the pipeline profile to simulate hills and valleys that are
inevitably present in the actual profile.
To improve the accuracy of the simulation, many calculation segments should be
used in simulating the pipeline. Increasing the number of calculation segments
always improves the accuracy of the simulation, but it increases the computer
simulation time. The number of segments required depends on how rapidly the
temperature, pressure and holdup are changing in the pipeline. For a system with
rapid changes in pressure, e.g. flare systems; the number of calculation segments
H-0806.35
6-8
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
should be greater. If the temperature and pressure are changing slowly, a coarser
grid can be used to simulate the pipeline.
6.4.3
Interpretation of Results
When a multiphase simulator is run, the interpretation of the results can be
difficult. The following section provides assistance in understanding steady-state
simulators output, and ensuring that the design criteria for the line (velocities,
flow regime, and allowable pressure drop) are met.
The velocity in the pipeline should be kept within a limited range. Calculation of
the velocities from a steady-state simulators output is not straightforward. The
designers of steady-state simulators chose to include the actual gas and liquid
velocities in their output table rather than the superficial gas and liquid velocities,
which are needed in the erosional velocity calculations. The superficial and
actual velocities are related by simple formulas:
Vsg = Ug (1 H l )
and
Vsl = U l H 1
It is important to note that liquid holdup is generally shown to only two decimal
places in output tables. For gas-condensate lines, if the liquid holdup is below 0.5
percent, the printout will show 0.00 for the holdup. If there is a way to increase
the number of significant digits to be reported (based on simulator), this is
suggested.
A more accurate way of calculating the superficial velocities from the steady-state
simulators output tables which doesn't rely on reading the value for the liquid
holdup is:
Hl =
(U g Vm)
(U g U l )
Vsl = U l H l
H-0806.35
6-9
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Vsg = Vm Vsl
To calculate the C value in the API-RP14E equation, the value of the no-slip
mixture density must be known. The no-slip mixture density can be calculated
from the phase densities shown on the output table and the superficial velocities
calculated above:
ns =
( g Vsg ) + (l Vsl )
Vm
It is worthwhile to emphasize the point that the pipeline design should be checked
at off-design points as well as the no minal design point. For most pipelines,
worst-case conditions for liquid holdup and flow regime occur at turndown
conditions.
Some steady-state simulators allow the user to print a flow regime map based on
the selected correlations for horizontal and vertical flow. Some simulators have
some limitations. For instance, in PIPEPHASE, the flow regime map is printed
only for the last "device" in a "link. If the "link" contains several pipes with
different inclinations, the flow regime map for some of these sections may be
quite different from the map at the last "device. The only way to print the flow
regime map at specific points along the line is to make these points ends to
"links".
Most simulators also print the flow regime predictions for each pipeline segment.
The printout shows the predictions of the multiphase flow regimes and in some
cases, the correlation/model used (e.g. Beggs and Brill and Taitel and Dukler,
etc.).
Once the flow regime is determined, the designer needs to decide if this flow
regime is acceptable. This decision is more difficult than it may appear. Here are
some general rules/practice methods to follow:
H-0806.35
Ideally, the flow line should not be in the slug flow regime. In practice, it may
be very difficult to design a line to avoid slug flow under all anticipated flow
conditions. The only variables the designer can change are diameter and
operating pressure; the changes in these variables required to avoid slug flow
6-10
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
may be impractical. It should be pointed out that many pipelines operate

successfully in slug flow. As long as the pipeline and downstream equipment
are designed with proper consideration of slug flow effects, they can be
successfully operated.
6.5
The flow regime analysis may show that the line is in stratified flow. In many
instances, this is an excellent flow regime in which to operate. At low
flowrates, however, slugging may occur in lines predicted to be in stratified
flow, induced by the terrain. Terrain induced slugs are generally much longer
than the slugs in normal slug flow and can cause severe operating problems.
Terrain slugging is discussed in more detail in Section 5.2.2.
If the pressure drop and velocities for lines in dispersed bubble or annular
flow are within acceptable limits, these flow regimes are usually good regimes
in which to operate.
Networks (Flows in Networks)

Analysis of multiphase networks is increasingly important since in mature sectors,
the exploitation of smaller gas fields often requires the combination of several
widely separated fields or tie- ins to existing platforms to make economics viable.
In spite of advances in directional drilling, these fields must often be developed
via remote wellheads and multiphase flowlines.
The drive to reduce costs necessitates use of existing infrastructure and minimal
fluids processing. Thus multiphase fluids may need to be exported through
networks originally designed for low CGR or even single-phase fluids.
6.5.1
Analysis of Simple Networks (Gathering Systems)

A basic approach for simple networks outlined by Gregory & Aziz (1978) relies
on an initial knowledge of the flow from each feed of a gas gathering system, the
details of each flowline section (construction, topography etc.) and the pressure
and temperature at the combined outlet of the system. Calculations are performed
backwards through the system to ascertain the pressure and temperature at each
node. This is illustrated in Figure 6.1.
If this approach is being used to generate a preliminary network design, pipeline
details (e.g. diameter) for each section may require adjustment to meet pressure
H-0806.35
6-11
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
constraints for particular feeds (indeed it will probably be necessary to return to

previous, downstream, calculations to satisfy some criteria).
Limitations of this very simple approach are the possible need for multiple
calculations with many iterations to study systems where feed temperatures vary
significantly with supply pressure (i.e. due to letdown across wellhead chokes).
Figure 6.1: Network Calculation Example

6.5.2
Computerized Simulation of Simple Networks

All commercially available modeling packages should be capable of modeling
simple gathering networks using a combination of feeds, pipes, mixers and sinks.
All the following codes are capable of handling networks of flowlines:
Netflo (BG R&T)
PIPESIM (Baker-Jardine)
PLAC (AEA Technology)
OLGA (Scanpower)
HYSIM/HYSIS (Hyprotech)
H-0806.35
6-12
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Aspen Plus (Aspentech)
In most cases, different flow models can be used to simulate each individual
flowline within a network. Commercial codes such as Pipesim and Pipeflow also
have add-in features allowing optimization of flow through gathering systems and
optimization of lifetime production from a gas field (or group of fields).
6.5.3
Looped and Branching Pipelines

Parallel pipelines installed for turndown reasons, to increase capacity of a
pipeline, or to allow round trip pigging may only be treated as two separate
systems if the liquid and gas mixture entering each line is accurately known and if
their discharges are isolated from one another.
The complexity of multiphase flow is such that the split of gas and liquid into two
branches of a line cannot be accurately predicted and cases have been reported
where fluctuations in the outlet conditions (e.g. due to slugging from one flowline
entering a vessel) has affected the upstream operation of a pipeline discharging to
the same vessel. Thus any calculation which assumes an equal split of gas and
liquid phases in a branching or looped multiphase line should be regarded with
caution.
Bearing in mind the above, a method for hand calculation of looped pipeline
systems has been proposed by Gregory & Fogarasi (1982) which gives upper and
lower bounds for the pressure drop in a looped multiphase pipeline with a total
gas flow of Qg and total liquid flow Ql. Nomenclature for this approach is shown
in Figure 6.2.
Figure 6.2: Looped Pipeline Calculation
H-0806.35
6-13
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The resulting range of pressure drops will be associated with a range of liquid and
gas flow splits and will cover the range of possible pressure drops in the looped
line.
A further effect which must be checked for in looped systems with different
topographies is the possibility of one branch filling with liquid and acting as a
manometer leg (the liquid head balancing the pressure drop in the flowing line.
As well as increasing the pipeline pressure drop this phenomenon could result in
unexpected liquid slugs being received at the terminal when a subsequent flow
increase expels this liquid.
6.5.4
Computerized Looped and Parallel Line Calculations

Standard steady-state multiphase pipeline models can handle looped lines but are
limited in that the split of flow through each line must be set by the user and
repeated calculation used to balance the pressure drop in each branch. Splitting of
different proportions of gas and liquid into each line (required for the calculation
procedure recommended by Gregory & Fogarasi) is only possible by setting up
the loop line as entirely separate systems and adjusting both flowrates and fluid
compositions in each.
Simpler analysis of complex networks can be performed by fitting curves to the
results of several steady-state simulations for each section of line to build a
spreadsheet model of the network. Figure 6.3 shows an example of such a model
- in this case gas flowrates at each input are entered and the spreadsheet calculates
flows and hold-ups in each section of line. In practice, correlations for pressure
drop could also be incorporated. Such spreadsheet application is limited to the
operating conditions for which the correlations were derived (unless a great deal
of effort is put in to incorporating physical property correlations etc.) but once set
up can be used to study many cases in a large network very quickly - e.g. to
identify flow changes causing the greatest change in the network holdup.
H-0806.35
6-14
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Neptane
Initial flow
Final flow
Mercury
30 Mmscfd
145 Mmscfd
Initial flow
Final flow
Neptane Node 1
Initial flow
30 Mmfscfd
Final flow
145 Mmscfd
Initial HU
1102 bbls
Final HU
273 bbks
Mercury Node 2
Initial flow
25 Mmfscfd
Final flow
25 Mmscfd
Initial HU
236 bbls
Final HU
236 bbks
Niode 1- Node 2
Initial flow
100 Mmfscfd
Final flow
215 Mmscfd
Initial HU
186 bbls
Final HU
48 bbks
Niode 2 Easington
Initial flow
125 Mmfscfd
Final flow
240 Mmscfd
Initial HU
1198 bbls
Final HU
431 bbks
Easington
Minerva
Initial flow
Final flow
25 Mmscfd
25 Mmscfd
Initial flow
Final flow
Liquid
70 Mmscfd
70 Mmscfd
125 Mmscfd
240 Mmscfd
1734 bbls
Figure 6.3: Network Analysis Spreadsheet Calculation
6.6
How Steady -State Hydraulic Simulation Fits into the Design Process
Steady-state hydraulic simulation fits under the umbrella of Flow System
Thermal Hydraulic Design and Fluid Behavior. The hydraulic design is also tied
in closely with the thermal analysis, which will be the subject of Chapter 7.
6.7
Information Sources
1) Eaton, B.A., Andrews, D.E., Knowles, C.R., Silberberg, I.H. & Brown, K.E.
"The Prediction of Flow Patterns, Liquid Hold-up and Pressure Losses
Occurring during Continuous Two-Phase Flow
2) Gregory, G.A. & Fogarasi, M. "A Critical Evaluation of Multiphase
Gas-Liquid Pipeline Calculation Methods" BHRA, 2nd Int. Conference on
Multiphase Flow, London, 19-21st June 1985.
H-0806.35
6-15
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
3) Oliemans, R.V.A. "Two-phase Flo w in Gas Transmission Pipelines" ASME

paper 76-Pet-25, September 1976. Clark, C.J., Lee, T.P. & Sugarman, P.P.
"Operability of Multiphase Subsea Pipelines" Pipes & Pipelines International,
pp14-20, May-June 1985.
4) Gregory, G.A. & Aziz, K. "Calculation of Pressure and Temperature Profiles
in Multiphase Pipelines and Simple Pipeline Networks" J. Can. Pet. Tech.,
pp56-67, Jan-Mar 1978.
5) Gregory, G.A. & Fogarasi, M. "Estimation of Pressure Drop in Two-Phase
Oil-Gas Looped Pipeline Systems" J. Can. Pet.Techno l., pp75-81, Mar-Apr
1982.
H-0806.35
6-16
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
7.0
THERMAL MODELING
7.1
How Thermal Modeling Fits into the Design Process

Fluid temperatures along an operating flowline or pipeline are important in many
circumstances. Firstly of course, the temperature of the flowing fluids has a direct
influence on the phys ical characteristics of the fluids and on depositional potentials. The
temperature of the fluid in a gas or gas-condensate line will determine the amount of
condensation of liquids along a gas-condensate line and will therefore have an impact on
pressure drop and liquid holdup in the line and on corrosion potential. The assessment of
potential for hydrate formation and wax deposition along the line will require accurate
estimates of temperatures. Corrosion is a strong function of temperature, so good heat
transfer estimates are vital to corrosion prediction. When a flowline is shut in, the rate at
which the contained fluids cool will determine how long the operator has to effect any
required hydrate intervention actions. Also, the rate at which a flowline warms may
determine the amount of time that high-rate corrosion inhibition will be required. For
gas/condensate pipelines, temperature loss due to the Joule-Thomson (J-T) expansion
effect can be significant. Depending on flowing pressures and the amount of insulation
and/or burial, the temperature of the gas leaving the pipeline may be less than ambient
because of the J-T effect.
For these reasons, an accurate knowledge of the heat transfer characteristics of the system
will be required to properly model the heat transfer between the pipeline and the
surroundings. Accurate information on the following will be needed:
Thicknesses of the pipe, pipeline coatings, and insulation
Thermal conductivities of the pipe, coatings, and insulation.
Whether the pipe is buried or exposed
Burial depth, if applicable
Ambient environment (air/water, water velocity)
Ambient temperatures
With this information, appropriate heat transfer coefficients, which are then used to
determine the temperature profile in the pipeline, can be calculated. Usually, these
calculations are performed by the multiphase simulation software being use, though they
can be calculated manually.
H-0806.35
7-1
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
In most multiphase simulators, heat transfer rates are calculated using homogeneous
mixture properties. Hence no attempt is made to account for the position of the liquid
and gas in the pipe. This approach has been found to be satisfactory for multiphase
pipelines operating under normal transportation conditions.
In some circumstances the homogeneous heat transfer model may not be adequate. For
instance, when investigating heat flow from a pipe or valves during a rupture or shut- in,
knowledge of the liquid content (and resultant heat transfer characteristics) at different
locations in the pipe may be important. Under some such circumstances, fluid
boundaries can be located by experience or calculation, appropriate heat transfer
coefficients can be estimated, and heat loss rates calculated by hand methods. For
others, it would be necessary to use a sophis ticated transient model.
7.2
Calculation of Wellbore Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient

This section describes why the accurate calculation of the Wellhead Flowing
Temperature is important, and it also outlines how the WHFT (or FWHT) is calculated
using steady state multiphase simulation software. This section is split into two parts: the
first describes the factors that influence the WHFT and the theory involved and, the
second section describes the more practical aspects involved in determining the well head
flowing temperature using multiphase simulations.
It is important that the temperature at the wellhead be calculated accurately since it can
greatly affect the design of the flowline and/or the separator downstream of the wellhead.
For example, the following are influenced by the wellhead temperature:
The relative vapor/liquid split in the separator or flowline (which may affect the sizing
of the flowline or the separator).
The possibility of hydrate formation.
Rate of corrosion in the flowline.
The temperature profile at the inlet to the flowline affects the type of insulation and burial
requirements. If the temperature is high, then burial may be required to prevent upheaval
buckling. Conversely, if WHFT is very high, it may be necessary to cool the flow stream
before it enters the flowline.
This design guide discusses the factors, which affect the wellhead temperature, such as
watercut, flow rate, and completion details.
H-0806.35
7-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
In the following, heat transfer within the tubing and the casings is not rigorously
calculated. Instead, the casings and annuli are approximated to an equivalent thickness of
cement (or another insulation material). This method provides accurate results
considering that information on the heat transfer through the completion details and the
thermal properties of the surrounding rock may not be readily available and/or of
questionable accuracy.
As an alternate, an unsteady-state well simulation program could be used to rigorously
model the temperature loss through the tubing, casing and the annuli with time. Such a
program can calculate the temperature profile in the well during start-up and as a result of
flow rate changes. Some believe that such a program should not be used to calculate
steady-state wellhead flowing temperatures but should only be used to give an indication
of the warm up rates or the thermal response to changes in the operating conditions such
as flow rate.
This section describes the method used to calculate the WHFT. The description of the
calculation will allow the reader to determine which factors most influence the WHFT.
Calculated Well Heat Transfer
The heat lost from a flowing well into the surrounding rock matrix is by time-dependent
heat transfer. As in the case of a flowline, the overall heat transfer coefficient, which
determines heat loss from the produced fluids, is obtained from a series combination of
three components:
An internal film coefficient
Composite coefficient for the tubing/casing comprising:
the resistance of the tubing and casing walls

the resistance of the annulus medium
the resistance of the casing cement grouting
A time dependent coefficient for the surrounding rock matrix.
The heat transfer coefficient for radiation is not included as its influence is usually small
compared with the other coefficients.
Heat Transfer Through Completion
The calculation of the heat transfer rate through the layers becomes quite complicated
when a large number of casings are employed. The numerous casings, annuli and cement
thicknesses each contribute to the overall resistance to heat transfer. To simplify the
H-0806.35
7-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
calculation, it is possible to approximate the numerous layers to a single layer of cement

having the same resistance to heat transfer as the sum of the casings and annuli.
The heat transfer rate, Q, is described below. Where j indicates the properties of the jth
layer.
Q=
2T
[ln( D j +1 / Dj ) / K j ]
For a single layer of cement with an outer diameter of Dc, the equation becomes:
Q=
2K c T
ln( Dc / Dci )
Since Dc is the only unknown and the numerator is the same for both equations the
equations can be rewritten as below:
Dc = Dco exp( K c (ln DJ + 1 / D j ) K j )
The heat transfer coefficient through the completion can now be expressed (based on
tubing inside diameter) as:
hcoml =
2 Kc
Di ln( Dc / DCI )
At the bottom of the well there is normally only one tubing, one casing and one thickness
of cement (and one annulus). However, nearer the top of the well there may be numerous
casings, annulus, different annular fills and cement thicknesses.
Internal Heat Transfer
The internal heat transfer coefficient, hi, assumes the existence of homogeneous twophase flow. This assumption is usually acceptable since the resistance of the internal film
to heat transfer is low compared with the resistance of the casings and the external
medium.
The expression used for estimating the film coefficient is the same as that recommended
for single-phase turbulent flow.
H-0806.35
7-4
1-Dec-00
hi =
DEEPSTAR
0.023k m
x Re 0.8 x Pr 0.3
Di
The physical properties are derived on a phase volume weighted basis. The subscript m
denotes a mixture property. For example, the mixture viscosity is determined by the
following:
m = ll + g (1 g )
(Since heat is usually lost from well fluids the exponent for the Prandtl number is set to
0.3.)
External Medium
Heat transfer to the earth is essentially transient radial heat conduction, with the effective
heat transfer coefficient varying with time. While the analysis of the problem is
relatively straightforward, a simple explicit solution is not available. However,
approximate asymptotic solutions for short and long flow times can be derived.
The effective heat transfer coefficient, referred to the tubing inner diameter, is given by:
hearth =
2 ke
Dif (t )
f (t ) = [(z ) 0. 5 + 0.5 0.25( z / )0.5 + 0.125 z ] x 2 / Dco

Dco 2
z=
t
t = time (hrs .)
f (t ) = ln( Dco / t ) 0.29
Steady state simulation software able to perform the above calculations may not provide
an accurate prediction of WHFT during start-up. Transient wellbore simulation software
should be used to calculate a more accurate well warm up time.
For flowing times of the order of 10,000 hours, the system can reasonably be assumed to
be approaching steady state. For times between 500 and 10,000 hours the well will
probably be approaching steady state, and the steady-state value will be a reasonable
approximation.
H-0806.35
7-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Geothermal Gradient
The undisturbed temperature of the surrounding soil will vary from the reservoir to the
sea/surface. The soil temperature is important since it affects the rate of heat loss from
the fluids. However, the geothermal gradient is not usually known and it is customary to
assume that the (unaffected) temperature varies linearly between the reservoir and the
seabed.
Overall Heat Transfer
Using the coefficients calculated above the overall heat transfer coefficient can now be
determined:
1 1
1
1
= +
+
u hi hcomp hearth
The heat transfer coefficients are based on the inside area. The heat loss from the fluid is
therefore:
Q = UA T
U is the overall heat transfer coefficient (OHTC). Both U and the temperature difference
vary up the tubing and therefore a calculation is best solved by computer simulation.
7.3
Calculation of Wellhead Temperatures

Effect of Flow Rate
Increasing the flow rate will increase the wellhead temperature. Qualitatively, as the
flow rate increases, the heat lost in the well (Q) remains roughly constant:
Q = UATlm
The area is fixed and the overall heat transfer coefficient is relatively insensitive to flow
rate since it is mainly controlled by the heat transfer through the surrounding rock. Tlm
will increase slightly since the temperature difference at the surface will increase. The
following equation can be used when studying the heat loss from the fluid only:
Q MC pm (Tin Tout )
Therefore, rearranging the above equation gives:
H-0806.35
7-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
(Tin Tout ) 1/ M
Since Q and Cp can be taken as constant (or relatively insensitive to the flow rate),
increasing M (the mass flow rate) will reduce the temperature loss in the tubing.
Therefore, increasing the mass flow rate will resulting in an increase in the WHFT.
The equation above gives only a rough indication of the effect of flow rate since it fails to
account for the effect of the geothermal gradient. At very low flow rates the wellhead
temperatures tends towards the sea temperature as the fluid temperature tends towards the
geothermal gradient.
Effect of Water Cut
Increasing watercut increases the specific heat and mixture density of the fluid resulting
in an increase in the WHFT. With reference to the equation above, by assuming that the
heat lost from the well (Q) and the mass flow rate (M) to be relatively constant,
increasing water cut will raise the specific heat (Cp) which will reduce the temperature
loss and therefore result in warmer WHFT.
Effect of Gas Oil Ratio (GOR)
The gas phase in an oil well typically provides a relatively small part of the overall mass
of the mixture. Therefore a higher GOR only makes a minor contribution to the overall
enthalpy of the system. Since the rate of heat loss is dominated by the casings and the
external medium, the increased velocity in the tubing has little effect and the heat loss
remains reasonably constant. The effect of the gas oil ratio is less significant than the
watercut or the flow rate.
For example, predictions of WHFT for a range of GORs from 100 to 2,000 SCF/STB
have shown that, for a given flow rate, the WHFT only increased by roughly 2F (1C)
with increasing GOR. The range in WHFTs reduced with increasing flow rate and at 10
KBLPD, the predicted WHFT only varied by 0.13F between 100 and 2,000 SCF/STB.
Effect of Lift Gas
Lift gas greatly complicates the heat transfer model. To rigorously model heat transfer
would require counter flow calculations for the lift section.
For long well flowing times the overall heat transfer is dominated by the heat transfer
through the earth. As a result, the WHFT will be reasonably accurate without
H-0806.35
7-7
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
considering countercurrent flow, provided the mixture temperature of the gas lift gas and
produced fluids is calculated. In this simplified approach the temperature profile takes
place at the gas lift injection point.
Reliance in Predicted Results
As mentioned above, the calculation of the WHFT has a major impact in the design of the
topsides equipment such as the separator and the heat exchangers.
BP has performed a number of brief studies comparing actual WHFTs against predicted
WHFTs for gas wells (West Sole & Bruce) and oil wells (Gyda & Ula). In general, the
predicted results differed from the actual results by less than 5F. In most cases, these
calculations were performed using reasonably accurate measurements of flow rate, water
cut, and bottom hole flowing pressure and temperature taken while testing the well.
In most cases, the WHFT will be calculated using sketchy data from the appraisal wells,
which may not be suitable for the whole development. Usually, the most unreliable piece
of data is the reservoir temperature and the Bottom Hole Flowing Temperature (BHFT);
or FBHT (Flowing Bottomhole Temperature). This not only affects the initial enthalpy
of the wells fluids but also affects the geothermal gradient, which is usually assumed to
be linear between the reservoir and the surface.
Care must be taken when predicting WHFTs for gas wells since, although software
usually accounts for expansion cooling in the tubing, it cannot account for the cooling
between the reservoir and the perforations of the tubing. This may lead to the prediction
of a high WHFT.
The thermal conductivity of the surrounding rock also has a significant influence on the
calculated WHFT. Usually only limited data on the rock type is available and the thermal
conductivity is often assumed to be constant. It is advised that when calculating WHFTs,
the sensitivity to reservoir temperature, flowrate, water cut, rock thermal conductivity are
determined to provide a range of temperatures.
Unsteady-State Predictions
Before start-up, the rock surrounding the completion will be at (or close to) the
geothermal gradient. As the well starts to produce, the surrounding rock will start to
warm. Initially, there is a high temperature differential between the fluid and the
H-0806.35
7-8
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
surroundings and heat loss is high. With time, heat loss will reduce as the rock warms
and the WHFT will increase. The rate of this increase is dependent on the flow rate.
Well start-up can be of particular importance. Before the well is started- up, the
temperature of the fluids is at the geothermal gradient. On start- up, cold fluid will be
produced; if the fluids pass through a choke at the wellhead then the temperature
downstream of the choke may be very low since the initial temperature upstream was
low. This may result in hydrate formation with the potential for forming a blockage.
It is therefore important to know how quickly the well would warm to determine the
length of time that methanol/hydrate inhibitor injection will be required.
When production commences from a well the WHFT will rise quite quickly. Usually, the
wellhead temperature will approach the steady-state value within two residence times of
the well. Typically this is no more than a few hours.
7.4
Pipelines
The temperature of the gas and liquid phases can be computed by carrying out an
incremental heat (energy) balance along the pipe. This balance can be calculated by hand
or (probably more accurately and certainly more conveniently) by using a commercial
software package, which contains the proper physics simulations.
7.4.1
Heat Balance Equations

The heat balance should allow for latent heat changes due to mass exchange between the
phases, enthalpy exchange between the phases, internal energy changes due to expansion,
contraction, and elevation changes, advection (heat transferred via the bulk fluid flow),
and heat losses to the environment. The latter term will depend on internal film heat
transfer coefficients, pipe wall thermal conductivity (multiple layers of steel, insulation,
coatings and burial), external heat transfer coefficients, the ambient temperature and the
thermophysical properties of the fluids.
The rate of cooling falls with increasing diameter because, although the greater diameter
implies an increased rate of heat loss (which is proportional to pipe surface area), the
increased mass flow of fluid within the pipe implies a greater heat capacity and hence a
smaller change in temperature. Although separate gas and liquid temperatures are
computed by solving separate heat balances for each phase, the temperatures are
essentially identical because of good contact between the phases.
H-0806.35
7-9
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
A large number of temperature profiles could be reproduced here for the range of
conditions likely, but all are of the same type and it should be possible to express them by
a relatively simple mathematical relationship. The simplest possible expression of the
heat loss equation is:
Q = UA T
and in a discretized form, representing the rate of heat loss with distance:
dQ UD(t t c) dL
where Q is the heat flux, U the overall heat transfer coefficient, D the pipe diameter, T
the fluid temperature, A the pipe surface area, T0 the ambient (sea) temperature and L the
distance along pipeline form the inlet.
The equivalent change to the gas enthalpy is given by:
dQ = MCpT (due to reduction in enthalpy)
where m is the mass flow of fluid and Cp the fluid heat capacity. Combining the above
equations gives an expression for rate of change of temperature with distance:
dT / dL = UD( t To ) / mCp
Equation 4.6.4 can be integrated to give temperature as a function of distance:
ln[(T I 0 )/( 0 )] = UDL/mCp
where TI is the fluid inlet temperature. This can be simplified by collecting a number of
terms together for both fluids and expressing the mass flow in terms of volumetric flow,
area and density leads to:
ln[(T1 T0 )/(T - T0 )] = KL/VD
where K is a correlating constant and V the gas velocity.
For this approach to be valid, plotting the left-hand-side of the equation above against
L/(VD) should result in a straight line with gradient K. Test data has been analyzed in
this way and it has been found that K is, to within acceptable limits, independent of
pipeline length, diameter and velocity. It is only a function of CGR, and a simple
relationship between K and CGR has been derived.
H-0806.35
7-10
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
It is fairly clear that as it is desirable to maintain an elevated temperature within the

pipeline in order to prevent wax or hydrate formation then it is best to run with as large a
flow as possible, and that insulating the pipe will improve matters. However, it is
probable that in most realistic circumstances the fluids will have reached the sea
temperature within about 50km.
U, the overall heat transfer coefficient, will have to be calculated. For a pipeline with
multiple layers of insulation, (e.g. the pipe wall and then a layer on concrete the
following equation should be used:
1/Upd = 1/hpd + ln(d/d )/2pk + ln(d/d)/2pk + 1/h
Here hi is the heat transfer coefficient from the fluids to the pipe wall, he that from the
exterior of the bundle to the surroundings, di the pipeline internal diameter, do the
pipeline external diameter, dc the outer diameter of the conc rete coating, kp the thermal
conductivity of the pipe wall and kc the thermal conductivity of the concrete. Additional
layers can be included by analogy. For a buried pipeline the equation can be modified to:
1/Upd = 1/hpd + ln(d/d )/2pk + ln(d/d)/2pk + 1/kcosh1(2z/d)
where z is burial depth to the pipeline centerline and ks the thermal conductivity of the
soil.
Many methods exist for the calculation of hi each appropriate to particular conditions.
The AEA pipeline simulation code PLAC uses the Dittus-Boelter (2) equation for
turbulent fluid heat transfer:
hi = 0.023(k/Dh)Re 0.8Pr n
Pr, the fluid Prandtl number, is given by;
Pr = mC /
and Re, the Reynolds number, by;
Re = rVD/
r is the fluid density, m its viscosity and k is thermal conductivity. Dis the hydraulic
diameter for that fluid (equal to 4 times the flow area divided by the flow perimeter).
has the value 0.3 if the fluids are cooling and 0.4 for heating. This equation should be
H-0806.35
7-11
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
applied to the gas and liquid phases individually and the results combined to give an
overall value for hi.
For low flowrates a convection model is used for the gas heat transfer coefficient:
hi = 0.13k(r2 g|Tw-T|/m2 T)0.333Pr0.333
Tw is the wall temperature and T the fluid temperature. For low liquid velocities the
laminar heat transfer coefficient is used:
hi = 4k/Dh
7.4.2
Rules of Thumb
At early stages of a project, there may not be enough information to enable rigorous
calculation of the heat transfer coefficient. The following rule of thumb values for heat
transfer coefficients for subsea flowlines can be useful in these instances.
TABLE 7-1:
U Value, BTU/hr/ft2 /degF
Applications
H-0806.35
Wells
Risers
20-40
Buried Pipelines
1-3
Concrete Coated Non-buried Pipelines
3-5
Nonburied Pipelines without Concrete
5-50
7-12
1-Dec-00
7.4.3
DEEPSTAR
Determining Insulation Requirements

In some circumstances it is practical and cost effective to thermally insulate a pipeline
system. Insulation may be provided for any one, or a combination of, the following
reasons:
Avoid or limit wax deposition.
Avoid or limit hydrate formation.
Minimize oil emulsion viscosity to avoid excessive pressure drop.
Maintain fluids at a sufficiently high temperature to avoid, or limit requirement for, feed
heating at the separation plant.
Marine pipelines and risers are provided with some form of coating for corrosion
protection and these offer varying degrees of thermal insulation. Risers on offshore
platforms are normally coated with coal tar enamel or a very thin layer of fusion bonded
epoxy (FBE). These offer little thermal insulation. Often risers are coated with ca. 12
mm of Neoprene to provide corrosion protection in the splash zone. Where thermal
insulation is required this coating may be used over the full length of the riser. Marine
growth on risers can add substantial thermal resistance.
Pipelines are normally protected against corrosion by FBE or coal tar enamel. For an
offshore pipeline requiring concrete weight coating (to provide negative buoyancy) coal
tar enamel is normally applied to the pipe to provide corrosion protection.
Offshore pipelines smaller than 16 inches in diameter are often trenched to avoid damage
by fishing trawl boards. Even if a pipeline trench is not mechanically backfilled (i.e. not
buried) some natural in- fill of the trench normally occurs so that the pipe becomes
partially buried. Under some conditions a trenched pipeline has to be covered by rocks to
provide stability or to protect it from upheaval buckling. This rock dump ing buries the
line; providing enhanced thermal insulation. On some occasions pipelines are buried
solely to provide enhanced thermal insulation.
In addition to the coatings referred to above, low thermal conductivity insulation
materials can be applied to minimize heat loss from a pipeline. Insulation systems can be
divided into two main categories:
Low strength polymeric based materials requiring protection from the environment by
encasing in an outer sleeve. This is the now- familiar Pipe- in-Pipe (PIP) configuration
where a layer of polyurethane foam (PUF) is sandwiched between the inner carrier pipe
H-0806.35
7-13
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
and a protective jacket pipe. For deep and cold water, this type of construction provides
effective and stable pipeline insulation.
Some pipeline coaters are now offering a system for subsea use consisting of PVC or
PUF foam sandwiched between an ethylene-propylene-diene monomer (EPDM)
corrosion coating and an EPDM outer layer providing protection from the environment.
Insulation capable of withstanding the environment.
Neoprene.
EPDM.
Syntactic materials, such as syntactic PUF or PPF (polypropylene foam).
Typical values of thermal conductivity for popular insulation materials are:

TABLE 7-2:
Material
BTU/hr-ft-F
W/m-K
PUF (effective value

accounting for joint
efficiency)
0.02
0.035
PPF (solid)
0.13
0.225
PPF (foam)
0.10
0.131
Neoprene
0.15
0.260
Epoxy
0.15
0.260
Notes:
(1) Values depend on water depth, temperature and age.
(2) Aging tests on Neoprene carried out in 1985 showed that the thermal conductivity rises
approximately 50 percent as water absorption occurs.
7.5
Special Application Notes
7.5.1
High Temperature Related Problems

Transportation of high temperature wellhead fluids (in excess of ca. 90C) ma y give rise
to problems in meeting the maximum temperature specification of the pipe coating
material. Approximate maximum temperatures for various pipe coatings are given
below.
H-0806.35
7-14
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
TABLE 7-3:
Maximum
Temperature (C)
Coating
FBE (fusion bonded epoxy)
90
Coal Tar enamel (coal tar wrap)

(i)
on subsea lines
(ii)
on lines buried on land or at
sea
Neoprene
70
50
ca. 100
The coating specialists should be consulted if there is any possibility of operating near the
maximum allowable coating temperature. They can also advise on alternative coatings
for any particular application.
CO2 corrosion of pipelines increases with temperature but reaches a maximum at about
60C. In some cases it is necessary to cool the fluids prior to entry to the pipeline to
reduce corrosion rates to a level consistent with the use of carbon steel pipework.
An alternative to providing cooling offshore is to use corrosion resistant pipe for the
initial sections of the pipeline. At some distance downstream of the start of the line
natural cooling in the sea will reduce fluid temperatures to a level where carbon steel pipe
can be used.
7.5.2
Low Temperature Related Problems

The main areas of concern with regard to low temperature operation of multiphase lines
are:
Wax deposition
Hydrate formation
High viscosities, in some crudes, and under some circumstances, in oil/water emulsions.
In subsea and onshore multiphase pipelines, fluid temperatures may drop below the wax
appearance point with the result that small particles of wax form. Some of these wax
particles are carried along in the liquid and some are deposited on the pipe walls. In fact
because the walls of the pipeline are generally colder than the bulk fluid, wax deposition
H-0806.35
7-15
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
onto the pipe wall may occur while the bulk pipeline fluids temperature is still somewhat
above the wax appearance point.
7.6
Notes on Specific Software Packages
7.6.1
Pipephase
Several concerns arise when using SimScis Pipephase for heat transfer calculations:
Pipephase only estimates temperature loss by the Joule-Thomson expansion cooling

effect if the compositional model is used. The J-T effect is ignored in black oil
simulations.
The default velocity of water flowing past a pipeline is 10 miles per hour in Pipephase.
This velocity is generally too high. More typical values are 1 to 3 ft/sec (0.7-2 mph).
The Pipephase viscosity routine does not estimate viscosities at temperatures below 60
degrees F. At lower temperatures, it uses the viscosity at 60 degrees F. This can lead to
errors for pipelines in deep water or cold climates.
The thermal conductivity for saturated concrete is much higher than that for dry
concrete. The saturated concrete value should be used for subsea pipelines with
concrete coating.
Unless a value is entered for Hrad, radiation is ignored in the heat transfer calculations.
For subsea or buried pipelines, radiation is negligible, but it can be a significant effect
for surface flowlines.
The convective heat transfer routines in Pipephase are not very rigorous. Errors in heat
transfer calculations can occur for systems in which convection is the prime source of
heat transfer.
H-0806.35
7-16
1-Dec-00
8.0
TRANSIENT OPERATIONS
8.1
Introduction
DEEPSTAR
Transient multiphase flow simulators have only been developed recently. The first
widely used commercial program, OLGA (marketed commercially by Scandpower),
began development in about 1983 and has been commercially available since 1990. One
of OLGA's current competitors, PLAC (now called ProFES and marketed by AEA), was
introduced to the market at about the same time. A transient simulator called Tacite,
which was developed by IFP and marketed by SimSci, is also available.
Steady state simulators assume that all flow rates, pressures, temperatures, etc. are
constant through time. Inherently transient phenomena, such as slug flow, are modeled
by use of their average holdups and pressure drops. Transient programs show the
variations in parameters such as pressure, temperature, and gas and liquid flow rates as a
function of time and can model phenomena such as slug flow. Transient simulators more
closely model the operation of pipelines and with more detail than do steady state
simulators.
Transient simulators solve a set of equations for conservation of mass, momentum and
energy to estimate liquid and gas flow rates, pressures, temperatures and liquid holdups
as a function of time. The programs utilize an iterative procedure that ensures that a set
of boundary conditions (such as inlet flow rates and outlet pressures as a function of
time) are met while solving the conservation equations.
Generally, the use of transient simulators will be more appropriate than steady state
programs whenever transient performance is highly important to the design process.
Such situations include startup and shutdown liquid and gas delivery, heatup and
cooldown temperature fluctuation, unsteady flow into receiving facilities (separators and
slug catchers), and pigging. In addition, the current version of OLGA2000 includes the
ability to estimate the flow of all three phases (oil, gas, and water). Particularly at low
production rates, liquid holdups (and the distribution of oil and water in the holdup
liquid) should be more accurately predicted when using three-phase simulation.
Use of Transient Simulators
Because of their utility, transient simulators have been used for a variety of purposes.
These uses include:
H-0806.35
8-1
1-Dec-00
8.2
DEEPSTAR
Slug flow modeling
Estimates of the potential for terrain slugging
Pigging simulation
Identification of areas with higher corrosion potential, such as water accumulation in

low spots in the line and areas with highly turbulent/slug flow
Startup, shutdown and pipeline depressurizing simulations
Slug catcher design
Development of operating guidelines
Real time modeling, including leak detection
Operator training
Design of control systems for downstream equipment
Transient Codes in Use

Although there are a large number of engineers and scientists working in the area of
transient two-phase flow modeling, the number of commercial software packages is
limited to just a few. The most widely used is the OLGA code developed by IFE and
SINTEF in Norway and marketed commercially by Scandpower. OLGA was the first
commercial general transient two-phase flow package, which has enjoyed wide use by
the six members of the consortium that sponsored the development. New developments
in OLGA are available to the member companies before they are made ava ilable in the
commercial versions. Some of the member companies have developed their own
versions of OLGA for their specific needs.
In competition to OLGA is the PLAC (now called ProFES) code developed by AEA
Technology/Harwell laboratories which was commercialized in the autumn of 1992, but
had been used for consultancy for more than two years previous. PLAC was developed
with support from BP. PLAC is now marketed by AEA.
There are other transient two-phase flow codes. Total and IFP have developed a transient
version of the mechanistic PEPITE program called TACITE, which features a slug
tracking model. Shell has a code called TRAFLOW which is under development as an
online simulator and analysis code.
There is a great deal of activity in the development of transient programs. However most
of this is being carried out in-house by oil companies and research centers, hence little is
H-0806.35
8-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
known about them. It is expected that competition in the market place will increase when
some of the other codes are commercialized.
8.2.1
OLGA
OLGA is a dynamic, one dimensional modified two fluid model for transient two-phase
hydrocarbon flow in pipelines and networks, in which processing equipment can be
included. The code has been developed by the SINTEF/IFE two-phase flow project
which commenced in 1984 and was based on the computer program OLGA 83. This was
originally developed for Statoil by IFE in 1983.
The two-phase flow project was aimed at improving OLGA by expanding an
experimental database from a high pressure 8- inch large scale test facility run by SINTEF
at Tiller in Norway. Extensive testing was carried out by IFE and by the projects
member oil companies which included Conoco Norway, Esso Norge, Mobil Exploration
Norway, Norsk Hydro, Petro-Canada, Saga Petroleum, Statoil, and Texaco Exploration
Norway.
The basic models in OLGA contain three separate mass conservation equations for the
gas, the continuous liquid and the liquid droplets, these are coupled with the interphase
mass transfer terms. Momentum conservation is applied to the gas-droplet field and to
the continuous liquid, hence giving two equations. The mixture energy equation is
written in conservation form, accounting for total energy balance in the system. OLGA
predicts as a function of time the pressure, temperature, mass flow of gas and liquid, the
holdup and the flow pattern. Closure laws are required for the friction factor and the
wetted perimeters of the phases and these are flow regime dependent. The droplet field
also requires an entrainment and deposition model. The two basic flow regimes adopted
are distributed and separated flow. The former contains bubble and slug flow and the
latter stratified and annular flow. The transition between the two regime classes is
determined according to a minimum slip concept.
Due to the numerical solution scheme, the original versions of OLGA are particularly
well suited to simulate slow mass flow transients. The implicit time integration applied
allows for long time steps which is important for the simulation of very long transport
lines, where typical simulation times are in the range of hours to days.
The necessary fluid properties (gas/liquid mass fraction, densities, viscosities, enthalpies
etc.) are assumed to be functions of temperature and pressure only, and have to be
supplied by the user as tables in a specific input file. Thus, the total composition of the
H-0806.35
8-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
two-phase mixture is assumed to be constant both in time and along the pipeline for a
given branch. The user may specify a different fluid property table for each branch, but
has to ensure realistic fluid compositions if several branches merge into one.
In 1989 Scandpower A/S acquired marketing rights to the OLGA program and
commercial use of the code increased considerably. The early versions of OLGA had a
simple data input and output file format which made the setting- up of problems very time
consuming. Later versions have user friendly interfaces which greatly enhances the use
of the code, PreOLGA is used for input data generation and PostOLGA is used for post
processing. Fluid properties are generated using a package called PVTOL. The newest
version of OLGA (OLGA2000) has further improved the user interface and has improved
calculation accuracy for high GVF flow situations.
In 1993 Statoil acquired the Tiller facility for 5 years and embarked on a substantial
research and development effort to improve OLGA, areas under development include:
Improved mechanistic modeling and closure laws,
Slug flow modeling,
Three phase flows,
Compositional tracking.
These areas also indicate where there are deficiencies in the present code.
In addition, OLGA has been interfaced with the Fantoft D-SPICE multi-compositional
dynamic process plant simulator to improve the modeling of equipment; however, this
interface only provides a dynamic exchange of data between the codes and is hence not a
fully integrated model.
Some of the other original two-phase flow project sponsors have also developed OLGA
for their own use, notably Conoco who have developed improved thermal modeling and
pigging simulation in their version called CONOLGA.
8.2.2
PLAC
The PipeLine Analysis Code (PLAC) was originally developed from the nuclear reactor
safety code TRAC (1986) under a four-year program sponsored by BP Exploration and
the UK Offshore Supplies Office. The major parts of that work were to remove the
redundant reactor specific components and to convert from steam/water physical
properties to multi-component hydrocarbon properties. More suitable models for
H-0806.35
8-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
interfacial friction and flow regimes were also introduced. The first release of PLAC was
available for use by AEA Petroleum Services and BP Engineering in mid 1990 though
commercialization of the code was not realized until the autumn of 1992. BP and AEA
conducted numerous validation tests on the code with good and bad experiences. Like
OLGA, the original versions of the code were cumbersome to use but ease-of-use has
been greatly improved by the development of interactive pre and post processors. PLAC
is now marketed by AEA.
PLAC solves mass, momentum, and energy equations for each phase using a onedimensional finite difference scheme. Six equations are solved: gas and liquid mass and
momentum conservation, total energy conservation, and gas energy conservation. Unlike
OLGA, PLAC does not have a separate equation incorporating a droplet field in the gas
stream. Appropriate flow pattern maps and constitutive relationships are provided for
wall and interfacial friction and heat transfer, and a model for multi- component phase
change is included. PLAC has flow regime maps for vertical and horizontal pipes and
switches to vertical flow if the angle of inclination is above 10 degrees. The horizontal
flow pattern map is based on the method of Taitel and Dukler (1976).
The fluid physical properties are calculated from a user-supplied mixture composition
using an internal PVT package, however this generates a table of properties similar to
OLGA, and hence still relies on simple equilibrium phase behavior predictions. PLAC
can only use one composition in a network. The current version of the code has the
capability to handle pipes, tees, and valves and is able to predict a range of phenomena
including flow rate and/or thermal transients, severe slugging, shutdown/restart problems,
and pipeline depressurization.
8.2.3
WELLTEMP
WELLTEMP was designed to examine temperature transients caused by flow in wells. It
can also be used to examine temperatures in pipelines. It handles heat flow through
tubing, casings, annuli, cement and formation. Various operations can be modeled such
as injection, production, forward and reverse circulation, shut-in and cementing. It
assumes steady state flow rates; although different flow periods can be entered (steady
within each period). It can handle dual or even triple completions (and co-bundled
flowlines). In dual completions it would allow injection down one string and production
back up the other.
It can be used to examine surface and downhole tubing temperatures during drilling or
simulated treatments. This is useful when considering fluid properties, cement
H-0806.35
8-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
characteristics etc. It can also help when considering corrosion, wax deposition, or
hydrate formation. It can be used to examine cool down times in pipelines. It could also
be used to refine the temperature profile in the annulus and wellbore during gas lift
operations.
WELLTEMP, marketed by Enertech Engineering and Research Company of Houston, is
primarily useful for evaluating warmup of wells and flowlines. WELLTEMP can
usually run much faster than PLAC or OLGA and has been used to investigate
sensitivities before performing a detailed PLAC or OLGA simulation. The simple
composition treatment in WELLTEMP is a limitation to detailed transient two-phase
8.2.4
Tacite
(Information on Tacite to be added)
8.3
Startup
In normal operation hydrates can be controlled by maintaining the flowing temperature
above the hydrate formation point and/or by injecting a sufficient volume of inhibitor.
The required dosage is determined by using a appropriate program or the GPSA charts
for the prevailing conditions. During shut-down and start- up, conditions can occur which
increase the potential for hydrate formation, and therefore require additional quantities of
inhibitor. Figure 8.3-1 shows a typical hydrate disassociation curve. A pipeline
pressure/temperature profile is superimposed as line A representing conditions in a
pipeline from a subsea template to the slug catcher on a host platform, where hydrate
inhibition may not be required under normal operating circumstances. In some cases the
pipeline may be long and the fluids may cool to seabed conditions where some inhibition
may be required. This could also occur as a result of lower flow rates, and is shown as
curve B. Hence, in normal operation steady state analysis can be used to determine the
amount of inhibitor required.
H-0806.35
8-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.3-1: Hydrate Formation Conditions

During start-up or shut-down transient conditions may arise which can lead to operation
in the hydrate region (or further into the hydrate region than under steady state
conditions). For example, as the line is started-up the pressure can rise quicker than the
temperature giving the pipeline profile drawn in line C. It can be difficult to ensure that
the required inhibitor dosage is present during such start- up transients, and hence it is
common for inhibitor to be pumped into a pipeline before shut-down to protect against
hydrate formation during startup and shutdown. It is important to perform transient
simulations to identify all credible start- up, shut-down, and normal operation conditions.
8.4
Shutdown, Blowdown, and Depressurization

In this document, the terms depressurization and blowdown have the following meanings:
H-0806.35
8-7
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Depressurization generally refers to the controlled and relatively slow evacuation of a

pipeline system. Depressurizing is usually performed to make the pipeline available for
maintenance or repair. Depressurizing a pipeline will usually take several hours or even
days.
Blowdown generally refers to the controlled evacuation of a pipeline or process plant
vessels. Blowdown is sometimes referred to as emergency depressurization, hence a
rapid depressurization.
For pipeline systems, the terms blowdown and
depressurization are sometimes used interchangeably.
Process plant blowdown is used to minimize the risk of vessel rupture in a fire and will
reduce the hydrocarbon inventory which could feed a fire. Pipeline blowdown can be
used to minimize the potential for hydrate formation during a shutdown. Process
blowdown is normally accomplished in a time of the order of 15-30 minutes. Pipeline
blowdown can take longer.
8.4.1
Depressurizing of single and multiphase pipeline systems

The model discussed here is used to determine a conservative minimum pipe temperature
experienced during the controlled depressurizing of a pipeline system. The model is
applicable for the relatively slow depressurizing of a system over many hours/days. For
more rapid depressurizing events the approach dis cussed here will produce very
conservative temperatures i.e. it will significantly under predict the minimum pipe wall
temperature. The blowdown model discussed in Section 8.4.2 below is more appropriate
for the rapid emergency depressurizing events which occur over a time scale of minutes
or hours.
The pipeline model described in this section is applicable for horizontal or slightly
inclined single and two phase systems. It also predicts liquid entrainment rates and the
critical velocities required to produce slug or annular- mist flow in a riser. The
temperature downstream of the letdown valve/orifice is also computed.
Overview
The simulation of the depressurizing of a pipeline system is performed to determine the
minimum temperature experienced, or to calculate the time required to depressurize a
system such that the temperature does not drop below the minimum specification value.
The purpose of a depressurizing calculation is therefore to determine the relationship of
pressure and temperature against time for a particular system and depressurizing rate.
H-0806.35
8-8
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The calculation has three main elements. These are: depressurization rate, JouleThompson cooling, and heat transfer from the surroundings.
The depressurizing rate is a critical aspect. The faster the depressurizing the lower the
temperature that will be experienced.
The venting rate can be fixed (e.g. 100 MMSCFD) by using a control valve and a mass
flow rate meter. Alternatively, the system can be vented through an orifice. In most
cases the flow through the orifice is critical, and therefore the depressurizing rate is
independent of the downstream pressure.
As the pressure decreases, the temperature of the system will drop due to JouleThompson cooling (auto-refrigeration). The expansion of the gas is normally considered
to be isentropic. As the gas expands it does work and the energy required to do this work
is removed from the gas in the form of heat. For an isentropic process, the autorefrigeration is not dependent on the duration of the depressurizing, only the physical
properties of the fluid. However, as discussed below, the process is not truly isentropic.
Depressurization of a pipeline system usually requires many hours, and in some cases
days. During this period, the heat input from the surroundings may be (for uninsulated
systems, usually will be) significant.
The Joule-Thompson effect is not time-dependent and is only dependent on the expansion
of the gas in the system. Heat transfer from the surroundings is time dependent. The
longer the depressurization, the greater the influence of the surroundings whilst the autorefrigeration aspect remains (roughly) constant. Therefore, increasing the depressurizing
time will result in less cooling and, therefore, in a higher minimum temperature.
Depressurizing Rate Calculation
It is usual to depressurize a system through an orifice or a valve. The equation for the
mass flow rate through an orifice is given below. The equation for a valve is of a similar
form with slightly different constants (not given here).
W = Cd KAP 1 M W / zT
where
W = Mass flow rate (kg/s)
Cd = Coefficient of discharge
H-0806.35
8-9
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
K = Function of specific heat ratio (kg- mol0.5K0.5 J-0.5)

A = Orifice/valve area for venting (m2 )
P1 = Upstream pressure (N/m2 )
MW = Molecular weight (kg/kg-mole)
z = Gas Compressibility
T = Temperature (K).
K, the specific heat ratio function is defined by the following equation;
2
+1
K = [( )[(
)^ (
)]]^ 0.5
R +1 + l
where
= Ratio of specific heats
R = Gas constant (8314 J-kg mole-1 K-1 )

The equation above is only valid for critical (i.e. sonic) flow. Critical flow only occurs
when the following criteria is satisfied.
P2
2 ( / 1)
<(
)
P1
+1
where P2 = Downstream pressure (N/m2 ).
The occurrence of critical flow greatly simplifies the calculation. If the system is
operating under critical flow then the flow rate is only dependent on the upstream
pressure.
It is normal to consider the depressurizing to be complete when the system pressure falls
below 2 bara. For a downstream pressure of 1 bara, critical flow exists down to pressures
of 1.83 bara (g = 1.3) and so therefore critical flow is usually assumed for the whole of
the depressurizing. Critical flow may not exist at the lower flow rates where the
downstream pressure is significantly greater than atmospheric,
While the pressure ratio satisfies the last equation, the flow rate (W) is independent of the
downstream pressure.
H-0806.35
8-10
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Heat Transfer
The temperature of the fluid is determined by the effect of Joule-Thompson cooling due
to isentropic expansion of the gas and warming of the gas by heat transfer from the
surroundings. The conservatism of the equation is described below:
The assumption of isentropic expansion means that the gas loses the maximum amount of
energy (i.e. heat) and therefore results in a conservative prediction of the minimum
temperature.
When the gas temperature drops below the ambient temperature the pipeline is warmed
by the surroundings. The influence of the surroundings must be reasonably estimated so
as to calcula te a conservative (i.e. low) minimum temperature.
The calculation of an accurate internal heat transfer coefficient is important since it
greatly influences the prediction of the minimum temperature. The method used must
calculate a conservative (i.e. low) heat transfer coefficient for at least the period that the
system is at its minimum temperature.
The correlation used to determine the heat transfer coefficient will depend on the type of
system and the method of depressurizing. Details of the equatio ns used to calculate the
internal heat transfer coefficient are given below.
H-0806.35
8-11
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Table 8-1:
Heat
Transfer
Equations
The calculation of an accurate internal heat transfer coefficient is important since it greatly influences
the prediction of the minimum temperature. The method used must calculate a reasonably
conservative (i.e. low) heat transfer coefficient for at least the period that the system is at its
temperature.
The correlation used to determine the heat transfer coefficient will depend on the type of system and the
method of depressuring.
The internal heat transfer coefficient is calculated using one of the following equations:
Stream Line Flow (Re < 2100)
If the flow is laminar (Reynolds number < 2100) then the following equation should be used:
1.86 k m d i u m m
hi =
d i m
c pm m
d i
1/ 3
[Process Heat Transfer. D.Q. Kern. equ. (6.1). page 1031

As the above equation and those following will usually be applied to non-viscous gases the
viscosity correction factor is ignored.
Correction For Natural Convection
For very low flow rates natural convection (rather than forced) convection can become
important.
The forced convection coefficient (hi) can be corrected by multiplying by
2.25 1 + 0.01 Gra
1/ 3
)]
log 10 Re
[Process
Heat
Transfer. D.Q. Kern. Equ (10.4). page 2061]

Where Gra is the Grashof number at the average conditions, given by:
H-0806.35
8-12
1-Dec-00
Gra =
DEEPSTAR
d i3 m2 gT
m
[Process Heat Transfer. DLL Kern. Table 3.2. page 371]

This factor should be ignored if less than 1.
The Grashof number is difficult to calculate since the temperature difference between the bulk
fluid and the tube wall (AT) has to be determined iteratively. It can be done by guessing a wall
temperature and iterating such that the heat flux across the internal film is the same as the heat
flux through the pipe and the insulation.
If this correction is ignored, then the internal heat transfer coefficient will be under-predicted
and a conservative (i.e. low) heat transfer coefficient will be determined.
Turbulent Flow
If the Reynolds number is greater than 2100, then the following should be used
0.023k m
hi =
di
du m m
c pm m
k m
0 .4
[Chemical Engineering. Volume 1 I. Coulson and Richardson. Equ (7.50). page

1911
Alternatively:
hi = 0.023k m0.6 d i0.2 m0. 4 m0.8 c 0.m4

where m denotes a mixture property, e.g. for viscosity.
m = l + v (1 )
The velocity at which the heat transfer coefficient is to be calculated should be 75% of the exit
velocity. This allows for the fact that there is a velocity profile through the system. If possible
the velocity should also be based on the average velocity for the time step.
External Heat Transfer Coefficient

The external medium has a significant effect on the calculated minimum fluid/wall
temperature. If the pipe is located in the air (e.g. topsides of a platform) then the overall
heat transfer coefficient will be low, giving rise to a relatively low minimum wall
H-0806.35
8-13
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
temperature. If the pipe is located in the sea, the overall heat transfer coefficient will be
higher and the minimum wall temperature will accordingly be higher (assuming, for this
comparison, that the air and sea temperatures are equal)
Minimum Pipe Wall Temperature
The objective of most depressurizing studies is the calculation of a minimum pipe wall
temperature, or the calculation of a depressurizing rate which prevents the system from
falling below the minimum tube wall temperature.
In a gas-only system the heat transfer rate between the gas and the pipe wall will be low,
and consequently the temperature difference between the fluid and the tube wall will be
relatively high. In order to be conservative, it is usual to assume that the fluid temperature
and the tube wall temperature are identical throughout the depressurizing. This
assumption will always result in the calculation of a conservative (i.e. low) minimum
tube wall temperature since it ignores the existence of a temperature profile between the
fluid and the wall.
In a two-phase system, the heat transfer rate between the liquid and the pipe wall will be
significantly higher than the heat transfer rate between the gas and the pipe wall. It is
reasonable to assume that where pools of liquid occur (in dips etc.) the high heat transfer
rate will result in the pipe wall cooling to the same temperature as the fluid. However the
effect of the fluid being warmed by the pipe wall is ignored and hence a conservatively
low pipe wall temperature is predicted.
Simultaneous Riser and Topsides Depressurizing
In most studies the riser and topsides pipework will be depressured simultaneously.
The majority of the length of the riser will be immersed in the sea and have the benefit of
the sea as a heat source. Riser pipework is generally much simpler than the Topsides
pipework.
The topsides pipework is more complicated (e.g. a large number of branches etc.), and
located in the air. The poor heat transfer properties of air coupled with the lower
minimum ambient temperature mean that the topsides pipework will drop to a lower
temperature relative to the riser. Because of this difference in heat transfer rates the
topsides and the riser should be modeled separately.
H-0806.35
8-14
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Critical Velocity for Slugging

To avoid the delivery of large and/or erratic quantities of liquid to the receiving facilities
during depressurization, slugging should be avoided where possible. To avoid slugging
the depressurizing rate should not exceed the critical velocity for slugging.
Flow Regime in Riser
Annular mist flow is unlikely to occur in the riser. The actual velocities experienced in
the riser are usually approximately an order of magnitude less than that required to
produce annular-mist flow.
Conditions Downstream of Letdown Valve
The temperature downstream of the let-down valve will invariably be significantly colder
than that experienced in the topsides or riser pipework. Temperature specifications of the
downstream pipework are not usually a problem since stainless steel is usually the
material of construction. Liquid drop-out may occur due to the low fluid temperature,
and this will need to be accommodated in a liquid KO vessel.
8.4.2
Emergency blowdown of pipes containing gas and liquid

This section concerns the simulation and philosophy of emergency blowdown (i.e. rapid
depressurization) of pipes and vessels containing gas and liquid. Conditions experienced
during blowdown generally set the minimum design temperature of those pipes and
vessels subject to emergency blowdown.
A review of blowdown issues by BPX concluded that the only program that could
accurately model the blowdown process was developed by Saville and Richardson of
Imperial College London (IC). They have been working in the area for many years
developing both the experimental facilities to provide accurate data, and the theoretical
models to simulate the blowdown process.
BP identified a need to have a simplified blowdown model available to assist design
teams in carrying out sensitivity studies and in developing optimum blowdown
procedures. A blowdown module has consequently been developed (for BPX use) within
the GENESIS flowsheeting package using a simplified version of the approach taken by
Saville and Richardson. This model is not further discussed herein.
H-0806.35
8-15
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Blowdown Philosophy
A blowdown philosophy document defining relevant cases and the start conditions from
which blowdown occurs should be developed in the early stages of any design.
Code Requirements
API RP 521 provides general guidelines for determining the need for emergency
blowdown. There are, in fact, no mandatory blowdown requirements. However,
emergency blowdown has become accepted in the industry as being necessary for all
offshore installations, other than for some unmanned platforms. The BP Code of Practice
CP 37 clearly defines this philosophy.
CP 37 sets out the three basic reasons for providing emergency blowdown facilities as:
1. To reduce the risk of vessel or pipeline rupture in a fire.
2. To minimize the fuel inventory which could supply a fire.
3. To minimize the uncontrolled release of flammable or toxic gas.
Emergency blowdown facilities are not required for subsea pipelines. The platform
topsides section of the pipeline, including pig launcher/receiver and all pipework on the
platform side of the ESDV should be blown down through the platform blowdown
system. For pipelines fitted with subsea isolation valves (SSIVs) there is also a
requirement to provide for emergency blowdown of the riser and subsea pipework
situated between the SSIV and the top of the riser.
Effects of Blowdown
Blowdown of the contents of a vessel, pipework, or sections of a pipeline from high
pressure results in auto-refrigeration of the contained fluid due to expansion of the gas
and evaporation of the liquid. The resultant fall in the temperature of the pipe or vessel
wall metal can result in the need for costly materials to avoid brittle fracture. In addition
low fluid temperatures can result in the formation of hydrates, ice, or even solid CO2, and
these can lead to blockages.
Blowdown Times and Start Conditions
Blowdown must be at such a rate that equipment subject to high temperature does not
fail. API RP 521 sets out the basic requirements for blowdown times and these are
H-0806.35
8-16
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
further detailed in CP 37. In general blowdown to 50 percent of design pressure in 15

minutes must be achieved, assuming wall thickness of 25 mm and greater. For vessels
designed to BS5500, reduction of pressure to 6.9 barg in 15 minutes must be achieved
unless the rate can be related to the decrease in strength of the vessel.
Identification of realistic worst case conditions at the start of a blowdown is of great
importance in establishing temperature and pressures experienced during the blowdown
process. Worst case conditions would normally involve starting the blowdown from the
maximum pressure and minimum ambient temperature. However, it is also quite possible
to have start conditions where the fluid temperature is below ambient.
8.4.3
Depressurization of Pipelines Containing Gas and Liquid.

Pipelines are routinely depressurized to reduce the potential for hydrate formation during
shutdown and/or to help melt hydrates that have formed. (This process is often also
referred to as blowdown by many in the industry.) A transient analysis program, such
as OLGA, is often used to determine the transient effects of this depressurization.
When depressurizing a pipeline system, there are two ge neral goals:
(1) Reduce pipeline pressure at such a rate that the fluid temperature stays out of the
hydrate range everywhere.
(2) Control liquid egress rate from the pipeline to that rate that the process and/or flare
system can handle.
To accurately predict fluid/pipewall temperatures during depressurization, it is important
that accurate (reasonably conservative) heat transfer characteristics of the system be used,
including pipeline self-burial and natural marine fouling of risers. It is also important
that gas/liquid flow rates to the receiving facilities be reasonably modeled.
8.5
Turndown and Ramp-up
8.5.1
Line Fill Time

Steady state holdups at low gas velocities can be very high, often exceeding practicable
slug catcher volumes by orders of magnitude for long pipelines. In such cases it is useful
to consider the time taken for the steady state liquid content of a line to accumulate. In
some cases, the lines will be periodically pigged to remove liquids such that total liquid
levels remain below an established upper bound. In those cases, the liquid fill- time sets
the required pigging frequency.
H-0806.35
8-17
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
If it is assumed that no liquid is expelled from the pipeline outlet before steady state is
reached (the case for all but extremely unusual conditions or topographies) this is a
simple calculation. The results are most useful plotted as a Line Fill Nomograph as
shown in Figure 8.5-1, an example for a 125 km long, 24- inch diameter line.
The sloped section of the curve is the line filling, the gradient being proportional to the
gas flow rate. The flat section of the curve occurs once steady state has been reached. In
the case shown, the highest steady state holdup (25,000 BBL) occurs at a gas flow rate of
75 MMSCFD exceeded the existing slugcatcher capacity by nearly 20000 BBL.
However continuous operation at this low gas flow rate would be required for a period of
7 days to reach this liquid content.
Fill-time nomographs may also be of use in the general operation of lines for reckoning
of liquid contents following a series of flow rate changes as filling lines of the
appropriate gradient can be extrapolated for cases where the pipeline is already partially
full of liquid.
Figure 8.5-1: Example Line -Fill Nomograph
H-0806.35
8-18
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
In general, decreases in gas flow rate, however dramatic, will not cause liquid production
(unless accompanied by a significant decrease in outlet pressure). Instead, liquid
production will cease following the reduction in flow until the liquid content of the
pipeline has been reached. Liquid production will then resume at a flow rate
commensurate with the gas flow and CGR. The period required for liquid accumulation
can be quickly estimated from a fill-time nomograph.
Liquid production during and after a flow increase will depend upon the initial liquid
content of the line, the initial and final flow rates, the rate at which the flow rate is
increased and the topography of the line.
8.5.2
Initial and final liquid content

Above a certain gas flow rate (the transition velocity), which will depend on the
particular pipeline and fluids, the holdup will be relatively constant. A significant peak in
liquid production will only arise where the final steady state liquid holdup is markedly
lower than the initial liquid content of the line, i.e. when the initial flow rate is lower than
the transition velocity and when gas has flowed at this rate long enough for the liquid
content of the line to significantly exceed the steady state holdup at the final flow rate.
A first estimate of the volume of liquid produced during a transient can be made from a
fill-time nomograph, such as Figure 8.5-1, but no indication of the time or rate of arrival
can be made. In the event of the line not having reached steady state conditions at the
beginning of the transient a simple calculation based on gas flow rate and CGR can be
made. For convenience a line fill time nomograph can be used.
A transient simulator will generally give a more accurate understanding of fluid behavior
during turn-down or ramp-up and, depending on the simulator being used and on the fluid
being modeled, may yield more accurate liquid and gas volumetric estimates.
8.5.3
Effect of Initial and final gas flow rates on Liquid Delivery Rates
Flow rates are important in determining the size of the peak in liquid production as
described above but will also add to the background liquid production rate during the
transient and the rate at which a peak in liquid production rate occurs. Various simple
calculation and estimation methods have been devised to predict liquid production during
transients based on initial and final flow rates and liquid holdups. Gregory (1994)
suggests that the two extremes in the time for a slug of liquid to appear and the rate at
which it appears can be estimated from the residence times of the liquid and gas phases in
the pipeline:
H-0806.35
8-19
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
f = L (1 - e) / V
f = L e / V
f is the residence time of the excess liquid in the line, V?the gas superficial velocity,
V the liquid superficial velocity, L the length of the pipeline and e the average voidage.
The first expression assumes the excess liquid moves as a slug and travels at the average
gas velocity. The second assumes that the liquid moves as a layer or film traveling at the
average liquid velocity. This approach then estimates the liquid production rate, Q,
during the transient as:
Ql = (vi - ve ) /
where vi is the initial liquid content of the line and ve the final liquid content. To Ql must
be added the steady state liquid production rate during the transient which is estimated as
the liquid flow rate associated with the increased gas flow.
This method was compared with field data for two gas-condensate lines (one 18-inch
diameter and 30 miles long, the second 20- inch diameter and 67 miles long) by Cunliffe
(1978) who obtained good results basing the residence time on the average liquid velocity
and predicting liquid holdups with the correlation of Eaton et al. (1967).
A slightly different approach was taken by Bevan (1992) who used analogy with a
conveyor belt to predict liquid production during and following flow rate changes.
Conveyor speed is dependent upon the inlet gas velocity and this determines the transport
of liquid out of the line. The amount of liquid "on" the conveyor at each point along its
length is determined by the gas velocity when that section of "conveyor belt" entered the
line. Changes in flow rate are thus modeled as fronts of different holdup which travel
through the line at a rate dependent on the instantaneous inlet gas velocity. Bevan backcalculated from the Eaton and other correlations and comparisons with experimental data
to produce holdup correlations for this model.
Both Gregory/Cunliffe and Bevan models have been shown to provide acceptable
estimates of transient liquid production but cannot easily allow for the effects of pipeline
topography or ramped increases in flow rate.
Again, a transient simulator will generally give a more accurate understanding of fluid
behavior during turn-down or ramp-up and, depending on the simulator being used and
on the fluid being modeled, may yield more accurate liquid and gas volumetric estimates.
H-0806.35
8-20
1-Dec-00
8.5.4
DEEPSTAR
Topography and ramp rate

The topography of a pipeline determines both the amount of liquid held-up in a line and
the exact location of liquid within that line. The former effect is taken into account in the
plots of liquid holdup vs. gas flow rate and can be incorporated into the Gregory/Cunliffe
and Bevan approaches to transient simulations by using correlations modified to suit the
pipeline under investigation. The effect of location of liquid will determine the exact
nature of the peaks seen and the delay in arrival of liquid after the flow is increased. In
the case of a pipeline ending in a steep rise (e.g. up the shore to a terminal or up a riser to
a platform) the holdup will be concentrated near the outlet giving rise to higher flow rate
peaks than those predicted by the methods described previously and will arrive almost
immediately after the change in flow rate. Such effects can only be simulated by rigorous
dynamic models such as OLGA or PLAC.
The rate at which the flow rate change is made will also affect the peak liquid production
rate and the arrival time of the peak liquid flow. Long ramp times smooth out the liquid
peak and can, in the extreme, be considered as a series of minor flow rate changes leading
to a smooth transition from one steady-state to another. This effect can be modeled only
with difficulty by the simple methods described above. Dynamic modeling using OLGA
or PLAC is needed to obtain a good prediction of the reduction in peak liquid rate.
8.5.5
Liquid processing and slug catcher sizing

A primary need to understand transient behavior of a pipeline is to aid the accurate sizing
of the liquid reception and processing facilities at the terminal, whether onshore or
offshore.
The minimum liquid separation and processing requirement can be estimated from the
expected fluid composition, the full range of pipeline outlet conditions, and suitable
physical properties package. However, liquid production during transients can exceed
steady-state flow by more than an order of magnitude, requiring a combination of
oversized liquid processing plant and buffer high-pressure storage, in the form of a slug
catcher, to handle it.
Rapid estimates of slug catcher and liquid processing requirements for a transient can be
made from the plot of liquid production vs. time during that transient. Results of a
typical flow ramp simulation are shown in Figure 8.5-2. The initial constant gradient is
the liquid production rate at the low starting flow. Following the increase in flow the
liquid production rate increases sharply and then decreases to a steady rate which is the
steady state liquid production at the new flow rate. Terminal liquid processing can be
H-0806.35
8-21
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
represented on this plot by a line with maximum gradient equal to the processing capacity
(note however that this assumes that the liquids processing plant throughput can be
increased instantaneously). Since liquid can only be processed when it is present in the
slug catcher/separator the processing line follows the liquid production curve initially. At
point A, where the transient liquid production exceeds the processing capacity the
processing rate diverges at its maximum gradient. The processing line rejoins the liquid
production line at a later time, after the pipeline has reached steady-state, when the
backlog of liquid has been processed.
Figure 8.5-2: Example Results from Rampup Simulation

The difference between the cumulative produced liquid and cumulative processed liquid
is the liquid processing deficit (LPD). The maximum LPD during a transient determines
the size of slugcatcher required to avoid flooding of the terminal during that transient. By
experimenting with a range of liquid processing rates the balance between liquid
processing capacity and slugcatcher size can be assessed and optimized.
8.5.6
Alternative operation of line

The processing capacity and/or slug catcher size required for a pipeline may be limited by
plot size, weight and footprint (e.g. on an offshore platform) or for economic reasons.
Operation of a multiphase line will often still be possible.
H-0806.35
8-22
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The most widely used method in these circumstances is to routinely pig the line using
spheres. This method is most suited to long pipelines with a high steady state liquid
holdup flowing low CGR fluids. The pigging interval is planned so that the liquid
accumulated in the pipeline is a conservative fraction of the available slugcatcher volume
(this interval can be estimated from the line- fill nomograph such as Figure 8.5-1). The
line is only allowed to reach steady state at high flow rates (when the holdup is low) and
any flow ramp can be accommodated as the line never contains more than the slugcatcher
volume of liquid. If high CGR fluids are flowed, sphering as a means of inventory
control may not be practical, as the pigging interval will be too short to allow normal
pipeline operation. Other disadvantages of this approach are the need to install pig
launching and receiving facilities, the need to design the pipeline to accommodate pigs,
the risk of pigs sticking in the line due to wax, hydrate or other debris, the need to
transport pigs back offshore following use and the risk of pig launcher and receiver
failures shutting down the terminal.
An alternative approach is to modify the pipeline operating procedures to reduce the
severity of transients. Williams (1996a & b) used transient simulations to define an
operating envelope, see Figure 8.5-3, for an export pipeline and for a proposed infield
flowline, operation of which is complicated by the flowing of fluids ranging from CGR
20 to 200 BBL/MMSCFD. LPDs were calculated from transients ramping the gas flow
from low values to the design maximum based on the existing slugcatcher, marginally
oversized liquid processing facilities and a ramp time of 24 hrs (based on the gas
processing plant turn- up rates). The envelope identified the operating conditions from
which the ramp to maximum flow rate could be performed. Operation outside the
envelope of flow rates requires more time for flow increases and the use of line fill time
nomographs to assess the accumulation of liquid in the line.
H-0806.35
8-23
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.5-3: Operating Envelope

An example of the effect of modified operation is shown in Figure 8.5-4 where the
cumulative liquid production is plotted for flow ramps of equal magnitude occurring over
1, 6 and 12 hours. A diagonal line equivalent to a liquid processing rate of 22000 BPD
has been superimposed on the plot and it can be seen that the increase in ramp time to 6
hrs more than halves the LPD, whilst increasing the ramp time to 12 hrs results in no
liquid accumulation during the transient.
H-0806.35
8-24
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.5-4: Effect of Increasing Ramp Time

Transient simulators, such as PLAC or OLGA, are particularly useful for predicting the
transient delivery of liquids due to ramp- up. Using these simulators, a number of rampup scenarios can be evaluated to develop a practical ramp- up sequence.
Recommendations
1. Simple estimates of transient liquid production can be obtained using the models
proposed by Gregory (1991) and Bevan (1992) but these should not be used for
slugcatcher and processing facilities sizing as particular pipeline topography can have
a significant effect on the duration and severity of the transient and because these
methods tend to be overly conservative.
2. Detailed simulations using a transient code such as PLAC or OLGA allow
incorporation of a pipeline topography and the imposition of ramped flow increases
on the line.
8.6
Transients Due to Pigging

A method for estimating the slug sizes resulting from pigging pipelines is presented here.
As previously discussed the sphered liquid volume, for a flowline that has not yet
achieved equilibrium, can be estimated as the total volume of liquid that has entered the
flowline following the launch of the previous sphere. For the equilibrium case the
sphered liquid volume is equal to the total liquid volume in the line, calculated using the
H-0806.35
8-25
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Mechanistic Model, less that swept out of the pipeline as a liquid film during the sphere
transit time. To determine the sphered liquid volume the growth of the slug in front of
the sphere must be calculated, using the mass balance equation, throughout the spheres
passage through the line.
The process involved with the passage of a sphere through the flowline is shown in
Figure 8.6-1.
Figure 8.6-1: Passage of a Sphere through a Flowline

where:
Hl = liquid film holdup
Hls = sphered slug holdup
Ll = sphere to pipe cross-sectional area ratio
va = velocity of liquid at sphere (m/s)
vl = liquid film velocity (m/s)
vm = mixture velocity (m/s)
vs = sphered slug fluid velocity (m/s)
vsph = sphere velocity (m/s)
vls = sphered slug front velocity (m/s)
The mathematical details of the approach required to calculate the sphered slug volume
will not be discussed in this design method. However, the general approach is to
determine the rate of growth of the sphered slug as it passes through the flowline
H-0806.35
8-26
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
collecting liquid from the preceding film. Liquid leakage passed a sphere that does not
fully block the pipe can also be included.
Thus, a combination of three equations for:
The mass balance at the front of the growing slug
The mass balance at the sphere (if liquid leakage passed the slug is modeled)
The growth of the slug due to the differential velocity between the slug front and
sphere
lead to the required method for integrating the slug length as the sphere passes through
the flowline.
For the special case of a horizontal flowline, zero pressure drop, no liquid leakage passed
the slug and a sphered slug holdup equal to unity, this equation reduces to:
Vprod = Vtot Vout
where:
Vtot = total liquid hold-up in the line prior to sphering
Vout = liquid volume leaving the line during passage of sphere
This approach assumes that the pig travels at the in situ mixture velocity, which is not
always the case in practice. The motion of the pig may vary as a result of the
compressible nature of the fluid in the pipeline, which allows pressure and velocity
excursions to arise from the variations in the pipeline inclination and the friction between
the pig/pig train and the pipeline. For example, the pig may require additional driving
pressure to push the slug over a hill or to compensate for an increasing frictional
resistance as the slug grows in length. If the system is spongy the slug ve locity may
decrease or even stop as the fluid packs behind the pig to provide the additional driving
pressure. In downward sections, head recovery can cause the pig to accelerate and
transfer excess pressure into friction loss.
If the pig stops, then it is possible to observe a stick-slip phenomena caused by static
and dynamic friction effects, where more pressure is required to get the pig moving than
is required to keep it moving. The additional pressure required for re-start can cause the
pig to accelerate due to the lower dynamic friction. This higher pig velocity can de-pack
the line resulting in less driving pressure and a tendency for the pig to stop again.
H-0806.35
8-27
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
These phenomena can have a large effect on the time required to pig a pipeline, on the
dynamic pressures generated, and on the fluids produced. This may affect the design and
operability of the system. In addition, it is sometimes important to predict how long it
takes to re-establish the liquid holdup behind the pig, and hence to re-distribute corrosion
inhibitors.
Simple pigging transients can be investigated using the OLGA and PLAC transient twophase flow codes, both of which allow for a variable leakage past the pig during the
pigging process. The PLAC model is a recent addition and has yet to be properly
validated, but is used here to demonstrate the transient effects caused by pigging
pipelines.
Transient pigging example-pigging a hilly terrain pipeline
Figure 8.6-2 shows the topography of a hypothetical hilly terrain pipeline which is 200
mm in diameter, 10 km long, and includes a 50 m high hill followed by a 50 m deep dip.
A high GOR composition was used and the simulation run to a steady state with an inlet
mass flow of 2 kg/s and a delivery pressure of 10 bara. A pig was launched into the
pipeline at time 20100 s and it was estimated that the pig transit time would be around
2900 s based on the average mixture velocity in the pipe. Figure 8.6-3 shows the pig
position with time, and indicates that the pig motion was not steady; and displaying three
regions of steady motion and two regions of slower motion, and in some cases reversal.
The actual pig transit time is 5900 s, which is almost twice as long as estimated from the
average mixture velocity. This discrepancy results from the fact that the pig slows down
in the uphill section as the pressure builds-up.
H-0806.35
8-28
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
60
Elevation (m)
40
20
0
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
-20
-40
-60
Distance (m)
Figure 8.6-2: Topography of hilly terrain pipeline
Pig Location (m)
Figure 8.6-3: Pig Position vs. Time
H-0806.35
8-29
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.6-4 shows the holdup profile throughout the pipeline for various times and indicates that
before the pig is launched the holdup in the upward inclined sections is around 35 percent,
whereas in the horizontal and downward sloping sections it is around 2 percent. The pig slug is
shown just after the pig has passed the top of the first hill and indicates that the holdup is around
95 percent, and that the slug is less than 500 m in length. The holdup profile at 40,000 s
indicates that the liquid content of the pipeline is still building-up 4 hours after the pig has been
received. Figure 8.6-5 shows the pressure at the pipeline inlet and indicates that a pressure rise
of 1.3 bara is required for the pig to ne gotiate the first 50 m hill. The liquid full hydrostatic head
would be equivalent to 2.8 bara, hence the generated pressure is consistent with the observation
that the pig slug half fills the upward inclined section.
Time in sec
Figure 8.6-4: Pipeline holdup profiles
H-0806.35
8-30
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.6-5: Pipeline Pressure Profiles
8.7
Pressure Surge Transients

Pressure surge transients in single phase flows are well understood, with computer
packages available to predict the surge characteristics of complex pipeline networks with
components such as pumps, valves, and surge suppression devices. When a two-phase
flow is introduced into the system the analysis is made far more complicated since the
speed at which the pressure waves travel is modified by the gas fraction. In addition, the
discontinuous fluid interfaces in two-phase flow provide additional locations for pressure
waves to be reflected and attenuated. Such is the complication that no general-purpose
pressure surge code exists for two-phase systems. There are however a number of ways
that two-phase surge pressures may be analyzed with single-phase software; these are
outlined below. We will begin with a brief introduction to single-phase pressure surge
phenomena, followed by a discussion of the effects of two-phase flow, supported by
some examples.
H-0806.35
8-31
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Single phase hydraulic surge analysis

When a velocity change occurs in a flowing fluid some of the kinetic energy is converted
into potential energy (pressure) giving an effect called hydraulic surge or water hammer.
In most single-phase pipelines this can be caused by delivery valve closure and pump
start-up or shutdown. There is normally the potential to create pressures significantly
above or below those occurring during steady conditions giving a potential for over
pressuring and subsequent rupture or the generation of low internal pressures leading to
pipe collapse. In the case of a closing valve the effect of the increased restriction is to
reduce the flow rate. At the instant of the increased restriction the flow further upstream
of the valve continues at its previous rate which leads to the conversion of kinetic energy
into potential energy. The slowing or stopping of the fluid travels as a pressure wave
against the previous flow direction. In simple systems the highest pressures are generated
when the flow is stopped instantaneously, however in practice the magnitude of the surge
pressure is influenced by pressure waves reflected from the other end of the system.
These waves require a finite time to return to the location of the flow stoppage, which is
called the pipeline period. If the flow has completely stopped within the pipeline period,
then an instantaneous surge pressure will be experienced.
The pressure wave time period will be modified by the formation of vapor cavities that
occur when the pressure falls below the vapor pressure. The pressure waves also
experience a sudden change in magnitude when passing a change in the pipeline
diameter. A pressure surge can also induce a flow in another line connected to the
system, which can lead to amplification of the original surge if the effect of stoppage of
this induced flow is added to the original pressure surge.
The interaction of flows and pressures with pumps, line friction and other modifying
factors make it impractical to calculate anything but the most simple systems without a
suitable computer program. However, hand calculations can be useful to check if a
system has the potential to produce surge pressures in excess of those the line can
withstand using the equation below:
P = -aV
where:
P = pressure rise
V = reduction in flow velocity
a = speed of pressure wave
H-0806.35
8-32
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
= fluid density
If the fluid is stopped instantaneously, the maximum head or so called Jacowski
pressure rise results. In a practical system the maximum head may be generated if the
fluid is brought to rest within the pipeline period. For example, consider a pipeline
discharging through an outlet valve which closes fully. The full Jacowski pressure rise
occurs if the valve closes within the time taken for the pressure wave to travel to the other
end of the pipeline and back. This is the pipeline period and is given by:
= 2L / a
where:
= period
L = length of the pipeline
This method may be used to check the potential for over pressuring the pipeline, but may
not give the maximum pressure if networks are involved due to amplification at the dead
ends.
There are several operating changes that can cause flow changes and hence pressure
transients. The most common are valve opening/closing and pump start/stop.
In the valve closure example the shape of the pressure/time variation will depend on the
flow/time change which caused it and thus on the characteristics of the valve. Typical
flow characteristics of ball, globe, and gate valves are shown in Figure 8.7-1. It is
important to note that the last 10 percent of the valve closure has the most significant
effect.
H-0806.35
8-33
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.7-1: Relative flow rate against percentage valve opening for typical gate,
ball, and globe valves
If the pipeline period is greater than the valve movement time then the type of valve
characteristic will not influence the total pressure rise, although the rate of pressure rise
will be important to any control devices and the mechanical load on supports. If the
period is less than the valve movement time then the shape of the characteristic will
influence the peak pressure. Special care should be exercised in specifying valves whose
effective closure time is only a fraction of the total movement, e.g. gate valves.
Pressure falls can be as damaging as pressure rises. Often the negative head changes lead
to theoretical pressures less than the fluid vapor pressure. In such cases a vapor cavity
forms. Large diameter lines are more susceptible to damage by reduced pressure
conditions. More commonly vapor cavities create damage by their collapse. This occurs
if there is a situation, which can re-pressure the line. This could be caused by refilling
from an elevated section of line or tanks or by re-starting a pump to continue operation.
Often this refilling occurs at a high rate because the pump discharge pressure is lower
than normal. When the cavity volume reaches zero the effect is of a truly instantaneous
valve closure. These positive pressures can be higher than with normal valve closure and
have step pressure changes. Therefore, they should be avoided if at all possible.
H-0806.35
8-34
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Pump start/stop has the capability of producing similar positive and negative pressure
waves with the attendant damage potential.
From the above, it becomes apparent that the significant factors in creating high surge
pressures are the wave speed and the rate of change of flow. The wave speed is fixed by
the fluids used, although it is sometimes possible to modify the rate of change of velocity
in a transient. This is particularly true of the effective valve closure time. Even valves
with the most suitable closure characteristics create most of the flow change over the last
quarter of their movement. Thus, two part closures, where the first part is fast and the
last part slow can be beneficial.
Where surge is a problem, it is particularly important to avoid smaller bore area ends.
When the surge pressure reaches a pipe junction it propagates along both lines. The
pressure reduces in ratio to the new area divided by the old area and induces a flow by the
pressure difference. At the instant of the wave arriving at the dead end the forward
velocity is stopped creating another surge effect on top of the pressure wave. This can
lead to a potential doubling of the pressure.
One solution to reduce surge pressures is to introduce surge accumulators into the system.
This is particularly effective with pump- generated surges. These accumulators are
vessels which contain a gas pocket connected as closely as possible upstream of the surge
generation device so that when the surge occurs, the excess fluid flows into the vessel
compressing the gas. By removing excess fluid (which is nearly incompressible) the line
pressure is reduced. The volumes and costs of such suppression equipment can be quite
small when the transients are rapid.
Wave speed in single phase flow
Calculation of the speed of pressure waves in the fluid medium is crucial to determination
of pressure surge. For a single phase system the pressure wave velocity is given by:
= (K/)1/2
where:
K = bulk modulus of elasticity
= density of the fluid
Hence for water at 15 C, K = 2.15 GN/m2 and = 1000 kg/m3 the speed of pressure
waves is 1466 m/s. For an ideal gas the bulk modulus is the ratio of the change in the
H-0806.35
8-35
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
pressure to the fractional change in volume and hence depends on whether the
compression is adiabatic or isothermal. For an adiabatic process PV = (constant) and
hence K = P. Since P/ = RT the expression for adiabatic compression of an ideal gas is:
= (K/)1/2 = (RT)1/2
For air at 15 C, = 1.4, R = 287 J/kg/K; hence the wave speed is 340 m/s. The
equivalent bulk modulus of elasticity is 141.7 KN/m2 and the density is 1.226 kg/ m2 .
The pressure wave velocity is modified when boundaries such as pipe walls, free
surfaces, gas bubbles and solid particles are present. The elasticity of the walls of the
pipe through which the fluid is travelling has the effect of reducing the pressure wave
speed by a factor dependent upon the size, cross-section shape, and pipe material. In
addition the method of pipe restraint may also affect the result. The general equation for
the wave speed in a fluid contained within a thin walled pipe of circular cross-section is:
a = 1 / [ (1/K + D/tE)]1/2
where:
D = internal diameter
t = wall thickness
= pipe restraint factor
For materials with a high elastic modulus such as steel or concrete, or for pipelines with
frequent expansion joints, F can be taken as unity. Hence for water at 15C in a steel
pipeline (E=207 GN/m2) of 200 mm diameter and 15 mm wall thickness, the wave speed
is reduced from 1466 m/s for rigid pipewalls to 1374 m/s.
Wave speed in two-phase flow
The wave speed in two-phase flow can be determined by simply replacing the single
phase bulk modulus and density with the two-phase equivalents, i.e.:
a = (Ktp / tp)1/2 for rigid pipewalls
and:
a = 1 / [ tp (1/Ktp + D tE)] 1/2
where:
H-0806.35
8-36
1-Dec-00
(1- )
DEEPSTAR
= +
Ktp
KL
Kg
and:
tp = (1- ) L + g
= in-situ gas fraction
Using air and water as an example it is seen that the wave speed is rapidly reduced by the
introduction of only small quantities of gas. For example, a void fraction of only 1
percent is required to reduce the wave speed from 1446 m/s to 119 m/s. The table below
shows the wave speed for vario us gas fractions, also shown is the relative Jacowski head
rise possible compared with the liquid only case. It is hence seen that in two-phase flow
the wave speed and potential surge is much reduced by the combined high
compressibility and high density of the two-phase mixture.
Table 8-2:
Void
fraction
0.000
0.005
0.01
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.99
0.995
1.0
Two -phase
bulk modulus
(N/m2)
2.19e+9
2.80e+7
1.41e+7
1.42e+6
7.08e+5
3.54e+5
2.83e+5
2.36e+5
1.77e+5
1.57e+5
1.43e+5
1.42e+5
1.42e+5
Two -phase
density
(kg/m2)
1000.0
995.0
990.0
900.1
800.2
600.2
500.6
400.7
201.0
101.0
11.2
6.2
1.2
Wave
speed
(m/s)
1466.0
168.0
119.0
37.7
29.7
24.3
23.8
24.3
29.7
39.4
113.0
151.3
340.0
% potential head
rise
100.0
11.4
8.0
2.4
1.62
1.00
0.81
0.66
0.41
0.27
0.07
0.06
0.03
Wave speed is plotted as a function of the void fraction in Figure 8.7-2.
H-0806.35
8-37
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.7-2: Pressure wave speed in two-phase

8.8
Topography Effects
8.8.1
Hilly terrain slug flow and dip slug generation

In all the classical steady state programs used to model multiphase flows the flow regime
is assumed to change abruptly as the topography changes. However, in practice the
previous flow regime may persist for some distance into the next section. An example of
this is flow over a hill where slug flow may be predicted in the uphill section and
stratified in the downhill part. In a steady state simulation the slugs would abruptly
disappear at the apex. In practice this may not happen, and the liquid slugs may persist
for some distance into the downward sloping section which can give rise to a much
higher pressure recovery than in stratified flow.
H-0806.35
8-38
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Interactions with the terrain may cause additional effects. For example, the liquid
sloshing in a dip may cause perturbations in the gas and liquid flow rates downstream,
giving rise to flow regimes different to those expected from analysis with steady flow
rates. Flow rate fluctuations caused by slugs dissipated in a downward sloping section
may be sufficient to generate slugs in a following downstream section normally operating
in stratified flow.
By taking account of the hysteresis in the flow regimes and by tracking the local phase
flow rates it is easy to see how in practice flows may differ greatly from those predicted
by classical steady state methods. It is here that transient two phase flow simulators offer
considerable promise if interface tracking methods can be relied upon. However, one
must be caut ious about the application to real systems. It can be envisaged that, in a long
hilly terrain pipeline, a section may exist close to the slug/stratified boundary. A small
perturbation in the pressure or flow rate may be all that is required to trigger a slug and
change the characteristics of the whole pipeline.
In some cases it has been observed that the exit of a slug in a pipeline apparently triggers
the formation of another slug. Slugs occur regularly with one, two, or three in a line at
one time. This is due in part to the time taken for the liquid level to reestablish, and partly
due to the depacking effect as the slug exits, removing the high pressure drop over the
slug body. This causes an increase in the gas velocity which can trigger another slug.
This is illustrated in Figure 8.1-1 which shows the passage of slugs throughout a 400 m
long, 8-inch diameter, horizontal air/water test facility. The Y-axis shows the
identification number for 30 Light Emitting Diode (LED) slug detector probes, whic h are
located along the top of the pipeline, and give a binary on output when water wet and a
off signal when in air. As the number of slugs in the line increases the influence of
each slug exiting diminishes and slug formation becomes less orderly. The topography of
the pipeline can exaggerate this effect if uphill sections are present at the outlet. This can
increase the pressure fluctuations due to hydrostatic effects, and can lead to severe flow
rate fluctuations such as demonstrated by severe slugging. The random type of slugging
with considerable decay and coalescence is demonstrated in Figure 8.8-2 .
H-0806.35
8-39
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.8-1: Periodic single slug generation

H-0806.35
8-40
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.8-2: Erratic high frequency slug generation
H-0806.35
8-41
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
In some cases the bubble length is greater than the pipeline length. Here it can take some
time for the liquid level to be reestablished before the next slug is generated. Slugs
generated in this way can often have the longest lengths, as the equilibrium liquid content
in the pipeline can be high. The slug grows as it sweeps up the liquid in front of it,
leaving behind a thin film which may take a considerable time to reestablish. Such
phenomena ma y be well predicted by PLAC or OLGA when the slug tracking model has
been implemented. Otherwise, it may be reasonable to establish a simple maximum slug
length model to be use with steady state simulators. Some have observed this method to
give good agreement with the slugs generated in pipelines under these conditions (e.g.,
BPs Endicott pipeline).
The extrapolation of existing design methods to predict slug flow in hilly terrain pipelines
may be risky, and it is here that dynamic simulation may be of use. This is an area where
validation work is underway. PLAC has been compared with other Sunbury experiments
performed with a pipeline dip configuration on the 6- inch air/water rig, the rig set-up is
shown in Figure 8.8-3. In these tests a known quantity of water was poured into the dip
and allowed to settle. The air flow was then turned on at a constant rate and the flow
behavior observed. The tests were repeated for a range of initial liquid quantities and air
flow rates. At low gas flow rates the slugs are generated at the dip where the liquid depth
is the greatest and leads to a higher local gas velocity which is sufficient to produce
waves that grow into slugs. This is illustrated in Figure 8.8-4. At higher gas velocities
the slug generation point moves downstream of the dip and the slug generation is more
random. This is seen from the densitometer traces illustrated in Figure 8.8-5. The flow
pattern map generated by the matrix of liquid volumes and gas velocities is shown in
Figure 8.8-6, whe re the solid line shows the limiting gas velocity at which liquid is
removed from the dip. At this point the liquid is drained and measured and gives an
indication of the equilibrium liquid holdup. This is compared with a terrain induced slug
flow model, where the agreement is seen to be generally good.
Figure 8.8-3: Experimental set-up
H-0806.35
8-42
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.8-4: Dip slug generation
Figure 8.8-5: Densitometer traces for various gas velocities
H-0806.35
8-43
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.8-6: Pipeline dip experiments-flow pattern map and equilibrium holdup
Initial comparisons with PLAC have been encouraging as illustrated in Figure 8.8-7,
which shows that PLAC generally predicts the gas velocity at which liquid is removed
from the system and the equilibrium holdup, however PLAC tends to underestimate the
holdup at the higher gas velocities. Figure 8.8-8 shows that the predicted slug frequency
is generally lower than that measured. However, the results are still in reasonable
agreement. This is because PLAC simulates waves rather than slugs, Figure 8.8 -9 shows
the oscillations produced by PLAC for case of 317 liters of water with an air velocity of
0.5 m/s.
H-0806.35
8-44
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.8-7: Comparison between PLAC and measured liquid removal limit
H-0806.35
8-45
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.8-8: Comparison between PLAC and measured slug frequency
Figure 8.8-9: PLAC holdup oscillations for 317 l of water and 0.5 m/s air velocity
H-0806.35
8-46
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
OLGA is also reported to yield good comparison to experiment, though data supporting
this is not generally available; generally restricted to member companies of the OLGA
club; the group of companies actively supporting its development.
In practice oil and gas pipelines will usually reach or attain equilibrium first at the start of
the pipeline, hence slugs can be initiated near the pipeline inlet. It is possible for inlet
flow rate fluctuations to initiate slug formation. Such inlet flow rate oscillations may
result from slugging wells, gas- lift operations, and test well cha nges for example, and
should be suspected as possible causes for flow rate perturbations which generate slugs in
otherwise stratified flowing conditions. When using transient flow simulators it is
worthwhile to consider the effects of practical flow rate perturbations on the result.
8.8.2
Effects of topography on process plant

For gas/condensate systems the point of slug formation usually occurs further down the
pipeline, depending on the liquid condensation rate and topography. Slugs are not
usually formed at the start since the pipeline conditions can be above the dew point. For
typical offshore gas condensate pipelines terminating on land, the greatest uphill
gradients can be at the beach, making this a possible location for slug formation. This
phenomena was observed in dynamic simulations of the Bruce/Frigg pipeline system (by
BPX) where liquid drop-out occurred when Bruce was shut down. This resulted in a
pressure decrease along the pipeline which gave rise to an increase in the liquid drop-out
rate due to retrograde condensation. Predictions using PLAC showed that following a 12
hour shutdown it required around 48 hours to repack the pipeline (Figure 8.8-10). During
the shutdown liquid drop-out occurred in the pipeline. This liquid was partly swept out
when Bruce gas was reintroduced into the system. PLAC showed that during the start-up
phase some of the liquid evaporates as the pressure increases. That liquid which is swept
out arrives as a train of 700 BBL slugs which are easily handled by the process plant
(Figure 8.8 -11). Another result from the PLAC simulations was the fact that the 12 hour
shut-down was not long enough for equilibrium conditions to be obtained, hence the
liquid content is less than the equilibrium value. This is contrary to the results obtained
using steady state analysis of the holdup change for the cases with and without Bruce gas
which indicated that around 4000 BBL of liquid could be removed from the pipeline.
The user should take care with this type of analysis to make sure that the rate of
condensation and evaporation is realistic, as it is possible that the simple nature of the
phase change model in the more popular transient simulators may give rise to large
errors. For example, the use of a single composition for the fluid may mean that the
H-0806.35
8-47
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
condensate is re-evaporated at a much lower pressure than would be expected in practice

because the condensed liquid would have a heavier composition than the feed stream.
Figure 8.8-10: Pipeline vapor content
H-0806.35
8-48
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.8-11: Total liquid content showing slugging during re -start

It is seen that there can be numerous transient effects that are caused by the topography.
These can be difficult to predict using steady state analysis techniques. Transient
simulators can in theory account for most phenomena. However, improved slug flow
models are required to more accurately track the slugs. The effects of slugs discharging
should be well suited to transient analysis provided that slug generating mechanisms can
be clearly defined. However, if a system has numerous slug initiation sites and is
susceptible to small perturbations, then one may expect that the long term accuracy of the
simulations may be suspect.
Dynamic flows produced by topographical changes are important to the design of process
plants because slug characteristics are changed while negotiating platform risers and
pipework upstream of the receiving vessel. If the slug is long, the additional hydrostatic
head requires an increase in the pipeline pressure to force the slug up the riser. As the
H-0806.35
8-49
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.8-12: Velocity increase during slug reception
H-0806.35
8-50
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
slug is produced into the separator it may accelerate due to the reducing gravitational
resistance and the reduced frictional length (Figure 8.8-12). This can cause large velocity
increases which can impact on the process plant control, and can also give rise to large
loads on the vessel internals. This is discussed more fully in Section 17 of this Guideline.
Process plant dynamics can be simulated by a number of codes. BPX Sunbury presently
uses the SPEEDUP code which has also been interfaced with a simple slug hydraulic
model to enable the simulation of slug effects on process plant to be investigated. The
slug size is an input to the simulation. However, it is possible to see the effect of the slug
catcher pressure on the passage of the slug. Classical control schemes generally reduce
the gas compressor speed if the separator gas flow is reduced, hence when the slug is
produced the compressor is decelerating. A better solution can be to increase the
compressor speed when the gas flow drops off, hence reducing the separator pressure and
sucking the slug up the riser. This has the effect of reducing the gas starvation period and
also means that the compressor is accelerating when the gas surge occurs.
A recent study using SPEEDUP to investigate control strategies to limit the impact of
slug dynamics on the process plant has shown that gas outlet flow control can reduce the
peak in the gas surge. As the slug is received the gas flow rate reduces. By opening the
gas outlet control valve, the pressure in the slug catcher is reduced, hence sucking the
slug in and allowing some scope for increase in the slugcatcher pressure to absorb some
of the gas flow rate surge.
8.8.3
Hilly terrain pipeline shutdown and restart

BPX experience with the operation of the Cusiana Phase 1 system in Colombia has
shown that maximum flowline pressures may be generated by flowline start-up. The
longest multiphase flowline in the Phase 1 gathering system is the 20- inch diameter, 20
km long flowline that transports production from wellpads T and Q. The mountainous
terrain from the remote well T to the Cusiana Central Processing Facilities is illustrated in
Figure 8.8-13. When the production from T pad was stopped, the shut-in pressure at T
pad was around 1300 psia compared to the arrival pressure of 640 psia. The high back
pressure resulted from segregated liquids draining and filling the pipeline dips; however,
the liquid levels were suspected to be different, hence causing a non-equalized
hydrostatic equilibrium condition.
A simple 2- inch air/water model of three pipeline dips was constructed at BPX Sunbury
to demonstrate what happens during the shutdown and restart and it was confirmed that it
is possible for the liquid to drain into the dips with unequal levels, hence producing a
H-0806.35
8-51
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
back pressure due to the hydrostatic difference in the levels. Figure 8.8-14 shows the
topography of the test rig as modeled by PLAC whereas Figure 8.8.-15 and Figure 8.8-16
show the PLAC simulations of the liquid draining and inlet pressure variation.
Figure 8.8-13: Cusiana T pad to CPF topography used in PLAC
H-0806.35
8-52
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.8-14: Topography of hilly terrain test rig
H-0806.35
8-53
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.8-15: PLAC simulation of liquid draining into dips
Figure 8.8-16: PLAC simulation of back pressure due to liquid settling in dips
H-0806.35
8-54
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
While it is seen that PLAC can simulate the liquid settling behavior, the comparison with
the experimental results is not always good. This is because PLAC does not model slugs
properly and hence the holdup in the uphill sections is sometimes underestimated, hence
the initial condition is not always correct.
The highest back pressures can be generated when the flowline is restarted as it is
possible for the liquid in the dips to be displaced downstream before the gas is able to
penetrate the dip, and this increases the difference in the hydrostatic levels. Once the gas
penetrates, the pressure is reduced as the gas lifts the liquid out of the dip. One can
imagine that the start-up pressure can be large if all the liquid in the dips is displaced
simultaneously.
A simple method has been established to estimate the pressure rise during the start-up of
hilly terrain flowlines. For long hilly flowlines, the total uphill elevation changes may be
very large and hence the total theoretical hydrostatic head may lead to very conservative
start-up pressures. It is therefore recommended that the flowlines are started by unloading
the sections closest to the facilities first. The pressure can be estimated by summing the
uphill elevation changes and calculating the hydrostatic head for the section being started.
In practice experience with the start-up of Cusiana T pad indicates that the actual
hydrostatic pressure generated was around 2/3 of the maximum theoretical value,
however this is very dependant on the particular system.
If the analysis of start- up pressures is required to check the design pressure of the
flowline, then the topography should be investigated to determine if there are low points
where the pressure can be higher than at the well pad. This is the case with the T-Q
flowline where the maximum pressures are generated in the valley just downstream of the
wellpad.
8.8.4
Pipeline-riser interactions
A special topographical effect is the interaction between a pipeline and a vertical
platform riser. This can give rise to a phenomenon called severe slugging if the pipeline
inclination is downhill at the base of the riser and if flow rates are low enough (stratified
flow). Severe slugging is discussed in Section 17 and will not be described again here.
However, it is useful to demonstrate that dynamic simulation can be employed to
accurately predict the size of severe slugs and the cycle time, enabling topside process
plant to be sized.
H-0806.35
8-55
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
One of the validation cases for the PLAC code was a comparison with severe slugging
experiments carried-out by BP at Sunbury. The test rig consisted of a 45m flowline
inclined downhill at 2 followed by a 15m vertical riser. The rig operated at near
atmospheric conditions and the test fluids were air and water. A schematic of the rig is
shown in Figure 8.8-17 where the pipeline inner diameter is 2 inches. Figure 8.8.-18 and
Figure 8.8-19 show the measured slug size and frequency for a range of fluid superficial
velocities.
Figure 8.8-17: Schematic of severe slug test rig.
Figure 8.8-18: Experimental slug volume (% riser)
H-0806.35
8-56
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.8-19: Experimental cycle time (s)
Figure 8.8-20 shows the liquid holdup profiles predicted by PLAC for gas and liquid superficial
velocities of 0.44 m/s and 0.43 m/s respectively. The figure shows the liquid build-up and
blowdown.
H-0806.35
8-57
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.8-20: Liquid Holdup as a Function of Pipeline Position and Time

Figure 8.8-20 illustrates the intermittent nature of the outlet liquid mass flow rate,
showing the rapid increase in the flow rate as the tail of the slug accelerates up the riser.
For this case the experiment gives a severe slug size of 434 percent of the riser volume
and a severe slug cycle time of 155 seconds. The PLAC simulation gives 430 percent
and 150 seconds, respectively. It should be noted that it is important to correctly model
the volume of the system in order to match severe slugging cycle times. In the case of
the Sunbury experiments, the model in PLAC included a section of air filled pipe at the
inlet which was used to model the line supplying air to the mixing section.
H-0806.35
8-58
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.8-21: Figure 7.34 PLAC prediction of outlet liquid mass flow rate.
A similar type of severe slugging can also be observed when flexible risers are employed,
particularly if the lazy s configuration is adopted. The analysis of the flows in these
curved configurations is complicated by the possible bi-directional motion of the flow,
and the interaction with the complex geometry. Here transient simulators show promise
in being able to predict the flows, whereas the scale- up of laboratory simulations to
practical situations is uncertain..
The relationship below can be used to estimate the critical liquid velocity at which severe
slugging occurs in a pipeline-riser system. If the liquid superficial velocity is above this
value severe slugging is unlikely to occur.
Vsl = Vsg Psep / [L(l - g) g (1 - Hl) Sin ]
where:
Psep = pressure at flowline outlet (N/m 2)
H-0806.35
8-59
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
L = line length upstream of riser (m)

l = liquid density (kg/ m3)
g = gas density (kg/m3)
Hl = average liquid holdup in line
g = acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s2)
= inclination of riser from horizontal
8.8.5
Transients Caused by Looped Pipeline Systems

Pipeline looping is a common practice to increase the capacity of systems transporting
single phase oil or gas. The parallel loop may be installed along the whole or only part of
the pipeline to increase the effective flow area, and hence to remove a bottleneck in the
system or to facilitate an increase in the flow rate. In single phase flow the analysis of
the hydraulic performance of the loop is usually determined using a single pipe with an
equivalent diameter. This method is also often applied to the looping of two-phase
pipelines using simple tee junctions, where only one leg with half the flow rate would be
analyzed if both pipes in the loop have equal diameters, for example. Inherent in such an
analysis is the assumption that the gas and liquid splits in equal proportions in both of the
legs. However, in practice this is not usually the case.
The two-phase flow split at pipeline tee junctions is complex, and at present there is no
universal method for determining the flows to each leg, due to the dependence on the
geometry of the tee, and the various gas and liquid flow rates and physical properties.
However, it is apparent that in most cases the flow split at a side arm tee junction is
usually very different from being equal.
At very low liquid fractions in stratified flow, typical of gas transmission systems with a
small amount of liquid dropout or carryover, it is possible for the liquid in the stream to
follow the gas into the side arm of the junction, and hence the run remains virtually dry.
Instances have been recorded where liquid has consistently taken one path in a complex
gas transmission network, resulting in overfilling pipeline drips, and causing an
interruption in the supply of gas, although the overall liquid content of the liquid
transmission system is very low. At the other extreme, in slug flow for example, the
inertia of the liquid causes the majority of it to flow forward into the run, whereas all the
gas may flow through the side arm. In fact some simple tee junctions are used as inline
separators.
H-0806.35
8-60
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
It is hence seen that the flow split at a simple tee may be very different from equal, and
hence the flow rates in the individual legs will be unequa l. However, since in a loop the
lines rejoin downstream, the number of possible solutions is reduced to those flow splits
that give rise to the same overall pressure drop in both pipelines.
Transient flows can result from the operation of looped pipelines since it is possible for a
number of solutions to exist for the flow split. For example, high flow in one leg causing
a high frictional pressure drop may be balanced by low flow in the other with a high
hydrostatic component and high holdup. Small inlet flow rate perturbations at the tee, or
changes in operating conditions, may cause the flowing conditions in each leg to change,
with the possible removal of excess liquid in the form of a slug. In the extreme it is
possible in pipelines with a large uphill elevation for a manometer effect to exist. Here
the flowing pressure in one leg is balanced by a static column in the other. A change in
operating conditions can cause the static liquid to be swept-out. This type of phenomena
has been known to give rise to operational difficulties with gas transmission pipelines
laid over hilly terrain.
Problems with parallel loops are well documented in the power generation industry,
where instabilities can occur in a bank of boiler tubes, for example. The total flow into
and out of the headers is normally constant, as is the pressure drop. However, flows in
the individual tubes can vary considerably. In such situations the analysis is complicated
by the addition of heat transfer effects and steam generation, which can give rise to
multiple solutions for the location of the boiling front. So called parallel channel
instability in the boiler tubes can cause corrosion problems or dry-out leading to
premature failure. Experience with such situations has shown that adding flow restrictors
to the inlet header has a stabilizing effect, whereas throttling the outlet can exacerbate the
problem.
The method proposed to analyze possible transient problems caused by operating looped
pipelines is along the lines outlined by Gregory and Fogarasi. This involves calculating
the two-phase pressure drop in each leg for a range of liquid and gas flow splits. A
graphical solution is employed to determine the conditions where the pressure drops in
each leg are equal, and hence the possible operating regimes of the loop. Allowance
should then be made for flow excursions between the parallel lines and the possible
displacement of liquid.
As an example consider the schematic shown in Figure 8.8-22.
H-0806.35
8-61
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.8-22: Schematic of a pipeline loop

Let a equal the fraction of the inlet liquid flow rate in line A, and equal the fraction of
the free inlet gas in line A, Hence:
Qoa = Qoin and Qga = Qgin
The free gas at the inlet to the loop is given by the difference between the producing gasoil ratio and the solution gas-oil ratio at the inlet conditions.
hence:
Qga = (GOR - RSin) Qoin
These expressions can be used to determine the effective producing gas-oil ratio to use in
the two-phase pressure drop analysis as follows:
GORa = [Q oa RSin + (GOR - RSin)Q oin ] / Qoa
hence:
GORa = RSin + / (GOR - RSin)
Similarly for line B:
GORb = RSin + (1- / 1-)(GOR - RSin)
Steady state pressure drop calculations can be performed for a range of gas and liquid
splits using the effective GOR calculated above. The value of the solution gas-oil ratio at
the inlet conditions can be determined using the inlet temperature and pressure and a
suitable PVT pacakge.
H-0806.35
8-62
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.8-23 shows the locus of the possible solutions for a equal pipeline loop and
indicates that the 50/50 solution (a = 0.5) gives rise to the maximum downstream
pressure, and hence minimum pressure drop, however this is not always the case. For
other pressure drops there are two flow split solutions and hence it could be possible for
the flows to oscillate between the two solutions.
Figure 8.8-23: Locus of solutions for equal pipeline sizes
Gregory et al. suggests that the existence of a manometer leg effect can be checked if the
net elevation increase over the loop is such that the maximum possible hydrostatic head
that could result from the liquid phase static in the pipeline is greater than the pressure
H-0806.35
8-63
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
drop that will result from the total throughput of gas and liquid flowing in one of the
parallel lines. This may not be wholly true as a symmetrical hill would have a net
elevation change of zero. However the potential exists for the uphill section to contain
liquid and provide a manometer effect. It is hence recommended that the manometer
effect check be carried out using the sum of the uphill elevation changes. If one of the
legs contains static liquid it is obvious that the loop has in fact not increased the capacity
of the system as the flow only occurs in one leg.
In the above example the pipes in the loop are identical and hence the locus of possible
solutions is symmetrical. This is not the case when the pipes are different as illustrated in
Figure 8.8-24 for a 10- inch and 12- inch loop from Gregorys paper. Here the locus of the
possible solutions is not symmetrical and the minimum pressure drop occurs with a liquid
split of 65/35.
H-0806.35
8-64
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.8-24: Locus of solutions for unequal pipelines

The main points to remember about the hydraulics of looping two-phase pipelines are as
follows:
1. If the pipes in the loop are identical, the assumption of equal split may lead to an
underprediction or overprediction of the pressure drop in practice, as equal splits are
unlikely. For some conditions equal split can give a minimum in the locus and for
others a maximum.
2. A range of flowing solutions are often possible which give equal pressure drops.
While this may give rise to steady outlet flow rates, the natural perturbation produced
by multiphase flows, and the complex characteristics of flow splitting, can lead to
oscillations between the legs, and consequent transient liquid sweep-out.
H-0806.35
8-65
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
3. Although the outlet flow rate from the loop may be steady at one condition, a small
change in the operating conditions can lead to transient liquid sweep-out as the new
operating point stabilizes.
4. A check should be made for manometer effects based on the sum of the uphill
elevation changes, although this may not give the maximum holdup change as a pipe
full flowing case may also exist. If manometer legs occur the loop will not increase
the flowing capacity.
5. Static liquid legs may have implications for corrosion.
8.9
Transient Modeling
In practice the worst transients can be deduced from relatively few simple calculations:
(a) Small diameter tie- ins from minor fields connected to long, large diameter trunklines
do not usually contain enough liquid, even at low flow rates to significantly contribute to
a transient.
(b) For a given total flow in a network, the highest holdup will generally be for that
combination of flows which has the lowest gas flow rate passing through the greatest
length of the largest diameter pipeline.
(c) For low CGR fluids, the maximum period of operation at low gas flow rate should be
considered and the amount of liquid deposited in the pipeline during the period
calculated. This figure may prove less than the steady-state liquid holdup at that flow
rate and if so should be used instead of the steady-state figure for determining the worst
case transients.
Having identified transient flow situations likely to cause problems, a more detailed
analysis can then be performed using a transient modeling code such as PLAC or OLGA.
8.10
Transient Modeling Case Studies
8.10.1 Marlin pipeline holdup profile

Figure 8.10-1 shows the predicted liquid content of the Marlin gas condensate pipeline as
a function of the gas flow rate. This is a 67 mile long, 20- inch diameter wet gas line
operating with a liquid loading of around 65 BBL/MMSCF. It is seen that the general
trend is that the liquid content reduces as the gas flow rate increases. Hence, if a gas flow
rate increase is made, liquid will be removed from the pipeline as the new equilibrium
liquid content is established. If the change in the gas flow rate is carried-out too fast, the
excess liquid can be swept out as a large slug which may overfill the downstream plant,
H-0806.35
8-66
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
whereas if the changes are made slowly, the liquid can be gradually swept out within the
slug catcher capacity.
It is also interesting to note in this figure the wide variation in the predicted holdup
obtained from using the various methods. This may not be too much of a problem when
calculating the amount of liquid swept out during a transient because it is the difference
in the holdup that it most important. In this example the Eaton holdup correlation is
expected to give reasonable answers. However, one should be wary of using the
correlation approach rather than mechanistic models since they do not usually predict the
steep rise in holdup as the velocity and interfacial friction reduces hence a gross
underestimate can result when starting from low flow rates.
Figure 8.10-1: Marlin Pipeline Holdup Profile
Figure 8.10-2 shows the liquid flow rate at the outlet of the Marlin gas condensate
pipeline during an increase in the flow rate from 155 MMSCFD to 258 MMSCFD.
During the test the gas rate was held constant at 155 MMSCFD for 52 hours in order to
reach equilibrium conditions. The rate was then increased to 258 MMSCFD in a period
H-0806.35
8-67
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
of one hour and held constant for a further 26 hours to obtain equilibrium conditions
again. It is seen that during the transient the outlet liquid flow rate is cons iderably higher
than the final equilibrium value.
Figure 8.10-2: Marlin Rate Change Test
Figures 8.10-3 to 8.10-5 are provided to illustrate the potential accuracy of transient
codes on the Marlin rate change data. This data has often been used as a test case as it is
one of the few transient field data sources available in the open literature.
H-0806.35
8-68
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-3: Marlin Comparison with SCOGGINS
H-0806.35
8-69
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-4: Marline Comparison with PLAC
Figure 8.10-5: Marlin Comparison with OLGA

H-0806.35
8-70
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Pigging gas condensate pipelines can also result in large slugs. However, in many cases
it is not feasible to design slug catchers of a sufficient size to handle the equilibrium slug
produced by running pigs at low throughputs. In this case pigs must be run frequently to
prevent the liquid holdup reaching equilibrium, which can incur high operating costs.
Sometimes gas rates can be reduced during the pig arrival to allow the produced liquids
to be processed, but in others the gas flow rate may be determined by the consumer, and
the pigging operation carried out at the prevailing gas rate. In some situations pigs are
only required on an infrequent basis for corrosion control or inspection, in which case the
pipeline liquid content may be high and a procedure must be put in place to handle the
liquid swept-out by the pig. One way of doing this is to stop the pig offshore and walk
it into the slug catcher at a rate compatible with the liquid processing capacity. This
approach was successfully carried out at the restart of pigging operations on the
Amethyst pipeline where a liquid vo lume of over four times the slug catcher capacity was
allowed to accumulate in the sealine when the offshore pig launcher failed. In some
instances it is possible to reduce the liquid content of the pipeline prior to pigging by
controlled rate increases to remove liquid. In other cases pigging is not possible, and flow
rate changes must be controlled to prevent overfilling the downstream plant.
With these factors in mind it is seen that for gas condensate systems at least, it is often
the transient slug that determines the slug catcher volume. For oil and gas pipelines
pigging may be required frequently for wax control etc, where the lines have reached
equilibrium, hence this may determine the size of the slugcatcher. However for some
developments, particularly subsea, pigging is required less frequently and can be
accomplished with some operating ingenuity. Here it is often the longest normal slug or
the transient rate change liquid sweep out that determines the required slug catcher surge
volume. The next section outlines a simple calculation method for estimating the liquid
outflow profile due to rate change transients.
8.10.2 Simple analysis methods for flow rate increases and reductions
The first step in considering the required surge volume for transient flow rate increases
can be made by considering the equilibrium holdup/flow rate profile.
H-0806.35
8-71
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-6: Amethyst Pipeline Holdup Profile

Figure 8.10-6 shows the equilibrium holdup for the Amethyst pipeline in the Southern
North Sea. The line is 30- inch diameter and connects two unmanned production
platforms with the Easington gas processing terminal 30 miles away. The working
volume of the slug catcher is 3800 BBL, with a maximum liquids pumpout rate of 6000
BPD. The liquid loading is typically 6.5 BBL/MMSCF of condensate and 0.54
BBL/MMSCF of water and methanol. It can be seen that for normal gas flow rates in the
region of 250350 MMSCFD the equilibrium liquid holdup is well in excess of the
slugcatcher capacity, hence pigging at equilibrium conditions could overfill the process
facilities. Higher gas rates than those available would be required to give equilibrium
holdups below the surge volume. In fact this pipeline was designed to be pigged daily,
and hence the liquid expected to be received was the order of 1760 BBL at 250
MMSCFD. This design allows for a missed pig, i.e. two days between sphere launches,
without causing liquid handling problems.
H-0806.35
8-72
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The holdup profile shows a rapid rise in the liquid content at gas rates below 200
MMSCFD, hence operating in this region could cause problems even without pigging, as
relatively small gas rate perturbations can cause large quantities of liquid to be swept
from the pipeline. For example a 10 percent increase in the gas rate from 200 to 220
MMSCFD could remove 4750 BBL of liquid and, possibly, swamp the slug catcher.
Shortly after the start-up of the Amethyst pipeline system the pig launcher failed and it
was decided to investigate the consequences of cont inuing production, and allowing the
pipeline liquids to build up to equilibrium values. A decision was taken to limit the
minimum gas flow rate to 250 MMSCFD, and hence to avoid possible uncontrolled
sweep-out due to inherent flow rate fluctuations. The pipeline was operated without
pigging over the winter, where it took several months to obtain an equilibrium holdup,
which was estimated to be in the region of 18000 BBL from a mass balance. This is
within 17 percent of the value predicted by the old segregated flow mechanistic model in
MULTIFLO, but is 213 percent higher than the value predicted by the Eaton correlation.
Some of the simple transient analysis outlined below was used to investigate how to
resume pigging operations.
A simple approach to sizing a vessel to handle the liquid produced by a gas rate increase
would be to consider the change in the equilibrium holdup and ignore the effect of the
liquid pump-out rate. For example if the gas rate were increased from 250 MMSCFD to
350 MMSCFD the equilibrium liquid removed would be 15373 - 8018 = 7355 BBL.
Hence the gas rate could be increased in two steps from 250 MMSCFD to 300 MMSCFD
which would remove 3800 BBL and then 300 MMSCFD to 350 MMSCFD which would
remove 3555 BBL. A 7355 BBL surge volume would be required if the increase were
made in one step without taking account of the liquid pump-out rate. The maximum gas
flow rate available is 350 MMSCFD which gives a pipeline inventory of 8018 BBL, and
hence it is still necessary to walk in the first pig.
We will use the Amethyst case to illustrate a simple way of determining the effect of the
pump-out rate on the required surge volume. Consider the case of an increase in the gas
rate from 250 to 350 MMSCFD.
At 250 MMSCFD the equilibrium holdup is 15373 BBL
At 350 MMSCFD the equilibrium holdup is 8018 BBL
Hence the difference in holdup is 15373 - 8018 = 7355 BBL.
H-0806.35
8-73
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Next calculate the initial and final liquid production rates from:
Liquid rate = liquid loading x gas flow rate
hence:
Initial liquid flow rate = 250 MMSCFD x 7.04 BBL/MMSCF = 1760 BPD
Final liquid flow rate = 350 MMSCFD x 7.04 BBL/MMSCF = 2464 BPD
Calculate the duration of the transition time for the transient, which is the length of time
over which the high flow rate occurs. If it is assumed that all the liquid in the line
accelerates to the equilibrium liquid velocity corresponding to the final gas rate, then the
transition time is the same as the residence time at the final rate, i.e.:
Transition time = (final holdup / final flow rate) = (8018 / 2464) = 3.25 days
The transition flow rate is the sum of the final flow rate and the increase due to the rate
change and is given by:
Transition flow rate = Final flow rate + (holdup change / transition time)
= 2464 + 7355/3.25 = 4727 BPD
It is seen that based on this method the surge can easily be handled by using the 6000
BPD pump-out capacity of the Easington terminal. Figure 8.10-7 shows the predicted
liquid outflow profile.
H-0806.35
8-74
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-7: Simplified liquid outflow profile during ramp-up
This approach can be extended to investigate the trade-off between the required slug
catcher surge volume and the pump-out rate using the relation below:
Surge volume = transition time x (flow rate in - flow rate out)
= Tt x (Qin - Qout)
If the pump-out rate is fixed at the final equilibrium value the required surge volume is:
Vs = 3.25 ( 4727 - 2464 ) = 7355 BBL
i.e. the change in equilibrium holdup.
If the pump-out rate is 4727 BPD then this method shows that no surge volume is
required. The solution to the equation is the linear relationship shown in Figure 8.10-8. It
can be seen that for a surge volume of 3800 BBL a minimum pump-out rate of 3550 BPD
is required.
H-0806.35
8-75
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-8: Surge Volume as a function of processing rate
The relationship shown in Figure 8.10-8 can be subject to large inaccuracies at the
extremes as the flow rate tends to zero and at the final transition flow rate. The reason
being is as follows; at zero pump-out rate the surge volume is equal to the transition flow
rate multiplied by the transition time, whereas in practice liquid continues to flow into the
vessel at the final equilibrium flow rate, hence the required surge volume becomes
infinite as the pump-out rate goes to zero. When the pump-out rate is equal to the
transition flow rate the above method indicates that no surge volume is required.
However, in practice, the flow rate during the transient is not usually constant, and
typically peaks at the start. Hence, the solution for a surge volume of zero is a pump-out
rate equal to the peak flow rate during the transient.
The same simple method can also be applied to the estimation of the outlet flow rate
profile during a flow rate decrease, as follows: Consider a reduction in the gas flow rate
of the Amethyst pipeline from 350 MMSCFD to 250 MMSCFD.
First calculate the residence time at the final flow rate, this is also assumed to be the
transition time:
Transition time = (final holdup / final flow rate) = (15373 / 1760) = 8.73 days
then:
H-0806.35
8-76
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Transition flow rate = Final flow rate (Holdup change / Transition time)
= 1760 (7355 / 8.73) = 918 BPD
Hence the hand calculation method predicts an initial flow rate of 2464 BPD falling to
918 BPD over a 8.73 day transition period after which the rate increases to 1760 BPD.
This is illustrated in Figure 8.10-9.
Figure 8.10-9: Simplified liquid outflow profile during ramp-down

8.10.3 PLAC simulation of shutdown and restart of Pompano subsea wells
Pompano is a development in the Gulf of Mexico consisting of a fixed platform in 1300 ft
of water, with a proposed remote 18 slot template located 4 miles away in a water depth
of 1800 ft. The template was originally going to be connected to the host platform by
two 6-inch pipelines allowing flexible operation as the flow rates change, and facilitating
pigging from the platform using processed oil. The first phase of the development, now
completed, involved the installation of the platform and start-up of the platform wells,
which are expected to produce a maximum of around 18 mbd. The second phase of the
development will involve installation of a subsea template and flowlines. However it was
required to make provision for this during the installation of the first phase. The
H-0806.35
8-77
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
maximum oil production from the subsea wells was expected to be 12 mbd and slug
catchers were required to be sized for the platform reception facilities.
The slugs produced by pigging the pipeline were to be handled by operational procedures
and were not used for sizing the slug catcher. The predicted mean and maximum normal
hydrodynamic slugs were 6 BBL and 16 BBL respectively, and were well within the
feasible slug catcher size, which was in the region 50100 BBL. It was hence necessary
to consider the slugs produced by flowline rate changes which could be quite frequent as
wells are switched to test and as turndowns are accommodated. A worst case was
considered to be start-up from 1 well to full production, giving a flow rate increase from
112 mbd. This was modeled with PLAC by running the simulation at 12 mbd for
13000s to give a steady state. The flow rate was then ramped down to 1 mbd over 60s,
left at this rate for 5000s, then increased to 12 mbd over 60s. The predicted outlet liquid
flow rate profile is shown in Figure 8.10-10 and indicates that the liquid flow rate drops
off when the flow rate is reduced after 13000s. The plot shows a large overshoot when
the rate is increased again at 18000s. The oscillations decay as the final equilibrium
production rate of 12 mbd (equivalent to 17.7 kg/s) is approached. The peak production
rate is 82 kg/s which is equivalent to 51 mbd, and is hence over four times the final
equilibrium production rate.
Figure 8.10-10: PLAC simulation of outlet liquid flow rate

H-0806.35
8-78
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The outlet gas rate is shown in Figure 8.10-11 and indicates that the main gas surge
occurs after the second slug.
Figure 8.10-11: Predicted outlet gas flow rate
The liquid holdup plot in Figure 8.10-12, shows that the initial holdup is around 40
percent in the inclined flowline (cells 118) and around 20 percent in the vertical riser
(cells 1939). During the low flow condition from 13000s the liquid drains from the riser
into the flowline and also builds up at the template end of the flowline. During the rate
increase the first slugs were due to the liquid drained from the riser. The liquid that
drained to the template is smeared out along the flowline to re-establish the equilibrium
holdup.
H-0806.35
8-79
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-12: Holdup profile duri ng shutdown and start-up

The outlet liquid flow rate predicted by PLAC was converted to a spreadsheet for further
processing by a slug catcher simulation program called PLACSEP, which is available on
the PC. This program converts the liquid volume flow rate into the level fluctuations in a
cylindrical slug catcher vessel. Figure 8.10-13 shows the level for a 50 BBL vessel (5ft
dia x 15ft long) where the liquid pump-out rate is fixed at 25 mbd. In one case there is no
control on the minimum level in the vessel, and in the other a minimum level of 20
percent is imposed.
H-0806.35
8-80
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-13: Slug catcher level fluctuations with and without level control
Figure 8.10-14: Effect of pump-out rate on slug catcher level
The result is also plotted in Figure 8.10-14 for a pump-out rate of 12 mbd and shows that
the vessel would be swamped, even without low level control. Hence it is not possible to
H-0806.35
8-81
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
use a 50 BBL slug catcher if the liquid pumpout rate remains fixed at the maximum
subsea production rate.
It is possible by iteration to determine the vessel size vs pump-out rate relationship that
just handles the inlet flow transient. This is shown in Figure 8.10-15 and illustrates that if
the pump-out rate is to remain at the normal subsea production rate of 12 mbd, then a 275
BBL slug catcher would be required, but if the spare capacity of the platform process is
utilized to give a pump-out rate of 25 mbd, then the required slug catcher volume is
around 40 BBL.
Figure 8.10-15: Predicted slug catcher volume vs pump-out rate relationship

PLAC is now capable of simulating the slug catcher as well as the pipeline and can
include relatively complex control functions. However it would be very time consuming
to use PLAC in this way to produce the above relationship. It is hence recommended that
the PLACSEP program be used for this purpose. If it is expected that the slug catcher
control set- up will influence the pipeline transient, then the PLACSEP program should be
used to guess the initial vessel size and pumpout rate, and a full simulation used to
finalize the design. In the future it is expected that PLAC will be interfaced with a
process plant dynamic model so that the full pipeline and process dynamics may be
integrated. This facility is already available via the OLGA/D-SPICE interface.
H-0806.35
8-82
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
8.10.4 Simple hand calculation method applied to Pompano example

A simple hand calculation method can also be used to estimate the required vessel size
and pump-out rate for the Pompano restart transient that was simulated by PLAC in
Section 8.10.3.
The starting point for the hand calculation requires the steady state holdup in the flowline
at the initial and final production rates. Figure 8.10-16 shows the liquid holdup versus
flow rate predicted by MULTIFLO for the 6- inch, 4 mile long Pompano subsea flowline.
Figure 8.10-16: MULTIFLO holdup predictions for Pompano 6-inch subsea flowline
It is seen that for an initial rate of 1 mbd the equilibrium holdup is 770 BBL for 0 percent
water cut, reducing to 470 BBL at a final flow rate of 12 mbd.
The residence time is approximated by the equilibrium holdup divided by the liquid flow
rate, hence:
H-0806.35
8-83
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Residence time at 1 mbd = 770/1000 = 0.77 days

Residence time at 12 mbd = 470/12000 = 0.039 days
The transition flow rate is assumed to occur for a period equal to the residence time at the
final condition and is equal to the final production rate plus the rate corresponding to the
excess holdup swept-out during the period of the transition. Hence:
Transient Flow rate = 12000 + (770-470 / 0.039) = 19.7 mbd
The approximate outlet liquid flow rate history is illustrated in Figure 8.10-17 and is
compared with the PLAC predictions.
Figure 8.10-17: Approximate outlet liquid flow rate profile and PLAC prediction
The slug catcher volume vs pump-out relationship is hence given by a simple linear
function since the flow rate during the transition is assumed to be constant, therefore:
Surge volume = 0.039 x (19692 - Qout)
H-0806.35
8-84
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
hence:
at 0 mbd,
surge volume = 768 BBL
at 12 mbd,
at 19.692 mbd,
The comparison between the simple method and the rigorous PLAC simulation is shown
in Figure 8.10-18 where it is seen that the agreement is close for pump-out rates similar
to the final equilibrium value. However, there are large discrepancies at the extremes for
the reasons outlined previously. For zero surge volume the pump-out rate predicted by
PLAC is 51 mbd compared to 19.7 mbd assuming a constant transition flow rate, hence
the simple method fails to take account of the liquid distribution in the pipeline and
consequently underestimates the peak outlet flow rates.
Figure 8.10-18: Comparison of slug catcher relationships derived from PLAC and hand
calculations
8.10.5 OLGA simulation of Miller landline shutdown and restart

The 30inch Miller landline normally transports dense phase gas over 18 km from the St
Fergus terminal to Peterhead power station. The gas undergoes dew point control and
heating at St Fergus to remain single phase. Under normal operating conditions the gas
flow rate is 215 MMSCFD and leaves St Fergus at 37 degree C and 30 bara, arriving at
H-0806.35
8-85
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Peterhead at 30 degree C and 25 bara. During shut-down and start-up there is the
possibility of liquid condensation and drop-out which may affect the size of the
downstream plant and operating procedures necessary to control the liquid outflow. The
combination of rate changes and associated cooldown gives rise to a more complicated
transient analysis than previously discussed.
In such a transient the amount of liquid formed is a function of the richness of the input
gas composition, the temperature gradient along the pipeline, Joule-Thompson effects,
transient cool-down, the topography, and pressure drops. Some of the interactions
between these effects can be complicated. For example, the pressure drop can cause
retrograde condensation which can give rise to higher pressure drops due to interphase
friction. This can lead to J-T cooling which produces more liquid dropout, and so on.
Once liquid is produced it may take time to drain into dips, and may produce slugs. On
start-up the liquid can re-evaporate in the pipeline before reaching the outlet.
The OLGA code was used to simulate the effects caused by the shut-down and
consequent cooling of the Miller landline. The start-up was also modeled in order to
study the complex transient multiphase effects taking place throughout the pipeline
system as a result of the introduction of warm gas into the cool environment. This study
formed part of the design stage of the pipeline project and provided a valuable insight
into the sizing requirements for slug-catching equipment at the power station delivery
point.
The transient simulations were performed in three stages:
1. Run to steady state at 215 MMSCFD with an inlet pressure of 30 bara and an inlet
temperature of 37C.
2. Shut-down with the outlet closed and the line allowed to pack up to 35 bara
throughout. The line is subsequently allowed to cool for 48 hours.
3. Start- up the pipeline with inflow and outflow of 60 MMSCFD and remain constant
for 13 hours. The inlet flowing gas temperature was the order of 80C. Finally, the
flow rate is ramped to 215 MMSCFD with an inlet temperature of 37C and the
simulation continued until the outlet temperature exceeds 30C.
The results of the simulation are best described with reference to the pipeline profile and
the relevant cell numbers illustrated in Figure 8.10-19
H-0806.35
8-86
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-19: Miller landline profile

Steady state results gave pipeline outlet conditions of 27 bara and 30.4C. During the
shut-down the pressure quickly packs up to 35 bara and the temperature gradually drops,
taking 48 hours to drop to 6 Degree C at the outlet. This is illustrated in Figure 8.10-20
the ground temperature is -3C. During the shut-down the liquid condenses and drains
into the dips giving rise to an increase in the pipeline liquid content, which still rises after
48 hours as a result of the cooldown (Figure 8.10-21).
H-0806.35
8-87
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-20: Variation of shut-in temperature with time
Figure 8.10-21: Pipeline liquid content during shut-in
H-0806.35
8-88
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
In the first phase of the start-up the gas flow rate is ramped up to 60 MMSCFD with an
inlet temperature of 80C. This has the effect of reducing the downstream pressure as the
hydraulic gradient is established, and warming the fluid temperature. The warmup is
seen to be slow as the outlet gas temperature has only risen by a few degrees after 13
hours (Figure 8.10-22). The slow warmup and flow rate increase produces liquid
sweepout at some of the dips. However the liquid fills subsequent dips and does not exit
the pipeline, hence there is still a net increase in the pipeline liquid content during the
first phase of the start-up (Figure 8.10-23).
Figure 8.10-22: Temperature during first start -up phase
H-0806.35
8-89
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure
8.10-23: Pipeline liquid content during first start -up phase
In the second start-up phase the gas rate is increased to 215 MMSCFD with the gas
flowing in at 38C and 35 bara. The further increase in the flow rate results in a higher
pressure gradient and hence a decrease in the outlet pressure. The increase in the cold gas
inflow rate causes the warm front to accelerate through the pipeline (Figure 8.10-24)
causing liquid to be flashed off, and sweeps out the residual liquid from the system
(Figure 8.10-25). As a result the total liquid content of the system drops sharply removing
around 110 m3 (690 BBL) of liquid from the pipeline (Figure 8.10-26), however around
30 percent of this liquid is evaporated and the remainder flows to the slug catcher.
H-0806.35
8-90
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-24: Temperature variation during second start -up phase
Figure 8.10-25: Liquid holdup during second start-up phase
H-0806.35
8-91
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-26: Pipeline liquid content during second start -up phase
8.10.6 PLAC analysis of severe slugging in a catenary riser
A comparison has been made between PLAC and some experimental results of severe
slugging in a Catenary riser. The experimental data was taken by BHRA in 1990
(Reference 1) and involves holdup, pressure, and velocity measurements in a 2-inch
diameter, 108 ft high catenary riser model using air and water as the test fluids. A 200 ft
length of 2 downhill inclined line was used before the riser and an air buffer vessel of
0.126 m3 was used in the air supply line to model a larger pipeline length. The test rig is
illustrated in Figure 8.10-27.
PLAC simulations have been performed by XFE for a test condition just in the severe
slugging region corresponding to gas and liquid superficial velocities of 2.3 m/s and 0.33
m/s respectively. The measured pressure at various points in the riser are shown in
Figure 8.10-28 where the top traces are for the transducers in the inclined flowline and at
the base of the riser. The experimental severe slugging cycle time is 183 seconds.
The test rig was modeled in PLAC as a TEE component with 86 cells, in which a 31m
horizontal section of pipe was used to simulate the air buffer vessel. The liquid is
introduced into the side arm of the TEE, which is located at the end of the horizontal
section. The topography is shown in Figure 8.10-29. The PLAC simulations begin with
H-0806.35
8-92
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
an empty pipe and hence some time is required for the severe slugging cycle to be
established. Figure 8.10-30 shows the pressure in the inclined flowline, which is in good
agreement with the measured data of Figure 8.10-28.
Figure 8.10-27: Schematic of experimental riser facility
H-0806.35
8-93
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-28: Pressure traces during one severe slugging cycle
Figure 8.10-29: Experimental rig topography used in PLAC
H-0806.35
8-94
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-30: Pressure in inclined flowline predicted by PLAC.

Figures 8.10-31 to 8.10-33 illustrate the holdup and velocity fluctuations throughout the
riser. Analysis of the PLAC results enables the following comparison to be made:
Cycle time
Slug build- up time
Slug production time
Bubble penetration time
Gas blowdown time
Slug length
Maximum pressure at riser base
Slug tail exit velocity
Experimental
measurements
183 s
124 s
24 s
14 s
21 s
59 m
47.5 psig
3.5 m/s
PLAC
predictions
172 s
127 s
11 s
9s
25 s
57 m
48 psig
4.5 m/s
From the above comparison it is seen that in most cases the PLAC predictions are in good
agreement with the measured values apart from the slug production time. This time is
however rela tively short and is difficult to accurately determine from the plots. The
experimental conditions were not tabulated by BHRA and hence the estimation of the
H-0806.35
8-95
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
flowing velocities could also be subject to some error. However, the predictions indicate
that the flowing conditions in the riser are close to the boundary for true severe slugging
as the riser is only full of liquid for a short period of time before the gas pressure is
sufficient to eject the slug. Figure 8.10-34 shows the test case point on the experimental
flow pattern map and confirms that the PLAC predictions are qualitatively correct.
Figure 8.10-31: Holdup variation during severe slugging
H-0806.35
8-96
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-32: Vapor velocity variation
H-0806.35
8-97
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-33: Liquid velocity variation
Figure 8.10-34: Flow regime observations from catenary riser experiments
H-0806.35
8-98
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
8.10.7 Analysis of hilly terrain pipeline loop for Cusiana phase 1.

The Phase 1 Cusiana development contractor performed a study in October 1992 to
determine the configuration of the production flowlines that were required to transport
multiphase well production to the Central Processing Facilities. The flow rates were
expected to increase as more wells were drilled in the future, this was accommodated in
the design by extensive looping of the pipelines in order to increase the capacity. The
pipe sizes were mainly dictated by flowing velocity considerations to avoid erosion
limits, however in the study these were incorrectly calculated as half the required value,
hence the flowlines were significantly oversized. The Multiphase Flow Group in XFE
was commissioned to investigate the proposed multiphase gathering system and to
investigate the potential multiphase design issues.
The philosophy of looping was investigated by considering a 20- inch pipeline loop that
was proposed between the original well pad 504 and the Cusiana CPF. The topography
of this section is shown in Figure 8.10-35 and illustrates the large elevation changes as
the pipeline negotiates the hills, the Cusiana river, and the approach to the CPF which is
located on a mesa. Both pipes are assumed to have identical profiles. The analysis of the
hydraulic operation of the pipeline loop was conducted using MULTIFLO simulations to
determine the possible flowing solutions based on a steady state analysis.

Figure 8.10-35: Topography of 20-inch looped pipeline
H-0806.35
8-99
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The table below shows the calculated gas-oil ratios for a 70 mbd oil flow rate with a
producing gas-oil ratio of 2000 scf/stbo. At the inlet conditions to the loop of 600 psia
and 175F the calculated solution gas-oil ratio is 180.81 scf/stbo. a is the fraction of the
inlet liquid flow rate in line A and is the fraction of the inlet free gas flow rate in line A.
Table 8-3: Effective GORs for use in two -phase simulations
Liquid fraction ?
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.0
181
181
181
181
181
181
181
0.1
2000
1090
636
484
408
383
363
0.2
3819
2000
1090
787
636
585
545
0.4
7458
3819
2000
1394
1090
989
908
0.6
11096
5638
2910
2000
1545
1394
1272
0.8
14734
7478
3819
2606
2000
1798
1636
0.9
16554
8367
4274
2910
2227
2000
1818
1.0
18373
9277
4729
3212
2455
2202
2000
Qoa
14
28
42
56
63
70
The MULTIFLO predicted pressure drops for each gas and liquid flow rate combination
are shown in the table below where the pressure drops are calculated for a fixed value of
at each value of a and hence GOR and oil flow rate Qoa.
Table 8-4: Overall two -phase pressure drops for line A
0.1
0.2
Liquid fraction
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.0
0.1
0.2
163
118
91
162
130
101
163
123
95
164
109
96
167
122
112
169
129
120
171
135
128
0.4
0.6
68
65
83
78
75
80
94
104
114
127
124
138
134
149
0.8
0.9
1.0
68
71
75
82
86
91
92
99
108
118
127
137
144
154
165
157
168
179
170
181
193
H-0806.35
8-100
0.9
1.0
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The data can be plotted as pressure drop vs a for each value of . If the line sizes or
topographies of the loop are different the calculations must also be repeated for line B.
However, if both lines are the same the results will be symmetrical i.e. a = 0.9 and = 0.9
for line A corresponds to a = 0.1 and = 0.1 for line B. The result for the case considered
is shown in Figures 8.10-36 and 8.10-37, where the locus of possible solutions is shown
in Figure 8.10-37.
Figure 8.10-36: Solution for line A
H-0806.35
8-101
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-37: Combined solutions

The figures illustrate that at 70 mbd no zero flow or manometer effect can exist since 0
percent liquid fraction is not a solution. The nature of the tee junction at the loop is such
that the liquid may preferentially take the run and this could give a 100 percent free gas
split into the other leg with 22 percent of the liquid flowing in the run. Note that between
40 percent and 60 percent liquid split to the run several solutions are possible with
different overall pressure drops. The main problem is the liquid holdup variations in each
leg if the flow switches. The holdup at 0 percent gas split to the run is 9377 BBL and the
flow rate is 15.4 mbd. In the side leg the corresponding holdup is 2264 BBL giving a
7113 BBL slug if the flow in the loop switches. The possibility of unstable operation was
part of the reason for recommending that the Cusiana multiphase flowlines should not be
looped.
H-0806.35
8-102
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
For the example above the sum of the uphill elevations is 504 ft, which gives rise to a
hydrostatic head of 163 psi. Figure 8.10-38 indicates that manometer effects are possible
when the inlet flow rate is reduced below around 60 mbd since the flowing pressure drop
could be balanced by a static column of liquid in the other leg.
Figure 8.10-38: Pressure drop characteristic for total flow in the one leg
8.10.8 Using two-phase pressure surge analysis to determine pig-slug loads

The effect of a pig-slug impacting on a closing pressure control valve was studied as part
of the design of the Rough field slug catcher at Easington. An isometric of the approach
pipework to the slug catcher is shown in Figure 8.10-39 where it is seen that the 340
sealine terminates in a 17m riser at A then follows horizontally, and finally rises at 45
degrees between D and E before entering the sphere receiver. The PCV is located just
upstream of the slug catcher. The PCV is designed to control the downstream pressure
independently of upstream conditions. Flow control is provided downstream of the gas
offtake J.
H-0806.35
8-103
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
It was required to estimate the loads produced by the pig-slug impacting on the PCV if it
closed during pig reception, and hence to determine the need to set the valve fully open
during pigging. The slug catcher is located 10m above ground level and it was required to
assess the structural loads that may be generated by the slug dynamics.
A simple dynamic model of the slug reception process indicated that the slug velocity
increases from a initial value of 7m/s to a final velocity of 21m/s as the tail passes the
PCV and the slug is discharged into the slug catcher. This acceleration is due partly to the
hydrostatic head loss and the reducing frictional length of the slug as it is produced.
Initial simulations using FLOWMASTER were based on the surge pressures generated
by closing the PCV during slug reception. A linear valve closure rate was assumed and
the effect of the valve closure time investigated. The results of a single phase surge
analysis are shown in Figure 8.10-40 indicating that surge pressure should not exceed 95
bar, which is well below the maximum allowed pressure of 150 bar. The valve closure
times of around 30s are too long to generate significant unequilibriated loads in the short
piping runs. What was of more concern was the impact of the slug front on a partially
open control valve, which is more difficult to assess.
Figure 8.10-39: Isometric view of approach pipework to the slug catcher
H-0806.35
8-104
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-40: Results of single phase liquid surge analysis
One of the major unknowns is the time over which the slug front impact occurs. The
worst case is to assume a vertical slug front and hence an instantaneous impact. The
results of using the primer component in FLOWMASTER to simulate this is shown in
Figure 8.10-41 for locations F, G, and H. The slug was in this case assumed to be
travelling at 6 m/s through a 20 percent open control valve. An all liquid slug was
assumed.
H-0806.35
8-105
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-41: Pressure histories for worst-case impact assumptions

In practice the slug may typically have a front sloping at 30, which will have the effect
of increasing the impact time. This was also investigated using FLOWMASTER,
showing that increasing the impact time from 0 to 50 ms has the effect of reducing the
peak surge pressure from 140 tons to 20 tons (see Figure 8.10-42). At an arrival speed of
6 m/s this is equivalent to a slug front length of one-third of a pipe diameter, and hence is
quite feasible. Although it would seem likely that long impact times, and hence small
loads, should prevail, the dynamic nature of the slug front makes it difficult to accurately
predict the impact time and the possibility of an instantaneous impact should be
considered.
H-0806.35
8-106
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-42: Influence of impact time on load predictions
The reaction loads due to the unhindered slug passage are more easily calculated. These
are due to the change in the momentum between the liquid slug and the gas and are
related to the slug front and tail velocities. Ignoring elevation effects the slug front
velocity is constant and hence, the coming on load is fixed. However, the slug tail
accelerates during slug reception, and hence the largest loads are the coming off loads
produced by the passage of the slug tail. These loads are shown in Figure 8.10-43 and
indicates that the maximum load is of the same order as that produced by a 50ms impact
surge.
H-0806.35
8-107
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 8.10-43: Influence of slug passage on dynamic loads

8.11
Information Sources
Bevan, D.J. "Correlation more accurately predicts two-phase pipeline holdup" Oil & Gas
Journal, p81 - 88, 20th Apr. 1992.
Cunliffe, R.S. "Condensate flow in wetgas lines can be predicted" Oil & gas Journal,
p100 - 108, 30th Oct. 1978.
Eaton, B.A. Andrews, D.E., Knowles, C.R., Silberberg, I.H. & Brown, K.E. "The
Prediction of Flow Patterns, Liquid Holdup, and Pressure Losses Occurring during
Continuous Two-phase Flow in Horizontal Pipelines" Journal of Petroleum. Tech., p815
- 828, June 1967.
Gregory, G.A. "Multiphase Flow in Pipes - Prediction of Delivered Liquid Flow Rate for
Changes in Total Flow Rate in a Two Phase Pipeline" Notes for Course Presented by
Neotechnology Consultants Ltd., Calgary, Alberta, Canada, 1991.
Gregory, G.A and Fogarasi, M Estimation of pressure drop in two-phase oil- gas looped
pipeline systems, Pipeline Technology, March-April 1982, pp75-81.
H-0806.35
8-108
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
G Henday, V Tin, and Z El-Oun Severe Slugging in Flexible Risers-Interim Report.

MPE 048, Jan 1990, Prepared by the British Hydromechanics Research Association.
Williams, A.R. "Derivation of a non-pigging operating envelope for the Miskar Export
Pipeline for mixtures of R1/Abiod and El Garia gases" BG R&T Internal Report GRC R
1470, July 1996a.
Williams, A.R. "Transient and steady-state simulations of the proposed
Hasdrubal-Miskar multiphase flowline" BG R&T Internal Report GRC R 1521, Sept.
1996b.
H-0806.35
8-109
1-Dec-00
9.
HYDRATES
9.1
Introduction
DEEPSTAR
Natural gas hydrates are crystals formed by water with natural gases and associated
liquids, in a ratio of 85 mole % water to 15% hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbons are
encaged in ice- like solids, which do not flow, but rapidly grow and agglomerate to
sizes, which can block flow lines. Hydrates can form anywhere and anytime that
hydrocarbons and water are present at the right temperature and pressure, such as in
wells, flow lines, or valves and meter discharges. Appendix A gives hydrate crystal
details at the molecular level, along with similarities and differences from ice.
The low temperatures and high pressures of the deepwater environment cause hydrate
formation, as a function of gas and water composition. In a pipeline, hydrate masses
usually form at the hydrocarbon-water interface, and accumulate as flow pushes them
downstream. The resulting porous hydrate plugs have the unusual ability to transmit
some degree of gas pressure, while they act as a flow hindrance. Both gas and liquid
can frequently be transmitted through the plug; however, lower viscosity and surface
tension favors the flow of gas. Depressurization of pipelines is the principal offshore
tool for hydrate plug removal; depressurization sometimes prevents normal production
for weeks.
This handbook was written to provide the offshore facilities/design engineer with
practical answers to the following four questions:
What are the safety problems associated with hydrates? (Section 9.2)
What are the best methods to prevent hydrates? (Section 9.3)
How are hydrate plugs best removed? (Section 9.4)
What are the economics for prevention and remediation? (Section 9.5)
Field case studies, pictures, diagrams, and example calculations are the basis for this
handbook. Less pressing questions regarding hydrate structures, plug formation
mechanism, etc. are considered as background material in Appendix A. A computer
program disk and Users Guide (Appendix B) are provided to enable prediction of
hydrate conditions. Appendix C is a compilation of Case Studies not in the handbook
body. A Russian hydrate perspective is presented in Makogons (1981, 1997) books.
An in-depth, theoretical hydrate treatment is given by Sloan (1998).
H-0806.35
9-1
1-Dec-00
9.2
DEEPSTAR
Safety First: A Gallon of Prevention is Worth a Mile of Cure

There are many examples of line rupture, sometimes accompanied by loss of life,
attributed to the formation of hydrate plugs. Hydrate safety problems are caused by
three characteristics:
1.
Hydrate densities are like that of ice; a dislodged hydrate plug can be a projectile
with high velocities. In the 1997 DeepStar Wyoming field tests, plugs ranged
from 25-200 ft with velocities between 60-270 ft/s. Such velocities and masses
provide enough momentum to cause two types of failure at a pipeline restriction
(orifice), obstruction (flange or valve), or sharp change in direction (bend, elbow,
or tee) as shown in Figure 9.2.1-1. First, hydrate impact can fracture pipe, and
second, extreme compression of gas can cause pipe rupture downstream of the
hydrate path.
2.
Hydrates can form either single or multiple plugs, with no method to predict which
will occur. High differential pressures can be trapped between plugs, even when
the discharge ends of plugs are depressurized.
3.
Hydrates contain as much as 180 volumes (STP) of gas per volume of hydrate.
When hydrate plugs are dissociated by heating, any confinement causes rapid gas
pressure increases. However, hydrate plug heating is not an offshore option due to
the difficulty of locating the plug and economics of heating a submerged pipeline.
Field engineers discuss the hail-on-a-tin-roof sounds when small hydrate particles
hit a pipe wall. Such small, mobile particles can accumulate to large masses
occupying a considerable volume, often filling the pipeline to tens or hundreds of feet
in length. Attempts to blow the plug out of the line by increasing upstream pressure
(see Rule-of-Thumb 18) will result in additional hydrate formation and perhaps
pipeline rupture.
When a plug is depressurized using a high differential pressure, the dislodged plug can
be a dangerous projectile which can cause pipeline damage, as the below three case
studies (from Mobils Kent and Coolen, 1992) indicate.
9.2.1
Case Study 1. 1991 Chevron Incident.

A foreman and an operator were attempting to clear a hydrate plug in a sour gas
flowline. They had bled down the pressure in the distant end from the wellhead. They
were standing near the line when the line failed, probably from the impact of a moving
hydrate mass. A large piece of pipe struck the foreman and the operator summoned
help. An air ambulance was deployed; however the foreman was declared dead on
H-0806.35
9-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
arrival at the hospital. No pre-existing pipe defects were found.

illustrates the safety hazards associated with moving hydrate plugs.
9.2.2
Figure 9.2.1-1
Case Study 2. 1991 Gulf Incident

On January 10, 1991 the Rimbey gas plant was in the start-up mode. A hydrate or ice
plug formed in the overhead line from the amine contactor. The line had been
depressured to the flare system, downstream of the plug. The ambient temperature,
which had been -30 oC, rose rapidly due to warming winds around midnight. At 2:00
a.m. the overhead line came apart, killing the chief operator. In addition, the plant
suffered approximately $6 million damage.
Contributing to this failure were pre-existing cracks in the pipeline. These cracks did
not impair the piping pressure-containing ability under steady-state conditions, but
they did reduce the piping strength under the transient (impact) conditions when the
plug broke free.
9.2.3
Case Study 3. 1991 Mobil Incident

At 11:30 a.m. on January 2, 1991 two operators attempted to remove a blockage in a
sour gas flowline, which had been plugged about three days. The downstream side of
the plug had been completely depressured. The upstream portion of the line,
originally at 1,100 psig, was completely depressured to a truck within a 5- minute
period. At 12:15 p.m. the flowline failed and gas began flowing from somewhere
around the casing. The leak was isolated at 3:18 p.m. by an employee of a wellcontrol/firefighting company.
The failure was caused by the eruption of a hydrate plug at a Schedule 40, 3- inch,
screwed pipe nipple. Note that, because both ends of the hydrate plug were
depressured, there may have been two end plugs, with intermediate plugs or pressure
as shown in Figure 9.2.3-1.
H-0806.35
9-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.2.1-1: SAFETY HAZARDS OF MOVING HYDRATE PLUGS
H-0806.35
9-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 9.2.3-1: Safety Hazards of High Pressures Trapped by Hydrates
H-0806.35
9-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
In the above three case studies several common equipment circumstances existed. The
systems:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Were out-of-service immediately prior to the incident.

Did not have hydrate or freeze protection.
Were pressurized while out-of-service.
Were being restarted.
Had high differential pressures across plugs for short periods.
The Chevron Canada Resources Hydrate Handling Guidelines (1992) suggest that the
danger of line failure due to hydrate plug(s) is more prevalent when:
long lengths of pressurized gas are trapped upstream,
low downstream pressures provide less cus hion between a plug and restriction, and
restrictions/bends exist downstream of the plug.
9.2.4
Case Study 4. 1980s Statoil Incident

In the mid-1980s a hydrate plug occurred topside on a platform in a Statoil oil Field in
the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. The line section was valved-off and heat was
applied to remove the plug. After some time of heating, the work crew went to lunch,
intending to complete the task on their return. Upon their return the crew found that
the section of line had exploded dur ing their absence.
Heat had apparently been applied to the mid-point of hydrate plug and the plug-end
portions served to contain very high pressures until the line ruptured. Figure 9.2.3-1
(b) is a schematic of such a situation. In Section 9.3 it is shown that pressure increases
exponentially with temperature increases when hydrates are dissociated.
9.2.5
Case Study 5. 1970s Elf Incident

In the 1970s a plug occurred on a floating platform riser in the North Sea. Blocking
valves were closed and the pipeline was disconnected downstream of the plug. The
discharge end of the pipeline was aimed overboard, with the intent of using high
upstream pressure to extrude the plug from the line. When the plug was expelled into
the ocean, the force was so great that the platform was said to rise 20 cm in the ocean.
H-0806.35
9-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Hydrate Guidelines (1994) suggest

three safety concerns in dealing with hydrate blockages:
Always assume multiple hydrate plugs; there may be pressure between the plugs.
Attempting to move ice (hydrate) plugs can rupture pipes and vessels.
While heating a plug is not normally an option for a subsea hydrate, any heating
should always be done from the end of a plug, rather than heating the plug middle.
The last recommendation could be expanded in consideration of a subsea line:
Heating a subsea plug is not recommended due to the inability to determine the end of
the plug as well as provide for gas expansion on plug heating, and
Depressuring a plug gradually from both ends is recommended.
The above case studies warn that hydrates can be hazardous to health and to
equipment. Yet hydrate plugs can be safely dissociated through the procedure
indicated in the Section 9.4 of this handbook.
The preferred procedure, from both safety and economic considerations, is to prevent
the formation of hydrate plugs, through design and operating practices. While the
usage of many gallons of inhibitors may be costly on a continuous basis, such
expenses are easily overshadowed when plugs form and production is stopped. As the
case studies in this handbook show, it is not uncommon for several hundred yards of
hydrate plugs to form, preventing offshore production for a matter of weeks or
months, during remediation.
H-0806.35
9-7
1-Dec-00
9.3
DEEPSTAR
Prevention by Design: How to Ensure Hydrates Wont Form

The purpose of the prevention section is (1) to indicate common offshore sites of
hydrate formation, (2) to indicate design methods to provide hydrate protection, and
(3) to provide designs to make remediation easier if a hydrate plug occurs.
Three conditions are required for hydrate formation in offshore processes:
1.
Free water and natural gas are needed. Gas molecules ranging in size from
methane to butane are typical hydrate components, including CO2 , N2 , and H2 S.
The water in hydrates can come from free water produced from the reservoir, or
from water condensed by cooling the gas phase. Usually the pipeline residence
time is insufficient for hydrates to form either from water vaporized into the gas,
or from gas dissolved in the liquid water.
2.
Low temperatures are normally witnessed in hydrate formation; yet, while

hydrates are 85 mole % water, the system temperature need not be below 32 o F for
hydrates to occur. Below about 3000 feet of water depth, the ocean bottom
(mudline) temperature is remarkably uniform at 38-40 o F and pipelined gas readily
cools to this temperature within a few miles of the wellhead. Hydrates can easily
form at 38-40 o F as well as the higher temperatures of shallower water, at high
pressure.
3.
High pressures commonly cause hydrate formation. At 38 o F, common natural

gases form hydrates at pressures as low as 100 psig; at 1500 psig, common gases
form hydrates at 66 o F. Since pipelines typically operate at higher pressures,
hydrate prevention should be a primary consideration.
The above three hydrate requirements lead to four classical thermodynamic prevention
methods:
H-0806.35
1.
Water removal provides the best protection. Free water is removed through
separation, and water dissolved in the gas is removed by drying with tri-ethylene
glycol to obtain water contents less than 7 lb m/MMscf. Water removal processing
is difficult and costly between the wellhead and the platform so other prevention
schemes must be used.
2.
Maintaining high temperatures keeps the system in the hydrate-free region. High
reservoir fluid temperature may be retained through insulation and pipe bundling,
or additional heat may be input via hot fluids or electrical heating, although this is
not economical in many cases.
3.
The system may be decreased below hydrate formation pressure. This leads to the
concept of designing system pressure drops at high temperature points (e.g.
bottomhole chokes). However, the resulting lower density will decrease pipeline
efficiency.
9-8
1-Dec-00
4.
DEEPSTAR
Most frequently hydrate prevention means injecting an inhibitor such as methanol

(MeOH) or mono-ethylene glycol (MEG), which decreases the hydrate formation
temperature below the operating temperature.
Two kinetic means of hydrate inhibition have been added to the thermodynamic
inhibitor list and are being brought into common practice:
1.
Kinetic inhibitors are low molecular weight polymers and small molecules
dissolved in a carrier solvent and injected into the water phase in pipelines. These
inhibitors work by bonding to the hydrate surface and preventing crystal
nucleation and growth for a period longer than the free water residence time in a
pipeline. Water is then removed at a platform or onshore.
2.
Anti-agglomerants are surfactants, which cause the water phase to be suspended as

small droplets in the oil or condensate. When the suspended water droplets
convert to hydrates, the flow characteristics are maintained without blockage.
Alternatively the surfactant may transport micro-crystals of hydrate into the
condensed phase. The emulsion is broken and water is removed onshore or at a
platform.
The above methods are used individually or jointly for prevention. The prevention
section of this handbook provides a method to use the six above methods to prevent
hydrates in the design of an offshore system.
Hydrates form in offshore systems in two fundamental ways: (a) slow cooling of a
fluid as in a pipeline or (b) rapid cooling caused by depressurization across valves as
on a platform.
Section 9.3.1 provides typical offshore system examples of hydrate formation in a
well, a flowline, and a platform. Offshore design for hydrate thermodynamic
inhibition with slow cooling of a pipeline is the topic of Sections 9.3.2, 9.3.3, 9.3.4,
and 9.3.5. Design practices are provided in Section 9.3.6 fo r hydrate prevention with
rapid cooling across a restriction like a valve. Section 9.3.7 gives procedures for
prevention of hydrates through inhibition and heat management. Section 9.3.8
provides general design guidelines for hydrate prevention in an offshore system.
9.3.1
Where Do Hydrates Form in Offshore Systems?

Figure 9.3.1-1 shows a simplified offshore process between the well inlet and the
platform export discharge where virtually all hydrate problems occur. In the figure
hydrate blockages are shown in susceptible portions of the system: (a) the well, (b) the
pipeline, or (c) the platform, and this section provides a brief description of each in
Examples 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Prior to the well, high reservoir temperatures
H-0806.35
9-9
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
prevent hydrate formation, and after the platform export lines have dry gas and
oil/condensate with insufficient water to form hydrates.
In Figure 9.3.1-1, two unusual aspects of the system should be noted: (1) the water
depth is shown as 6,000 feet but it may range to 10,000 feet, and (2) the distance
between the well and the platform may range to 60 miles. Such depths and distances
provide cooling for the pipeline fluids to low temperatures, which are well within the
hydrate stability region.
The system temperature and pressure at the point of hydrate formation must be within
the hydrate stability region, as determined by the methods of Sections 9.3.2 through
9.3.4. The system temperature and pressure enters into the hydrate formation region,
either through a normal cooling process (Example 2 and Figures 9.3.1-4 and 9.3.1-5)
or through a Joule-Thomson process (Section 9.3.6).
A typical plot of the water temperature in the Gulf of Mexico is shown in Figure
9.3.1-2 as a function of water depth. The plot shows a high temperature of 70 o F (or
more) occurs for the first 250 feet of depth. However, when the depth exceeds 3,000
feet the bottom water temperature is very uniform at about 40 o F, no matter how high
the temperature is at the air-water surface. This remarkably uniform water
temperature at depths greater than 3,000 feet occurs in almost all of the earths oceans,
(caused by the water density inversion) except in a few cases with cold subsea
currents.
The ocean acts as a heat sink for any gas or oil produced so that, without insulation or
other heat control methods, any flowline fluid cools to within a few degrees of 40 o F,
no further than a few miles of the wellhead. The rate of cooling with length is a
function of the initial reservoir temperature, the flow rate, the pipeline diameter, and
other fluid flow and heat transfer factors. However, as shown in Section 9.3.2, the
ocean bottom temperature of 40 o F is low enough to cause hydrates to form at any
typical pipeline pressure.
H-0806.35
9-10
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.1-1: OFFSHORE WELL, TRANSPORT PIPELINE, AND PLATFORM
H-0806.35
9-11
1-Dec-00
9.3.1.1
DEEPSTAR
Example 1. Hydrate Formation in a Well.

Figure 9.3.1-3 shows a typical subsea well in which fluids are produced through the
wing valve and choke to the pipeline. A pressure indication just beyond the choke is
essential to determination of hydrate formation in the connecting flowline. About
300-500 ft below the mudline is the Downhole Safety Valve, used as the initial
emergency barrier between the reservoir and the production system. At the top of the
well are Swab Valves, which provide an entry way for lubricating hydrate dissociation
tools (inhibitor injection, heaters, coiled tubing, etc.) into the well to reach any hydrate
blockage.
Hydrate formation in wells is an abnormal occurrence, arising during drilling of the
well or shut-in/start- up of the well. Normal well- testing procedures will not promote
hydrate formation. Hydrates form only in unusual circumstances, such as pressurizing
the well with water or with an aqueous acid solution. Addressing these blockages
should be done using the techniques in Section 9.4. Case Studies 11 (Section 9.4.2.2)
and 16 (Section 9.4.3.3) provide two experiences with hydrate formation in a well.
Davalath and Barker (1993) provide a comprehensive set of conditions for dealing
with hydrates in deepwater production and testing, including two case studies of
problems (summarized in Appendix C Case Studies C.23 and C.24) and four case
studies of successful hydrate management. Typically methanol injection capability is
provided in the well at two places: (1) at the subsea tree, and (2) downhole several
thousand feet below the seafloor. The injection location and amount of methanol
injection are specified using the procedure indicated in 9.3.7 on methanol injection.
In offshore well drilling, frequently a water-based drilling fluid is used that can form
hydrates and plug blow-out preventors, kill lines, etc. when a gas bubble (or kick)
comes into the drilling apparatus. This represents a potentially dangerous situation for
well control. Hydrate formation on drilling is an area of active research with several
joint industrial projects underway. While a brief overview is given here, the reader is
referred to Sloan (1998, Section 8.3.2) for a detailed discussion.
H-0806.35
9-12
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.1-2: WATER TEMPERATURE VS DEPTH (GULF OF MEXICO)
H-0806.35
9-13
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.1-3: TYPICAL SUBSEA WELL
H-0806.35
9-14
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Davalath and Barker (1993) provide a comprehensive set of conditions for dealing
with hydrates in deepwater production and testing, including two case studies of
problems (summarized in Appendix C Case Studies C.23 and C.24) and four case
studies of successful hydrate management. Typically methanol injection capability is
provided in the well at two places: (1) at the subsea tree, and (2) downhole several
thousand feet below the seafloor. The injection location and amount of methanol
injection are specified using the procedure indicated in Section 9.3.7.1 on methanol
injection.
In offshore well drilling, frequently a water-based drilling fluid is used that can form
hydrates and plug blow-out preventors, kill lines, etc. when a gas bubble (or kick)
comes into the drilling apparatus. This represents a potentially dangerous situation for
well control. Hydrate formation on drilling is an area of active research with several
joint industrial projects underway. While a brief overview is given here, the reader is
referred to Sloan (1998, Section 8.3.2) for a detailed discussion.
Barker indicated the following rules-of-thumb used by Exxon in considering hydrate
formation with drilling fluids.
Drilling hydrate problems frequently occur, but have only been recognized in recent
years.
When hydrates form solids, they remove water from the mud, leaving a solid barite
plug.
One should not design a well to operate outside the hydrate region only if flow
conditions are maintained. If the well will be in the hydrate formation region at static
conditions, flow will stop at some period and the well operation will be jeopardized.
Several hours may be required for hydrate formation and blockage to occur.
As of October 1988 Exxon used salt at the saturation limit range of 150 to 170 g/l to
prevent hydrate formation.
As general guidelines concerning hydrate formation at various water depths, the
summary given below in Table 3.1-1 by Barker may be used.
H-0806.35
9-15
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
TABLE 9.3.1-1: GUIDELINES FOR DEEPWATER HYDRATE FORMATION IN

DRILLING MUDS IN WATER-BASED MUDS
Risk of Hydrate Formation Problems
Water Depth
(ft.)
<1000
A hydrate problem will probably not occur
1500
Without inhibition a hydrate problem may occur
2000
Without inhibition a hydrate problem will occur
3000
Insufficient experience; salt alone will not suffice
By 1988 Shell had drilled 16 wells in the Gulf of Mexico at water depths between
2,000 and 7,500 feet, using muds with 20 wt% sodium chloride (NaCl) and partially
hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (PHPA). In each well Shell experienced an average of
more than one gas kick per well, which signaled the possibility of hydrate formation.
Only one instance in 2900 ft of water involved the possibility of hyd rate formation,
when Shell experienced difficulty disconnecting the drill stack.
Barker and Gomez (1989) documented two occurrences (see Case Studies C.21 and
C.22 of Appendix C) of hydrate formation in relatively shallow waters off California
and the Gulf of Mexico, where losses in drill times were 70 days and 50 days,
respectively. Recently, the number of hydrate problems have increased dramatically
as drilling has moved to deeper water. In several cases where safety was an issue
(plugged blow out preve ntors, stack connectors, etc.) the well was abandoned. Much
remains to be done in this area.
Downstream of the well and choke, the fluid flows through a pipeline of considerable
length before reaching the platform. Example 2 represents flow conditions in the
pipeline.
9.3.1.2
Example 2: Hydrate formation in a Flowline.

Texacos Notz, (1994) provided a hydrate pipeline case in Figure 9.3.1-4 for a Gulf of
Mexico gas. To the right of the diagram hydrates will not form and the system will
exist in the fluid (hydrocarbon and water) region. However, hydrates will form in the
shaded region to the left of the diagram, and hydrate prevention measures should be
taken.
Pipeline pressure and temperature conditions were predicted using a pipe prediction
program such as OLGA or PIPEPHASE and those conditions are shown
superimposed on the hydrate conditions in Figure 9.3.1-4. At low pipeline distances
H-0806.35
9-16
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
(e.g. 7 miles) the flowing stream retains a high temperature from the hot reservoir gas
at the pipeline entrance. The ocean cools the system, and at about 9 miles a unit mass
of flowing gas and associated water enters the hydrate region (shaded region to the left
of the line marked 0% MeOH), remaining in the uninhibited hydrate area until mile
45. Such a distance may represent several days of residence time for the water phase,
so that hydrates would undoubtedly form, were not inhibition steps taken.
In Figure 9.3.1-4, by mile 25 the temperature of the pipeline system is within a few
degrees of the ocean floor temperature, so that approximately 23 wt% methanol is
required in the free water phase to prevent hydrate formation and subsequent pipeline
blockage. Methanol injection facilities are not available at the needed point along the
pipeline. Instead methanol is injected into the pipeline at the subsea wellhead. In the
case of the pipeline shown in Figure 9.3.1-4 methanol is injected at the wellhead so
that in excess of 23 wt% methanol will be present in the free water phase over the
entire pipeline length.
As vaporized methanol flows along the pipeline in Figure 9.3.1-4, it dissolves into any
produced brine or water condensed from the gas. Hydrate inhibition occurs in the free
water, usually at accumulations with some change in geometry (e.g., a bend or
pipeline dip along an ocean floor depression) or some nucleation site (e.g., sand, weld
slag, etc.).
Hydrate inhibition occurs in the aqueous liquid, rather than in the vapor or condensate.
While most of the methanol dissolves in the water phase, a significant amount of
methanol either remains with the vapor or dissolves into any liquid hydrocarbon phase
present as calculated using the methods shown later in this section.
In Figure 9.3.1-4, Notz showed that the gas temperature increases from mile 30 to mile
45 with warmer (shallower) water conditions. From mile 45 to mile 50 however, a
second cooling trend is observed due to a Joule-Thomson gas expansion effect.
Methanol exiting the pipeline in the vapor, aqueous, and condensate phases is usually
not recovered, due to the expense of regeneration.
Todd (1997) provided simulations with a different behavior from the pipeline in
Figure 9.3.1-4. In Todds simulations, typical gas pipeline pressure drops are small
relative to the overall pressure, resulting in an almost constant pressure cooling,
providing a straight, horizontal line between the pipeline end points on a plot like
Figure 9.3.1-5. Pipeline pressure drops are functions of several variables, and
individual systems should be simulated for best results.
H-0806.35
9-17
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.1-4: OFFSHORE PIPELINE PLOTTED ON HYDRATE FORMATION CURVES (FROM NOTZ 1994)
H-0806.35
9-18
1-Dec-00
9.3.1.3
DEEPSTAR
Example 3: Typical Offshore Platform Process.

Manning and Thompson (1991, pp. 80-82, 344-355) detail a typical offshore platform
process for a sweet crude oil with dissolved gas delivered to the platform at 1000 psig
and 120 o F. The process is shown in Figure 9.3.1-6 with process conditions given in
Table 9.3.1-2 and selected stream compositions provided in Table 9.3.1-3.
The process was sized for a product of 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oil to the
pipeline at the LACT (lease automatic custody transfer) unit, with 49 MMscf/d gas
produced at 1000 psig and an overall gas to oil ratio (GOR) of 491 scf/Bsto. The
heavy ends of the crude are divided into five boiling-point cuts while mole fractions of
individual gas components are given.
There are three objectives of the platform process:
3.
to separate the gas, water, and oil, providing an oil phase which has a very low
vapor pressure, and providing water discharge to the ocean.
4.
to dehydrate the gas to a water content below 7 lb m/MMscf before injection into
the pipeline to shore, and
5.
to compress the gas for transport to land.
Note that water separation and gas dehydration are vital for hydrate prevention, so that
even if the system cools into the hydrate pressure-temperature region shown in Figure
9.3.1-5, hydrate formation is prevented due to insufficient water. The export pipeline
gas water content is below its water dew point (9 lb m/MMscf) at the lowest
temperature (39 o F) so free water will not condense from the gas phase.
The oil is stabilized by flow through a series of four separators, operating at 1000 psig,
300 psig, 55 psig, and 2 psig before the export oil pipeline, so an oil pipeline pressure
greater than 15 psia will prevent a gas phase. Hydrate formation is not a significant
problem in the oil export pipeline because relatively few hydrate formers (nitrogen,
methane, ethane, propane, butanes and CO2 ) are present and the water content is low.
The gas from each separator is compressed, cooled, and separated from liquid again
before re-combining the gas with the previous separators gas for injection into the
export gas line. The additional oil obtained after cooling the compressed gas amounts
to about 1.5% of the total oil production.
H-0806.35
9-19
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.1-5: TYPICAL TRANSPORT PIPELINE PLOTTED ON HYDRATE FORMATION

CURVES
H-0806.35
9-20
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.1-6:TYPICAL OFFSHORE PLATFORM SCHEMATIC (FROM MANNING AND THOMPSON 1991)
H-0806.35
9-21
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
TABLE 9.3.1-1: PLATFORM PROCESSING CONDITIONS
H-0806.35
9-22
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
TABLE 9.3.1-2: GAS AND LIQUID COMPOSITIONS ON PLATFORM
H-0806.35
9-23
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
In the process shown, 4310 bhp compressors represent the largest cost on the platform,
with capital cost on the order of $800-$1500 (1990 dollars) per installed horsepower.
These compressors are powered by fuel gas, which operates at a low pressure (about
200 psig), usually fed from the inlet gas passing through a control valve with a
substantial pressure reduction.
Pressure reductions after the fuel gas takeoff cause cooling, so that point is very
susceptible to hydrate formation, particularly in winter months. Also instrument gas
lines require similar pressure reductions from a header. Texacos Todd et al. (1996.
pp. 35-42) observe that when fuel and/or instrument gas lines are blocked due to
hydrates, the process frequently shuts down, resulting in pipeline cooling and
significant hydrate blockages in the production line at restart.
Hydrate limits to pressure reductions through restrictions such as valves and orifices is
shown in Section 9.3.6.
9.3.2
One Minute Estimate of Hydrate Formation Conditions (Accurate to 50%)

Assuming the pipeline pressure drop to be relatively small, the engineer may do a
rough estimation to determine whether the pipeline will operate in the hydrate region.
As a first approximation, the engineer should first calculate the pressure at which
hydrates form at the lowest deep ocean temperature (38-40 o F), so that if the pipeline
pressure is greater, then inhibition might be considered in the pipeline design and
operation. Such an approximation may indicate the need for more accurate
calculations to determine the amount of inhibition required.
Rules-of-Thumb. In this handbook, Rules-of-Thumb will frequently be stated in bold
type. These Rules-of-Thumb are based upon experience, and they are intended as
guides for the engineer for further action. For example, using a Rule-of-Thumb the
engineer might determine that a more accurate calculation was needed for inhibitor
injection amounts, or that further consideration of hydrates was unnecessary. Rulesof-Thumb are not intended to be Absolute Truths, and exceptions can always be
found. Where possible the accuracy of each Rule-of-Thumb is provided. The first
Rule-of-Thumb is given below for hydrate formation at ocean bottom temperatures.
Rule of Thumb 1: At 39 oF, hydrates will form in a natural gas system if free water
is available and the pressure is greater than 166 psig.
H-0806.35
9-24
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Hydrate formation data were averaged for 20 natural gases (from Sloan, 1998, Chapter
6) with an average formation pressure of 181 psia. Of the 20 gases, the lowest
formation pressure was 100 psig for a gas with 7 mole % C3 H8 , while the highest
value was 300 psig for a gas with 1.8 mole % C3 H8 .
Rule-of-Thumb 1 indicates that most offshore pipeline pressures greatly exceed the
hydrate formation condition, indicating:
gas drying and/or inhibition is needed for ocean pipelines with temperatures
approaching 39 o F,
a more accurate estimation procedure should normally be considered, and
hydrate formation pressures are dependent upon the gas composition, and are
particularly sensitive to the amount of propane present.
It should be reiterated here that hydrates can form at temperatures in excess of 39 o F
when the pressure is elevated, as in the case of warmer temperatures in shallower
water. More accurate estimations of hydrate formation conditions over a broad
temperature range are made by the method in the following section.
9.3.3
A Ten-Minute Estimation of Hydrate Formation/Inhibition (Accurate to 25%).

As a second approximation of hydrate formation the design/facilities engineer should
perform two calculations:
1.
A pipeline pressure-temperature flow simulation should be done to determine the

conditions between the wellhead and the platform separators, (or between the
platform and the onshore separators), and
2.
Hydrate formation conditions such as those shown in Figure 9.3.1-4 should be

calculated, determining pressures and temperatures of vapor and aqueous liquid
inhibited by various amounts (including 0 wt%) of methanol (MeOH) or monoethylene glycol (MEG).
The intersection of the above two lines determines the pressure and temperature at
which hydrates will form in a pipeline. As we have seen in Exa mple 2 of Section
9.3.1, it is very likely that a long offshore pipeline will have hydrate formation
conditions with free water present. The engineer then needs to specify the amount of
inhibitor needed to keep the entire pipeline in the fluid region, without hydrate
formation.
Step 1 in this calculation, the flow simulation of the pipeline, is beyond the scope of
this handbook and should be considered as a separate, pre-requisite problem, perhaps
H-0806.35
9-25
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
done by the engineering staff at the home office. As an alternative if a pipe flow
simulation is not readily available, the engineer may wish to assume that contents of a
long offshore pipeline will eventually come to the ocean bottom temperature at the
pipeline pressure.
Step 2, enabling estimations of hydrate formation pressures and temperatures, is one
of the principal goals of this handbook, as discussed in this and in the following
section. The methods below (Sections 9.3.3 and 9.3.4) may then be used directly to
determine the amount of MeOH (methanol) or MEG (monoethylene glycol) needed to
prevent hydrate formation at those conditions.
9.3.3.1
Hydrate Formation Conditions by the Gas Gravity Method.

The simplest method to determine the hydrate formation temperature and pressure is
via gas gravity, defined as the molecular weight of the gas divided by that of air. In
order to use this chart shown in Figure 9.3.3-1, the gas gravity is calculated and the
temperature of a point in the pipeline is specified. The pressure at which hydrates will
form is read directly from the chart at the gas gravity and temperature of the line.
To the left of every line hydrates will form from a gas of that gravity, while for
pressures and temperatures to the right of the line, the system will be hydrate- free.
The following example from the original work by Katz (1945) illustrates chart use.
9.3.3.2
Example 4: Calculating Hydrate Formation Conditions Using the Gas Gravity Chart
Find the pressure at which a gas composed of 92.67 mol% methane, 5.29% ethane,
1.38% propane, 0.182% i- butane, 0.338% n-butane, and 0.14% pentane form hydrates
with free water at a temperature of 50 o F.
H-0806.35
9-26
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.3-1: HYDRATE FORMATION CURVES FOR VARIOUS GAS GRAVITY (FROM KATZ 1959)
H-0806.35
9-27
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Solution:
The gas gravity is calculated as 0.603 by the procedure below:
COMPONENT
MOL
FRACTION
yI
MOL WT
MW
AVG MOL WT
IN MIX
yI @MW
Methane
0.9267
16.043
14.867
Ethane
0.0529
30.070
1.591
Propane
0.0138
44.097
0.609
i-Butane
0.00182
58.124
0.106
n-Butane
0.00338
58.124
0.196
Pentane
0.0014
72.151
0.101
1.0000
Gas Gravity =
17.470
Mol Wt of Gas 17.470

=
= 0.603
Mol Wt of Air 28.966
At 50 o F , the hydrate pressure is read as 450 psia

The user is cautioned that this method is only approximate for several reasons. Figure
9.3.3-1 was generated for gases containing only hydrocarbons, and so should be used
with caution for those gases with substantial amounts of CO2 , H2 S, or N2 . In addition,
the estimated inaccuracies (Sloan, 1985) for the hydrate equilibrium temperature (Teq)
and pressure (Peq) are maximized for 0.6 gravity gas as 7 o F or 500 psig. In the fifty
years since the generation of this chart, more hydrate data and prediction methods
have caused the gravity method to be used as a first estimate, whose principle asset is
ease of calculation. Section 9.3.4 provides one of the most accurate methods for
calculation of hydrate conditio ns, but it requires some additional time as well as a
computer.
9.3.3.3
Estimating the Hydrate Inhibitor Needed in the Free Water Phase

The above gas gravity chart may be combined with the Hammerschmidt equation to
estimate the hydrate depression temperature for several inhibitors in the aqueous
liquid:
H-0806.35
9-28
1-Dec-00
T =
DEEPSTAR
CW
M(100 - W)
(1)
where:
T = hydrate depression, (Teq - Toper) o F,
C =
constant for a particular inhibitor (2,335 for MeOH; 2,000 for MEG)
W = weight per cent of the inhibitor in the liquid, and

M =
molecular weight of MeOH (32) or MEG (62).
The Hammerschmidt equation was generated in 1934 and has been used to
determine the amount of inhibitor needed to prevent hydrate formation, as indicated in
Example 5. The equation was based upon more than 100 natural gas hydrate
measurements with inhibitor concentrations of 5 - 25 wt% in water. The accuracy of
the Hammerschmidt equation is surprisingly good; tested against 75 data points, the
average error in T was 5%.
For higher methanol concentrations ( up to 87 wt%) the temperature depression due to
methanol can be calculated by a modification of Equation (1) by Nielsen and Bucklin
(1983), where xMeOH is mole fraction methanol in aqueous phase
T = 129.6 ln(1 x MeOH )
9.3.3.4
(1a)
Example 5: Methanol Concentration Using the Hammerschmidt Equation.

Estimate the methanol concentration needed to provide hydrate inhibition at 450 psia
and an ocean floor temperature of 39 o F for a gas composed of 92.67 mol% methane,
5.29% ethane, 1.38% propane, 0.182% i-butane, 0.338% n-butane, and 0.14%
pentane.
Solution:
The gas is the same composition and pressure as that in Example 4, with the gas
gravity previously determined to be 0.603 and uninhibited hydrate formation
conditions of 50 o F and 450 psia. Inhibition is required since the pipeline operates at
39 o F and 450 psia, well within the hydrate formation region. The weight percent of
inhibitor needed in water phase is determined via the Hammerschmidt Equation (1),
with the values:
T = Temperature Depression (50 o F - 39 o F = 11 o F),
H-0806.35
9-29
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
M = Molecular Weight for Methanol (= 32)

C = Constant for Methanol (= 2335)
W = Weight Percent Inhibitor
Rearranging in Equation (1)
W =
100 M T
100 32 11
=
= 131
.
M T + C 32 11 + 2335
The methanol in the water phase is predicted as 13.1 wt % to provide hydrate

inhibition at 450 psia and 39 o F for this gas. The engineer may wish to provide an
operational safety factor by the addition of more methanol.
9.3.3.5
Amount of Inhibitor Injected Into Pipeline

While the Hammerschmidt equation enables estimation of the wt% MeOH (or MEG)
needed in the free water phase, three other quantities are necessary to estimate the
amount of inhibitor injected into the pipeline:
1.
the amount of the free water phase,
2.
the amount of inhibitor lost to the gas phase, and
3.
the amount of inhibitor lost to the condensate phase.
The amount of the free water phase is multiplied by the wt% inhibitor from the
Hammerschmidt equation, just as the inhibitor concentrations in the gas and
condensate are multiplied by the flows of the vapor and condensate. Because hydrate
inhibition occurs in the water phase, inhibitor concentrations in the gas and condensate
phases are usually counted as economic losses. Methanol recovery is done only rarely
on platforms and is typically too expensive at onshore locations.
Amount of Water Phase
The water phase has two sources: (a) produced water and (b) water condensed from
the hydrocarbon phases. The amount of produced water can only be determined by
data from the well, with an increasing amount of water production over the wells
lifetime.
Water condensed from the hydrocarbon phases may be calculated. The water content
of condensates is usually negligible, but water condensed from gases can be
H-0806.35
9-30
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
substantial. The amount of water condensed is the difference in the inlet and outlet
gas water contents, multiplied by the gas flow rate.
Rule-of-Thumb 2: For long pipelines approaching the ocean bottom temperature of
39 o F, the lowest water content of the outlet gas is given by the below table:
Pipe Pressure, psia
Water Content, lbm/MMscf
500
15.0
1000
9.0
1500
7.0
2000
5.5
An inlet gas water content analysis is used, if available. Then the water content of the
outlet gas (Rule-of-Thumb 2) may be subtracted from the inlet gas to determine the
water condensed per MMscf of gas. When an inlet gas water content is not available a
water content chart such as Figure 9.3.3-2 may be used to obtain the water content of
both the inlet and outlet gas from the pipeline.
In Figure 9.3.3-2 the temperature of the pipeline inlet or outlet is found on the x-axis
and water content is read on the y-axis at the pipeline pressure, marked on each line in
Figure 9.3.3-2. The engineer is cautioned not to use the water content chart at
temperatures significantly below 38o F. At lower temperatures the actual water content
deviates from the line due to hydrate formation. An illustration of condensed water
calculation using Figure 9.3.1-6 is given in Example 6 (Section 9.3.3.6).
H-0806.35
9-31
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.3-2: WATER FORMATION CURVE (FROM MC KETTA & WEHE, 1958)
H-0806.35
9-32
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Amount of Inhibitor Lost to the Gas Phase.

The Hammerschmidt equation only provides the amount of methanol needed in the
free water phase at the point of hydrate inhibition, while two other phases represent
potential losses of methanol. The amount of MeOH or MEG loss into the gas phase
should also be considered using the following Rules-of-Thumb.
Rule-of-Thumb 3: At 39 o F and pressures greater than 1000 psia, the maximum
amount of methanol lost to the vapor phase is 1 lbm MeOH/MMscf for every weight
% MeOH in the free water phase.
Rule-of-Thumb 4: At 39 o F and pressures greater than 1000 psia, the maximum
amount of MEG lost to the gas is 0.002 lbm/MMscf.
The methanol loss chart in Figure 9.3.3-3 shows that at typical offshore pipeline
conditions, the amount of methanol in the vapor may be 0.1 mole% of that in the water
phase. Rule-of-Thumb 3 is valid except for low water amounts, when the methanol
vapor loss can be substantially higher and the method of Section 9.3.4.4 should be
used. Figure 9.3.3-4 validates Rule-of-Thumb 4 for MEG. Note that the data for
Figure 9.3.3-1 and Figure 9.3.3-3 were obtained in 1985 for the mole fraction ratio of
inhibitor in the vapor over the aqueous phase; the water phase wt% inhibitor must be
converted to mole % in order to use either chart. Example 6 in Section 9.3.3.6
illustrates methanol loss to the gas phase.
Amount of Inhibitor Lost to the Liquid Phase
Two general Rules-of-Thumb can be applied to inhibitor losses in the condensate.
Rule-of-Thumb 5: Methanol concentration dissolved in condensate is 0.5 wt %.
Rule-of-Thumb 6: The mole fraction of MEG in a liquid hydrocarbon at 39 o F and
pressures greater than 1000 psia is 0.03% of the water phase mole fraction of MEG.
Even with low losses of MEG relative to MeOH in both the gas and the liquid, it is
important to remember that methanol is a much more effective inhibitor than ethylene
glycol on a weight basis. The predominance of methanols use is due to this
effectiveness, together with the fact that methanol easily flows to the point of hydrate
formation.
H-0806.35
9-33
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.3-3: METHANOL LOST TO VAPOR (FROM SLOAN, 1998)
H-0806.35
9-34
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.3-4: MONO ETHYLENE GLYCOL LOST TO VAPOR (FROM

TOWNSEND AND REID, 1972)
H-0806.35
9-35
1-Dec-00
9.3.3.6
DEEPSTAR
Example 6: Methanol Injection Rate

This sample calculation uses all of the concepts presented in Section 9.3.3. A sub-sea
pipeline with the below gas composition has inlet pipeline conditions of 195 o F and
1050 psia. The gas flowing through the pipeline is cooled by the surrounding water to
a temperature of 38 o F. The gas also experiences a pressure drop to 950 psia. Gas
exits the pipeline at a rate of 3.2 MMscf/d. The pipeline produces condensate at a rate
of 25 bbl/day, with an average density of 300 lbm/bbl and an average molecular weight
of 90 lbm/lbmole. Produced free water enters the pipeline at a rate of 0.25 bbl/day.
Natural gas composition (mole %): methane = 71.60%, ethane = 4.73%, propane
=1.94%, n-butane = 0.79%, n-pentane = 0.79%, carbon dioxide = 14.19%, nitrogen =
5.96%.
Find the rate of methanol injection needed to prevent hydrates in the pipeline.
Solution:
Basis: The basis for these calculations was chosen as 1 MMscf/d.
Step 1) Calculate Hydrate Formation Conditions using the Gas Gravity Chart
COMPONENT
MOL
FRACTION
yI
MW
AVG MOL WT
IN MIX
yI @MW
Methane
07160
16.04
11.487
Ethane
0.0194
44.09
0.855
Propane
0.0194
44.09
0.855
n-Butane
0.0079
58.12
0.459
n-Pentane
0.0079
72.15
0.570
Nitrogen
0.0596
28.01
1.670
Carbon Dioxide
0.1419
44.01
6.245
1.0000
Gas Gravity =
H-0806.35
MOL WT
22.708
mol wt gas 22.708

=
= 0.784
mol wt air 28.966
9-36
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Reading the gas gravity chart Figure 9.3.3-1, the hydrate temperature is 65 o F at 1000
psia.
Step 2) Calculate the Wt% MeOH Needed in the Free Water Phase
The Hammerschmidt Equation is: T =
CW
100M - MW
Where:T = Temperature Depression (65 o F - 38 o F = 27 o F),

M = Molecular Weight for Methanol (= 32.0)
C = Constant for Methanol (= 2335)
W = Weight Percent Inhib itor
Rearranging the Hammerschmidt equation
W =
100 M T
100 32 27
=
= 27
M T + C 32 27 + 2335
The weight percent of methanol needed in freewater phase is 27.0% to provide hydrate
inhibition at 1000 psia and 38 o F for this gas.
Step 3) Calculate the Mass of Liquid H2 O/MMscf of Natural Gas
Calculate Mass of Condensed H2 O
In the absence of a water analysis, use the water content chart Figure 9.3.3-2, to
calculate the water in the vapor/MMscf. The inlet gas (at 1050 psia and 195 o F) water
content is read as 600 lb m/MMscf. Rule of Thumb 2 states that exiting gas at 1000
psia and 39 o F contains 9 lb m/MMscf of water in the gas. The mass of liquid water
due to condensation is:
600 lb m _
MMscf
9 lbm
MMscf
= 591 lb m
MMscf
Calculate Mass of Produced H2 O Flowing into the Line

Convert the produced water of 0.25 bbl/day to a basis of lb m/MMscf:
H-0806.35
9-37
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
0.25bblH 2O 42 gal 8.34lbm 1day
day
bbl bbl 3.2MMscf
lb H O
= 27.4 m 2
MMscf
Total Mass of Water/MMscf Gas: Sum the condensed and produced water
591 lb m + 27.4 lb m = 618.4 lb m
MMscf
MMscf
MMscf
Step 4) Calculate the Rate of Methanol Injection
Methanol will exist in three phases: water, gas, and condensate. The total mass of
methanol injected into the gas is calculated as follows:
-Calculate Mass of MeOH in the Water Phase
27.0 wt% methanol is required to inhibit the free water phase, and the mass of
water/MMscf was calculated at 618.4 lb m. The mass of MeOH in the free water phase
per MMscf is:
27wt% =
M lb m MeOH
100%
M lb m MeOH + 618.4lbm H2 O
Solving M = 228.7 lbm MeOH in the water phase

Calculate Mass of MeOH Lost to the Gas
Rule of Thumb 3 states that the ma ximum amount of methanol lost to the vapor phase
is 1 lbm MeOH/MMscf for every wt% MeOH in the water phase. Since there is 27
wt% MeOH in the water, that maximum amount of MeOH lost to the gas is 27
lbm/MMscf.
Calculate the Mass of MeOH Lost to the Condensate
Rule of Thumb #5 states that the methanol concentration in the condensate will be 0.5
wt%. Since a barrel of hydrocarbon weighs about 300 lbm, the amount of methanol in
the condensate will be
0.005 300 lb m/bbl 25 bbl/d 1d/3.2 MMscf = 11.7 lb m/MMscf
Calculate the Total Amount of MeOH/MMscf
MeOH in Water
H-0806.35
= 228.7 lbm/MMscf
9-38
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
MeOH in Gas
= 27 lbm/MMscf
MeOH in Condensate
= 11.7 lbm/MMscf
Total MeOH Injection
= 267.4 lbm/MMscf
(or 40.33 gal/MMscf at a MeOH density of 6.63 lb m/gal)

In the above example, the amount of methanol lost to the gas and condensate is
approximately 11% of the total amount injected. However, with large amounts of
condensate it is not uncommon to have as much as 90% of the injected methanol
dissolved in the condensate (primarily) and gas phases. In such cases, the Rules-ofThumb should be replaced by a more accurate calculation, as shown in Section 9.3.4.
The hand calculation example is provided for understanding of the second
approximation. The method is made much more convenient for the engineer via the
use of the below spreadsheet program.
9.3.3.7
Computer Program for Second Approximation

Shuler (1997) of Chevron provided a computerized version (HYDCALC) of the above
calculation method, which is included with the disk in this handbook. Slightly
different Rules-of-Thumb have been used, but these differences are insignificant, as
shown by a comparison in Section 9.3.3.9 of results of the hand calculation (Example
6) with the computer method (Example 7).
HYDCALC is an IBM-PC compatible spreadsheet that provides an initial estimate of
pipeline methanol injection for hydrate inhibition. To use HYDCALC, obtain access
to a Microsoft Excel - Version 7.0 spreadsheet program and copy HYDCALC into a
hard drive directory. Start Excel - Version 7.0 and open the file HYDCALC.
Once the file is opened, the user will see text in three different colors on a color
screen- black, red, and blue. The red text signifies required User Inputs, composed of
the following eight pieces of information to start the program:
H-0806.35
1.
Pipeline Inlet Pressure - Starting high pressure
2.
Cold Pipeline Pressure - Pressure at the coldest part of the pipeline.
3.
Pipeline Inlet Temperature - Starting warm temperature.
4.
Cold Pipeline Temperature - Temperature at the coldest part of the pipeline.
9-39
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
5.
Gas Gravity - Gas gravity, calculated by the steps in Section 9.3.3.1 and Example
4.
6.
Gas Flow Rate - Gas flow in the pipeline measured in MMscf/d.
7.
Condensate Rate - Condensate flow in the pipeline measured in bbl/d.
8.
Formation Water Rate - Produced water flowing into the pipeline (bbl/d).
Once the above values are input, HYDCALC displays calculations for both
Intermediate Results (in black) and the amount of methanol or glycol to be injected (in
blue on a color screen). In the below example, the User Input and Calculations are
both listed in black, due to printing restrictions. A prescription for the use of this
method is shown in Example 7.
9.3.3.8
Example 7. Use of HYDCALC to Find Amount of Methanol and Glycol Injection

This spreadsheet problem is the identical problem worked in Example 6 by hand. A
sub-sea pipeline with the a gas gravity of 0.784 has inlet pipeline conditions of 195 o F
and 1050 psia. The gas flowing through the pipeline is cooled by the surrounding
water to a temperature of 38 o F. The gas also experiences a pressure drop to 950 psia.
Gas exits the pipeline at a rate of 3.2 MMscf/d. The pipeline produces condensate at
a rate of 25 bbl/d, with an average density of 300 lb m/bbl and an average molecular
weight of 90 lbm/lbmole. Produced free water enters the pipeline at a rate of 0.25
bbl/d.
Determine the rate of methanol and glycol injection needed to prevent hydrate
formation in the pipeline.
H-0806.35
9-40
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.3-5: EXAMPLE 6 CALCULATED BY HYDCALC
H-0806.35
9-41
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Solution:
Figure 9.3.3-5 on the next page is a copy of HYDCALC, highlighting the data input
that is needed to run the program. All required data are provided in the example, with
the exception of gas gravity. Gas gravity was calculated using the method described
in Example 4 to be 0.784. Figure 9.3.3-5 on the next page displays all input data and
results. The amount of methanol injected is 42.2 gal/MMscf and the amount of glycol
injected is 59.4 gal/MMscf.
For ease of use, the engineer will turn to HYDCALC to perform the second
approximation calculation. The following section provides accuracy and limitations of
both HYDCALC and the hand calculation methods, which are vital to their use.
9.3.3.9
Accuracy, Limitations, and Extensions for Second Estimation Method

A comparison of the previous results using the hand calculation method and the
HYDCALC method is included in the below table.
Calculated Quantity
Water Condensed, lbm/MMscf
MeOH in Water, lb m/MMscf
MeOH in Gas, lb m/MMscf
MeOH in Condensate, lb m/MMscf
Total MeOH Injection, lbm/MMscf
Total MeOH Injection, gal/MMscf
Hand Method Result

with Rules-of-Thumb
HYDCALC
Result
591
228.7
27
11.7
267.4
40.3
619.8
239.7
24.7
11.7
276.25
42.2
While the hand calculation and the computer program provide only slightly different
results, both include inaccuracies. For example, while it is possible to obtain more
significant figures with HYDCALC than with the charts in the hand method,
HYDCALC inaccuracies are those of the charts upon which HYDCALC is based.
Using HYDCALC it was estimated that 27 wt% methanol was required in the water
phase to inhibit the pipeline, while measurements by Robinson and Ng (1986) show
that only 20 wt% methanol was required for inhibition at the same gas composition,
temperature, and pressure of Examples 6 and 7.
The major inaccuracies in the second estimation method are in the gas gravity hydrate
formation conditions, which are only accurate to 7 o F or to 500 psia. The
Hammerschmidt equation, the inhibitor temperature depression T is accurate to
H-0806.35
9-42
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
5%. With such inaccuracies, the amount of methanol or glycol injection could be in
error by 100% or more. The principal virtue of the second estimation method is ease
of calculation rather than accuracy.
A second limitation is that the method was generated for gases without H2 S, which
represents the case for many gases in the Gulf of Mexico. A modification of the gas
gravity method was proposed for sour gases by Baillie and Wichert (1987).
9.3.4
Most Accurate Calculation of Hydrate Formation and Inhibition.

If the HYDCALC results indicate that hydrate formation will occur without inhibition,
the engineer should elect to do further, more accurate calculations. The most accurate
method for hydrate formation conditions, together with the amount of methanol
needed in the water phase, is available as the final estimation technique in a computer
program, HYDOFF. A Users Manual (Appendix B) and an example are provided
with this handbook. The method details are too lengthy to include here; the engineer
interested in program details is referred to the hydrate text by Sloan (1998, Chapter 5).
In Section 9.3.4 examples are provided for the most accurate methods for the
following calculations:
calculation of hydrate formation and inhibition in water (Section 9.3.4.1),
conversion of MeOH to MEG concentration in water phase (Section 9.3.4.3),
calculation of solubility of MeOH and MEG in the gas (Section 9.3.4.4), and
calculation of solubility of MeOH and MEG in condensate (Section 9.3.4.5).
9.3.4.1
Hydrate Formation and Inhibitor Amounts in Water Phase

HYDOFF is an IBM-compatible computer program provided on the disk with this
handbook. The program enables the user to determine hydrate formation conditions
and the amount of inhibitor needed in the free water phase. As a minimum of a 386IBM computer with 2 megabytes of RAM is required. The program may be executed
either from the Windows or from the DOS environment.
To use the program, first load both HYDOFF.EXE and FEED.DAT from the
accompanying 3.5 inch disk onto a hard drive. Appendix B is a Users Manual with
several examples of the use of HYDOFF. The simplest (and perhaps the most
beneficial) use of HYDOFF is illustrated through Example 8.
H-0806.35
9-43
1-Dec-00
9.3.4.2
DEEPSTAR
Example 8: Use of HYDOFF to Obtain Hydrate Formation and Prevention Conditions.

Find (a) the hydrate formation pressure of the below natural gas at 38 o F and (b) the
amount of methanol in the water phase to inhibit hydrates at 38 o F and 1000 psia. The
gas composition (mole %) is: methane = 71.60%, ethane = 4.73%, propane = 1.94%,
n-butane = 0.79%, n-pentane = 0.79%, carbon dioxide = 14.19%, nitrogen = 5.96%
Solution: The gas in this example has the same composition as the gas in Examples 6
and 7, so the results provide a comparison with hand and computer calculations of the
gas gravity method (Section 9.3.1.1) and the Hammerschmidt equation (Section
9.3.2.2).
For convenience with multiple calculations, the reader may wish to edit the program
FEED.DAT to reflect the gas composition of the problem. Modification of the
FEED.DAT program is done at the MSDOS prompt, by changing the composition of
each component to that of the example gas, and saving the result using the standard
MSDOS editing technique. However it is not necessary to use FEED.DAT; the gas
composition may be input as part of the program HYDOFF.
In the following solution, each input from the user is underlined:
1.
From Windows or in the proper directory, click on, or type HYDOFF; press Enter.
2.
After reading the title screen, press Enter
3.
At the Units screen, press 1 (to choose o F and psia) then Enter
4.
At the FEED.DAT question screen, press 2 and Enter if you wish to use the data in
FEED.DAT, or 1 and Enter if you wish to enter the gas composition in HYDOFF
by hand. The remainder of this example is written assuming that the user will
enter the gas composition in HYDOFF rather than use FEED.DAT. The use of
FEED.DAT is simpler and should be considered for multiple calculations with the
same gas.
5.
The next screen asks for the number of components present (excluding water).
Input 7 and Enter.
6.
The next screen requests a list of the gas components present, coded by numbers
shown on the screen. Input 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, and 9 (in that order, separating the
entries by commas) and then Enter.
7.
The next series of screens request the input of the mole fractions of each
component
Methane
H-0806.35
0.7160 Enter.
9-44
1-Dec-00
Ethane
Propane
n-Butane
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
n-Pentane
DEEPSTAR
0.0473
0.0194
0.0079
0.0596
0.1419
0.0079
Enter.
Enter.
Enter.
Enter.
Enter.
Enter.
8.
At the Options screen, input 1 then Enter.
9.
At the screen asking for the required Temperature, input 38, and Enter.
10. Read the hydrate formation pressure of 229.7 psia, (meaning hydrates will form at
any pressure above 230 psia at 38 o F for this gas.)
11. When asked for another calculation input 1 for No then Enter.
12. At the Options screen input 2, then Enter.
13. At the screen asking for the required temperature, input 38, and Enter.
14. At the screen to enter the WEIGHT PERCENT of Methanol, input 22.
15. Read the resulting hydrate condition of 22 wt% MeOH, 38 o F, and 1036 psia.
It may require some trial and error with the use of the program before the correct
amount of MeOH is input to inhibit the system at the temperature and pressure of the
example. One starting place for the trial and error process would be the amount of
MeOH predicted by the Hammerschmidt equation (27 wt%) in Example 6. Ng and
Robinson (1983) measured 20 wt% of methanol in the water required to inhibit
hydrates at 38 o F and 1000 psia. A comparison of the measured value with the
calculated value (22 wt%) in this example and through the Hammerschmidt equation
provides an indication of both the absolute and relative calculation accuracy.
HYDOFF can also be used to predict the uninhibited hydrate formation temperature at
1000 psia at 58.5 o F, through a similar trial and error process, as compared with 65 o F
determined by the gas gravity method. No measurements are available for the
uninhibited formation conditions of the gas in this example.
In using HYDOFF, if components heavier than n-decane (C 10 H22 ) are present, they
should be lumped with n-decane, since they are all non-hydrate formers.
H-0806.35
9-45
1-Dec-00
9.3.4.3
DEEPSTAR
Conversion of MeOH to MEG Concentration in Water Phase

The concentration of inhibiting monoethylene glycol (MEG) in the water phase can be
determined from methanol (MeOH) concentration using a simple correlation of
inhibitors:
wt% MEG = -1.209+ 2.34(wt% MeOH)- 0.052(wt% MeOH)2 + 0.0008(wt%
MeOH)3
(2)
To use Equation (2), first determine the amount of methanol required using HYDOFF,
as in Example 8. Insert the amount of methanol in Equation (2) to determine the
amount of mono-ethylene glycol needed in water to inhibit hydrates. Equation (2)
should be used for the free water phase only. Example 9 (Section 9.3.4.6) provides a
summary calculation of all the procedures in Section 9.3.4.
9.3.4.4
Solubility of MeOH and MEG in the Gas

Figure 9.3.3-3 is a fit of recent measurements by Ng and Chen (1995) for Kv MeOH
defined as the methanol mole fraction in gas relative to water ( yMeOH/xMeOH in H2O).
Once the mole fraction of methanol in water is determined, it may be multiplied by
KvMeOH to obtain the mole fraction of methanol in the gas. As can be determined by
Figure 9.3.3-3, the solubility in the water is only slightly affected by pressure over the
range from 1000-3000 psia at offshore temperatures. For a conservative estimate the
3000 psia line is recommended:
KvMeOH = exp (5.706 - 5738(1/T(o R))
(3)
Figure 9.3.3-4 provides an estimation of monoethylene glycol dissolved in gas at 1000

psig, from the data of Polderman (1958). As indicated in the figure the amount of
MEG in the vapor is very small; Ng and Chen (1995) measure a negligible MEG
concentration in the vapor as a comparison. Example 9 (Section 9.3.4.6) provides a
summary calculation of all the procedures in Section 9.3.4.
9.3.4.5
Solubility of MeOH and MEG in the Condensate.

Figure 9.3.4-1 is a fit of measurements by Ng and Chen (1995) for KLMeOH defined as
the methanol mole fraction in condensate relative to water ( xMeOH in HC/xMeOH in H2O).
Once the mole fraction of methanol in water is determined, it may be multiplied by
KLMeOH to obtain the mole fraction of methanol in the condensate. In Figure 9.3.4-1
all lines are pressure independent and the toluene line should not apply, due to the
absence of such compounds in typical condensates. The fit for the solubility of
methanol in condensates of methane, propane, and n-heptane is recommended:
H-0806.35
9-46
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
KLMeOH = exp (5.90 - 5404.5(1/T(o R))
(4)
Similar measurements by Ng and Chen (1995) are shown in Figure 9.3.4-2 to specify
the solubility for monoethylene glycol (MEG) in the condensate, via KLMEG defined as
the MEG mole fraction in condensate relative to water ( xMEG in HC/xMEG in H2O). Note
that the KLMEG values are two orders of magnitude lower than KLMeOH values. No
pressure dependence is observed, and the line for MEG solubility in methane, propane,
and n- heptane (or methylcyclohexane) is recommended, since toluene is not in
condensate:
KLMEG = exp (4.20 - 7266.4(1/T(o R))
(5)
Example 9 (9.3.4.6 provides a summary calculation of all the procedures in Section

9.3.4.
9.3.4.6
Best Calculation Technique for MeOH or MEG Injection

The following example is identical that of Examples 6 and 7, with the exception that
both MeOH and MEG injection are calculated for comparison of each inhibitor as well
as with the less accurate method of Section 9.3.3.
9.3.4.7
Example 9: Most Accurate Inhibitor Injection Calculation

A sub-sea pipeline with the below gas composition has inlet pipeline conditions of 195
o
F and 1050 psia. The gas flowing through the pipeline is cooled by the surrounding
water to a temperature of 38 o F. The gas also experiences a pressure drop to 950 psia.
Gas exits the pipeline at a rate of 3.2 MMscf/d. The pipeline produces condensate at
a rate of 25 bbl/d, with an average density of 300 lb m/bbl and an average molecular
weight of 90 lb m/lbmole. Produced salt-free water enters the pipeline at a rate of 0.25
bbl/d.
H-0806.35
9-47
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.4-1: METHANOL LOST TO CONDENSATE (SLOAN 1998)
H-0806.35
9-48
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.4-2: MONO ETHYLENE GLYCOL LOST TO CONDENSATE

(SLOAN 1998)
H-0806.35
9-49
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Natural gas composition (mole%): methane = 71.60%, ethane = 4.73%, propane =

1.94%, n-butane = 0.79%, n-pentane = 0.79%, carbon dioxide = 14.19%, nitrogen =
5.96%
Find the rate of both methanol and monoethylene glycol injection needed to prevent
hydrate formation in the pipeline.
Solution:
Basis: the basis for solution is 1 MMscf/d.
Step 1) Calculate the Concentration of MeOH and MEG in the Water Phase.
In Example 8 the methanol concentration was calculated to be 22 wt% of the free
water phase at 38 o F and 1000 psia. Using Equation (2) the MEG concentration was
calculated at 33.6 wt% in the water phase.
Step 2) Calculate the Mass of Liquid H2 O/MMscf of Natural Gas
Calculate Mass of Condensed H2 O
Use the water content chart Figure 9.3.3-2, to calculate the water in the vapor/MMscf.
The inlet gas (at 1050 psia and 195 o F) water content is read as 600 lbm/MMscf. The
outlet gas (at 950 psia and 38 o F) water content is read as 9 lb m/MMscf. The mass of
liquid water due to condensation is:
600 lb m _
MMscf
9 lbm
MMscf
= 591 lb m
MMscf
Calculate Mass of Produced H2 O Flowing into the Line

Convert the produced water of 0.25 bbl/d to the basis of lb m/MMscf:
0.25bblH 2O 42 gal 8.34lbm 1day
day
bbl bbl 3.2MMscf
H-0806.35
9-50
lb H O
= 27.4 m 2
MMscf
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Total Mass of Water/MMscf Gas: Sum the condensed and produced water
591 lb m
MMscf
27.4 lb m = 618.4 lb m
MMscf
MMscf
Step 4) Calculate the Rate of Methanol and MEG Injection

MeOH and MEG can exist in three phases: water, gas, and condensate. The total
masses of MeOH and MEG injected per MMscf are calculated as follows:
Calculate Amount of (a) MeOH and (b) MEG in the Water Phase
(a) 22.0 wt% methanol is required to inhibit the free water phase, and the mass of
water/MMscf was calculated at 618.4 lb m. The mass of MeOH in the free water phase
per MMscf is:
22wt% =
M lb mMeOH
100%
M lb mMeOH + 618.4lb mH 2O
Solving M = 174.4 lbm MeOH/MMscf in the water phase

(b) In Step 1 33.6.0 wt% MEG is required to inhibit the free water phase, and the mass
of water/MMscf was calculated at 618.4 lbm in Step 3. The mass of MEG in the free
water phase per MMscf is:
33.6wt% =
N lb m MEG
100%
N lb m MEG + 618.4lb m H 2 O
Solving N = 313.1 lb m MEG/MMscf in the water phase

Calculate Amount of (a) MeOH and (b) MEG Lost to the Gas
(a) MeOH Lost to Gas. The mole fraction MeOH in the free water phase is:
mole fraction MeOH =
174.4 lb mMeOH / (32lb m / lbmol MeOH)

174.4 / 32 + 618.4lb mH 2O / (18lb m / lbmolH 2 O)
The mole fraction MeOH in the water phase is xMeOH in H2O = 0.137. The distribution
constant of MeOH in the gas is calculated at 38 o F (497.7 o R) by Equation (3), relative
to the methanol in the water
H-0806.35
9-51
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
KvMeOH = exp (5.706 - 5738(1/497.7 o R) = 0.00296
(3)
where o R = o F + 459.69
The mole fraction of MeOH in the vapor is yMeOH = Kv MeOHxMeOH in H2O or
yMeOH = 0.00296 0.137 = 0.0004055
The daily gas rate is 8432 lbmol (= 3.2 106 scf / (379.5 scf/lbmol), where an scf is at
14.7 psia and 60 o F), so that the MeOH lost to the gas is 3.42 lbmol (= 0.0004055
8432) or 109.4 lb m/day. Since the calculation basis is 1 MMscf/d, the amount of
MeOH lost is 34.2 lbm/MMscf (= 109.4 lb m / 3.2 MMscf).
(b) MEG Lost to Gas. In Figure 9.3.3-4 use the 50 wt% MEG line to determine the
MEG lost to the gas is 0.006 lb m/MMscf at 38 o F and 1000 psig; such an amount is
negligible. Ng and Chen (1995) measured a negligible concentration of MEG in the
gas phase at conditions similar to those of this problem.
Calculate Amount of (a) MeOH and (b) MEG Lost to the Condensate
(a) MeOH lost to the condensate. The distribution of MeOH in the condensate is
calculated via equation (4)
KLMeOH = exp (5.90 - 5404.5(1/497.7 o R)) = 0.00702
(4)
where o R = o F + 459.69.
The mole fraction MeOH in condensate is xMeOH in HC = KLMeOH xMeOH in H2O or
xMeOH in HC = 0.00702 0.137 = 0.0009617
The condensate rate is 26.0 lbmoles/MMscf (= 25 bbl/d300 lb m/bbl1 lbmol/90
lbm1d/3.2 MMscf) so that the amount of MeOH in condensate is 0.025 lbmol/MMscf
(= 0.0009617 26 / ( 1 - 0.009617)) or 0.8 lbm/MMscf)
(b) MEG Lost to Condensate. The mole fraction MEG in the water phase is calculated
as
mole fraction MEG =
H-0806.35
313.1 lb m MEG / (62 lb m / lbmol MEG)

313.1 / 62 + 618.4lb m H 2 O / (18lb m / lbmolH 2 O)
9-52
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The mole fraction MEG in the water phase is xMEG in H2O = 0.128.
The distribution of MEG between the aqueous liquid and condensate is given by
KLMEG = exp (4.20 - 7266.4(1/497.7 o R)) = 3.04 10-5
(5)
The mole fraction MEG in condensate is xMEG in HC = KLMEGxMEG in H2O calculated as

3.8 10-6 .(= 3.04 10-5 0.128). The condensate rate is 26.0 lbmoles/MMscf (= 25
bbl/d300 lbm/bbl1 lbmol/90 lbm1d/3.2 MMscf) so that the amount of MEG in
condensate is 9.910-5 lbmol/MMscf (= 0.0000038 26 / ( 1 - 0.0000038)) or 0.0061
lbm/MMscf)
Calculate the Total Amount of MeOH/MMscf and MEG/MMscf
In Water, lbm/MMscf
In Gas, lbm/MMscf
In Condensate, lb m/MMscf
Total, lb m/MMscf
Total, gal/MMscf
MeOH
MEG
174.4
34.2
0.8
209.4
31.5
313.1
0.006
0.0061
313.11
33.3
The example illustrates that for this gas condition, the injection amounts of MeOH and
MEG are comparable. The more precise calculation shown here however, represents a
considerable savings in the amount of MeOH injected (31.5 gal/MMscf versus 42.2
gal/MMscf in the second estimation method.)
9.3.5
Case Study 6: Prevention of Hydrates in Dog Lake Field Pipeline

As a summary of the thermodynamic hydrate prevent ion methods, consider the steps
taken to prohibit hydrates in the Dog Lake Field export pipeline in Louisiana, by Todd
et al., (1996) of Texaco. During the winter months hydrates formed in the line. While
this pipeline passes through shallow water (a marsh) many of the principles illustrate
applications to offshore pipeline design.
Hydrate formation conditions, shown in Figure 9.3.5-1, are calculated via an earlier
version of HYDOFF with 0 wt%, 10%, and 20% methanol in the water phase. The
Dog Lake gas composition is: 92.1 mole% methane, 3.68% ethane, 1.732% propane,
0.452% i-butane, 0.452% n-butane, 0.177% i-pentane, 0.114% n-pentane, 0.112%
hexane, 0.051% heptane, 0.029% octane, 0.517% nitrogen, 0.574% carbon dioxide.
H-0806.35
9-53
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The pipeline pressure and temperature, calculated using PIPEPHASE, were

superimposed on the hydrate formation curve shown in Figure 9.3.5-2. Gas leaves the
wellhead at 1000 psia and 85 o F, far from hydrate forming conditions. As the gas
moves down the pipeline, it begins to cool towards ambient temperatures. Once the
temperature reaches approximately 63 o F hydrates will form, so methanol must be
added. The figure shows pipeline conditions and the hydrate formation curves for
various concentrations of methanol, indicating that 25% wt% me thanol in water is
needed to inhibit hydrates.
Despite large quantities of methanol injection for hydrate prevention, 110 hydrate
incidents occurred in the line during winter of 1995-1996 at a cost of $323,732.
Combinations of four alternative hydrate prevention methods were considered: (1)
burying the pipeline, (2) heating the gas at the wellhead, (3) insulating the pipeline,
and (4) methanol addition. The details of each prevention measure are considered
below.
H-0806.35
1.
Burying the Pipeline. Some of the Dog Lake pipeline was built over a stretch of
marsh. The exposure to winter ambient temperatures caused rapid reductions in
the gas temperature.
Burying the pipeline would protect it from low
environmental temperatures due to the higher earth temperatures. Figure 9.3.6-1
displays the temperature increase in the pipeline after exposed areas were buried
relative to the exposed pipeline in Figure 9.3.5-2. With pipeline burial, the need
for methanol in the water phase was reduced from 26 wt% to less than 19 wt%.
2.
Wellhead Heat Addition. Catalytic inline heaters could be installed at the
wellhead to increase the gas temperature to 125 o F. Figure 9.3.6-2 shows the
pipeline temperature increase caused by the combined prevention methods of
burial and wellhead heating. Use of these two methods permitted the methanol
concentration to be reduced to approximately 14 wt% to prevent hydrate formation
in the line. It should be noted that heating may increase the amount of corrosion in
the line.
3.
Insulation. Insulation of exposed areas near the wellhead and battery would
maintain higher pipeline temperatures, thereby reducing the amount of methanol
needed for hydrate inhibition. Figure 9.3.6-3 displays the temperature increase in
the buried and heated pipeline when exposed pipes were insulated. The pipeline is
now outside the hydrate formation region, and methanol addition is no longer
needed.
4.
Methanol Addition. Continued methanol injection could be done at an cost of

approximately $1.50 -$2.00 per gallon. The cost of methanol to an offshore
platform cost $2.00 per gallon during the 1996-7 winter. Since methanol recovery
may not be economical, methanol is normally considered an operating cost.
9-54
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.5-1: DOG LAKE FIELD - HYDRATE CURVES

(From Todd 1997)
H-0806.35
9-55
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.5-2: DOG LAKE FIELD - ORIGINAL CONDITIONS
H-0806.35
9-56
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
This case study illustrates how combinations of pipeline burial, insulation, heating,
and methanol injection can be used to prevent hydrates. The selection of the hydrate
prevention scheme(s) is then a matter of economics, as considered in Section 9.5.
9.3.6
Hydrate Limits to Expansion through Valves or Restrictions.

When water wet gas expands rapidly through a valve, orifice or other restriction,
hydrates form due to rapid gas cooling through Joule- Thomson expansion. Hydrate
formation with rapid expansion from a wet line commonly occurs in fuel gas or
instrument gas lines, as indicated in the platform Example 12 in Section 9.3.6.4.
Hydrate formation with high pressure drops can occur in well testing, start-up, and gas
lift operations, even when the initial temperature is high, if the pressure drop is very
large. This section provides methods to determine when hydrates will form upon
rapid expansion. A rough estimation method is followed by a more accurate but
resource intensive method, concluding with prevention techniques.
Figure 9.3.1-5 is a schematic of the pressure and temperature of a pipeline production
stream during normal flow with entry into the hydrate formation region. If the gas
expands rapidly, the normal pipeline cooling curve of Figure 9.3.1-5 will take on a
much steeper slope, but the hydrate formation line remains the same. Two rapid
expansion curves for a 0.6 gravity gas are shown in Figure 9.3.6-4. Intersections of
the gas expansion curves with the hydrate formation line gives the limiting expansion
discharge pressures from two different high initial pressure/temperature conditions.
In Figure 9.3.6-4, the curves specify the pressure at which hydrate blockages will form
at the restriction discharge for an upstream pressure and temperature. Gas A expands
from 2000 psia and 110 o F until it strikes the hydrate formation curve at 780 psia (and
57 o F) so that 780 psia represents the limit to hydrate- free expansion. Gas B expands
from 1800 psia (120 o F) to intersect the hydrate formation curve at a limiting pressure
of 290 psia (42 o F). In expansion processes while the upstream temperature and
pressure are known, the discharge temperature is almost never known, but the
discharge pressure is normally set by a downstream vessel or pressure drop.
H-0806.35
9-57
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.6-1: DOG LAKE FIELD WITH BURIAL
H-0806.35
9-58
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.6-2: DOG LAKE FIELD WITH BURIAL AND HEATING
H-0806.35
9-59
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.6-3: DOG LAKE FIELD WITH BURIAL, HEATING, AND INSULATION
H-0806.35
9-60
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Cooling curves such as the two in Figure 9.3.6-4 were determined for constant
enthalpy (or Joule-Thomson) expansions, obtained from the First Law of
Thermodynamics for a system flowing at steady-state, neglecting kinetic and potential
energy changes:
H = Q - Ws
(6)
where H is the enthalpy difference across the restriction (downstream - upstream),

while Q represents the heat added, and Ws is shaft work obtained at the restriction.
Offshore restrictions have no shaft work, and because the system operates
adiabatically, both Ws and Q are zero, resulting in constant enthalpy (H =0)
operation on expansion.
Due to the constant enthalpy requirement, rapid gas expansion results in cooling,
except at very high pressures, where heating occurs on expansion due to a
compressibility decrease with temperature. The upstream pressure at which the
system changes from heating to cooling upon expansion is called the Joule-Thomson
inversion pressure.
Rule-of-Thumb 7. Natural gases cool upon expansion from pressures below 6000
psia; above 6000 psia the temperature will increase upon expansion. Virtually all
offshore gas processes cool upon expansion, since only a few reservoirs and no
current pipelines or process conditions are above 6000 psia.
Rule-of-Thumb 7 was determined by G. G. Brown at the University o Michigan
(1945) who constructed the first natural gas enthalpy - entropy charts.
H-0806.35
9-61
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.6-4:: GAS EXPANSION INTO HYD RATE FORMATION REGION

(From Katz, 1944)
H-0806.35
9-62
1-Dec-00
9.3.6.1
DEEPSTAR
Rapid Calculation of Hydrate-Free Expansion Limits

Katz (1945) generated charts to determine the hydrate-free limit to gas expansion, by
the gas gravity chart (Figure 9.3.3-1) to obtain the hydrate formation line in Figure
9.3.6-4, with gas enthalpy-entropy charts by Brown (1945) to obtain the cooling line.
Cautioning that the charts applied to gases of limited compositions, Katz provided
expansion charts for gases of 0.6, 0.7, and 0.8 gravities, shown in Figure 9.3.6-5, and
Figure 9.3.6-6 respectively. The abscissa (or x axis) in each figure represents the
lowest downstream pressure without hydrate formation, given the upstream pressure
on the ordinate (y axis) and the upstream temperature (a parameter on each line).
It should be noted that the maxima in Figure 9.3.6-5, figure 9.3.6-6, and Figure 9.3.6-7
occur at an inlet pressure of 6000 psia, the Joule-Thomson inversion pressure. This
provides a further validation of Rule-of-Thumb 7 above.
The following three examples for chart use are from Katz original work.
Example 10a Maximum Pressure of Gas Expansion
To what pressure may a 0.6 gravity gas at 2000 psia and 100 o F be expanded without
danger of hydrate formation?
Solution: From Figure 9.3.6-5,read 1050 psia.
Example 10b. Unlimited Gas Expansion
How far may a 0.6 gravity gas at 2000 psig and 140 o F be expanded without hydrate
formation?
Solution: In Figure 9.3.6-5 it is seen that there is no intersection with the 140
isotherm. Hydrates will not form upon expansion to atmospheric pressure.
Example 10c. Minimum Initial Temperature Before Expansion

A 0.6 gravity gas is to be expanded from 1500 psia to 500 psia. What is the minimum
initial temperature that will permit the expansion without danger of hydrates?
H-0806.35
9-63
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.6-5: GAS EXPANSION OF 0.6 GAS GRAVITY
H-0806.35
9-64
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
H-0806.35
9-65
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
H-0806.35
9-66
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Solution: From Figure 9.3.6-5 the answer is read as 99 o F or above.

Figure 9.3.6-5, Figure 9.3.6-6, and Figure 9.3.6-7 for gas expansion incorporate the
inaccuracies of gas gravity charts from which they were derived. As indicated in
Section 3.3 the 0.6 gravity chart (used for both hydrate formation and gas expansion)
may have inaccuracies of 500 psia. Accuracy limits to these expansion curves have
been tested by Loh et al. (1983) who found for example, that the allowable 0.6 gravity
gas expansion from 150 o F and 3500 psia should be 410 psia rather than the value of
700 psia, given by Figure 9.3.6-5.
9.3.6.2
More Accurate Calculation of Hydrate-Free Limits to Gas Expansion

A more accurate computer method is available, using the same principles indicated in
Figure 9.3.6-4. Just as before, for an initial temperature, pressure and gas
composition, the intersection of an isenthalpic (H=0) cooling curve with the hydrate
three-phase locus may be determined. In the ne w method, the isenthalpic line is
determined via a modern equation-of-state, and the program HYDOFF replaces the
gas gravity chart to predict hydrate formation conditions. While this method requires
more resources (namely time and an IBM-compatible computer) than the JouleThomson charts, it results in higher accuracy and provides an estimation of the amount
of methanol inhibitor required.
In order to use the more accurate method, the first step is to generate the hydrate
stability pressure-temperature line as in Figure 9.3.6-4, using HYDOFF as indicated in
Section 9.3.4.1. Later the amount of methanol injected to displace the hydrate
formation curve to the left can be calculated, as illustrated in Example 12 in Section
9.3.6.4 at the close of this Section.
The computer program XPAND is included with this handbook for calculation of the
second, Joule-Thomson expansion line, which intersects the hydrate formation line.
The expansion line is calculated with an equation-of-state, using the method detailed
by Sloan (1998, Appendix A). Given an inlet temperature, pressure, and gas
composition, the program calculates the enthalpy change (H) for a specified outlet
pressure and a temperature guess. The user changes the outlet temperature guess until
a value of H = 0 is obtained. The resulting discharge temperature and pressure is
plotted to obtain the expansion curve. For one inlet temperature and pressure, a series
of such discharge points provides a curve which intersects the hydrate formation curve
at the limiting temperature and pressure of expansion. The result may be compared
with the Joule-Thomson result in Figure 9.3.6-5, Figure 9.3.6-6, and Figure 9.3.6-7.
H-0806.35
9-67
1-Dec-00
9.3.6.3
DEEPSTAR
Example 11: Hydrate Formation on Expansion of a Natural Gas

A simple natural gas consists of 90 mol% CH4 , 7% C2 H6 , and 3% C3 H8 with free
water in a pipeline. Two initial inlet process conditions are considered for expansion
across a valve: (a) 68 o F and 2180 psia, or (b) 77 o F and 2180 psia. For either
condition, is hydrate formation a possibility? Are there process limitations on the
expansion from either initial condition to 1450 psia?
Solution: Before doing any hydrate calculations, one should confirm that this gas is
not close to the hydrocarbon dew point, to eliminate the possibility of encountering
both vapor and liquid hydrocarbon phases. The expansion program was written for a
gas phase. A vapor- liquid equilibria flash calculation indicates that the highest
temperature at which a hydrocarbon liquid can occur (the cricondentherm) for this
mixture is -44 o F, so the process will not form hydrocarbon liquid.
Figure 9.3.6-8 shows the expansion conditions of both inlet conditions for the gas.
The remainder of this example concerns the generation of Figure 9.3.6-8 and the
processing implications. First, the pressures and temperatures of hydrate formation
are calculated using the program HYDOFF as in Section II.D as:
T(o F)
32
P(psia) 119
35
149
40
213
45
303
50
368
55
551
60
718
65
1117
68
1624
71
2509
77
4046
A semi- logarithmic interpolation of the above values gives the hydrate formation point
at 70 o F when the pressure is 2180 psia. Therefore the initial condition of 68 o F and
2180 psia is within the hydrate formation region, but the initial conditions of 77 o F and
2180 psia remains in the fluid (vapor-liquid water) region.
If the system at 68 o F and 2180 psia has formed hydrates, consider two means of
depressurization. If the system pressure is lowered to 1450 psia slowly and
isothermally (with substantial heat input) hydrates will dis sociate at 1537 psia. A
second, isenthalpic (H=0) depressurization without heating from the surroundings,
results in much colder gas at 1450 psia. Using XPAND on the disk accompanying this
handbook (see the Users Manual prescription in Appendix B) the following
isenthalpic line is obtained:
P (psia)
T (o F) for H=0
H-0806.35
2100
68.0
2000
62.4
9-68
1800 1600 1450

55.2 46.9 39.8
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
As shown in Figure 9.3.6-8, the isenthalpic expansion system extends further into the
hydrate region. Only with subsequent heating at a constant pressure of 1450 psia, will
the system become hydrate-free at 66.6 o F.
A similar calculation for the system initially in the fluid region at 77 o F and 2180 psia
shows the problem with isenthalpic expansion. The result, plotted as line ABC in
Figure 9.3.6-8shows an isenthalpic intersection with the hydrate formation boundary
at approximately 70.5 o F, 1990 psia. To prevent expansion into the hydrate region
four options may be considered, as illustrated in Example 12:
1.
limit the final expansion pressure to a higher value than 1990 psia,
2.
add inhibitor at the restriction inlet,
3.
dehydrate the gas before expansion, or
4.
heat the gas to a higher inlet temperature.
Pipeline hydrate plugs are frequently porous, so that depressurization from one
(downstream) side can result in Joule-Thomson cooling as gas flows through the plug.
Expansion across a hydrate plug yields identical results to expansion across a valve.
In the initial part of the above example, it was seen that expansion from a condition
which has a hydrate plug (e.g. 68 o F and 2180 psia) will only cause the downstream
portion of the plug to progress further into the hydrate region. Heat must be put into
the system from the surroundings to dissociate hydrates. The field tests which confirm
the above discussion are given in Case Studies C.15 and C.17 in Appendix C.
There are several limitations to XPAND. First, it is limited to the vapor phase and
will not account for expansion of a fluid containing any liquid amount. If there is a
question whether the system might contain a liquid either at the inlet or discharge, the
engineer should calculate the hydrocarbon dew point, and an isenthalpic flash should
be performed to obtain the cooling curve, using a process simulator package like
HYSIM, ASPEN , or PROCESS. Secondly, XPAND was generated only for the
first five common paraffins (methane, ethane, propane, normal butane, iso-butane, and
normal pentane) so XPAND cannot be used with nitrogen, acid gases (H2 S or CO2 ), or
with significant amount of heavy components. With the above restrictions, the
engineer may group components larger than pentanes into the pentane plus fraction
of the gas.
H-0806.35
9-69
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.6-8: JOULE-THOMPSON COOLING THROUGH GAS EXPANSION
H-0806.35
9-70
1-Dec-00
9.3.6.4
DEEPSTAR
Methods to Prevent Hydrate Formation on Expansio n

Frequently gas expansion causes hydrate formation in fuel gas lines and in instrument
gas lines on a platform, which may result in other, larger hydrate problems. In some
cases, hydrate formation in a platform instrument gas line has caused system
shutdown; subsequent cooling of the non- flowing pipeline into the hydrate formation
region resulted in a pipeline blockage upon resumption of flow.
The following example provides a Section 9.3.6 summary of hydrate prevention
during gas expansion, with four methods for hydrate prevention in a fuel gas line,
which is used to supply power to platform compressors.
9.3.6.5
Example 12: Hydrate During Gas Expansion

An offshore platform design required fuel gas at 300 psia and a rate of 0.02 MMscf/d
from a high pressure flowline at 1500 psia and 100 o F. The inlet flowline was offgas
from the first stage separator (see Figure 9.3.1-6, Example 3) so the gas was saturated
with water. A control valve was placed on fuel gas line from the inlet flowline to
provide the required pressure and flow of fuel gas. The mole fraction composition of
the components were: 0.927 methane, 0.053 ethane, 0.014 propane, 0.0018 i- butane,
0.0034 n-butane, and 0.0014 i-pentane.
Is there a chance that hydrate formation might occur in the fuel gas line? If so, which
of the following ways could be used to prevent hydrates?
1.
two stage expansion with intermediate heat addition,
2.
methanol injection upstream of expansion,
3.
parallel expansions, and
4.
drying the inlet gas.
Solution: The example solution is provided with the following steps:

Ex12.A1. Hydrate-Free Expansion Limits Using the Joule-Thomson Diagrams
Ex12.A2. Hydrate-Free Expansion Limits Using HYDOFF and XPAND
Ex12.B1. Prevention via Heat Addition to Two-Stage Expansion
Ex12.B2. Prevention via Methanol Injection Upstream of Expansion
Ex12.B3. Parallel Expansions
Ex12.B4. Drying the Inlet Gas
H-0806.35
9-71
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Ex12.A1. Hydrate Prediction Through Joule-Thomson Diagrams. Using the Katz

Joule - Thomson expansion diagrams (Figure 9.3.6-5, Figure 9.3.6-6, and Figure
9.3.6-6), the minimum initial temperature required for hydrate-free operation can be
estimated. This gas is identical with that in Example 4, whose gravity is calculated as
0.603. Figure 9.3.6-5 provides an estimate that a 0.6 gravity natural gas must have an
initial temperature of 104 o F to prevent hydrate formation during gas expansion from
1500 psia to 300 psia. Under the current design the initial temperature of 100 o F will
cause hydrates to form just downstream of the fuel gas control valve.
Ex12.A2. Hydrate Prediction Using XPAND and HYDOFF. XPAND was used to
calculate the discharge temperature of the natural gas upon expansion, using inputs of
the upstream valve pressure, temperature and gas composition to calculate the
downstream gas temperature at a given discharge pressure. Appendix B gives a stepby-step XPAND Users Manual for the calculation in this example.
Once the expansion P-T values are obtained, they are plotted to determine the
intersection with hydrate formation curves (including inhibited curves) generated by
HYDOFF, as done in Section 9.3.4. Figure 9.3.6-8 shows such intersections.
In Figure 9.3.6-9 note that the expansion line is curved, requiring calculation of
several temperatures and pressures along the expansion line. The expansion enters the
uninhibited formation region at 53 o F and final temperature after expansion is
calculated to be 33 o F. For a comparison with 105 o F inlet temperature requirement by
the Katz Joule-Thomson charts, the inlet temperature using XPAND should be 108 o F
for hydrate-free expansion from 1500 psia to 300 psia.
Ex12.B. Hydrate Prevention. After establishing that hydrates will form upon gas
expansion, the platform design had to be modified to inhibit hydrate formation. Four
hydrate prevention methods were considered: 1) Heat addition to two stage expansion,
2) methanol addition, 3) parallel expansion, and 4) drying the gas. Details of each
prevention method are provided below.
Ex12.B.1. Heat Addition with Two-Stage Expansion. In- line heaters could be
installed to raise the temperature of the gas outside the hydrate formation region. In
the case considered here, two control valves are used with an inline heater between
them.
Figure 9.3.6-10 is a schematic of the two control valves and inline heater design for
the fuel gas line. The cooler gas present after the first pressure drop facilitates heat
H-0806.35
9-72
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
transfer before the second valve. The following calculations provide the pressure and
temperature conditions in the system shown in Figure 9.3.6-7.
In our example, the pressure ratio (Pin /Pout ) will be arbitrarily set at a value
approximately equal across each control valve, providing 675 psia as the intermediate
pressures after the first control valve. Using XPAND the temperature of the gas at
675 psia is predicted to be 58 o F at the first valve discharge. Figure 9.3.6-11 shows
the gas expansion conditions and the HYDOFF hydrate formation curves,
demonstrating that the gas is outside the hydrate formation region after the first
pressure drop (line 1).
In Figure 9.3.6-11, heat is added to the system (line 2) to raise the temperature to
prevent hydrates upon gas expansion across the second control valve (line 3). The
heat duty in the exchanger was defined by the temperature increase (T3 -T2 ). XPAND
was used to estimate a value of T3 at the second valve inlet, which provided a
discharge value T4 outside the hydrate formation region. For this example, a T3 of
68 o F is required to maintain the final temperature at 44 o F, just above the hydrate
formation region at the required pressure of 300 psia.
Figure 9.3.6-11 suggests that heating before expansion through a single control valve
may provide a more economical method to prevent hydrates on expansion. A single
control valve and heater would save the capital cost of one control valve and may be a
better alternative to prevent hydrates on expansion.
Ex12.B.2. Methanol Addition. Methanol can be injected into the fuel supply line
upstream of the control valve to prevent hydrate formation downstream of the valve.
Figure 9.3.6-9 shows that more than 10 wt% methanol is needed in the free water
phase to prevent hydrate formation. A better estimate of 12 wt% methanol in the
water phase was obtained through interpolation using XPAND and HYDOFF. The
total amount of methanol required for upstream gas injection is calculated through
methods of Section 9.3.4.
H-0806.35
9-73
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.6-9: HYDRATE FORMATION CURVE FOR SINGLE VALVE EXPANSION
H-0806.35
9-74
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.6-10: TWO STAGE GAS EXPANSION WITH HEATING
1st Control Valve
In-Line
Heater
P1 = 1500 psia
P2= 675 psia
T1= 100oF
T2= 58oF
2nd
Valve
P3= 670 psia
T3= 68oF
Control
P4= 300 psia
T4= 44oF
Estimated Using
HYDXPAND
H-0806.35
9-75
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.6-11: TWO STAGE GAS EXPANSION WITH HEAT ADDITION
H-0806.35
9-76
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Ex12.B.2.a. Water condensation with expansion. Gas flows into the fuel line at a rate
of 0.02 MMscf/d. Since the gas is saturated with water, one can calculate the mass of
free water in the pipeline due to dewpoint condensation from Figure 9.3.3-2 (45 lb m
H2 O/MMscf in the vapor at 1500 psia and 100 o F and 16 lb m H2 O/MMscf in the vapor
at 350 psia and 33 o F). The amount of free water that forms from the vapor is
45 lbm/MMscf- 16 lbm/MMscf = 29 lbm/MMscf.
Consequently, the total amount of water (W) condensed per day is:
29 lbm H 2O 0.02 MMscf
0.58lbm H2 O
=
MMscf
day
day
Ex12.B.2.b. Mass of MeOH Required in the Water Phase. The mass of MeOH can be
found by using the definition of weight percent
wt % =
M (lbm MeOH)
X 100%
M (lbm MeOH) + W (lbm H 2 O)
Solving for 12 wt%, the amount of methanol, M = 0.079 lb m MeOH/day

Ex12.B.2.c. Mass of MeOH Lost to Condensate and Vapor. The mole fraction of
MeOH in the water is found by the equation:
mole fraction MeOH =
0.079 lbm MeOH / ( 32lb m / lbmol MeOH)

0.079 / 32 + 0.58 lb m H 2O / (18lb m / lbmolH2O)
The mole fraction MeOH in the water phase is xMeOH in H2O = 0.071. The distribution
coefficient of MeOH in the gas is calculated at 33.03 o F (492.7 o R) by Equation (3),
relative to the methanol in the water
KvMeOH = exp (5.706 - 5738(1/492.7 o R) = 0.00263
(3)
The mole fraction of MeOH in the vapor is yMeOH = Kv MeOHxMeOH in H2O or

yMeOH = 0.00263 0.071 = 0.000187
The daily gas rate is 52.7 lbmol (= 2.0 104 scf / (379.5 scf/lbmol)), so that the MeOH
lost to the gas is 0.0098 lbmol (= 0.000187 52.7) or 0.314 lbm/day.
H-0806.35
9-77
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
No condensate is formed in the pipeline, consequently there is no MeOH lost to the

liquid hydrocarbon phase.
Ex12.B.2.d. Total Mass of MeOH Needed. The total amount of MeOH injected is the
sum that in the vapor (0.314 lb m) condensate (0), and water (0.079 lb m) = 0.393 lb m
MeOH/day (0.06 gal/day) injection required to inhibit the fuel gas line, with injection
before the control valve as shown in Figure 9.3.6-12.
Ex12.B.3. Parallel Gas Expansion. Operating personnel sometimes suggest that fuel
gas lines be placed in parallel to provide more than one gas expansion as shown in
Figure 9.3.6-13. If one control valve becomes plugged with hydrates and shut down,
the second gas line is then opened while the first line is depressurized for hydrate
dissociation. In this manner, it is hoped that flow can be maintained in one fuel gas
line without the need for hydrate inhibition.
Conditions of hydrate formation on parallel gas expansion are exactly the same as
shown in Figure 9.3.6-9. The capital cost is doubled however, and there is the risk
that the parallel valve may become hydrated before the plug is removed from the
initial line. This solution technique addresses the effect of hydrate formation rather
than its cause, and should be considered less than optimal operating practice.
Ex12.B.4. Drying the Inlet Gas. If the gas inlet is dry, hydrate formation cannot form
due to insufficient water. It is good design practice to place both fuel gas and
instrument gas lines downstream of a TEG drying unit or a molecular sieve adsorption
tower. The design of a drying unit is outside of the scope of this handbook, but it is
readily available in standard texts on gas processing (e.g. Manning and Thompson,
1991).
Of the above four design methods to prevent hydrates in fuel gas lines, the most
satisfactory from the standpoint of expense and operating practice is to provide dry
inlet gas with a fuel gas line downstream of the TEG dryer. As Deaton and Frost
(1946, p. 41) stated in their classic study of hydrate formation and prevention:
The only method found to be completely satisfactory in preventing the formation of
hydrates in gas transmission lines is to dehydrate the gas entering the line to a dew
point low enough to preclude formation of hydrates at any point in the system.
H-0806.35
9-78
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.6-12: SINGLE VALVE GAS EXPANSION WITH METHANOL INJECTION
Control
Valve
Gas Inlet of
0.02 MMSCF
per day
P1=1500 psia
P2=300 psia
T1=100oF
T2=33oF
0.393 lbm MEOH/day

.
H-0806.35
9-80
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.6-13: PARALLEL GAS EXPANSION
H-0806.35
9-80
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The study of gas expansion without hydrate formation suggests two additional Rulesof-Thumb, stated below.
Rule-of-Thumb 8. It is always better to expand a dry gas than a wet gas, in order to
prevent hydrate formation in unusual circumstances, e.g. changes in upstream
pressure due to throughput changes.
Rule-of-Thumb 8 is illustrated by the previous example, which typifies instrument or
fuel gas applications. To use this Rule-of-Thumb it is necessary to be able to dry the
gas, using either a glycol dehydrator or a molecular sieve adsorption process.
Rule-of-Thumb 9. Where drying is not a possibility, it is always better to take a
large pressure drop at a process condition where the inlet temperature is high.
One application of Rule-of-Thumb 9 is the bottom hole choke, provided in Texacos
Reliability Engineering: Gas Freezing & Hydrate Study, a handbook for field
personnel by Todd et al. (1996). A bottom hole choke is a device with a restricted
opening, placed in the lower end of the tubing string to cause a large pressure drop to
be taken deep in the wellbore. The warm downhole reservoir heats the gas before it
expands, thus preventing hydrates from forming across the expansion. The majority
of bottom hole chokes are installed in high pressure gas wells that producer a low
amount of liquids.
9.3.7
Hydrate Control Through Chemical Inhibition and Heat Management

There are four classical approaches to hydrate inhibition, discussed at the beginning of
Section 9.3:
5.
remove water from the system,
6.
increase the temperature,
7.
decrease the pressure, or
8.
insert a component to attract water molecules, such as an alcohol or glycol.
Two additional, new inhibition techniques have been commercialized and are gaining
industrial acceptance:
1.
H-0806.35
the kinetic inhibition method of preventing sizable crystal growth for a period
exceeding the free water residence time in a pipeline, and
9-81
1-Dec-00
2.
DEEPSTAR
the anti-agglomerant method which uses a surfactant to stabilize the water/hydrate

phase as small emulsified droplets within a liquid hydrocarbon.
Thermodynamic inhibition (methods 1 through 4) prohibit hydrate formation

altogether, while with the newer methods (5 and 6) the system is allowed to exist
within the hydrate stability zone, so that small crystals are stabilized for some time
period without growing to larger masses. While thermodynamic inhibitors are the
standard practice offshore, there are successful commercial instances of kinetic
control. The incentive for newer kinetic control methods is a substantial capital cost
reduction by the elimination of the need for offshore platform equipment, a small
operating cost reduction, and elimination of some environmental concerns. In the
future innovative methods of heat management through heating and insulation may
provide thermodynamic protection against hydrates.
Section 9.3.7.1 discusses design and operation with thermodynamic inhibition
chemicals (methanol and monoethylene glycol). Section 9.3.7.2 discusses design and
operation with kinetic inhibitors. Section 9.3.7.3 summarizes the chemical inhibitor
use guidelines. Section 9.3.7.4 shows the methods of heat management to retain a
high inlet temperature in the fluid region.
9.3.7.1
Inhibition with Methanol or Monoethylene Glycol

Methanol
Of all hydrate inhibitors, methanol is the most widely used. Methanol is also the best
and most cost effective of the alcohols. Hydrate inhibition abilities are less for larger
alcohols (i.e. methanol > ethanol > isopropanol.) Typically methanol is vaporized into
the gas stream of a pipeline, then dissolves in any free water accumulation(s) to
prevent hydrate formation.
For methanol injection into wells, a commercial program such as WELLTEMP can
be used to predict the flowing temperature and pressure (in an identical manner to that
used with PIPEPHASE or OLGA in Example 2 of Section 9.3.1). The downhole
methanol injection point is placed at the well depth for which the well temperature and
pressure are predicted to cross into the hydrate formation region, for both well
production and well testing conditions. Usually the flowing well conditions are warm
enough to prevent hydrate formation.
The methanol amount needed in free water of either wells or flowlines may be
determined using Hammerschmidts equation or HYDOFF, as illustrated in Sections
9.3.3. and 9.3.4. Typically the free water concentration of methanol in onshore
H-0806.35
9-82
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
pipelines is about 20 wt%, while offshore methanol concentrations can exceed 50 wt%
if the pressure is high.
A recent finding is that underinhibition with MeOH is worse than no inhibition for
two reasons, as measured by Yousif et al, (1996): (1) under- inhibited systems form
hydrates faster than systems without inhibitors, and (2) hydrates stick to the pipe walls
more aggressively when insufficient methanol is injected.
While hydrate inhibition occurs in the water phase, significant amounts of methanol
are also dissolved in the vapor and oil/condensate phases. Proportions of methanol
dissolved in the vapor or oil/condensate phases are calculated via the methods of
Sections 9.3.3 and 9.3.4, and are usually taken as operating expense losses. Methanol
loss costs can be substantial when the total fraction of either the vapor or the
oil/condensate phase is very large relative to the water phase. Sample economics for
methanol are provided in Sectio n 9.5 and in the following Case Study 7.
Makogon (1981, p. 133) noted that in 1972 the Soviet gas industry used 0.3 kg of
methanol for every 1000 cubic meters of gas extracted. Norsk Hydro workers (Stange
et al. 1989) indicated that North Sea methanol usage may surpass the ratio given by
Makogon by an order of magnitude. The use of methanol in the North Sea has
become so expensive that alternatives to methanol injection are considered.
Case Study 7. Methanol Recovery from the Water Phase
Paragon Engineering (1994) performed a study for DeepStar (DSII CTR 221-1) of the
impact of methanol recovery on offshore systems. As an evaluation scenario, a
conventional, shallow water platform was designed solely for methanol recovery in
100-150 feet of water, with methanol return lines 40-60 miles to deepwater subsea
wells. Figure 9.3.7-1 shows a block flow diagram for methanol recovery and
injection.
Costs were determined for methanol recovery on the platform for eight cases of
methanol in the produced water. Table 9.3.7-1 shows results for four cases: 20wt%
and 30wt% methanol in the free water phase, for (a) high water production in late field
life, and (b) low water production in early field life.
H-0806.35
9-83
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
TABLE 9.3.7-1: METHANOL 1994 COSTS WITH OFFSHORE PLATFORM

RECOVERY
Case
High Water (Late Life)
Low Water (Early Life)
Amount of MeOH in H2 O, wt%
30
20
30
20
Oil Production, bpd
Produced Water, bpd
Gas, MMscf/d
Injected MeOH, bpd
MeOH Loss to Gas, lbm/d
MeOH Loss to Gas, %
MeOH Loss to Oil, lb m/d
MeOH Loss to Oil, %
Installed Cost on Platform, $MM
Total Cost with Platform, $MM
Operating Cost, $MM/yr.
H-0806.35
13,188
14,593
15
7,797
6,412
0.29
2,176
0.10
13,191
14,498
15
4,537
4,430
0.35
1,456
0.11
48,813
3,196
57
1,668
23,443
4.72
7,914
1.59
48,802
3,188
57
960
15,977
5.53
5,224
1.81
Capital and Operating Cost Calculations

16.7
13.3
5.03
4.20
20.8
17.4
9.14
8.31
5.78
4.39
4.25
2.99
9-84
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.7-1: METHANOL RECOVERY AND INJECTION
Shallow Water Platform (150 ft.

w.d) Gas
Oil/Gas
Gas
Oil
Water
Flow
MeOH
MeOH
Rec.
(MMSCF
(BPD
(BPD
(BPD
(%
Max.
Rec.
MeOH
15.
13,20
14,60
7,80
99.
Dehydratio
Compressio
&
Min.
Rec.
MeOH
56.
48,80
3,38
20
9
Oil/Gas/Wat
Separatio
Wate
50
12
miles
Pipelin
Oi
Oil
Pumpin
Meterin
Water
to
Production
4
Methanol
injection
Methan
Storag
Re-
Deepwater (4000 ft.

Subsea Well
& Templat
H-0806.35
to
Methan
Recover
Facilitie
Water
9-85
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
In all cases methanol was recovered as the overhead product from a 40 tray distillation
column. The bottoms methanol concentration was less than 1000 ppm so that water
could be dumped overboard.
Paragon Engineering also reported methanol losses which were greater than
anticipated in North Sea recovery systems from three Conoco facilities (4-5 gal MeOH
lost/MMscf), a Norsk Hydro recovery unit (29% MeOH losses), and an Amoco
Netherlands recovery unit (12% MeOH losses).
Methanol recovery is possible from the vapor phase, using a cryogenic recovery
process, but this is seldom done due to the expense involved. Methanol can be
recovered from the condensate via a water-wash and subsequent distillation, but this is
also seldom done. Environmental concerns have a major impact on recovery.
Monoethylene Glycol
Of the glycols, mono-ethylene glycol (MEG) dominates pipeline injection over diethylene glycol (DEG) and tri-ethylene glycol (TEG) because MEG has a lower
viscosity and is more effective per pound. MEG also has a higher molecular weight
and a lower volatility than methanol, so MEG may be recovered and recycled more
easily on platforms. In addition MEG losses to the vapor and oil/condensate phases
are very small relative to methanol. Consequently, MEG is most applicable for small
water fractions when gas and oil/condensate fractions are very high. The MEG
injection amount may be calculated using methods in Sections 9.3.3 and 9.3.4.
Rule-of-Thumb 10. Monoethylene glycol injection is used when the required
methanol injection rate exceeds 30 gal/hr.
Rule-of-thumb 10 was obtained from Manning and Thompson (1991, p. 86).
Unlike methanol, MEGs low vapor pressure requires that it be atomized into a
pipeline. After injection, MEG is retained with the water phase and provides no
hydrate protection above the water level. Due to its high viscosity and density, MEG
is seldom used to dissociate a hydrate plug unless the injection point is vertically
above a hydrate plug (as in a riser or a well); methanol is normally used for flowline
plugs.
Figure 9.3.7-2 shows a MEG recovery unit that appears very similar to the methanol
recovery block diagram in Figure 9.3.7-1. However in the methanol column the
H-0806.35
9-86
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.7-2: MEG RECOVERY AND REGENERATION
H-0806.35
9-87
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
overhead may be almost pure methanol, while in the glycol regenerator MEG is
recovered with water (typically at 60-80 wt%) at the bottom. Salt also concentrates in
MEG regenerator bottoms (due to low salt vapor pressure) when salt water is produced
in the well stream inhibited by MEG. The salt solubility limit in MEG is frequently
exceeded, resulting in salt precipitation and fouling of column trays, exchangers, and
other equipment.
Comparison of Methanol and Glycol Injection
In a comprehensive set of experimental studies, Ng et al. (1987) determined that
methanol inhibited hydrate formation more than an equivalent mass of glycol in the
aqueous liquid.
Methanol usage (principally in flowlines and topside on platforms) predominates in
the Norwegian sector of the North Sea; MEG is principally used for hydrates in wells
and risers. In contrast, MEG dominates BPs inhibition use in the North Sea. Major
problems with use of MEG are high viscosity in long lines and salt precipitation upon
regeneration. Methanol use is much more prevalent than MEG in the United States.
While there is no robust strategy to discriminate between the use of methanol and
MEG, the choice seems to depend upon (a) plug location, (b) fluid effects, and (c)
properties of the plug in question. The table below provides a summary.
TABLE 9.3.7-2: METHANOL AND MONOETHYLENE GLYCOL
ATTRIBUTES COMPARISON
Hydrate
Inhibitor
Methanol (MeOH)
Monoethylene Glycol (MEG)
Advantages
-easily vaporized into gas

-for flowline & topside plugs
-no salt problems
-easy to recover
-for plugs in wells and risers
-low gas &condensate solubility
Disadvantages
-costly to recover
-high gas & condensate losses
-too little is worse than none
-costly in condensate product
(See Table 13 Section IV.B.1.a)
-high viscosity inhibits flow

-salt precipitation and fouling
-remains in aqueous phase
A step-wise list of considerations before injection of methanol and monoethylene

glycol are provided in Table 9.3.7-5 at the end of 9.3.7.3.
H-0806.35
9-88
1-Dec-00
9.3.7.2
DEEPSTAR
Kinetic Control by Anti-Agglomerants and Kinetic Inhibitors

The reader is referred to the text by Sloan (1998, Section 3.3) for the theory of hydrate
prevention using the two new techniques of anti-agglomeration and kinetic inhibition.
At the time of this writing, the kinetic inhibition area is changing rapidly with
substantial research and development, and only a few good examples of commercial
application exist. With some inhibitors, substantial advantages are claimed for
combinations of anti-agglomerants and kinetic inhibition.
Anti-Agglomerants
Figure 9.3.7-3 shows a schematic of the method for anti-agglomeration. In the upper
diagram hydrates form large black masses and can grow to a size to plug the pipeline.
In the lower portion of Figure 9.3.7-3, a surfactant emulsifier has been added to the
gas condensate system to cause the water to be suspended as small droplets in the
condensate.
With this inhibition mechanism, hydrate droplets form, and both gas and water are
consumed, but hydrates are prevented from agglomerating to larger hydrate masses
capable of plugging pipelines. Even though hydrates are formed, their suspension
may provide acceptable flow properties such as low pressure drops. Anti-agglomerant
inhibitors are particularly effective in preventing hydrate pluggage or flow stoppages
such as shut- ins, with subsequent cooling and restarting.
As surfactant molecules, anti-agglomerants have one water-attractive end, while the
other end attracts oil, causing a lower surface tension between oil and water. With
excess oil, a surfactant causes the water phase to be suspended as emulsified droplets.
However with excess water, the emulsion may be reversed and water will be the
external phase. Surfactant chemistry is complex and a different surfactant may be
required to emulsify water with each oil (or condensate).
Lingelem, et al. (1994) present Norsk-Hydro data in Figure 9.3.7-4 as an example of
anti-agglomerant behavior in a multiphase pipeline that did not exhibit plugging when
the initial water-to-oil ratio (WOR) was below 60% (volume), even with hydrate
formation. In contrast, plugging was observed above 60% WOR with less than 10
wt% methanol in the free water. Other multiphase oil pipelines (not shown in Figure
9.3.7-4) commonly plug with minimal WOR.
The Norsk-Hydro authors suggest that behavior such as in Figure 9.3.7-4 illustrates a
natural anti-agglomerant mechanism because, the difference in plugging behavior
H-0806.35
9-89
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
is attributed to the type and amount of natural surfactants present in the oil or
condensate. In general oils with little tendency to form stable emulsions have been
observed to form hydrate plugs more easily than oils more prone to form stable
emulsions.
Rule-of-Thumb 11. Use of anti-agglomerants requires a substantial oil/condensate
phase. The maximum water to oil ratio (volume basis) for the use of an antiagglomerant is 40:60 on a volume basis.
The above rule-of-thumb is founded on two bases:
At higher WOR than 40:60, the water- in-oil emulsion may invert to an oil- in-water
emulsion. If the water phase is external, hydrates will grow beyond small droplets.
Coal slurry transport technology provides a maximum ratio of coal : liquid vehicle
of 40:60. Higher ratios increase the risk of having a non-transportable hydrate
phase, similar to a non-transportable coal slurry.
At the French Petroleum Institute, Behar et al. (1994) provided three performance
examples of an anti-agglomerant inhibitor in a two inch pilot loop, for a recombined
crude, a gas saturated oil, and a gas saturated condensate with WOR ratios of 0.3, 0.3,
and 0.1 ft 3 /ft3 respectively. The last case is shown with and witho ut anti-agglomerant
inhibition in the Figure 9.3.7-5 and Figure 9.3.7-6 respectively.
The gas consumption increases in both cases, indicating hydrate formation even with
anti-agglomerant inhibition. However the loop pressure drop (an indicator of hydrate
formation in a closed system) remains at a low value with inhibition (Figure 9.3.7-6),
while it increases rapidly without inhibitor in Figure 9.3.7-5. A low pressure drop
indicates that the effective viscosity is small and that the fluid components flow
readily.
Small amounts of surfactant are required relative to traditional inhibitors like
methanol. Behar et al. (1994) indicate that 1 wt% of an emulsifier is equivalent to 25
wt% methanol. Economics should include such factors as surfactant cost, emulsion
breaking, and recovery, and environmental considerations.
H-0806.35
9-90
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.7-3: ANTI-AGGLOMORANTS IN PIPELINE
Without Anti-Agglomerantes
Condensat
e
Hydrate Plug
Condensat
e
With Anti-Agglomerantes
Hydrates in
Suspension
Condensat
e
H-0806.35
9-91
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.7-4: ANTI AGGLOMORANTS EFFECTIVENESS IN VARIOUS

AMOUNTS OF WATER
H-0806.35
9-92
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Specific surfactants must be formulated and tested as emulsifying agents for each
composition of condensate. Many surfactants have been shown to promote hydrate
formation. Significant technology was transferred from earlier studies of enhanced oil
recovery.
Undocumented reports from Shell report an inhibition chemical which provides
inhibition at an order of magnitude lower concentration than the IFP chemical, without
being condensate specific. Reportedly, this additive allows the hydrates to form
before taking them into the condensate phase; some environmental concerns persist.
There is not a published commercial example of the use of an anti-agglomerant in an
offshore hydrates application. Yet the method holds great promise, especially for
deep, highly subcooled systems and shutdown with cold restart situations.
Weaknesses of the method include toxicity concerns, the need to break emulsions, and
the need to recover the expensive dispersant additive. Anti-agglomerant chemicals are
proprietary and chemical structures, properties, and performance are not in the open
literature. The next decade will undoubtedly see major advances in these chemicals.
Kinetic Inhibition
Kinetic inhibition of hydrate growth has a different mechanism than that of antiagglomerants. While there is evidence that the presence of a liquid hydrocarbon phase
aids inhibition, kinetic inhibitors prevent hydrate crystal nucleation and growth
without emulsifying in a hydrocarbon phase. Prevention of nucleation prevents
hydrate crystals from growing to a critical radius. Growth inhibition maintains
hydrates as small crystals, inhibiting progress to larger crystals.
Figure 9.3.7-7 shows the most common measure of kinetic inhibitor performance. The
line marked Lw-H-V represents the hydrate formation line, as predicted by the gas
gravity curve (9.3.3) or by HYDOFF (Section II.D), with hydrate formation to the left
and non- hydrate conditions to the right of the line. The horizontal line in Figure 9.3.77 represents a cooling curve for hydrate forming mixtures, such as may occur in a
pipeline (Figure 9.3.1-5). The object of kinetic inhibition is to maintain the operating
condition of a pipeline as far as possible to the left of the Lw-H-V line without
formation of hydrate plugs during the residence time of the fluids in the flow line.
H-0806.35
9-93
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.7-5: HYDRATE FORMATION WITH PLUGGING
H-0806.35
9-94
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.7-6: ANTI AGGLOMORANTS PREVENTING PLUGGING
H-0806.35
9-95
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.7-7: SUB COOLING AS A MEASURE OF KINETIC INHIBITOR PERFORMANCE
H-0806.35
9-96
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
In Figure 9.3.7-7, subcooling (T) is the measure of the lowest temperature that the
system can be operated relative to the hydrate formation temperature at a given
pressure. The maximum value of T is determined by a laboratory and/or pilot plant
experiment, and the pipeline is operated at a smaller value of T. The value of T
appears to be pressure independent; however T does depend upon the polymer,
molecular weight, and the amount of salt, glycol, and alcohol present. Recent results
suggest that water residence time can be as long as 30 days without hydrate formation,
when the lowest temperature of the pipeline is at least 3oF less than the maximum
subcooling (Tmax) with a good kinetic inhibitor.
Kinetic inhibitors are commonly polymers with several chemical formulas shown in
Figure 9.3.7-8. Each of the chemicals has a polyethylene backbone, connected to
pendant groups typically containing an amide (-N-C=O) linkage, frequently within a
five- or seven- member ring. As the inhibitor adsorbs on the hydrate crystal, the
pendant group penetrates specific sites (cages) of a hydrate crystal surface while the
polymer backbone extends along the surface. In order to continue growing, the crystal
must grow around the polymer; otherwise crystal growth is blocked.
Figure 9.3.7-9 is a schematic of one type of kinetic inhibition. Adsorption of three
kinetic inhibitor polymer strands are shown on a hydrate crystal surface. The filled
stars on each polymer strand represent the pendant groups which dock at the empty
star sites on the hydrate crystal surface. As indicated on the figure, the subcooling
T is directly proportional to the liquid-crystal surface tension (), but inversely
proportional to the length (L) between polymer strands.
If the amount of polymer adsorption increases, the distance L between the strands
decreases, resulting in an increased subcooling T performance. Conversely, if the
amount of inhibitor adsorption decreases (due to depletion by multiple small hydrate
crystals) the distance L between polymer strands increases, resulting in a smaller
subcooling T.
One of the first kinetic inhibitors developed was polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP), a
polymer whose structure is shown in Figure 9.3.7-8. Several companies have adopted
the use of PVP in onshore fields with a small subcooling (T) and short residence
time.
Initial field tests of kinetic inhibitors were reported by ARCO (Bloys et al., 1995) and
Texaco (Notz et al., 1995). Bloys reported the effectiveness of 0.3-0.4 wt% VC-713
in a 17 day test in a North Sea pipeline. The pipeline (8 in. diameter, 9.4
H-0806.35
9-97
1-Dec-00
DEEPS TAR
FIGURE 9.3.7-8: FORMULAS OF SOME KINETIC INHIBITORS
H-0806.35
9-98
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.7-9: POLYMER ABSORPTION IN HYDRATE

CRYSTAL
H-0806.35
9-99
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
km long) had a flow rate of 20 MMscf/d, 0.5 bbl/MMscf condensate and 0.2
bbl/MMscf condensed water at a subcooling between 1 o C and 9 o C. Bloys suggested
that economics were very favorable for new developments, but marginal for retrofits
of systems with traditional inhibitors such as monoethylene glycol.
Texacos Notz et al. (1995) indicated successful use of polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP) in
several wells and flow lines in Texas and in Wyoming, concluding that PVP was in
routine use in some Texaco fields. Notz further reported that PVP (at less than 1 wt%)
was effective in replacing methanol (at concentrations from 10 to 60 wt% in free
water) resulting in savings of as much as 50%. See Texaco Case Studies C.13 and
C.14 in Appendix C.
Rule-of-Thumb 12. PVP may be used to inhibit pipelines with subcooling less than
10 o F for flow lines with short gas residence times (less than 20 minutes).
Rule-of-Thumb 12 comes from Texacos Reliability Engineering: Gas Freezing &
Hydrate Study, a handbook for field personnel by Todd et al. (1996) which reflects
Texaco operating kinetic inhibitor practice with approximately 30 flow lines from
their Brookeland field.
Kinetic inhibitors more effective (but more expensive per pound) than PVP (illustrated
by the other chemical formulas in Figure 9.3.7-8) have a seven- member ring pendant
group in place of the five- member PVP pendant ring. The better kinetic inhibitors
provide additional subcooling with long water residence times.
Rule-of-Thumb 13: VC-713, PVCap, and co-polymers of PVCap can be used to
inhibit flow lines at subcooling less than 18 o F, with water phase residence times up
to 30 days.
Rule-of-Thumb 13 comes from commercial use of kinetic inhibitors, as indicated in
the below case study.
Case Study 7: North Sea Use of New Inhibitors
On July 22, 1996 British Petroleum (BP) initiated continuous commercial use of
kinetic inhibitors (called threshold hydrate inhibitors, THI) in flowlines in the West
Sole gas export lines (Argo et al, 1997). This followed from an extensive set of field
trials carried out in the Ravenspurn to Cleeton wet gas line (Corrigan et al., 1996).
H-0806.35
9-100
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
BP began THI use in a 16 inch I.D., 13 mile long pipeline from three Ravenspurn
platforms to Cleeton. At the time of the trial the maximum flow rate was 195
MMscf/d. For the purpose of the trial the flow rate was cut back to 90 mmscf/d to put
the line as far into the hydrate region as possible (16 o F of subcooling). Three trials
were carried out, all of which were successful. The trials included extensive periods
of shut-in, up to 7 days with successful restart. A typical water production rate was
1.6 bbl/MMscf with a line pressure of 1088 psia and a low temperature of 48 o F. The
THI dose rate was 3000-5000 ppm based on the free water phase. See Corrigan et al.
(1996) for further details.
Currently two lines (24 inch and 16 inch I.D., 35 miles long) from West Sole A, B,
and C and Hyde are being inhibited with THI. Water residence times can be as long
as 2-3 weeks, and the lines are 11 o F inside the hydrate region at operational
conditions. The gas is very lean produc ing very little condensate. Water content is
low and free water comes mainly from condensation. Due to the low amounts of
water and condensate, this is an atypical case, but nonetheless represents a severe test
for kinetic inhibitors.
Water production from all four West Sole platforms is 150-200 bbl/d, or about 0.3
bbl/MMscf with 250 MM scf/d total produced from the 3 West Sole platforms and the
remainder from the Hyde platform. The condensate rate is also 0.3 bbl/MMscf. The
THI pumping rate per platform is 2-3 liters/hr of solution which contains about 15
wt% active ingredient. The target injection rate is 3000 ppm based on the free water
phase.
9.3.7.3
Guidelines for Use of Chemical Inhibitors

The following list is a stepwise protocol to determine whether the use of inhibitors
might be suitable, modified from the original suggestions by Edwards of BP (1997)
and T R Oil Services (Grainger, 1997). It should be emphasized that, before field
application, experimental data should be obtained, particularly if kinetic inhibition is
being considered.
The below protocol provides preliminary steps for such
experiments.
H-0806.35
9-101
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Guidelines for Use of Kinetic or Thermodynamic Inhibitors

1.
If the field is mature, record the current hydrate prevention strategy. Record the
existing or planned procedures for dealing with an unplanned shutdown. Provide a
generic description of the chemistry of the scale and corrosion inhibitors used.
2.
Obtain an accurate gas, condensate, and water analyses during a field drill test.
Estimate how these compositions will change over the life of the field. Estimate the
production rates of gas, oil, and water phases over the life of the field.
3.
Generate the hydrate pressure-temperature equilibrium line with several prediction

methods. If the operating conditions are close to the hydrate line, confirm the
prediction with experiment(s).
4.
Determine the water production profile over field life.
5.
Consider the pipeline topography along the ocean floor to determine where water
accumulations will occur at dips, resulting in points of hydrate formation.
6.
Simulate the pipeline pressure-temperature profile using a simulator such as OLGA

or Pipesim to perform hydraulic and heat transfer calculations in the well, flow lines,
and separator over the life of the field.
7.
Determine the water residence times in all parts of the system, especially in low points
of the pipeline.
8.
Estimate the subcooling T (at the lowest temperature and highest pressure) relative to
the equilibrium line over all parts of the system, including fluid separators and water
handling facilities. List the parts of the system which require protection.
9.
If T < 14 o F, consider the use of kinetic inhibitors. If T > 14o F, consider the use of
standard thermodynamic inhibitors or anti-agglomerants (no one has used antiagglomerants commercially as of January 1, 1998).
10. Perform economic calculations (capital and operating expenses) for four options (a)
drying, (b) methanol, (c) monoethylene glycol, and (d) kinetic inhibitors.
11. Determine if inhibitor recovery is economical.
12. Design the system hardware to measure: (a) temperature and pressure at pipe inlet and
outlet (b) water monitor for rates at receiving facility, and (c) the below chemical check
list
a) Has the inhibitor been tested with systems at the pipeline temperature and pressure?
b) Consider the environmental, safety, and health impact of the chemical.
c) Determine physical properties such as flash point (should be < 135F), viscosity
(should be <200 cp at lowest T), density, and pour point (should be >15F).
d) Determine the minimum, maximum, and average dosage of inhibitor.
e) Determine the storage and injection deployment methods.
f) Determine the material compatibility with gaskets, seals, etc.
g) Determine compatibility with other production chemicals.
h) Determine the compatib ility with the process downstream including cloud point,
foaming, and emulsification tendencies.
H-0806.35
9-102
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
At an early stage in the inhibitor design process it will be worthwhile to consider

obtaining laboratory data and involving a service company to provide field support of
process hydrate inhibition.
Hydrate inhibition occurs in the water phase and is dependent on the amount of water
production and the salt concentration. Because the amount and concentration of
pipeline water depends heavily upon produced water, reservoir engineers should
provide the best estimate of produced water and salt concentrations over the life of the
field. The second source of water, condensed water, can be estimated from gas water
content as illustrated in Section 9.3.3.5 a and in Figure 9.3.3-2.
Edwards also provided one possible scenario for water production over a field life.
The below scenario for a North Sea pipeline indicates a non- intuitive situation. The
pipeline initially operates with a low inhibition need, in mid- life the pipeline requires
inhibition, in the final stages of life, the pipeline does not require hydrate inhibition.
One Scenario for Pipeline Water Over Field Life
H-0806.35
1.
At the beginning of field life, water production may be low, so that only a small
amount of condensed water can be responsible for hydrate problems. The field
may be operating with a large subcooling T, but low dosages of chemicals are
required by low amount of water production. However, there are counter
examples of fields which begin producing water early in their life. Only fluid
measurements can assess this difference.
2.
At field mid- life, water produced down the line (if there is no upstream separation
facilities) will increase. Both produced water and condensed water may be
substantial. Total water may double or triple, but the condensed water amount
may be sufficient to dilute the solution to low salt concentrations, so that
maximum inhibitor injection rates may be required. Over a field lifetime, typical
salt concentration from produced water may vary from 0% to the reservoir
concentration.
3.
At the end of field life there may be 10 times as much water, but it is mostly saline
production. Both the increase in water salinity and the pressure decline of the field
may take the production fluids outside the hydrate P-T region.
4.
As an example, one BP field is forecast to dip into and out of the hydrate
formation region over its life.
9-103
1-Dec-00
9.3.7.4
DEEPSTAR
Heat Management
The discussion in this section has been excerpted from DeepStar reports CTR A601-a,
b, c, d, CTR 223-1, from Aarseth (1997), and from discussions with Statoil
researchers.
The retention of reservoir heat is one of the most efficient means of hydrate
prevention. Because all reservoirs contain water and because water acts as a heat sink
due to a high heat of vaporization, fluids at the wellhead are typically at temperatures
from 175 o F to 212 o F. When the reservoir fluid flows through a deep ocean pipeline
with an outer temperature at 40 o F, the temperature can quickly cool into the hydrate
region as determined by the heat transfer coefficient (U) between pipe and ocean.
Case Study 8. Pipeline Temperature with Heat Loss
Figure 9.3.7-10 (from DeepStar Report CTR 223) shows an offshore pipeline
temperature as a function of length, at various values of U, between the pipeline inlet
temperature (140 o F) and a separator 50 miles away. The pipeline in the figure was
assumed to be 50% buried and had a water flow of 1,527 bbl/d, a gas flow of 30.76
MMscf/d, and an oil flow of 22,723 bbl/d.
In Figure 9.3.7-10 the lowest, dashed line shows the temperature of the ocean with
length. The upper lines represent the pipeline temperature with no heat loss through
the pipe wall, with the temperature drop being due to expansion. However, with heat
loss through the pipewall, the temperature drops dramatically. With overall heat
transfer coefficients of U = 0.17 and U = 3.3 BTU/hr-ft2 - o F, the separator temperature
is 70 o F or 50 o F, respectively. Hydrates can easily form at these temperatures,
particularly at the higher pressures (densities) necessary to make pipeline transport
economical. It is concluded that a lower heat transfer coefficient is needed to prevent
hydrate formation.
The temperature profiles in the above case study are for a flowing pipeline. If the
pipeline were shut- in, the system would rapidly cool to the ambient conditions
represented by the dashed line at the bottom of Figure 9.3.7-10. At the low ambient
temperatures, hydrate problems are particularly severe and blockages may occur,
particularly when the system is re-started.
If hydrates form in an insulated pipeline, the pipeline may be depressurized to achieve
a hydrate equilibrium temperature just above 32 o F, so that heat will flow into the
hydrates from the ocean, which has a temperature around 40 o F. In such cases, the
H-0806.35
9-104
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
insulation is a hindrance or barrier which prevents heat flow from the ocean, making
hydrate dissociation much more difficult. As a consequence it is good operating
practice to inject large quantities of MeOH or MEG into the pipeline before a planned
shut-in.
Hydrates can be prevented in pipelines by three types of heat control:
1.
burying the pipeline to provide heating and insulation by the ocean floor,
2.
insulating the pipeline, using non-jacketed insulation, pipe- in-pipe systems, and
bundling systems, or
3.
heating the pipeline.
Pipeline burial is a good means of providing pipeline insulation and protection. The
degree of insulation depends upon the thermal gradient in the earth along the pipeline
route, the pipeline depth, and the water temperature. Expenses for providing a trench
and burial system for pipelines may be very high, particularly at great depths. On the
other hand, heat control systems through pipeline insulation or heating may be laid
with the pipeline from a barge. Pipeline insulation and heating methods are given
consideration in design, but insulation alone offer no protection for long-term shut- ins.
Insulation Methods
Figure 9.3.7-11 shows the three categories of insulated pipelines: (a) non-jacketed, (b)
pipe-in-pipe, and (c) bundled flowlines. The non-jacketed system (Figure 9.3.7-11 a)
consists of an insulated pipe with a coating. The minimum overall coefficient
achievable with a non-jacketed system is 0.3 BTU/hr- ft2 - o F (CTR A601-a) and costs
are typically $50-$300/ft. for pipes with diameters between 8 inches and 12 inches.
The pipe- in-pipe (PIP) system (Figure 9.3.7-11 b) is the most thoroughly tested of the
three types. In this system the flow pipe is within an outer pipe, with either insulation
or vacuum between the two pipes, sometimes aided by a reflecting screen in the
annulus. With a 3-4 inch insulation layer, the PIP system can provide an overall heat
transfer coefficient (U) of 0.14 - 0.6 BTU/hr- ft2 - o F.
H-0806.35
9-105
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.7-10: PIPELINE TEMPERATURE VS CHANGE IN HEAT CONDUCTIVITY OF PIPELINE
TR H-0806.35
9-106
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.7-11: PIPELINE INSULATION METHODS
H-0806.35
9-107
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.7-12: RISER TEMPERATURE VS THICKNESS
H-0806.35
9-108
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 9.3.7-11c, shows a bundled line with two or more flowlines and a start-up
water line with an insulator, all in an outer casing. Bundles are fabricated on shore in
lengths up to 10 miles and towed to their offshore position, currently at water depths
of up to 5,000 feet Overall heat transfer coefficients as low as 0.1 BTU/hr- ft2 - o F can
be achieved.
Figure 9.3.7-12 (from DeepStar Report II CTR 223) shows the increase in temperature
at the platform riser as a function of insulation thickness, with two pipelines flowing
together compared to an individual flow, when each line has a water flow of 1,527
bbl/d, a gas flow of 30.76 MM scf/d, and an oil flow of 22,723 bbl/d. The addition of
a second flowline can reduce the insulation thickness required to obtain a given riser
temperature, or the second flowline will provide a higher riser temperature for a given
insulation.
Figure 9.3.7-13 and Figure 9.3.7-14 (from DeepStar Report CTR A601-a) compare the
cost of the three above types of insulation for water depths of 6000 feet over 60 miles
at oil production rates of 25,000 and 50,000 bbl/d, respectively. If an average U = 0.3
BTU/hr-ft2 - o F is required with a flowline pressure of 4000 psia, bundled flow lines are
more cost effective.
Pipeline Heating Methods
DeepStar Report CTR A601-b concludes that, where pipeline depth precludes
depressurization below the hydrate formation pressure, heating may be the only option
to clear a hydrate plug. Yet as noted in Section I, heating a hydrate plug can be very
dangerous. DeepStar Report CTR A601-c concludes that pipeline heating will be very
expensive, at least 1MW of power is required for a 20 o C (36 o F) increase of a 10
inch pipeline 15 miles long.
1.
H-0806.35
In the future Statoil will use heating more extensively in order to reduce the
amount of methanol or other chemicals used. Bundles will be used in 1998, and
direct heat thereafter. The Chevron/Conoco Britannia project will start in the
North Sea in 1998 using a bundled line to heat fluids. The three common means of
heat management are (a) bundling hot water lines (for 10 km and return) in
production lines to prevent hydrate formation (b) Combipipe (shown in Figure
9.3.7-15) for induction heating, with current flowing through 3 cables outside of
pipe but within insulation, with corrosion protection,), (c) direct electrical heating
for 50-60 km long lines (shown in Figure 9.3.7-16) in which the pipeline is the
primary conductor with a current return line at 1m
9-109
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.7-13: COST VS OVERALL HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT

(Depth 6000ft. Prod. Rate 25,000 BOPD)
(From DeepStar CTR A601-a, 1995)
H-0806.35
9-110
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.7-14: COST VS OVERALL HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT

(Depth 6000ft. Prod. Rate 50,000 BOPD)
From DeepStar CTR A601-a, 1995
H-0806.35
9-111
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.7-15: HEATING THROUGH BUNDLING AND COMBI-PIPING
Hot
Water
Input
A)
Pipeline
Bundled
B) Combi- Pipe
Thermal
Insulation
Insulation
Flowline
Pipelin Pipelin
e
e
Insulation
Cold
Water
Return
H-0806.35
Heating
Cables
9-112
Pipewall with
Corrosion Protection
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.7-16: DIRECT ELECTRIC HEATING
Electric
Current
Pipeline
Electric
Current
1 meter
Current Return Wire
H-0806.35
9-113
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.7-17: OFFSHORE WELL, TRANSPORT PIPELINE, AND PLATFORM
H-0806.35
9-114
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DES IGN GUIDELINE
in parallel to the pipeline. It should be noted however, that such heating tools are in
the planning stage and commercial use has yet to be documented.
9.3.8
Design Guidelines for Offshore Hydrate Prevention

The below hydrate prevention paradigm is a collection of Rules-of-Thumb which
provide general guidelines for offshore design. These design Rules-of-Thumb are for
hydrate prevention in the three parts of the system where hydrates most often occur
(shown in Figure 9.3.7-17): the well, the pipeline, and the platform. Many of these
guidelines result from Section 9.4 on Hydrate Remediation.
H-0806.35
1.
Before embarking on a hydrate prevention design, it is imperative to have a

reliable hydrate equilibrium curve (Sections 9.3.3 and 9.3.4) which represents the
gas, oil/condensate, and water compositions over the life of the field. If possible
the hydrate formation curve should be verified via an independent prediction or
hydrate formation experiment.
2.
Simulate the pressure-temperature profile in the well, flow lines and platform at
the worst case (usually during winter months) over the life of the field. Estimate
the water residence times at all points in the system. Account for both normal
cooling (e.g. in pipelines as in Example 2) and Joule-Thomson expansions across
restrictions (e.g. in wells, chokes, and control valves.
3.
Estimate the subcooling T (at the lowest temperature and highest pressure) at
each point in the process relative to the hydrate equilibrium curve. Hydrates may
form in systems with subcooling Ts less than 2-4 o F.
4.
Where subcooling is unavoidable, determine the type of hydrate inhibition, such as

chemical inhibitor injection or heat management. Choose the inhibition method
with regard to both prediction ability and operating experiences. Consider
providing a heater prior to the platform choke and separator.
5.
Eliminate subcooling points of likely hydrate formation. Design pipelines to

minimize buckling and protrusions from mudlines, which might promote cooling.
6.
Design large pressure drops with either dry gas or expansions at high temperature
points in the process. Where large expansions of wet gas are unavoidable, (e.g. at
choke valves) provide methanol injection capability upstream of the restriction.
7.
Eliminate points of water accumulation, such as upslopes in pipelines or S

configurations in risers. Where pipeline topography ensures water accumulations
(e.g. upslopes in lines, etc.) provide for frequent pigging and consider placing
methanol injection prior to the accumulation points.
8.
Eliminate points of hydrate accumulation from a mechanical perspective. Hydrate

crystals in a line may be considered to accumulate (and plug) wherever light sand
9-115
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
particles might accumulate, such as at blind flanges at turns, elbows, screens and
filters, upstream of restrictions etc. Avoid unnecessary bends. Bend radii less
than 5 times the pipe diameter should be avoided to facilitate coiled tubing entry.
A riser tube radius should be from 20-80 feet
9.
With a high probability hydrates will form over the system lifetime. Provide
hydrate remediation methods (see Section 9.4 for justification) in the design.
a) For pipelines, safe remediation often implies depressurization from both ends
of a hydrate plug. Optimally, multiple access points in a pipeline (see b) are
invaluable in locating and remediating hydrate and paraffin plugs.
Alternatively dual production lines should be used to provide for
depressurization of wellheads from the upstream side of a pipeline plug.
As a second best method, provide for depressurization through a wellhead
service line (for corrosion, paraffin, or hydrate inhibitor injection) with bypass
capability for check valve(s) at the point of injection. As a minimum a spare
flange and valve should be provided at the wellhead or manifold, so that
depressurization can be done via connection to offshore production vessel (see
ARCO Case Study 14. Technology is not yet available for location of the end
of plugs or the safe heating of plugs in ocean pipelines.
b) Subsea access points should be considered at the well manifold and at 4 mile
intervals along the pipeline, as shown in Figure 9.3.8-1. Such access points
will facilitate (a) the location of a hydrate (b) venting of excessive fluid head
from plugs in deep sea lines, (c) injection of hydrate inhibitors, (d) coiled
tubing entry, and (e) pig launching.
c) In wells, hydrate remediation occurs by approaching one end of a plug via
chemical injection, depressurization, heating, or coiled tubing. Case Study 16
in Section 9.3.3.5 indicates that normal well lubricators can be used at the
swab valve with careful balancing of pressure.
d) On the platform hydrate plugs may be located using tools such as a
thermocamera. With the accurate location of the plug ends, remediation may
be done through chemical injection, heating, or depressurization.
H-0806.35
9-116
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.3.8-1: PRE-INSTALLED ACCESS PORTS ON PIPELINE
H-0806.35
9-117
1-Dec-00
9.4
DEEPSTAR
Hydrate Plug Remediation

Perhaps the best way to remove a hydrate blockage in a flow channel is to use the
experience of those who have removed similar blockages. In addition to those case
studies in the body of the handbook, Appendix C details 27 case histories of hydrate
removal in flow lines. Table 9.4-1 provides an overview of Appendix C case histories.
Rule-of-Thumb 14: Hydrate blockages occur due to abnormal operating conditions
such as well tests with water, loss of inhibitor injection, dehydrator malfunction,
start-up, shut-in, etc. In all recorded instances1 pipeline plugs due solely to hydrates
were successfully removed and the system returned to service.
No pipelines were abandoned or replaced due to a hydrate plug, as is sometimes the
case for paraffin plugs. However since every hydrate plug is unique, individual case
studies are anecdotal in nature. A very large number of anecdotal studies is required
before detailed remediation Rules-of-Thumb can be stated with confidence.
Fortunately three systematic studies of hydrate plugs provide substantial guidelines for
remediation. In 1994 Statoil purposely formed/removed over 20 hydrate plugs in a 6
inch gas/condensate line over a 9 week period (Case Studies C.15,16,17 in Appendix
C). During 1995-6 uninhibited plug formations were studied as baselines for new
inhibitors. DeepStar IIA Report A208-1 Methods to Clear Blocked Flowlines
(December 1995) was compiled by Mentor Subsea to document 16 hydrate blockage
cases and 39 paraffin blockage cases. In -February 1997 SwRI (Hatton et al., 1997)
formed and dissociated hydrates in a Kerr-McGee field line, resulting in three
significant tests (Case Studies C.25,26,27) with extensive instrumentation at five
pipeline points.
Much of the information in Section 9.4 on hydrate remediation was excerpted from the
above three systematic studies, supplemented by the literature and personal interviews
relating to hydrate blockages. The section is organized to provide answers to the
following questions:
How do Hydrate Blockages Occur? Section 9.4.1
An exception was the LASMO Staffa subsea field in the North Sea, which was abandoned in 1995 due to low
production problems with combined waxes and hydrates. See Case Study C.6. for further history on this field,
which included a 1 mile flowline replacement.
H-0806.35
9-118
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
TABLE 9.4-1: SUMMARY OF HYDRATE BLOCKAGE EXPERIENCES
Case/Operator
1. Placid
Field/
Region
GC 29
2. Chevron
Wyoming
3. Chevron
GOM
4. Chevron
Oklahoma
5. Chevron
6. Lasmos
7. Texaco
8. Texaco
H-0806.35
Line
Line
Size
Type
16" Gas Cond.
4"
Gas Cond.
WD
(ft)
200 ft
Gas Lift
Inj. Lines
4"
Gas Sales
Canada
6"
Gas cond.
Export
North Sea
8"
Multiphase
GB 189
GC 6
23/4"
3/4"
Gas
Gas
725 ft
600 ft
Time
Extent of Control Method Operations Removed?

Restriction before Plug before Plug
1989 Complete
None
Flowing
Depressurize
Winter Complete
Winter Complete
1995
Partial
Winter Complete
1994
1995
1992
Complete
Complete
Partial
9-119
Heating Tape
&
Insulation
Flowing
None
Flowing
Depressurize
Current
Prev. Method
Gas Dehydration
MeOH Inj.
MeOH Inj.
Heat MeOH
Inj. MeOH
Inj. MeOH
Vary Flow Rate
None
Depressurize
Inj. MeOH
Heat Gas
Remove Restriction
@ Flow Meter
MeOH during
Winter
None
Shut in for Depressurize

Several
Heat w/
Days
Welding Rig
Depressurize after
24 Hours S/I
MeOH
None
None
Flowing
Flowing
Flowing
Replaced
2km
blocked
section
Same as before
Planning to abandon
Depressurize
Inj. MeOH
Inj. MeOH
Gas Dehydration
Depressurize
Inj. MeOH
Inj. MeOH
Gas Dehydration
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Case/Operator
Field/
Region
Line
Size
Line
Type
WD
(ft)
9. Texaco
North Sea
10. Elf Norge
N.E. Frigg
16
Instrament
Valve
Gas Cond.
11. Marathon
EB 873
Gas Export
800 ft
12. Philips
Cod N. Sea
16
13. Texaco
14. Texaco
Wyoming
Extent of Control Method Operations

Removed?
Current
Prev. Method
Complete
None
Flowing
Inj. MeOh
Occasionally Inj. MeOH
1990
Partial
MeOH
Flowing
Depressurize
Inject MeOH
MeOH Injection
1995
partial
Inadequate
MeOH
Flowing
Inject more
MeOH
Maintain
MeOH Inj.
1978
Complete
MeOH
Pigging
Pig Stuck
Depressurize
MeOH Inj.
MeOH Inj.
Dehydrate Cond.
Gas
1995
Complete
MeOH
Field Test
Depressurize
Comb. Of KI
and MeOH
Gas
1995
Complete
MeOH
Field Test
Depressurize
Comb. Of KI
and MeOH
Gas Cond.
1994
Complete
MeOH Inj.
Flowing/
Shut-in/
Re-start
Depressurize
Inj. MeOH
Continue
MeOH Inj.
East Texas 4-6
15. Statoil
Tommeliten
(Experimental) North Sea
Gas & Cond.

Export
-
Time
16. Statoil
Tommeliten
Gas
Cond.
11.5 km
1994
Complete
MeOH
Field Study Depressurize

Inj. MeOH
17. Statoil
Tommeliten
Gas
Cond.
11.5 km
1994
Complete
None
Field Study Depressurize
H-0806.35
9-120
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Field/
Region
Line
Size
Line
Type
WD
(ft)
Time
Case/Operator
Removed?
Current
Prev. Method
18. Oxy
North Sea
Gas
Cond.
Complete
MeOH
Flowing
Depressurize
MeOH Inj.
Ensure Proper
MeOH Inj.
19. Amoco
North Sea
Complete
None(Dry)
Flowing
Depressurize
MeOh Inj.
Ensure
Dehydration
20. Petrobras
Brazil
Manifold
Complete
Ethanol
Start-up
Depressurize
Ethanol Inj.
Drain Manifold of
Water before Start-up
21. Exxon
California
Well
1989
Complete
None
Drilling
22. Exxon
Gulf of
Mex.
Well
1989
Complete
None
Drilling
23. Exxon
S. America
Well
1993
Complete
None
Testing
Coiled Tubing
Hot Glycol
24. Exxon
Gulf of
Mex.
Well
1993
Complete
Methanol
Shut-In
Hot CaBr2
Gas Export 70 Miles
Extent of Control Method Operations

Abandonment
H-0806.35
9-121
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
How Can Hydrates be Detected? Section 9.4.2

How Can Hydrate Plugs be Removed? Section 9.4.3
What Remediation Questions Remain to be Answered? Section 9.4.4
9.4.1
How Do Hydrate Blockages Occur?

Figures 9.3.1-1 and 9.3.9-17 in Section 9.3 each show a simplified offshore process
between the well inlet and the platform export discharge. Section 9.3.1 illustrates
hydrate prevention design where virtually all hydrates occur - namely in (a) the well,
(b) the pipeline, or (c) the platform. Before the well, high reservoir temperatures
prevent hydrates; platform export lines are dry, with insufficient water to form
hydrates.
The system temperature and pressure at the point of hydrate formation must be within
the hydrate stability region, as determined by the methods of Sections 9.3.3 and 9.3.4.
In order for hydrates to form, the system temperature and pressure must first enter into
the hydrate formation region, either through a normal cooling process (Example 2 and
Figure 9.3.1-4 and 9.3.1-5) or through a Joule-Thomson process (Section 9.3.6).
The rate of hydrate formation region is a function of the degree of subcooling (T see
Figure 9.3.9-7 in Section 9.3.9) relative to the hydrate formation line. Hydrates can
form with subcooling Ts less than 2-4o F, particularly in industrial systems with
contaminants like sand, weld slag, etc. present to serve as nucleation centers.
However, hydrates with such a low degree of subcooling will form more slowly than
in systems which have a subcooling of 10o F or more.
9.4.1.1
Concept of Hydrate Particle and Blockage Formation.

All natural gas hydrates are approximately 85 mole% water and 15% natural gas.
Hydrate formation always occurs at the hydrocarbon-water interface, because this
85:15 ratio is far in excess of the solubility of gas in the bulk water (< 0.06 mole %) or
water in the bulk gas (< 4%). This exceptionally low mutual solubility is the result of
water hydrogen-bonding (see Sloan, 1998, Chapter 3).
When hydrate particles occur in a static system, a solid hydrate shell forms an
impenetrable barrier at the hydrocarbon-water interface which prevents further contact
of the hydrocarbon and water phases. Diffusion through the solid is extremely slow
and hydrate fissures or cracks provide the only means for further contact of the water
and hydrocarbon. Due to the hydrate formation barrier at the interface, natural gas
H-0806.35
9-122
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
hydrate particles have water as an occluded phase. Infrequently, when gas is bubbled
through water, gas is the occluded phase within a hydrate shell.
In an turbulent system such as a pipeline, high agitation rates provide for surface
renewal, which can form hydrate particles and agglomerations to build up and obstruct
pipe flow. Such a build-up is one major concern of this section.
Rule-of-Thumb 15: In gas-water systems hydrates can form on the pipe wall. In
gas/condensate or gas/oil systems, hydrates frequently form as particles which
agglomerate and bridge as larger masses in the bulk streams.
Rule-of-Thumb 15 was obtained through multiple studies on flow loops/wheels at
Statoils Research Center in Trondheim, Norway. In gas systems, water may splash or
adsorb on the pipe wall where hydrate nucleation and growth may occur. In an
oil/condensate system, the light hydrocarbon liquid above the water prevents splashing
and causes hydrate particle formation and agglomeration at the liquidliquid interface.
In a black oil system, often only a small amount (less than 5 volume %) of water
forms hydrates, but all the water and condensate are trapped in the open, porous
system and can form a blockage (Urdahl, 1997). In Statoils Tommeliten Field
blockages formed from a hydrate slurry with < 1 volume % of the water present. Such
results are fluid dependent; while some oil/water systems convert to hydrates almost
immediately with fairly low water conversion, other oil systems are more difficult to
convert, but practically all water might be transformed to hydrates.
Rule-of-Thumb 16: Agglomeration of individual hydrate particles causes an open
hydrate mass which has a high porosity (typically >50%) and is permeable to gas
flow (permeability to length ratio of 8.7 - 11 10-15 m). Such an open hydrate mass
has the unusual property of transmitting pressure while being a substantial liquid
flow impediment. Hydrate particles anneal to lower permeability at longer times.
Rule-of-Thumb 16 was obtained through both field and laboratory studies at Statoils
Tommeliten Gamma field and SINTEFs research center (Berge et al., 1996). Plug
porosity is determined by forming conditions and fluid effects; some plugs can have
porosities considerably higher than 50% while other plug porosities can be
considerably lower. Because liquid surface tension is much higher than that of gas by
about a factor of 1000, hydrate plugs are much less permeable to liquid than to gas.
H-0806.35
9-123
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 9.4.1-1 from Lingelem et al. (1994) of Norsk Hydro is a schematic of the case
of hydrate formation along the wall periphery in a gas system. This slow buildup of
hydrates along the wall may be characterized by the gradual increase in line P
witnessed in 2 of 3 DeepStar field tests in a Wyoming gas-condensate line (Hatton et
al., 1997).
Figure 9.4.1-2 shows the case of hydrate formation as agglomerating or bridging
particles in a condensate or oil system, providing the open, porous structure. The
Statoil experience suggests that Figure 9.4.1-2 represents the more common case in
hydrate formation. However, there are two schools of thought about hydrate
formation; (1) the gradual buildup of hydrate formation on the walls, resulting in the
less porous plugs seen in a few, thoroughly instrumented DeepStar field tests (See
Case Studies C.25, C.26, and C.27) and the multitude of Statoil studies which suggests
a high porosity, bridging hydrate structure may be the norm (See Case Studies C.15,
C.16, and C.17).
The state-of-the-art of hydrate studies in field pipelines is too small to determine the
causes and frequency of either type of hydrate buildup. It is apparent from the small
number of studies however, that a wide range of hydrate porosities may be attained.
The porosity/permeability of hydrate plugs largely determines their remediation. For
example, if a hydrate plug is depressurized from only one end, flow through the plug
will cause Joule-Thomson cooling just as in Example 11, so that the downstream side
of the plug may be in the hydrate formation region at the lower temperature. This
effect has been observed at the Tommeliten field (Berge et al., 1996) and provides
both technical and safety reasons for depressuring a plug from both sides. However,
Case Studies C.25, C.26, and C.27 detail safe techniques for depressuring one side of a
hydrate plug in DeepStar Wyoming field studies by SwRI (Hatton et al., 1997).
Figure 9.4.1-3 shows two types of pressure drop (P) increases which occur with
hydrate blockage of lines. At the left, Figure 9.4.1-3 (Atypical) shows the gradual
increase in P which would occur if hydrates formed an ever-decreasing annulus as
shown in Figure 9.4.1-1. Figure 9.4.1-3 (Typical) shows the more typical case of
multiple spikes in P before the final plug forms; these spikes indicated that particles
are forming blockages and releasing, as depicted in the agglomeration of particles in
Figure 9.4.1-2.
H-0806.35
9-124
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.1-1: HYDRATE ACCUMULATION IN GAS PIPELINE (FROM LINGELEM ET AL,, 1994)
H-0806.35
9-125
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.1-2: HYDRATE ACCUMULATION IN CONDENSATE PIPELINE (FROM LINGELEM ET AL, 1994)
H-0806.35
9-126
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.1-3: PIPELINE PRESSURE DROPS DUE TO HYDRATES
H-0806.35
9-127
1-Dec-00
9.4.1.2
DEEPSTAR
Process Points of Hydrate Blockage.

The above conceptual picture of hydrate formation reinforces field experiences
regarding points in the process shown in Figure 9.3.8-1 where hydrate formation
occurs. For example, subcooling will occur with pipeline protrusions from mudlines
so dips in pipelines should be minimized. Large pressure (e.g. at orifices/valves)
should be avoided.
Points of water accumulation, such as S configurations in pipelines or risers, should
also be minimized. Where pipeline topography ensures water accumulations (e.g.
upslopes in lines, etc.) one may consider providing pigging inhibitor injection points
to accommodate the accumulation. Hydrate particles in a line may be considered to
accumulate (and plug) wherever light sand particles might accumulate, such as at blind
flanges at elbows, short radius bends, screens and filters, upstream of restrictions etc.
It is often unavoidable to design and to operate hydrate-free systems. In such cases it
is important to identify likely points of hydrate formation, so that hydrate prevention
(or dissociation) can be addressed in the original design or in system operation through
dehydration, heating, inhibitor injection, depressurization or mechanical removal.
9.4.2
Techniques to Detect Hydrates.

When partial or complete blockages are observed in flowlines, questions always arise
about the plug composition. Is the blockage composed of hydrates, paraffin, scale,
sand, or some combination of these? Such questions are more easily answered with
line access, as on a platform where a number of detection devices (e.g. thermocamera,
gamma ray densitometers, or acoustic sensors) can be used as indicated in Section
9.4.2.1.
Indications of the blockage composition are obtained through combinations of (1)
separator contents and pig (sphere or ball) returns as direct indicators and (2) line
pressure drop as an indirect indication. Separator contents and pig returns provide the
best indication of pipeline contents and should be regularly inspected, even when
blockages are not a problem. Separator discharges and the pig trap provide valuable
information about line solids such as hydrates, wax, scale, sand, etc. and may be used
as an early warning of future problems.
A less direct flow indicator is line pressure drop buildup, which differs for hydrates
and for paraffins. Pressure drop increases are usually more noticeable than flow rates
changes. With the exception of hydrate formation from gases without oil/condensate
H-0806.35
9-128
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
(with a typical pressure drop schematic in Figure 9.4.1-3 Atypical), hydrates usually
cause a series of sharp spikes (Typical) in pressure as hydrate masses form,
agglomerate, and break, prior to final blockage. With paraffins the pressure buildup is
more gradual, as deposition on the periphery of the pipe wall causes a gradual increase
in line pressure drop. Pressure changes immediately before the blockage should be
studied in addition to such things as fluid slugging, gas/oil ratio, water cut, reservoir
pressure, and choke setting, all of which can affect the flow and pressure drop.
When blockages occur in wells it may be difficult to distinguish the cause. Frequently
only heating or mechanical means are available to detect the plug source. In flowlines
and in wells, solid blockages of scale, rust, sand, etc. are less readily detected and
removed than hydrates or paraffins, so treatment for the more solid plugs should be
considered as when hydrate and wax treatments fail.
In this section on detection of hydrate blockages Section 9.4.2.1 considers early
warning signs of hydrates, and Section 9.4.3.1 considers methods to determine the
center and length of the plug. A significant amount of material in this section was
obtained from DeepStar IIA Report A212-1, Paraffin and Hydrate Detection Systems,
by Paragon Engineering and Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) (April 1996).
Another major resource was the Statoil Hydrate Research/Remediation group, who
contributed through in-depth interviews (July 13-15, 1997); this group has more field
experience in hydrate remediation than any other at present, perhaps by an order of
magnitude.
9.4.2.1
Early Warning Signs for Hydrates.

Unfortunately no indicator gives a single best warning of hydrate formation.
Frequently the pressure drop in a line, commonly thought to provide the best warning,
is wholly inadequate for reasons given in Section 9.4.2.1. Instead a suite of indicators
should be used to provide the best early warning before blockages occur.
Of the three portions of the offshore process where hydrates form blockages, early
indicators of well formation are least developed. Hydrates in a well are most often
announced by abrupt flow blockages, accompanied by a high pressure drop. In normal
operation however, the well temperature is high enough to prevent hydrate formation.
It is only during abnormal operations such as start- up, shut- in, testing, beginning gas
lift, etc. that hydrate formation becomes a problem. When hydrates form without
warning in a well, the engineer turns to Section 9.4.3, Techniques to Remove Hydrate
Blockages.
H-0806.35
9-129
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Early warning methods in the subsea pipeline (9.4.2.1A) and platform (Section
9.4.2.1B) are discussed independently below. However, even with the methods listed
in this section, there is a significant need for better hydrate detection.
Early Warnings in Subsea Pipelines
There are four methods for warnings of hydrate formation in a subsea pipeline: (1)
pigging returns, (2) changes in fluid rates and compositions at the platform separator,
(3) pressure drop increases, and (4) acoustic detection. Each method is discussed in
the following paragraphs.
Pigging Returns. Periodically a flexible plastic ball or cylinder called a pig is
pressure driven through pipelines to clear them of condensed matter. The pigs trip is
initiated via a pig launcher and ended by a pig catcher or receiver, with the debris
swept from the pipeline into a pig trap. A detailed DeepStar II CTR 640-1,
Pipeline/Flowline Pigging Strategies, by H.O. Mohr Research and Engineering, Inc.
(August 1994) provides a tutorial of this technology.
Frequently hydrate particles are found in pig traps before hydrate blockages occur in
pipelines, providing notice of the need for corrective action, e.g. increased methanol
injection. For example hydrate particles may occur when they have been suspended in
an oil or condensate with a natural surfactant, such as the Norsk Hydro oil shown in
Figure 9.3.9-4 and accompanying discussion in Section 9.3.9. Statoils Gullfaks
subsea installation may have undergone several startups with hydrate present, but
without problems (Urdahl, 1997) before a blockage in January 1996.
Rule-of-Thumb 17. A lack of hydrate blockages does not indicate a lack of
hydrates. Frequently hydrates form but flow (e.g. in an oil with a natural surfactant
present) and can be detected in pigging returns.
Pigging returns should be carefully examined for evidence of hydrate particles.
Hydrate masses are stable even at atmospheric pressure in a pig receiver or catcher
discharge. The endothermic process of hydrate dissociation causes released water to
form an ice shell, which provides a protective coating to inhibit rapid dissociation
(Gudmundsson and Borrehaug, 1996).
However, it may be very expensive to provide pigging, either via a mobile pigging
vessel over the well or from the well head without round-trip pigging capability. Such
costs make examinations of pigging returns an infrequent luxury.
H-0806.35
9-130
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Changes in Fluid Rates or Composition at Platform Separator. When the water

production rate is small it may be possible to monitor the rate of water production as
an indication of hydrate formation. If the water arrival decreases appreciably at the
separator, hydrates may be forming in the line.
_____________________________________________________________________
Case Study 9. Separator Water Rate as an Indicator of Hydrate Production.
In a controlled experiment, British Petroleum formed hydrates in a 14.5 inch I.D., 13.7
mile long gas line in the southern North Sea. Corrigan et al. (1996) reported that prior
to the trial water arrived at the separator in the amount of 1.3 bbl/MMscf. The test
was started at the time marked Day 1 in Figure 9.4.2-1. After methanol injection
was stopped, the separator water arrival stopped completely after about 30 hours (no
increase in water volume), while gas flow rates remained steady and pressure drop did
not change.
The first significant increase in line pressure drop (to 2.4 bar in Figure 9.4.2-2) was
observed 46 hours after the start of the test. A further rise in P to 3.3 bar was noted
after 3 days. Seventy- four hours after the start of the trial, large fluctuations in the gas
flow rate were observed that were concurrent with further increases in P. A large
slug of liquid, presumed hydrates, arrived at the slug catcher at the trial conclusion.
BP estimated 50 metric tons of hydrate were formed before methanol injection was
resumed.
_____________________________________________________________________
The above case study is evidence that separator water rate provides an early indication
of hydrate formation in a gas line with almost no oil/condensate and little water
production. When water production is substantially higher, it may be difficult to
monitor changes in separator water arrival for an early warning (Todd, 1997; Austvik,
1997).
Statoils Gjertsen (1997) suggested that changes in gas composition provide an early
indication of hydrate formation. In a rich gas field in the Norwegian sector of the
North Sea, chromatograms showed a removal of hydrogen sulfide (H2 S) from sour
gases as hydrates form. Hydrates particularly denude H2 S from natural gases, due to
the near-optimal fit of H2 S in the small hydrate cavities (see Sloan, 1998, Chapter 5).
The same statement is not true about the other acid gas, carbon dioxide.
H-0806.35
9-131
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Pressure Drop Increases. Pressure drop (P) will increase and flow rate will decrease
if the pipe diameter is decreased by hydrate formation at the wall in a gas line. Since
P in pipes is proportion to the square of turbulent flow rates, the change in P is
more sensitive than the change in flow. With hydrates however, a large restriction
may be necessary over a long length before a substantial pressure drop occurs. For
example, if a hydrate decreased the effective pipe diameter from 12 to 10 inches over
a 1000 foot section, the P would only increase 0.05 psi with 10 MM scf/d of gas
operating at 1000 psia and 39oF. In addition, the P trace usually contains substantial
noise, making it difficult to observe trends.
Statoils Austvik (1997) suggested that, while a gradual pressure increase in hydrate
formation will occur for gas systems, a gradual pressure increase is not typical for a
gas and oil/condensate system. In gas and oil/condensate systems, Statoils experience
is that, without advance warning the line pressure drop will show sharp spikes just
before blockages occur. Figure 9.4.2-2 shows the BP field experiment (Corrigan et
al., 1996) with methanol stoppage in a North Sea gas pipeline with little condensate or
free water; in that figure step changes and spikes in P are more prevalent than a
gradual increase.
In contrast, recent DeepStar Wyoming trials (Hatton et al., 1997) show both gradual
and spiked pressure drops, in a gas-condensate field. In Case Studies C.25, 26, and 27
the pressure built gradually upstream of a plug, while pressure spikes downstream
indicated hydrate sloughing from the wall, with agglomeration and bridging
downstream.
However, the DeepStar tests had five pressure sensors spaced at intervals of a few
thousand feet. As indicated in the calculation two paragraphs earlier, with only two
pressure sensors at either end of a line, severe hydrate wall buildup must occur in
order to sense a significant pressure drop, due to the dampening effect of the gas.
Most pipelines are likely to experience hydrates as sudden, extreme pressure drops.
H-0806.35
9-132
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.2-1: WATER PRODUCTION FOR WET GAS LINE (FROM CORRIGAN ET AL, 1996)
H-0806.35
9-133
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.2-2: DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE DUE TO HYDRATE BLOCKAGE (FROM CORRIGAN ET AL, 1996)
H-0806.35
9-134
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Acoustic Sensing Along Subsea Pipeline. DeepStar IIA Report A212-1,

Paraffin and Hydrate Detection Systems, by Paragon Engineering and SwRI
indicates:
The only hydrate crystal detection instrumentation suitable for subsea use
identified by this survey is sand monitoring instrumentation. In a limited
number of laboratory tests, the Fluenta acoustic sand monitor has detected
hydrates. However, a detailed study using the Fluenta monitor has not been
conducted.
A typical acoustic sensor from Fluenta is shown in Figure 9.4.2-3. Over 280 units
have been installed to detect sand impingement on pipe by clamping the unit onto the
flow line downstream of a 90o elbow or 45o bend. At flow rates as low as 3 ft/sec the
unit can detect 50 micron sand particles. Such units are rated for water depths of 4000
ft. and may be diver-assisted or ROV installed with an underwater cable.
Acoustic sensors quantify the hail on a tin roof sound typical of hydrate particles
impinging on a wall at a pipeline bend. However, this unit has yet to be field tested in
a subsea application. The initial background note of the Paragon Engineering and
SwRI (April 1996) study presets a caution which still exists:
This survey did not identify any proven hydrate or paraffin deposition measurement
instrumentation for subsea multiphase flow lines or any other type of fluid
transmission lines. For gas transmission lines, ultrasonic instrumentation has worked
in specific applications and for single-phase liquid or gas lines, an acoustical/pigging
system has been proposed.
H-0806.35
9-135
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.2-3: SAM 400S PARTICLE DETECTOR

FROM DEEPSTAR IIA, 212A, 1995
H-0806.35
9-136
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Early Warnings Topside on Platforms.

In addition to the above four types of subsea early warning systems, two methods are
suitable for detection of hydrates on a platform, where piping and equipment are more
available: thermocamera, and gamma-ray densitometer with temperature sensing.
Thermocamera. A thermocamera is a hand-held device which measures the infrared
spectral transmission as an indicator of system temperature. Since water absorbs
infrared transmission, the thermocamera is typically used topsides on a platform with
air between the detector and the suspected hydrate plug.
Statoils hydrate group provided a thermocamera picture of a hydrate plug, just
beyond a short radius bend in a topside riser, as shown in Figure 9.4.2-4. The original
color picture provided better temperature discrimination than the black and white
reproduction presented here. While this blockage is obviously not an early warning,
the picture is indicative of the instruments ability.
As hydrate deposits build and as restrictions cause gas expansion, the low
temperatures enable portable thermometers to be used in detecting plugs and potential
plug points topside. A thermocamera enables determination of temperature variations
in the system, particularly at points where hydrates might form but a thermocouple is
typically not provided, such as downstream of a valve.
The thermocamera is very sensitive to pipe coating, variations in wall thickness, pipe
roughness, etc. After location of low temperatures the engineer can determine
whether the system is in the hydrate formation region, to consider corrective actions
such as insulation, heat tracing, inhibitor injection etc.
Gamma-ray Densitometer with Temperature Sensing. A gamma-ray densitometer
uses an emitter and sensor on opposite, external pipe walls. The transmission of
gamma-rays to the sensor is a function of the density of the pipe contents. This
technology is over 50 years old, and is commonly used in the chemical industry for
level control in high pressure, non-visual systems.
Because densities of hydrates and water are very similar gamma-ray densitometry
alone cannot discriminate between the two; at best gamma-ray measurements indicate
changes in conditions which could be hydrates. In combination with the temperature
downstream of the densitometer (such as at the platform start- up heater as shown in
Figure 9.4.2-5) hydrate formation can be discriminated.
H-0806.35
9-137
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.2-4: THERMOCAMERA PICTURE OF HYDRATES OF HORIZONTAL PORTION OF RISER TOPSIDE

(FROM AUSTVIK, STATOL)
H-0806.35
9-138
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Hydrates are indicated by a low temperature in addition to an increase in density,

whereas the water temperature is similar to that of gas. A high density and low
temperature mass in the pipeline is likely to be hydrates, whereas a slug of high
density but without a temperature drop is probably water. As shown in the blockage
removal Section 9.4.3, even small pressure reductions cause hydrate dissociation,
which results in heat being removed from the condensed phases and lower
temperatures. The temperature sensing requirement makes it difficult to use the
densitometer subsea, due to high hydrate plug velocities damaging thermowells.
9.4.2.2
Detection of Hydrates Blockage Locations.

The two objectives of locating the plug are: (1) to determine the distance from the
platform from a safety perspective, and (2) to determine the plug length.
In this section three DeepStar reports [(1) A208-1 Methods to Clear Blocked
Flowlines, by Mentor Subsea (12/95), (2) A212-1 Paraffin and Hydrate Detection
Systems, by Paragon Engineering and SwRI (4/96), and (3) Hydrate Plug
Decomposition Test Program by SwRI (Hatton et al., 10/97)] were supplemented by
Tommeliten field experiments by Statoil.
Unfortunately there is no precise way to locate the blockage, so the methods involve
both art and science. The efficiency of hydrate blockage location schemes is governed
by the topology of the system and by the hydrate porosity shown in Figure 9.4.1-1,
Figure 9.4.1-2, and Rule-of-Thumb 16, with accompanying discussion.
The early warning methods of Section 9.4.2.1 should be first considered to see if they
apply. Additional methods to determine hydrate blockage locations are:
a.
Filling the line/well with an inhibitor or mechanical/optical device,
b.
Pressure location techniques: reductions, increases, fluctuations, and
c.
Measuring internal pressure through external sensors.
A recommended composite blockage location method is given at the end of this

section.
H-0806.35
9-139
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.2-5: PLATFORM USE OF GAMMA DESENSITOMETER
H-0806.35
9-140
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Filling the Line/Well with an Inhibitor or Mechanical/Optical Device

When hydrates block a flowline, it is common to fill the line with an inhibitor,
particularly when the blockage is close to the platform. The blockage and the line
topology may prevent the inhibitor flow from reaching a blockage far from a platform.
There is some disagreement about whether methanol or glycol should be lubricated
into the line, and both are used. Since the density of methanol is low, the higher
density glycol (and sometimes brine) is preferred.
The inhibitor injection volume enables the determination of blockage location relative
to the platform, given the line size and a knowledge of liquid retention within the
pipeline. In each of the following case studies, the operator was fortunate to reach the
hydrate plug with an inhibitor. In most cases this method is ineffective.
_____________________________________________________________________
Case Study 10. Methanol Lubrication into an Export Line
Texaco reported a restriction in a 12.75 inch gas export line from a platform at Garden
Banks Block 189 in 725 ft. of water. The export gas was insufficiently dehydrated and
water condensed at a low point in the line, where hydrates rapidly formed.
The hydrate blockage was removed by venting from the platform and injecting
methanol down the riser. Hydrates completely melted after a total of twenty to thirty
55 gallon drums of methanol were used.
_____________________________________________________________________
Rule-of-Thumb 18: Attempts to blow the plug out of the line by increasing the
pressure differential will result in more hydrate formation and perhaps line rupture
due to overpressure. When a hydrate blockage is experienced, for safety reasons,
inhibitor is usually injected into the line from the platform in an attempt to
determine the plug distance from the platform.
Such a volumetric determination assumes the plug to be impermeable to the inhibitor
and that the liquid hold-up in the line is known (or negligible). Both may be incorrect
since hydrate accumulations push substantial liquids ahead of the plug.
_____________________________________________________________________
H-0806.35
9-141
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Case Study 11. Monoethylene Glycol Lubrication into Well Tubing.

An operator experienced a blockage in a multi-phase flow stream in the Gulf of
Mexico, extending inside tubing inside a deepwater riser connection between the
platform and the seafloor, from two hundred feet below, to several hundred feet above
the seafloor.
The well was being cleaned in preparation for production. The well contained 4-5wt%
CaCl2 completion brine. After hydrocarbon flowed from the well for a few hours, the
well had to be shut- in for two days due to bad weather, but methanol was not injected
prior to shut- in. A gas hydrate plug formed which held a differential pressure of 1000
psi without movement.
A coiled tubing (see Section 9.4.3.4) was run down the tubing string and ethylene
glycol was jetted to remove the blockage. Jetting operations took two days, and the
entire remedial operation took one week to complete.
_____________________________________________________________________
For hydrates in a well, Statoil has used a broach similar to that shown in Figure
9.4.2-6, lowered on a wireline to determine the blockage depth. A similar wireline
heating tool has been used by Statoil for hydrate dissociation in wells; in this case, the
hydrate blockage can be located and dissociated with the same tool. Heating a hydrate
blockage is not recommended, unless the end is determined, for safety reasons shown
in Figure 9.2.5-1b and accompanying discussion. However, when the hydrate end is
discernable, heating from one side of the blockage may be a viable option.
In a flowline a wireline, reach rod, coiled tubing, or fiber optics may be used to locate
a plug. However, this detection method is currently limited to the first 10,000 ft. from
the platform and requires mechanical intervention in the flowline.
Pressure Location Techniques
There are three pressure techniques to locate a hydrate blockage which are performed
on the platform side of the plug: (1) pressure reduction, (2) back-pressurization, and
(3) pressure fluctuations. Each technique has advantages and disadvantages.
Pressure Reduction. This simple technique takes advantage of hydrate porosity by
decreasing the downstream pressure and monitoring the rate of pressure recovery and
the rate of pressure decrease of the upstream side of the plug Figure 9.4.2-7 shows an
H-0806.35
9-142
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
flowline obstruction one-third the way between the platform and the well. If the
pressure is suddenly decreased downstream, the rate of downstream pressure recovery
should be one- half the rate of upstream pressure decrease. With low porosity plugs
patience may be required, as illustrated in the following case study.
_____________________________________________________________________
Case Study 12. Depressurizing the Blockage for Location
In January 1996 Statoil experienced a hydrate blockage in a black oil system in a 6inch I.D., 1 mile- long line in the Gullfaks field. The normal oil rate was 18,000 ft 3 /d,
the water rate was 16,242 ft3 /d, and the GOR was 100-360 scf3 /scf3 .
The normal line operating pressure was 2420 psia and the hydrate equilibrium
pressure (at the low temperature) was 261 psia. With the well shut in, the downstream
pressure at the platform was rapidly reduced to 1670 psia. Figure 9.4.2-8 shows
blockage upstream and downstream pressure response (note expanded scale). Over a
25 hour period, the upstream pressure decreased about 73 psi while the downstream
pressure increased the same amount. It was concluded that the plug was located midway in the pipe. See Case Study 15 (Section 9.4.3.1 D.) for the removal of this Statoil
plug.
Two points should be emphasized about this case study: (1) safety and (2) rate. First,
the small diagnostic pressure reduction was made from one side of the plug, well
above the hydrate dissociation pressure, to prevent safety problems associated with a
plug projectile (Section 9.2) propelled by a high differential pressure.
Second, pressure recovery was very slow, averaging about 3psig/hr. This slow rate
may not be noticed if pressure is not carefully monitored by platform personnel, who
may be inclined to discount a slow changes. The slow rate of pressure change was
thought to be due to the fact that most of the line contained liquid, causing the
apparent plug porosity to be about 1000 times smaller than that for gas flow.
_____________________________________________________________________
H-0806.35
9-143
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.2-6: WIRELINE BROACH TO DETERMINE HYDRATE LOCATION IN

WELL
H-0806.35
9-144
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.2-7: HYDRATE LOCATION IN A PIPELINE
Distance L
Plug
Upstream
Downstream
2/3 L
H-0806.35
1/3 L
9-145
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.2-8: PRESSURE CHANGE USED TO ESTIMATE PLUG LOCATION

(FROM GJERTSEN ET AL 1997)
H-0806.35
9-146
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Statoil, the company with the most methodical, documented experience in hydrate
remediation, prefers the above method of plug location. The method locates the
blockage center and the relative volumes upstream and downstream of the
blockage(s). The disadvantage of the method is that it does not give any idea of the
length of the blockage, how close the blockage is to the platform (due to the unknown
plug porosity), or how multiple plugs may affect this location determination. Statoil
locates the plug-platform proximity by inhibitor back-injection (see Rule-of- Thumb
18) or by back-pressurization, as shown in the following method.
Pressure Increase. To locate a complete pipeline blockage one method is to measure
the pressure increase as metered amounts of gas are injected at the platform. The rate
of pressure increase is correlated to the rate of gas input to determine the length for a
given diameter line between the platform injection point and the blockage.
_____________________________________________________________________
Example 13. Back-Pressurization to Determine Plug Location.
An offshore 16 inch ID gas pipeline is in full production when a hydrate plug occurs,
blocking flow for a 0.6 gravity gas. The line is shut- in and the pipeline cools to the
ambient temperature of 39.2o F. Before hydrate dissociation can begin to take place,
the approximate location of the plug end should be obtained to determine the best
remediation method and evaluate safety concerns.
One standard location procedure is back-pressurization. This method consists of
pumping a known amount of gas into the pipeline and measuring the change in
pressure over time. From these pressure values, an estimate of volume can be
obtained through PV=ZnRT.
The following assumptions are made for the problem:
1. no porosity of the plug,
2. no liquid in the pipeline,
3. none of the injected gas condenses,
4. constant temperature throughout the pipeline,
5. the heat of gas compression is dissipated rapidly, and
6. the pipeline is initially at atmospheric pressure.
H-0806.35
9-147
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
A reciprocating pump on the platform is used to inject gas at a rate of 4.89 lbmole/min
into the pipeline, so that the pipeline pressure slowly increases. The heat of
compression is assumed to be dissipated in the ocean and the entire temperature
remains at 39.2 o F.
The time required for the pipeline to attain even increments of pressure (e.g. 400, 600,
850 psia, etc.) are measured and these data can be used to estimate the pipeline volume
downstream of the plug via the equation:
PV = ZnRT V =
ZnRT
P
where
Z = gas compressibility as a function of P,T, and gas composition. Values
obtained through an equation-of-state or from gas gravity compressibility charts
(Figures 23-7,8,9 of the GPSA Engineering Handbook (1994))
n = value obtained from data (data table below)
P = corresponding pressure for n (data table below)
R = 10.73 (Universal Gas Constant in units of psia, oR, lbmol, ft3)
T = 498.87oR (seafloor temperature)
Five data points are averaged to estimate the volume of the pipeline between the
hydrate plug and the platform. The first data point calculation is as follows:
A line pressure of 400 psia is attained after 60.76 minutes when 297 lbmoles of gas
have been pumped into the line. The gas compressibility is estimated at 0.915 from
Figures 23-7,8,9 of the GPSA Engineering Handbook (1994). The pipeline volume is
estimated as:
V=
ZnRT
(.915)(297 )(10 .73)(498.9) =3637 ft 3
P
(400)
The first estimate of the pipe volume down stream of the plug is 3637ft3.
H-0806.35
9-148
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Estimated Pipeline Volumes Between Platform and Plug

Data Point #
Time (Minutes)
Pressure
(psia)
Est Volume
(ft3 )
60.76
400
3637
96.58
600
3664
144.39
850
3667
198.61
1100
3662
300.01
1500
3663
Avg Volume (Platform to Plug
3658
This same calculation is summarized for four other data points, in the above table.
The average approximation for the volume after the hydrate plug was 3658ft3 . The
cross-sectional area of the pipeline is calculated, in order to estimate the pipeline
length between the plug and the platform. The pipeline cross-sectional area is
2
D 2 16 2
2 1 ft
=1.396 ft 2
A=
=
=201 .06in
2
4
4
144in
Since the pipeline volume = (length)(cross-sectional area), the estimated location of

the plug is 2620 feet (= 3658ft3 /1.396ft 2 ) away from the platform.
_____________________________________________________________________
Back-pressurization has been implemented many times in the field and is probably the
method of choice of many operators. However, there are several disadvantages which
cause significant inaccuracies, as follows:
H-0806.35
1.
Because hydrate plugs are frequently porous (>50%) and permeable, they transmit
flow and act as a leak in a system considered to be a closed (i.e. no permeability)
2.
The gas compressibility must be well-known in order to determine the pressure

and volume rate increases.
3.
The liquid holdup in the line must be known. This is particularly a disadvantage
when significant elevation changes result in unknown liquid holdup profiles, or
when the hydrate plug has accumulated liquid in front of it.
9-149
1-Dec-00
4.
DEEPSTAR
The location of multiple plugs cannot be addressed by this method; only the plug
located nearest the point of injection can be determined.
Due to the above inaccuracies, the method of back-pressurization should be

supplemented by other methods.
Pressure Variation. Pressure pulse travel time and pressure frequency response
methods to locate a hydrate blockage are discussed in DeepStar IIA Reports A208-1
and A212-1. Both methods involve measurement of sound wave travel time or
frequency changes from the platform to the blockage. However these analyses have
not been successful to date due to two factors:
5.
acoustic response is a function of the relative amounts of gas and liquid, which are
usually unknown and may occupy portions of a pipeline.
6.
reflected pulses are dampened by walls, valves, bends, and by a flexible plug.
Measuring Internal Pressure through External Sensors

A technique recently developed is to measure hoop strain of the pipe as a function of
line pressure to determine the location and type of blockage. An ROV places a metal
caliper clamp on 25% of the pipe circumference using magnets, as shown in Figure
9.4.2-9 (a).
H-0806.35
9-150
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.2-9: HYDRTATE PLUG DETECTION THROUGH STRAIN

MEASUREMENT
FROM DEEPSTAR A208-1, 1995
H-0806.35
9-151
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The platform end of the flowline is pressurized inducing a hoop strain, sensed by the
pipeline caliper. The internal pressure causes a hoop strain that results in an outward
movement of the caliper which varies with the wall deposits of the pipe. Lack of hoop
strain across a section of pipe would indicate a blockage. The signal is transmitted to
a work boat at the surface.
This method was successfully used in the North Sea on an 8- inch, 15 km long flow
line. Results of the strain gage are shown in Figure 9.4.2-9b for 20 points at various
lengths along a line blocked with paraffin. Points 13, 14, and 15 are shown to be
blocked with hard plugs, between visco-elastic plugs (points 15-18 and 3-13) at either
end. The map in Figure 9.4.2-9b was in agreement with the contents of the flow line
when it was replaced. Recovery and deployment of each measurement required 1-2
hours. Due t necessity for ROV deployment, this method yet to be used to locate a
hydrate.
Recommended Procedure to Locate Hydrate Plug
There is no one precise method to locate the hydrate plug, so a combination of the
above methods are indicated below for best results.
H-0806.35
1.
Estimate the hydrate formation temperature and pressure of the blockage relative
to the conditions of the pipeline. Use a simulation to determine at what length the
contents of the pipeline enter the hydrate formation envelope during normal
operations. Confirm the simulation with a linear interpolation between the
wellhead and platform temperature and pressure. This will provide an
approximation of the plug initiation point, but with flow blockage the entire
pipeline will cool into the hydrate stability region. This calculation should be done
during initial line design.
2.
Depressurize the platform end of the plug to about 2/3 of the pressure between the
normal operating pressure and the hydrate formation pressure. Do not decrease the
pressure on one side of the plug below the hydrate formation pressure. Monitor
the rate of pressure increase at the platform and the pressure decrease at the
wellhead for the lesser of (a) either 24 hours or (b) until a significant pressure
change (e.g. 75 psig) is obtained at each point. Use the rate of pressure change at
wellhead and platform to determine the center point of plug(s), or relative volumes
at each end of the plug(s).
3.
Fill the riser with inhibitor to attempt to determine the distance between the
platform and the plug. This may be inaccurate due to pipeline elevation changes,
etc.
4.
Back-pressure the pipeline and monitor the pressure increase for a measured
volume of gas input. Estimate the distance from platform to plug by the rate of
9-152
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
pressure change, relative to gas input, for a given compressibility and simulated
liquid retention volume. Use this technique with method 2 to determine volume
before the plug.
5.
9.4.3
With available resources, use a mechanical device to determine plug location.
Techniques to Remove a Hydrate Blockage.

Four techniques to remove a hydrate blockage are listed in order of frequency:
1.
hydraulic methods such as depressurization (Section 9.4.3.1),
2.
chemical methods such as injection of methanol or glycol (Section 9.4.3.2),
3.
thermal methods which involve direct heating (Section 9.4.3.3), and
4.
mechanical methods with coiled tubing, drilling, etc. (Section 9.4.3.4).
Applications of the above methods can be further divided into three cases: (a) partial
blockage, (b) total blockage without substantial liquid head, and (c) total blockage
with a liquid head. The following discussions concern only the final two cases. It is
assumed that any indication of a partial blockage will be promptly treated with
massive doses of methanol, the most effective inhibitor. Combinations of the above
methods are simultaneously tried.
Rule of Thumb 19. Regardless of the method(s) used to dissociate the hydrates, the
time required for hydrate dissociation is usually days, weeks, or months. After a
deliberate dissociation action is taken, both confidence and patience are required to
observe the result over a long period of time.
Often it is suggested that corrective actions be changed almost hourly when immediate
results are not observed. Rapidly changing corrective actions, results in thrashing
without significant effects on plug removal. The waiting aspect of plug removal is
frequently the most difficult for platform operating and engineering personnel, who
are accustomed to producing results on a continuous basis. Typical times of days or
weeks are required for plug removal as indicated by Appendix C case studies.
Measurements such as pressure drop across the plug are continuously monitored and
changed deliberately, only after some time has passed to gain assurance of initial
method failure.
Rule of Thumb 20. When dissociating a hydrate plug, it should always be assumed
that multiple plugs exist both from a safety and a technical standpoint. While one
plug may cause the initial flow blockage, a shut-in will cause the entire line to
H-0806.35
9-153
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
rapidly cool into the hydrate region, and low lying points of water accumulation will
rapidly convert to hydrate at the water-gas interfaces.
9.4.3.1
Depressurization of Hydrate Plugs.

This section shows that, from both a safety and technical standpoint, the preferred
method to dissociate hydrate plugs is to depressurize from both sides.
Depressurization is particularly difficult when the deepwater liquid head on the
hydrate plug is greater than the dissociation pressure. Before that point is addressed, a
conceptual picture of hydrate provides some key points in the dissociation process.
Conceptual Picture of Hydrate Depressurization
When a hydrate plug occurs in an ocean pipeline, the pressure-temperature conditions
are illustrated in Figure 9.4.3-1. To the left of the three phase (LW -H-V or I-LW-V)
lines hydrates or ice can form, while to the right only fluids can exist. Because the
lowest ocean temperature (39 oF) is well above the ice point of 32 oF, ice formation
(which could block flows) is not a normal operating concern. When hydrates form,
flow is blocked so that the plug temperature rapidly decreases to the ocean floor
temperature of 39 oF at the pipeline pressure. Figure 9.4.3-1 shows the pressuretemperature conditions of a pipeline hydrate plug at point A in the two-phase (H-V)
region, in which liquid water has converted to hydrate.
Pressure reduction is accompanied by a temperature decrease at the hydrate interface.
If the pipeline is rapidly depressured without heat transfer, Joule-Thomson
(isenthalpic) cooling (line AB) at the hydrate may worsen the problem. If the pressure
is reduced extremely slowly, isothermal depressurization (line AC) results. Usually an
intermediate pressure reduction rate causes the hydrate interface temperature to be
significantly less than 39 oF, causing heat influx from the ocean to melt the hydrate at
the pipe boundary.
With rapid or extreme pressure reduction, the hydrate equilibrium temperature will
decrease far below 32 oF, for example to -110 oF for a methane hydrate depressured
to atmospheric pressure. In this case water from dissociated hydrate will rapidly
convert to ice below the solid- liquid line (I-LW-H shown in Figure 9.4.3-1). If ice
formation occurs with hydrate dissociation, then the question arises, How will the ice
plug dissociation rate compare to the hydrate dissociation rate in an ocean pipeline?
In 1994-1997 field studies, over 20 hydrate plugs were intentionally formed and
removed from a 6 inch North Sea line in the Tommeliten Gamma field. In both
H-0806.35
9-154
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
laboratory and field studies these plugs were found to be very porous (>50%) and
permeable. Porous, permeable hydrates easily transmit gas pressure while still acting
to prevent free flow in the pipeline. When the pressure was decreased at both ends of
a highly porous hydrate plug, the pressure decreased throughout the entire plug to an
almost constant value. The dissociation temperature at the hydrate front is determined
by the pipeline pressure. The depressurization results in a uniform hydrate
dissociation temperature which is in equilibrium with the LW -H-V line pressure in
Figure 9.4..3-1, predicted by the methods of Section 9.4.3 and 9.4.4.
H-0806.35
9-155
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.3-1: ISETHALPIC AND ISOTHERMIC PLUG DISSOCIATION (60)

(FROM KELKAR ET AL, 1997)
H-0806.35
9-156
1-Dec-00
DEEPS TAR
FIGURE 9.4.3-2: RADIAL DISSOCIATION OF HYDRATE PLUG
H-0806.35
9-157
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Pipeline depressurization reduces the hydrate temperature below the temperature of

the ocean floor (39 o F for depths greater than 3000 ft.). Heat flows radially into the
pipe, causing dissociation first at the pipe wall as shown in Figure 9.4.3-2. Radial
hydrate dissociation controls plug removal, because the pipe diameter (less than 2 ft.)
is typically at least an order of magnitude less than the length of a hydrate plug
(frequently more than 50 ft.) in a pipeline.
The radial dissociation concept presents a contrast to previous longitudinal
dissociation concepts of non-porous hydrates, in which depressurization from both
ends was supposed to result in dissociation progressing from the plug ends toward the
middle (Yousif, et al., 1990; DeepStar Report CTR IIA A208-1, 1995). As
diagrammed in Figure 9.4.3-3 when the temperature of the hydrate is lower than that
of the ocean floor, heat flows radially into the system, causing dissociation along the
entire length. Of course some plug dissociation occurs at the ends, but due to much
smaller dimensions the radial dissociation (which occurs simultaneously along the
plug length) controls blockage removal.
Figure 9.4.3-3 shows a cross section of a pipeline hydrate plug that has been
depressured to provide an equilibrium temperature just above 32 o F. Such a pressure
corresponds to about 450 psia for a pure methane gas, but much lower for a natural
gas, as predicted by the methods of Sections 9.3.3. and 9.3.4. Figure 9.4.3-3a shows
an inner hydrate core enclosed in a water layer, which results from hydrate melting.
The water layer is adjacent to the pipe wall. Figure 9.4.3-3b shows the temperature
profile from the ocean temperature of 39 o F at the pipe wall, to the hydrate
dissociation temperature (set by the line pressure to a point just above the ice point)
where it remains uniform throughout the hydrate layer. As a result, the radial
disappearance of the two-phase water+hydrate boundary (X1 ) determines the
disappearance of the final solid and eliminate the flow obstruction.
Because hydrate plug detachment occurs first at the pipe wall, a partially-dissociated
plug will move down the pipeline when the line is re-started, only to result in a later
plug at a pipeline bend, depression, or other obstruction. The second blockage by the
plug can be more compact than the first, for example if there is substantial momentum
on impact at the bend. This phenomena relates to Rule-of-Thumb 19, indicating that
one of the most important aspects of plug removal is patience to allow time for total
dissociation.
H-0806.35
9-158
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.3-3: HYDRATE DISSOCIATION WITH WATER PRESENT
H-0806.35
9-159
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.3-4: HYDRATE DISSOCIATION WITH ICE AND WATER PRESENT
H-0806.35
9-160
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
In the above conceptual picture, it is assumed that the pipeline is exposed to turbulent,
deep ocean water so that the pipe wall temperature is constant at 39 o F. If a line is
insulated, hydrate dissociation becomes much more difficult because the insulation
which prevented heat loss from the pipe in normal operation will prevent heat influx to
the pipe for hydrate dissociation. Alternatively, if the pipe is buried in the ocean floor,
the pipe wall temperature will be greater than 39F, but only by an average of about 1
o
F per 100 ft. of buried depth.
The cross section in Figure 9.4.3-4a shows a hydrate plug dissociation when the
pressure is too low. An inner hydrate core is surrounded by an ice layer, that is
enclosed in a water layer adjacent to the pipe wall. Figure 9.4.3-4b shows the
temperature profile from 39 o F at the pipe wall, to 32 o F at the water-ice interface, to a
lower hydrate dissociation temperature (set by the line pressure) at the ice-hydrate
interface, where it remains uniform throughout the hydrate layer. As a result, there are
two two-phase boundaries: a slowly dissociating water- ice boundary (X1 ), and a
second, rapidly dissociating ice- hydrate boundary (X2 ). We are particularly interested
in the rate of progress of X1 , which determines the disappearance of the final solid
(ice), since any solid phase constitutes a flow obstruction in a pipeline.
Hydrate dissociation to a low pressure almost always results in an ice problem which
may be more difficult to remove than the initial hydrate. Hydrate removal is
accomplished by both depressurization and heat influx from the surroundings, while
an ice plug removal must rely on heat influx alone. As a result an ice plug may
dissociate more slowly than a hydrate plug.
For example, if a 16 inch line containing only methane is depressured to atmospheric
pressure, 85 days are required for radial dissociation of an ice plug, while only 17 days
would be required for dissociation of a hydrate plug to water if the pressure was
maintained at 450 psig. These calculated results are based upon the radial dissociation
model of Kelkar, et al. (1997) in which radial dissociation prevails.
Austvik (1997) noted some exceptions to radial dissociatio n, particularly for plugs of
low porosity/permeability or for very long plugs. Plug permeability may decrease
considerably during the first hours after plug formation; this suggests that plugs should
be dissociated as soon as possible to take advantage of higher porosity.
H-0806.35
9-161
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Hydrate Depressurization from Both Sides of Plug

There are two reasons for the preferred method of two-sided hydrate plug
dissociationFor a single plug, dissociation from both sides eliminates the safety
concern of having a projectile in the pipeline.
5.
Two-sided dissociation eliminates the Joule-Thomson cooling which may stabilize

the downstream side of the plug. With radial dissociation along the plug, twosided dissociation is more than twice as fast as single-sided dissociation.
For the above reasons, a hydrate plug should be dissociated through a second
production line, if available. If this is impossible, depressurization through a service
line for injecting inhibitors at the well head; in this case provision should be made for
removing or bypassing the check valve in the service line at the well head. In some
cases, as in Case Study 14, it may be worthwhile to connect a floating production
vessel to the manifold or wellhead for depressurizing the upstream side of the plug.
_____________________________________________________________________
Case Study 13. Gulf of Mexico Plug Removal in Gas Export Line
A hydrate blockage in the export line from Shells Bullwinkle platform in the Green
Canyon Block 65 to the Boxe platform was reported in DeepStar Report A208-1
(Mentor Subsea, 1995, page 52). The 12 inch, 39,000 ft. line was uninsulated line.
Seawater temperature was 50 o F at the base of the platform in 1400 ft. of water. Gas
gravity was 0.7, without condensate. Flow rate was 140 MMscf/d at an inlet pressure
of 800 psi.
Gas hydrates formed during a re-start after the platform was shut down due to a
hurricane. During the shut- in period the gas dehydrator was partially filled with water.
After production was restarted, since the dehydrator was not cleaned out properly, it
was not dehydrating gas as designed, and wet gas entered the export riser, causing
water condensation and hydrate formation. A complete hydrate blockage formed in
less than one hour, just past the base of the export riser at a low spot.
To remove the blockage, the line was depressured on both sides of the plug. Then
methanol was circulated into the line to accelerate the hydrate dissociation rate. After
complete removal of the hydrates, the dehydrator was cleaned, inspected and re-started
properly. The entire remedial operation required 36 hours to complete. The major
cost was the lost production time.
H-0806.35
9-162
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
When depressurization cannot be easily achieved from both sides of a plug, then more
costly steps may be required to balance the depressurization to ensure platform safety,
as indicated in the following case study.
_____________________________________________________________________
Case Study 14: Removal of North Sea Hydrate Plug by Depressuring Both Sides.
This case study is a remediation summary of hydrate blockage in an ARCO 16 inch,
22 mile long pipeline between a North Sea gas field well and platform.
Plug Formation
Setting. The gas field is located in the southern North Sea and consists of three subsea
wells, flowing into a subsea manifold with a capacity of four well inputs. A graphical
representation of the field is shown in Figure 9.4.3-5. The wells gas compositions,
temperature, and pressure promote hydrate formation, consequently mono-ethylene
glycol (MEG) is injected into the manifold and wellheads to thermodynamically
inhibit hydrates. The inhibited water, gas, and condensate is then pumped through a
22 mile, trenched, insulated export pipeline to a processing platform where water is
removed from the condensate. The MEG in the pipeline is recycled and piped back to
the manifold via a 3 inch pipeline piggybacked to the export line.
Blockage. On April 14th, 1996 an unusually large liquid slug over-ran the platform
primary separator causing a temporary shut down. The liquid slug was remediated,
but complete blockage of the pipeline had occurred during shut-down. It was
hypothesized that the blockage was a result of a hydrate plug. The reasons were:
H-0806.35
9-163
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.3-5: OFFSHORE PLATFORM AND M ANIFOLD

(FROM LYNCH, 1996)
HOST PLATFORM
WE
LL
WE
LL
36 KM
- 16 EXPORT
MANIF
WE
LL
FOURTH
INTAKE
H-0806.35
9-164
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The pipeline free water, recovered during depressurization at the platform, did not
contain MEG inhibitor. The 3 inch MEG inhibitor line had ruptured.
Through back-pressurization, the blockage was found to be 150 meters away from the
platform. At this location, the pipeline was exited the mudline allowing contents to be
rapidly cooled by ocean currents, causing hydrate formation.
Slight decreases in pressure determined that the blockage had some porosity. This had
also been observed for several Statoil hydrate plugs (see Tommeliten Field Case
Studies C.15, C.16, and C.17 in Appendix C. In contrast however, two DeepStar field
trials C.26, and C.27 formed low-porosity, low-permeability plugs which would
transmit pressure very slowly and withstand high pressure drops.)
The liquid slug which shut down the compressors probably was caused by a partial
hydrate plug pushing a fluid front down the pipeline as it moved.
The blockages proximity to the platform posed serious safety concerns. Pipeline
depressurization was necessary to dissociate the hydrate; however it had to be done on
both sides of the hydrate plug. If only the blockages platform side was depressured,
the pressure differential would cause a projectile to form which could destroy the riser
piping and damage the platform. The projectile would be life-threatening to workers
on the platform and result in costly damages to the platform itself. Consequently,
depressurization had to be done through both the platform and the subsea manifold to
ensure safety. Projectiles could form due to dissociation, if gas became trapped within
multiple plugs. Slow depressurization was required to remove pressure buildups in
the hydrate plug(s). Several methods were considered.
Depressurization Method
Initial Ideas
Three questions were raised to determine a proper depressurization method.
1. Will the remediation process effectively depressurize the pipeline?
2. What is the cost of equipment and modifications?
3. How much time is needed to complete the remediation?
Based on these questions, process engineers, consultants, safety management, and
diving specialists proposed three potential depressurization methods. They were:
Jack-up Rig
Method: Tow a jack-up rig to the site. From the rig, attach a high pressure riser to the
manifolds subsea tree and flare exiting gas via the rigs flare stack.
H-0806.35
9-165
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Modification: A spool piece would have to replace a non-return valve on the

manifolds fourth well intake.
Time Required: A drilling rig was not currently available, consequently a delay of
approximately eight weeks was needed to locate a suitable rig. The time required for
hydrate removal could be twelve weeks.
Estimated Cost: $1,980,000
Feasibility: The large amount of time required to locate a jack up rig made this an
ineffective remediation method, useful in the absence of other methods.
MEG Injection Line
Method: Connect the subsea manifolds spare fourth flange to the 3inch MEG
pipeline and flare gas at the platform.
Modification: Subsea work would require a spool piece installed between the two
pipelines. Secondly, a method of injecting methanol was needed to prevent future
hydrate growth. The platform (while in operation) required significant modification to
connect the MEG pipeline to its flare stack. To further complicate the matter, all of
the MEG currently in the pipeline would need to be stored on the platform, which had
limited storage space.
Time Required: Six to eight weeks.
Estimated Cost: Unknown, expected to be higher than the other methods based on the
large amount of modifications that were required.
Feasibility: Substantial modifications to the platform made this remediation method
costly and impractical. It was deemed unusable in any circumstance.
Floating Production and Storage Vessel (FPSO)
Method: Connect a FPSO with a processing plant and flare to the subsea manifolds
fourth flow loop and process the exiting gas. The connection between the manifold
and FPSO would be made through a high-pressure, flexible riser.
Modification: The platform required no modifications. A diving rig was required to
do the subsea work. A valve skid containing both emergency shut-down valves
(ESDVs) and a MEG injection valve was also needed. The flexible riser and the
H-0806.35
9-166
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
manifold would be connected with a spool piece. Figure 9.4.3-6 is a schematic of the
design.
Time Frame: A FPSO was available for immediate use, consequently the required
time was expected to be 6-8 weeks.
Estimated Cost: $1,906,000.
Feasibility: This method proved to be the most feasible. The immediate availability
of a FPSO and diving rig allowed modifications to begin. It was estimated that the
FPSO could be at the site and begin within two weeks.
Establishing Procedures/Permits. It took approximately two weeks to develop
potential remediation processes. Procedures were then written to firmly establish the
processes required for the pipeline depressurization. Procedures considered the safety,
process, and coordination requirements between the diving rig and the FPSO. All
parties were educated about the tasks involved.
Government permits were applied for at the Health and Safety Executive Pipeline
Inspectorate (HSE) and the Department of Trade and Industry Oil and Gas Office
(DTI) for additional gas flaring and well modification. The permits were expedited by
local agencies to prevent delay in hydrate removal. Two weeks were required to
prepare procedures and permits for depressurization. In the meantime, the FPSO and
diving rig were being equipped for the operation and moving to the field
H-0806.35
9-167
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.3-6: PRELIMINARY REMEDIATION SETUP
Collar
FP S O
FPSO process and flares
exiting
gas
from
the
manifold
280 meter
High Pressure
Riser
Valve Sled
5 Ton
Clump
Weight
16
Export
Pipe
Ma nifold
H-0806.35
9-168
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Depressurization of the Pipeline

Operations. The divers first task was to manually locate the subsea manifolds fourth
intake and to isolate it from any trees or flow loops. The fourth well intake was then
modified with a spool piece for connection with the high-pressure riser. The valve
skid was now ready to be put in place. Due to the sandy ocean bottom, it became
necessary to provide a foundation for the valve skid. The valve skid was placed on a
concrete mattress and then stabilized with gravel bag supports coupled with Tirfors,
chain blocks, and ground anchors. This insured that no movement would transfer
from the flexible riser to the valve skid. The valve skid contained ESDVs and a MEG
injection system for the pipeline. Figure 9.4.3-7 is a figure of the subsea valves and
their attachment to the manifold.
The diving rig then inspected the flexible riser route to ensure that is was clear of
debris. It proceeded to deploy 920 ft. of the high pressure riser via a tugger rigged
with a dead mans anchor. The MEG in the riser provided some buoyancy,
consequently the line was anchored through concrete mattresses. A five ton clump
weight was placed at the bottom of the riser with a buoyancy collar attached to the
surface.
The FPSO could only process gas at 600 psig, consequently it required some
modification to process the 1300 psig pipeline gas. Additionally, a quick-release
valve (QVD) was needed to enable the FPSO to escape from the riser in case of an
emergency. This complicated the design because current quick-release valves could
not withstand pressures of 1300 psig. Initial design placed choke valves in the riser to
reduce pressure for the quick-release valve, however this caused control problems and
was deemed impractical.
An innovative new quick-release valve was developed with a standard valve weak link
with three additional hydraulic jacks for manual release. This valve could withstand
1500 psig of pressure, allowing choke valves to be placed on the ships deck which
simplified control issues. This design enabled a safe, simplified, control of gas
pressures from the deck of the FPSO. A description of the system is shown in Figure
9.4.3-8.
The buoyancy of the riser prohibited pipeline intake through the FPSOs moonpool.
Spool pieces were used to allow riser intake from the side of the ship deck. The riser
H-0806.35
9-169
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.3-7: VALVE SLED WITH MANIFOLD INTERFOLD

(FROM LYNCH, 1994)
H-0806.35
9-170
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.3-8: DESIGN WITH HIGH PRESSURE QUICK RELEASE VALVE

(FROM LYNCH, 1996)
H-0806.35
9-171
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
was also steam traced with 1000 ft. of 1 inch piping to maintain the minimum process
temperature required by the FPSO. Figure 9.4.3-1 is a complete picture of the FPSO
attachment to the subsea manifold. All valves and risers were tested and shown to be
in working order. Overall the modification and installment procedures required one
week before pipeline depressurization could begin.
Determining the Pipeline Minimum Pressure. Reducing pipeline pressure too much
could result in ice formation. This causes significant problems because ice melting
might have required significantly more time, than hydrate dissociation. Ice formation
was prevented through use of the hydrate equilibrium curve (Figure 9.4.3-10) for the
field.
At constant low pressure, hydrates will continually dissociate, maintaining the
equilibrium temperature at that given pressure. As the graph illustrates, the
equilibrium pressure at 32 0 F was 200 psig. To prevent ice formation, the pipeline
pressure could not drop below 175 psig. Consequently, the FPSO reduced the pipeline
pressure to 185 psig to maximize hydrate dissociation without ice formation.
Depressurization. Twenty three days were required to completely dissociate the
pipeline hydrate. Heat transfer between the ocean and the pipeline was slow because
the line was trenched and insulated in the sea floor. Dissociation was slightly
facilitated by occasional back-pressuring which drew methanol into the plug. Backpressuring also proved beneficial in determining the location of the plug. Figure
9.4.3-11 shows the pressures in the pipeline throughout the depressurization process.
Note the slight pressure increases that occurred during depressurization. These
formed as a result of gas pockets suddenly releasing as the plug was dissociated.
The pressure was monitored for 12 hours after the hydrate was thought to be
dissociated. No pressure variation was noticed so the flexible riser was recovered and
the depressurization apparatus dismantled. Throughout the whole operation, no
equipment failure occurred and the operation progressed smoothly.
Recommissioning the Pipeline. After the hydrate was dissociated, there remained
significant amounts of free water in the pipeline. The pipeline had to be recommissioned carefully to prevent reformation of hydrates. Above normal amounts of
MEG were added to the system before pipeline start-up. One gas well was opened and
the platform flow high to ma intain low pressure, preventing hydrate formation. The
high intake caused a high gas velocity which facilitated rapid water removal. The first
12 hour night shift reported 7000 ft3 of water received from the separator, the water
H-0806.35
9-172
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.3-9: COMPLETE FPSO/MANIFOLD INTERFACE

(FROM LYNCH, 1996)
H-0806.35
9-173
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.3-10: HYDRATE FORMATION CURVE

(FROM LYNCH, 1996)
H-0806.35
9-174
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.3-11: PRESSURE OF MANIFOLD AND PLATFORM DURING HYDRATE REMEDIATION

(FROM LYNCH, 1996)
H-0806.35
9-175
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
which would result from a 1.25 mile long (non-porous) hydrate plug. The high flow
rate of gas was maintained until the water contained 40% MEG, ensuring that the line
was fully inhibited. The pressures and intakes were then returned to normal operating
levels.
Conclusions
The remediation team removed the hydrate plug efficiently. They achieved a
monumental task in a very short period of time, preventing more severe economic
losses Figure 9.4.3-12 provides a timetable of the remediation process. The procedure
and methodology followed could be applied to many different situations.
Communication, clear objectives, and excellent resources helped in removing the
hydrate plug.
Despite the efficient remediation effort, the economic impact of the hydrate plug was
substantial. The cost of depressurizing the pipeline was almost 3 million dollars,
without counting lost production. On top of this, relations between the buyers and
producers were tested, due to lack of production. Fortunately, good initial relations
between the two reduced the impact of the disruption. This case study shows the
potential financial loss that can result from hydrate plugs. Hydrate prevention is key
in preventing significant economic and production losses.
_____________________________________________________________________
Hydrate Depressurization from Both Sides of Plugs with Significant Liquid Head
Results similar to those of Case Studies 13 and 14 may not be applicable to very deep
ocean plugs. When depressuring a multi-phase deepwater pipeline the hydrostatic
pressure (or head) of the liquid against the face(s) of the plug may be higher than the
hydrate dissociation pressure. However, the removal of fluids from each side of a
hydrate plug may be difficult.
To date there is little documented experience for depressuring plugs with liquid heads
in deepwater lines. However the situation has been evaluated in light of most of the
case studies in Appendix C, and recommendations are provided in Example 14.
_____________________________________________________________________
H-0806.35
9-176
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Example 14. Methods of Fluid Removal in Plugged Deepwater Lines.

This example abstracts an in-depth study of fluid removal as a preliminary step to
depressurizing lines done in DeepStar Report A208-1 by J. Davalath (December
1995).
Figure 9.4.3-13 shows the Lw-H-V equilibrium conditions for the Hercules and Jolliett
fluid conditions in a 50 mile pipeline in 4000 ft. of water in the Gulf of Mexico.
When a blockage occurs, if the gas is not vented, the temperature rapidly decreases to
40 o F with a pressure between 2000-3000 psia (a subcooling of 30-33 o F). After gas
venting the pressure is still 1000-1300 psia, a factor of 5-6 times greater than the
equilibrium pressure (200 psia) at the ocean floor temperature (40 o F) with a
subcooling of 22 o F. To initiate hydrate dissociation, the hydrostatic head must be
removed below 200 psia, to about 150 psia where the equilibrium temperature is 25
o
F, slightly inside the ice formation region, so that a 15 o F temperature gradient will
cause heat to flow from the ocean to the hydrate.
In a worst-case scenario, the entire volume from the platform to the manifold must be
removed. Assuming only 70% of the pipeline volume is filled with liquid, the volume
to be removed would be 12,000 bbls in an 8 inch line and 26,000 bbls in a 12 inch line
50 miles long. The techniques listed in Table 9.4-2 were considered for liquid head
removal.
All of the options in Table 9.4-2 require that the plug location be determined and that
the pipeline have access points in order to remove the pressurizing liquid and plug. If
there are no access points, the line will have to be hot-tapped. The figures in the
example indicate that workover vessels need to be positioned above the plug.
H-0806.35
9-177
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.3-12: SCHEDULE FOR COMPLETE PLUG REMEDIATION

(FROM LYNCH, 1996)
H-0806.35
9-178
1-Dec-00
DESIGN
FIGURE 9.4.3-13: HYDRATE FORMATION CONDITIONS

(FROM DEEPSTAR A-208-1, 1995)
H-0806.35
9-179
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Of the seven options summarized in Table 9.4-2, those with gas lift were eliminated
due to low liquid removal rates. None of the depressurization options were
recommended; however, multiple access ports at 4- mile intervals were recommended
with use of coiled tubing as described in Section 9.4.3.4 on mechanical removal.
TABLE 9.4-2: TECHNIQUES TO REMOVE LIQUID HEAD ABOVE A HYDRATE

PLUG
Option for Removing Liquids
Issues/Limitations
1. Multiphase Pumping to Surface

Figure 9.4.3-14 at a rate of 5000 BOPD
to remove liquids in 3-6 days
2. Subsea separator; vent gas &
pump liquid to surface
3. Gas lift pipes on each side of plug
Figure 9.4.3-15
temporary deployment; electrical

submersible pump; handle large liquid
volume on workover vessel
deploy separator/pump hardware subsea
4. Multi-phase pumping with gas lift

5. Combine subsea separator with gas
lift
6. Displace with nitrogen from
platform
7. Launch a gel or foam pig followed
by nitrogen
H-0806.35
extremely slow: 21 days to remove 12,000

bbl from 8 line; 25+ days to remove
26,000 bbl from 12 inch line
similar issues to Option 1
too slow; similar issues to Option 2
requires large volumes of N2 at high P
gel pigs separate gas and liquid; access
point must be large enough to introduce pig
9-180
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.3-14: PIPELINE DEPRESSURIZATION METHODS - MULTIPHASE PUMP OPTION

(FROM DEEPSTAR A-208-1, 1995)
H-0806.35
9-181
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.3-15: PIPELINE DEPRESSURIZATION THROUGH GAS LIFT
H-0806.35
9-182
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.3-16: SUGGESTED PROCEDURE TO REMOVE MULTIPLE HYDRATE PLUGS
H-0806.35
9-183
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
An alternative to pumping the fluids to the surface is to discharge the fluids into a
parallel, unblocked flowline. This method would require access points along the
pipeline to locate the plug and remove the liquids to the parallel pipeline.
_____________________________________________________________________
Depressurizing One Side of Plug(s)
Rule of Thumb 20 indicates that multiple hydrate plugs should be assumed to exist in
a shut- in line. With multiple plugs, substantial gas may be trapped between the plugs,
and depressurization techniques should be similar to depressurization through one side
of a plug. The over-riding safety concern is that a plug might dislodge from the pipe
wall to become a projectile which can rupture a line or vessel.
Table 9.4-3: Procedure for Depressurization of One Side of a Hydrate Plug, or
Multiple Plugs without an Intermediate Access Port gives a procedure for
depressurizing one side of a hydrate plug. A similar procedure can be used with
multiple hydrate plugs when liquid heads exist on each side of the plug. DeepStar
A208-1 presents Figure 9.4.3-16 to illustrate the situation to remove two hydrate plugs
without an intermediate access point. In this case, it is assumed that there are multiple
access points to the pipeline, so that the general position of the plug(s) can be located
by pressure differential.
The procedure in Figure 9.4.3-16 was slightly modified from that proposed by the
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers , in Guideline for Prevention and Safe
Handling of Hydrates (1994), and that proposed in DeepStar Report A208-1.
H-0806.35
9-184
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
TABLE 9.4-2: PROCEDURE FOR DEPRESSURIZATION OF ONE SIDE OF A

HYDRATE PLUG, OR MULTIPLE PLUGS WITHOUT AN INTERMEDIATE
ACCESS PORT
When there is only the option to depressurize one side of a hydrate plug, there are
two major concerns for plug removal:
(a) that the plug may dislodge and be propelled in the pipe, becoming a severe safety
problem (see Section 9.2) as well as damaging equipment, and
(b) because the plug is porous and permeable, Joule-Thomson cooling of gas flow
may cause the downstream end to progress further into the hydrate stability
region.
The following depressurization procedure attempts to address both concerns. While
depressurization is most often used for hydrate it is normally preceded by attempts to
place inhibitor adjacent to the blockage; this is difficult because flow is restricted.
Depressurize the line by removing the fluids at a slow rate though access ports on
each side of the plugs. If a substantial liquid head is present, the procedure to
reduce the pressure could be one of the seven discussed in Example 14.
Before the hydrate dissociation pressure is reached, the pressure should be reduced
slightly (e.g. 100 psia), via the access port valves. After each of several pressure
reductions wait for the pressure to be equalized across the plug. Plug
permeability and porosity permits pressure communication to determine gas
volumes on each side. While the hydrate plugs are porous, as indicated in the
Statoil Gullfaks case, pressure equalization may be as slow as 3 psi/hour if
substantial liquid flows through the plug.
Maintaining a low P across hydrate plugs will reduce the thr eat of a projectile by
providing both a low driving force and a downstream gas cushion (See Example
15) for any dislodged plug. In addition a low P across the plug minimizes
Joule-Thomson cooling at the plug discharge end.
Reduce the pressure in stages to a level slightly below the equilibrium pressure,
pausing for equilibration at each stage. Do not reduce the pressure below that
required to reduce the hydrate equilibrium temperature below the ice point. If the
pressure is reduced too substantially, an ice plug will result which may be
difficult to dissociate.
If hydrates are dissociating (but remain in the line) the pressure will slowly rise to a
level equal to the hydrate equilibrium pressure at the ocean bottom temperature.
If hydrates have dissociated, the line pressure will remain below the hydrate
equilibrium pressure.
When the plug completely dissociates there will be no P across the section which
had contained the plug and Section 9.4.9. should be consulted for system start- up.
H-0806.35
9-185
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
While the above method represents an ideal depressurization from only one side, frequently a
non- ideal depressurization must be achieved, as in the following case study for a plug which had
low liquid permeability, with a very low gas to oil ratio. It should be noted that liquid
permeability through a hydrate plug is about a factor of 1000 lower than that of gas.
_____________________________________________________________________
Case Study 15. Line Depressured from One Side for Hydrate Plug Removal
In January 1996 Statoil (Gjertsen et al., 1997) depressured a hydrate plug in a North
Sea line which was alternatively used as a black oil producer and a gas injector to
maintain reservoir pressure. The oil and water production rates were 18,000 ft 3 /day
and 16,242 ft3 /day respectively, and the gas to oil ratio was usually 100-360 scf/ft3 , a
fairly low value. The line and plug location method is in Case Study 12 in Section
9.4.3.1B.
Since the plug was about mid-way along the 1.6 mile pipeline, there was not an option
of using an inhibitor because pipeline topology prevented inhibitor contact with the
plug. Since there were no connections at the well the plug had to be depressurized
from the platform side only. By considering the hydrate formation curve it was
determined that the plug equilibrium pressure was 261 psia but that ice would form
when the pressure was below 115 psia.
Figure 9.4.3-17 shows the depressurization of the line, with the upstream pressure, the
platform pressure, and the pressure drop. During dissociation the pressure was
decreased in steps, and a slow bleed through was observed from 0-73 hours, from 7390, 95-105 hours, and from 105 through 120 hours.
During the time prior to 120 hours, the pressure was above the hydrate equilibrium
pressure, and while the upstream pressure decreased steadily, it never decreased to the
downstream pressure, indicating that the plug was not very permeable to black oil. A
second mechanism was that the light oil ends may have been flashing to maintain a
constant pressure upstream. However the increase in downstream pressure occurred
much more rapidly as the downstream pressure was lowered, indicating that the plug
was porous, even to the black oil.
After about 120 hours the line pressure was maintained between 145 -261 psia
downstream of the plug. The plug dissociated about 50-60 hours after the downstream
pressure had been reduced sufficiently for melting by heat influx from the ocean. This
was indicated by a sudden upstream pressure decrease from 1890 psig to 1160 psig,
H-0806.35
9-186
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
while the downstream pressure increased from 218 psig to 1015 psig during the same
period. The pressure was decreased to 145 psig and kept there for over 30 hours to
melt the remainder of the hydrates.
Restart of the well (see Case Study 18 Section 9.4.9) was accomplished two weeks
after the original plug developed. This case is another indication of the long times
required to remediate a hydrate plug.
_____________________________________________________________________
Case Studies C.25, C.26, and C.27 in Appendix C are an overview of DeepStar
Wyoming field studies of hydrate formation and dissociation from one side of the
plug. These studies have the best instrumentation of any hydrate studies to date, and
provide several exceptions to the concepts in this portion of the handbook. For
example, in two of three cases, relatively impermeable plugs were formed, one of
which withstood a P of 475 psi and was propelled down the pipeline at a velocity of
270 ft/s.
In each DeepStar field trial, depressurization was done gradually in stages from one
side of a hydrate plug with prior testing to ensure that an absorbing gas cushion
existed downstream. Where the hydrate plug existed upstream of an above- ground
bend, angle, or valve, the test was aborted and the plug was depressured from both
sides due to safety reasons. In depressuring one side of a hydrate plug, it is instructive
to simulate the worst-case as a dislodged, frictionless, piston projectile in a pipeline, as
in Example 15.
H-0806.35
9-194
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.3-17: PRESSURE CHANGE DURING DEPRESSURIZATION
H-0806.35
9-188
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Example 15. Simulation of Hydrate Projectile Upon Depressuring One Side of Plug.
Xiao and Shoup of Amoco (1996 a,b,c, 1997) performed a series of simulations of a
hydrate projectile in preparation for depressurization from one side of a hydrate plug
in a Kerr-McGee, Wyoming 4 inch line. The plug was conservatively modeled as a
frictionless piston.
Using OLGA the steady state flow in the line was modeled prior to blockage
formation. The model included pipeline topography to obtain steady state liquid
volumes trapped at low points in the pipeline. The total mass flow was 92 BOPD and
4.166 MMscf/d. Figure 9.4.3-18 shows pipeline topography and the liquid holdup. At
a ground temperature of 34 o F, the pipeline was simulated as shut- in for 8 hours,
resulting in a simulated plug formation.
Hydrate plugs were initially situated at 7,550 ft. from the inlet of a 17,000 ft. pipeline,
with upstream pressures of 1150 psig and 575 psig and a constant initial downstream
pressure of 50 psig. Transient velocities of two plugs were simulated after formation:
(a) a 20 lb m plug which was 5 ft. long, and (b) a 137 lbm plug which was 30 ft. long.
Velocity profiles were obtained for each plug, propelled by the initial pressure
differentials of 1100 psi and 525 psi., against an initial pressure of 50 psig with a
closed valve at the line end..
For an upstream pressures of 1150 psig, the plugs reached a peak velocity 740 ft/s
(smaller plug) and 450 ft/s (larger plug). For an upstream pressure of 575 psig, the
plugs reached a peak velocity of 550 ft/s (smaller plug) and 340 ft/s (larger plug). The
inertial effects of the gas caused rapid acceleration and the final position of the larger
plug (700 ft. and 1,700 ft. from the pipe discharge at initial upstream pressures of 1150
psig and 575 psig respectively) was governed by a pressure balance, caused by
expansion of the upstream gas and compression of the downstream gas.
The simulation indicated that liquid condensate present in the line had very little effect
on the plug maximum velocity when condensate was injected far away from the plug
initial position. Figure 9.4.3-19 shows the plug velocity as a function of pipe position
for the case of 1150 psig upstream pressure with a 137 lb m plug. Plug simulation
results were used to plan and execute field plug dissociation tests. The calculated plug
H-0806.35
9-189
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.3-18: TOPOGRAPHY AND STEADY-STATE HOLDUP PROFILE
H-0806.35
9-190
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.3-19: PLUG VELOCITY VS PLUG LOCATION
H-0806.35
9-191
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
velocity was an acceptable match with measured plug velocities in the field with a
gamma-ray detector.
It should be noted that modeling the plug as a frictionless piston provides conservative
results. The modeled plug will be slowed by any friction between plug and the pipe,
as well as by blow-by of gas at the wall and through the porous plug.
_____________________________________________________________________
9.4.3.2
Chemical Methods of Plug Removal.

When the pipeline is completely blocked, it is difficult to get an inhibitor such as
methanol or ethylene glycol next to the plug without an access port in the plug
proximity. While plugs have been proved to be very porous and permeable,
particularly in gas systems (see Section 9.4.3.1A) a substantial gas volume between
the plug and injection points (platform or wellhead) hinders contact, particularly when
the line cannot be depressured to encourage gas flow through the plug.
Without flow, inhibitors must displace other line fluids through density differences to
reach plugs, which are close to the platform. Because flowlines have large variations
in elevation it is unlikely that an inhibitor will reach a plug without flow.
Nevertheless standard practice is to inject inhibitor from both the platform and the
well side of a plug, in an attempt to get the inhibitor next to a plug. Sometimes the
increased density of heavy brines can provide a driving force to the hydrate plug face.
Methanol or glycol injection is normally attempted first in a line. Density differences
act as a driving force to get inhibitor to the face of the plug, causing glycol to be used
more than methanol.
The reader is also referred to Section 9.4.3.1A. Filling the Line/Well with an
Inhibitor or Mechanical/Optical Device.
9.4.3.3
Thermal Methods of Plug Removal.

When the ends of a hydrate plug cannot be located, heating is very dangerous because
the pressure rises exponentially with temperature. Both ends of a hydrate plug can
seal the high pressure resulting from hydrate dissociation with heating, and the line
can burst as a result. Such a problem is indicated in Case Study 4 of 9.2.
Rule of Thumb 21. Because the limits of a hydrate plug cannot be easily located in
a subsea environment, heating is not recommended for subsea dissociation.
H-0806.35
9-192
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
However, heating is a viable option for topside hydrate plugs on a platform where a
thermocamera can be used to determine the plug limits (and where the possibility of
multiple plugs has been eliminated). Similarly in a plugged well where the upper plug
end is available, heating may be one of the primary options, as indicated in the below
case studies. Heating a plug in a well can be accomplished using a heated wireline
broach, similar to tool the shown in Figure 9.4.2-6.
_____________________________________________________________________
Case Study 16. Plug Dissociation by Heating in a Well
A hydrate plug was experienced in a well feeding a jackup platform in the Norwegian
sector in mid-May 1997. A hydrate plug, initially caused by pressurization of the well
with water, formed below the downhole safety valve in the well. This is a particularly
precarious condition which can result in a well blow out, if it is not handled properly.
Field personnel first attempted to decrease the pressure in steps to just above the
hydrate equilibrium pressure and unsuccessful attempts were made to push MEG
through the hydrate plug. The next action was to inject MEG into the well leaving
only a small gas volume at the top of the well. With a higher pressure atop the plug,
the only way to get gas into the well was by hydrate dissociation via MEG.
When the pressure dropped to 4280 psia, MEG was re- injected into the well until the
pressure rose to 4930 psia. A total of 0.14 gallons of MEG were re- injected,
indicating that a very small amount of hydrates had dissociated. It was concluded the
plug had very low permeability and dissociated very slowly. This concluded the
period of getting to know the plug.
At that point the pressure was reduced atop the well to 15 psia and shut- in so that only
the additional static head (394 ft. above the plug) maintained pressure above the plug.
The pressure recovered to 100 psia as an indication that hydrates were dissociating
upon pressure reduction. There were at least six similar pressure reduction and
recovery confirmations that hydrates were dissociating in the well; each time pressure
increases exponentially approached an asymptote of 100 psia.
It was determined the keep the pressure at 15 psia on top of the well to provide
constant hydrate melting. The plug temperature was approximately 48 o F. Five hours
after maintaining the pressure at 15 psia, the hydrate dissociation was complete and
the pressure atop the well rose to 160 psia. The entire hydrate plug melted 12 days
H-0806.35
9-193
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
after the initial formation. Questions remained concerning why the plug did not
respond to MEG injection, so that depressurization had to be used.
_____________________________________________________________________
9.4.3.4
Mechanical Methods of Plug Removal.

Pigs are not recommended to remove a hydrate plug, because compression usually
compounds a plug problem. Even for partial plugs, hydrate formation at low lying
points of the flowline may cause the pig to become stuck. If a number of hydrate
particles are present in the line, pigging could result in a more severe plug.
Coiled tubing is the final option for hydrate removal. The tubing is put into the
pipeline through a lubricator, usually at a platform or floating workover vessel, in an
effort to get an inhibitor such as glycol to the face of the plug.
Coiled tubing is 1/2 to 3-1/2 OD tubing of a maximum length between 15,000 and
29,000 ft. (Sas-Jaworsky et al., 1993). The bend radius at the base of the platform
riser presents a limit to coiled tubing penetration, with a minimum radius of 6-10 ft.,
but a preferred minimum radius of 20 - 60 ft. Penetration distance is a function of
tubing size and pipeline diameter as shown in Table 9.3-1.
TABLE 9.4-4: PENETRATION DISTANCE OF COILED TUBING (DEEPSTAR A208,

1995)
Tubing Size Flowline Size Penetration
inch
inch
ft.
1.5
1.75 - 2.0
4 or 6
4 or 6
3,000 - 5,000
6,000 - 8,000
See Case Study 11 (Section 9.4.3.1A) for a successful exa mple of hydrate plug
removal with coiled tubing and glycol jetting. In other case histories coiled tubing has
been used successfully. For example coiled tubing was recently used to dissociate a
plug at Statoils Statfjord field (Urdahl, 1997). Coiled tubing is expensive, requiring
special rigs. The daily cost of coiled tubing in 1997 is $1 million/d to rent the rig.
H-0806.35
9-194
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Coiled tubing technology is being developed. For hydrate applications, three new
types of coiled tubing are listed from the DeepStar A208-1 report by Mentor Subsea
(Davalath, 1995):
1.
Coiled tubing can get hydraulic drilling equipment to the plug Figure 9.4.3-20
2.
A tractor can be used to pull the coiled tubing through the flowline from the
platform side Figure 9.4.3-21 in lines larger than 4 inch ID at a speed of 5400 ft/hr
with penetration distances to 15,000 ft. Testing is underway in Deepstar Project
3202.
3.
A promising coiled tubing being developed is composite coiled tubing. The

tubing walls are porous to allow air/gas to lubricate the tub ing travel for further
penetration. Demonstration has yet to be done.
With the use of coiled tubing it is important to remember that as much as 170 scf of
gas evolves from each ft3 of dissociated hydrate. Coiled tubing must have gas flowby
capability in the drive mechanism at the tubing front. This will prevent either pushing
the tubing from the plug face or line over-pressure. For example with the pig-driven
coiled tubing shown in Figure 9.4.3-20, gas must be produced from the tubing.
9.4.4
Avoiding Hydrates on Flowline Shut-in or Start-up

Shut- in and start- up are primary times when hydrates form. On shut- in the line
temperature cools very rapidly to that of the ocean floor (40 o F for depth greater than
2000 ft.) so that the system is almost always in the hydrate region if the line is not
depressured. At that condition, multiple hydrate plugs can form. For a planned shutin, two actions are recommended: (a) inject a large amount of inhibitor such as
methanol or ethylene glycol, and (b) depressure the pipeline as soon as possible.
Case Study 11 (Section 9.4.3.1A) illustrates a hydrate plug formation due to an
unexpected shut- in when methanol could not be injected. It is not clear that the line
was depressured immediately after shut- in, but the plug formation was removed via
coiled tubing with glycol jetting. Case Study 17 also illustrates the value of line
depressuring on shut- in.
H-0806.35
9-195
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.4-1: DRILLING HEAD FOR SOLIDS REMOVAL

(From DeepStar A-208-1, 1995)
H-0806.35
9-196
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 9.4.4-2: COILED TUBING TRACTOR (FLUID DRIVEN VERSION)
H-0806.35
9-197
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Case Study 17. Multiple Plug Formation after Pressurized Shut- in

The following study is from DeepStar Report A208-1 (Mentor Subsea, 1995, page 31).
Due to a problem at a gas plant a 6 inch 600 ANSI flowline was shut-in at 1000 psi,
but it was not depressured for six days. The normal flow in the pipeline was gas with
2% H2 S and condensate in the amount of 50 bbl/MMscf.
To remove the blockage the wellhead side of the line was depressured by venting over
a 15-20 minute period. Then the valve at the header side was vented. During this
operation, one of the hydrate plugs partially melted, dislodged from the line and was
propelled by the high-pressure gas trapped inside the line. In this case there were at
least two low spots in the line, where sufficient water accumulated to form multiple
hydrate plugs. The plug length was estimated to be 33 ft. and the gas trap between the
plugs was estimated to be 160 ft. long.
The fast- moving hydrate plug blew a hole through a tee near the header within half a
second after the valve was opened at the header. The impact of the plug and
associated debris caused one fatality and one injury to personnel operating the valve.
Follow- up investigations and math modeling showed that 230 - 820 ft. of high
pressure gas in a 6 inch line would be sufficient to cause the damage that occurred. In
subsequent operations, hydrate plugging was prevented by: (1) injecting methanol or
glycol during each start- up, (2) for planned shutdowns, a hydrate inhibitor was
injected prior to stopping flow followed by depressurization, and (3) for unplanned
shutdowns, the pipeline was depressured within the first 24 hours following shut in.
_____________________________________________________________________
On start-up before reaching steady state, all parts of the system are particularly
susceptible to hydrates, while the system is heating with warm fluids from the
reservoir. During this time small hydrate particles which have formed may be
compacted by flow (or by pigs) to form a plug. A typical start-up procedure involves
injecting large amounts of inhibitor and using diesel fuel.
_____________________________________________________________________
Case Study 18. Pipeline Start- up after Hydrate Formation
In 1996 a Statoil black oil pipeline plug occurred in the Norwegian sector of the North
Sea, as described in Case Study 15 (Section 9.4.8.1D). After several precautions, the
H-0806.35
9-198
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
pipeline was depressured from one side of the plug, and when the plug had melted the
line was maintained at atmospheric pressure for over one day to eliminate the light
components which might form hydrates.
Before start-up, methanol was injected in the amount of 530 gallons in the 6 inch ID,
1.6 mile line from the platform. The pipeline was then pressurized with diesel from
the platform to the sub-sea valve, in an amount which indicated that the pipeline was
nearly empty of liquid after the previous depressurization to atmospheric conditions.
A further injection of diesel corresponding to two pipeline volumes was pumped into
the pipeline and well. Subsequently the well and the pipeline were put into production
without any hydrate problems.
9.4.5
Recommendations and Future Development Areas
9.4.5.1
Recommendation Summary for Hydrate Remediation

The lessons of hydrate plug remediation may be summarized succinctly:
H-0806.35
1.
Hydrate plugs are always dissociated, but the time scale is usually days to weeks.
Deliberate changes and patience are required. Hourly changes are ineffectual.
2.
Multiple hydrate plugs should always be assumed and treated as a safety hazard.
3.
Many hydrate plugs are porous and transmit pressure easily while acting to
obstruct flow. Some plugs are permeable to gas, but less so to condensate or
black oil. This concept controls many aspects of hydrate dissociation, including
radial depressurization, Joule-Thomson cooling through the plug, and the fact that
depressurization may cause the plug downstream temperature to decrease below
the hydrate equilibrium temperature.
4.
Methods are not well-defined for locating hydrate plugs and determining their
length. However, knowledge of the precise location and length of a plug would
be a vital help in dissociation.
5.
Attempts to blow the plug out of the line via a high upstream pressure always
results in a larger, more compacted hydrate.
6.
Depressurization from both sides of hydrate plugs is the preferred method of

removal, from both safety and technical viewpoints. This implies access points at
both plug ends through dual production lines, service lines, etc.
9-199
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
7.
If the pressure is decreased too much, the hydrate plug will rapidly form an ice
plug, which may be more difficult to dissociate.
8.
In a deepwater line a liquid head on a hydrate plug may be sufficient to prevent

depressurization. Liquid heads removal is a current challenges to flow assurance.
9.
In some cases, depressurization from one side of a plug has been safely done.
10. Heating is not recommended for hydrate plugs without a means for relieving the
excess gas pressure when hydrates dissociate.
11. Coiled tubing represents the primary mechanical means for dissociating hydrates.
12. Usually methanol or glycol is injected into plugged flowlines, but this is seldom
effective due to the necessity to get the inhibitor at the face of the plug.
13. Inhibitor injection and de-pressuring techniques are available for system shut- in
and start-up - two times of jeopardy in formation of hydrate plugs.
9.4.5.2
Recommendations for Future Work

Recommendations for future work to aid remediation supplements those from
DeepStar Report A208-1 (Mentor Subsea, 1995) based upon case studies represented
in the body of this report and in Appendix C.
H-0806.35
1.
Investigate the use of various access points along a flowline to allow (1) locating
the plug, (2) removal of liquid head at each side of a plug, and (3) depressuring
from each side of the plug. Such options include (a) multiple access points along a
pipeline, (b) dual production lines, (c) wellhead access through service lines with
check valves removed or bypassed, and (d) blind flanges and valves at manifold.
2.
Investigate the use of various coiled tubing techniques to enter a long distance
subsea line, such s (a) locomotive-type device for pulling coiled tubing, (b) pigs
mounted outside of coiled tubing to assist penetration, (c) composite coiled tubing
to reduce drag.
3.
Consider using a long radius riser (from 20-80 ft.), eliminating bends and S
configurations where water might accumulate, and reducing line low spots.
4.
Eliminate un-necessary restrictions and valves in the system and provide for
heating or methanol injection where Joule-Thomson cooling is a problem.
Consider installing a heater on the platform to prevent hydrate formation in the
choke and/or separator.
9-200
1-Dec-00
9.5
DEEPSTAR
5.
Consider providing pressure and temperature monitors a various points along the
pipeline. Provide for hydrate prevent ion at these instrument points.
6.
A mathematical model should be refined and verified to include radial dissociation

of a hydrate plug. A proven, predictive model for hydrate dissociation is not
currently available.
Economics
Economics provide the motivation for all engineering action. When we ask, Why
should hydrates be of concern? the ultimate answer relates to economics. Even
concerns of higher value (e.g. safety or the environment) relate directly to economics
because such concerns can prevent process operations.
The present section is aimed at providing economics in terms of hydrate safety,
prevention, and remediation - the previous three major sections of the handbook. In
every example provided, a time stamp enables the reader to update the economics,
using such tools as the Consumer Price Index.
9.5.1
The Economics of Hydrate Safety

While insurance actuaries can set a price on life and limb, usually an ethical concern
for worker well-being dictates safe operation, and companies take well-deserved pride
in the number of accident- free days. While safety is related to costs, the policy is
invariably, Safety at all costs, or If we cannot operate safely, we cannot operate.
Consideration of the Section 9.2 five case studies, plus Case Study 17 in Section 9.4.9
all imply a direct relationship between safety and cost, because blowout and severe
process damage occurred in all cases. Lysne (1995, p. 7,8) lists three such incidences
in which hydrate projectiles erupted from pipelines at elbows and caused the loss of
three lives and over $7 million in capital costs.
9.5.2
The Economics of Hydrate Prevention

The Guidelines for Hydrate Prevention Design (Section II.H) are certain to involve
economics which relate to individual cases, for example the cost of a heating system
installed around a instrument gas control valve. Frequently such costs can be
minimized in the original process design, without expensive retrofits to correct
deficiencies. In this section we are concerned with the economics of two principle
prevention means: (1) chemical injection and (2) heat management.
H-0806.35
9-201
1-Dec-00
9.5.2.1
DEEPSTAR
Chemical Injection Economics.

In the United States in 1996 the oil and gas production industry used an estimated 400
million pounds of methanol, the most-used hydrate inhibitor (Houston, 1997). Shells
methanol usage in deepwater is forecast at 50 million pounds per year. With
expanding deepwater work the use of methanol is expected to grow 50 - 75% over the
next five years. These economics provided the initial motivation to investigate
hydrate prevention via other means.
Economics of Methanol and Mono-ethylene Glycol
One of the most comprehensive documented economic studies of methanol injection
was provided by DeepStar I CTR 240 by INTEC Engineering (December 1992). In
that work chemical injection costs (including MeOH) were reported for two Gulf of
Mexico cases: (a) the Jolliet reservoir which is naturally gas lifted, and (b) the
Hercules reservoir has a heavier crude with low GOR (500 scf/b).
The study recommends that there should be one transmission line per chemical and a
subsea distribution system, with the main features:
one surface pump per chemical on the host platform
one subsea transmission line per chemical
subsea distribution using remotely adjustable, pressure compensated flow control
valves packaged into control pods, and
use of steel or stainless steel subsea chemical transmission lines.
Details of annual hydrate chemical costs for 1-well and 20-well cases, 60 mile lines,
are provided in Table 9.5-1. Table 9.5-2 gives capital costs for methanol injection
systems in 1 well and 20 wells for the Jolliet and Hercules reservoirs. It should be
noted however, that both tables are based solely upon methanol only in the free water
phase. As noted in Sections 9.3.4.3 and 9.3.4.4 frequently methanol losses to the
vapor and condensate phases are quite important.
The amounts of chemical injection should be based upon the methods of Section 9.3.4,
recalling the relative advantages and disadvantages of each inhibitor. For example,
methanol is significantly dissolved in the vapor and liquid hydrocarbon phases, not
just the free water phase (considered in Table 9.5-1).
Methanol had a delivered cost to an offshore Gulf of Mexico platform of $2.00 per
gallon during the 1996-7 winter. Such costs fluctuate significantly and are somewhat
H-0806.35
9-202
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
seasonal; typical dockside North Sea methanol costs were $0.11/lbm ($0.72/gallon)
and ethylene glycol cost were $0.27/lb m during the 1997 summer.
Since methanol recovery is not economical, methanol injection is normally considered
as an operating cost. The Deepstar Study CTR 221-1 (Paragon Engineering, 1994)
shows methanol recovery to be very expensive in Table 9.3.9-1 of Case Study 7 in
Section 9.3.9.1A. For methanol recovery late in the life of a field, the total installed
cost on an existing platform was estimated at $16.7 million ($20 million total installed
cost with a new platform) while the annual operating cost is $6 million. For ethylene
glycol (MEG) a low vapor pressure results in a smaller recovery column, making the
economics much more favorable.
TABLE 9.5-1: COST OF METHANOL USAGE FOR JOLLIET AND HERCULES

RESERVOIRS
in Gulf of Mexico (from DeepStar I CTR 240)
Rsrvr
Subcool wt%
No.
Wel
l
life
yr
WHP
psia
Oil
Gas
H2 O
bbl/D
Mscf/d
bbl/D
T( F)
MeOH Cost
MeOH gpm
k$/yr
Jolliet
1
5
8
3,317
1,970
911
2,500
600
43
1,670
3,268
850
2
17
4
46.3
38.8
27.8
35.3
33.1
27.3
0.026
0.206
0.040
7.65
60.6
11.8
Jolliet
20
1
5
10
2,821
1,449
1,123
4,400
16,400
5,100
2,948
33,948
36,210
4
124
172
43.9
34.4
30.8
34.8
31.1
29.2
0.051
1.412
1.832
15.0
415.6
539.2
Hercules
1
5
8
2,325
1,737
1,824
1,367
465
23
869
376
30
0
666
22
41.2
37.0
37.7
33.9
32.3
32.6
0
7.889
0.263
0
2,322
77.4
Hercules
20
1
5
10
2,325
1,064
1,064
2,700
22,700
19,100
3,000
12,500
11,700
0
4,540
5,157
41.2
30.0
30.0
33.9
28.7
28.7
0
47.75
54.24
0
14,054
15,964
H-0806.35
9-203
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
TABLE 9.5-2: TRANSMISSION LINES (60 MILES) SIZING, COSTS AND PUMPING
SKID COSTS (FROM DEEPSTAR I. CTR 240)
Reservoir
No.
Wells
Min. Line
ID (in)
Line Cost
MM$
Skid Cost
k$
Jolliet
Jolliet
1
20
0.306
0.780
1.03
1.11
5.20
30.00
Hercules
1
1.629
1.79
34.00
Hercules
20
2.815
1.79
89.50
Additional cost of valve, actuator, manifolding,
and packaging = $6,700/well.
Rule-of-Thumb 22. Methanol loss costs can be substantial when the total fraction
of either the vapor or the oil/condensate phase is very large relative to the water
phase.
Sections 9.3.3. and 9.3.4. provide a quantitative means of validation of the above
Rule-of-Thumb. Example 7 provides a conservative sample calculation in which 15%
of the methanol is lost to the vapor and liquid hydrocarbon. Statoil provided the
below table showing a reduction in condensate price for different me thanol
concentrations (>30 ppm by wt) in a condensate.
TABLE 9.5-3: COST PENALTIES FOR METHANOL IN PROPANE

(from Austvik, 1997)
MeOH conc in Reduction in 1993 Price (comment)
C3 H8 ppm (wt)
0-30
30-50
50-100
100-200
200-300
>300
H-0806.35
0
0-$2/metric ton (MT = 2205 lb m)
$2-4/MT (or $0.25 - $0.50/ Bbl)
$4-6/MT (excludes some crackers)
$6-9/MT (excludes most crackers)
$9-40/MT (reduced confidence in product)
9-204
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Economics of New Types of Inhibitors

Notz (1994) provided one of the best comparisons of operating costs for methanol
with kinetic inhibitors in Tables 14 and 15 for a Texaco field in the North Sea.
TABLE 9.5-4: RELATIVE USAGE OF METHANOL AND KINETIC INHIBITOR IN A
NORTH SEA FIELD
(P. Notz, July 26, 1994)
Pipeline
(in)
phase
16
12
H-0806.35
Life
yrs
of
Use
H2 O
avg,
bbl/d
Time in
hydrate
zone, hr
Max
T,
o
F
wt%
MeOH
in H2 O
MeOH
1000
lbm
KI
1000
lbm
active
multi
0
7
15
304
287
150
0
2.3
40.9
no hyd
11.7
31.4
0
16
33
0
20.9
19.3
0
0.409
NA*
liquid
0
7
15
346
295
118
0
7.9
43.2
no hyd
17.5
19.4
0
20
21
0
21.5
8.8
0.
0.441
0.170
gas
0
17
8.4
25.5
28
9.7
7
10
24.6
30.8
33
5.9
15
4
72.9
32.0
33
2.4
NA* = conditions too severe for kinetic inhibitor (KI)
0.128
NA*
NA*
9-205
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
TABLE 9.5-5: COMPARISON OF METHANOL AND KINETIC INHIBITOR COST IN

NORTH SEA
(P. Notz, July 26, 1994)
Line
(in)
16
8
12
phase
multi
liquid
gas
Years When Kinetic Inhibitor is

Effective
Use
Methanol
Kinetic
Yrs
Inhibitor1
MM $MM MM $MM
lbm
lbm
MM
lbm
$MM
Replacing MeOH with

KI Whenever Possible
KI1 , MeOH2 Total
MM
MM
Cost
lbm
lbm
$MM
7-9
6-15
1-4
72.9
52.5
33.0
22.1
15.9
10.0
0.36
1.05
0.03
25.9
52.5
15.6
7.8
15.9
4.7
0.36
1.05
0.03
3.2
9.3
0.26
Over Entire 15 Year Life of Reservoir

Methanol
50.0
0
17.4
18.4
9.3
5.5
This includes the cost of methanol solvent for the kinetic inhibitor
This is the methanol cost in those years when a KI cannot be used because T > 27o F
Grainger (1997) compared inhibition costs of methanol, glycol, and a Threshold

Hydrate Inhibitor (THI) which consisted of kinetic inhibitors, a corrosion inhibitor,
and a solvent. Table 16 represents dock delivery costs, without shipping to the
platform.
TABLE 9.5-5: COMPARISON OF THREE TYPES OF INHIBITOR COSTS IN THE

NORTH SEA
(M. Grainger, August 21, 1997)
Chemical
MEG
MeOH
THI
Conc/bbl H2 O,wt%
Quantity, lb m
Cost/bbl H2 O
15
61.7
$16-$17
15
61.7
$6.5 - $7.5
0.25
0.882
$8-$10
From the above table, operating cost benefits appear marginal (better than MEG,
worse than MeOH). Bloys et al. (1995) suggested that economics were favorable for
new developments (due for example, to capital savings of avoiding regeneration
systems) but marginal for retrofits of systems with traditional inhibitors such as
monoethylene glycol.
The incentive for newer kinetic control methods is a substantial capital cost reduction
by the elimination of the need for offshore platform equipment, and a small operating
cost reduction. In one high water production North Sea field, BP reckoned the capital
H-0806.35
9-206
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
costs savings at $50 million for platform costs including methanol injection costs,
glycol drying, and regeneration (Argo and Osborne, 1997).
For example, BP currently operates some Southern North Sea pipeline wet, thereby
saving the capital cost of drying the gas on the pla tform. In addition to capital cost, a
savings may be realized on the platform itself.
Rule-of-Thumb 23. The cost of a fixed leg North Sea platform is $77,000/ton.
The above Rule-of-Thumb was given by Edwards (1997). BP would like to use
unmanned platforms, but the inhibitor recovery units on some platforms prevents
doing so. As additional costs, Edwards also estimated the operation of an inhibitor
recovery unit at 2 hrs/day operator time and maintenance requires 600-700 hr/year at
$85/hr.
The economics of anti-agglomerants are much less certain than those stated above for
kinetic inhibitors. No documented costs of anti-agglomerants were found. However,
anti-agglomerant economics should include such factors as emulsion breaking,
recovery, and disposal.
9.5.2.2
Heat Management Economics

Of the two heat management techniques (insulation methods and pipeline heating)
only the insulation state-of-the-art is established sufficiently for economics to be
available. However, deepwater development is causing the cost of such technology to
change rapidly, and the information contained here should be updated by
knowledgeable workers.
Economics of Insulation
The minimum overall coefficient achievable with a non-jacketed system is 0.3
BTU/hr-ft2 - o F (from DeepStar Report IIA CTR A601-a, 1995) and costs are typically
$50-$300/ft for pipes with diameters between 8 inches and 12 inches.
Rule-of-Thumb 24. In order to achieve a desired heat transfer coefficient of 0.3
BTU/hr-ft 2 -oF, a non-jacketed system costs $1.5 million per mile. Typical costs of
insulation via bundled lines are $1.5 -$2.0 million/mile.
Figures 9.3.7-13 and 9.3.7-14 compare the cost of the three above types of insulation
for water depths of 6000 ft over 60 miles at oil production rates of 25,000 and 50,000
bbl/d, respectively. If an average U = 0.3 BTU/hr-ft2 - o F is required with a flowline
H-0806.35
9-207
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
pressure of 4000 psia, bundled flow lines are more cost effective. Technical details
and associated economics are provided in Section 9.3.7.4.
9.5.3
The Economics of Hydrate Remediation

When hydrate blockages occur, production is shut in. When coupled with the fact that
all hydrate-blocked lines and wells have to be re-commissioned, the question arises
about how lost production should be treated - i.e. as lost or as deferred revenue.
There is consensus that shut- in production should be counted as lost revenue for
reasons including the following:
1.
Usually deferred production is counted at the end of reservoir life, so that the time
value of money is considered. A dollar today is worth more than a dollar
tomorrow due to inflation.
2.
Fields are frequently sold over their lifetime, and deferred cost means lost revenue
during the ownership of a field.
3.
Contracts specify delivery and penalties for non-delivery of hydrocarbon.
Production losses due to hydrates are site-specific, but are enormous when considered
collectively. From the hydrate group with the largest world-wide remediation
experience, Austvik of Statoil(1997) indicated the magnitude of the problem by
saying, At any instant in the North Sea, there is probably a hydrate blockage which
requires remediation. As one onshore example, despite large quantities of methanol
injection for hydrate prevention, Todd et al. (1996) report 66 hydrate blockages
occurred in one well and productio n line during winter of 1995-1996, resulting in
production losses of more than $240,000.
Offshore hydrate remediation techniques are very costly if they are not explicitly
included into the initial design. For example, the ARCO Case Study 14 represented a
fortunate instance (in April 1996) of having an extra flange available at the manifold
for depressurization. In this case two solutions were technically available:
H-0806.35
1.
Jack-up Rig. Tow a jackup rig to the site and attach a high pressure riser to the
manifolds subsea tree. Flare exiting gas via the rigs flare stack. The estimated
cost: was $2 million and a delay of approximately eight weeks was needed to
locate a suitable rig. The time required for hydrate removal could be twelve
weeks.
2.
Floating Production and Storage Vessel (FPSO). Connect a FPSO with a

processing plant and flare to the subsea manifolds fourth flow loop. The
9-208
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
estimated cost was $1.9 million and a FPSO was available for immediate use,
reducing the required time to 6-8 weeks.
Other techniques such as the use of coiled tubing were not available at the time. (The
daily cost of coiled tubing was $1 million/d to rent the rig in July, 1997.) The final
cost of depressurizing the ARCO pipeline was almost 3 million dollars, without
production losses. Even with such high costs, the loss of production usually causes
time to be the deciding resource during remediation.
During remediation periods, gas supply is usually met via substitution. However, the
borrowing capacity is typically limited to 5 times the daily capacity, so that gas
supplies are purchased from the spot market. Typical non-delivery penalty costs are
$50,000/day after tax on a gas production unit of 125MM scf/d. Non-delivery contract
pressures may be eased by considering hydrates as a Force Majeure as done in
ARCO Case Study 14, implying that no penalties should be incurred because there
was no human error.
9.6
References
1.
Aarseth, F., Use of Electrical Power in Control of Wax and Hydrates, Proc 1997
Offshore Technology Conference, paper OTC 8541, Houston, TX, May 5-8, 1997.
2. Argo, C.B., Blain, R.A., Osborne, C.G., Priestley, I.D., Commercial Deployment
of Low Dosage Hydrate Inhibitors in a Southern North Sea 69 Kilometer WetGas Subsea Pipeline, SPE 37255, Proc. SPE Int. Symp. on Oilfield Chemistry,
Houston, Texas (18-21 February 1997)
3. Argo, C.B., Osborne, C.G., Personal Communication Estimation of Capital and
Operating Cost Associated with Threshold Hydrate Inhibitors, BP Sunbury
Research Centre, U.K. July 18, 1997.
4. Austvik, T., Personal Communication Regarding Safety, Prevention, Remediation
and Economics at Statoil Reseach Center, Trondheim, Norway, July 13 - 15,
1997.
5. Austvik, T., Hustvedt, E., Meland, B., Berge, L., Lysne, D., Tommeliten Gamma
Field Hydrate Experiments, Proc. 7th Inter. Conf. on Multiphase Production,
BHRA Group Conf. Ser. Publication 14, Cannes, June 7-9, (1995)
6. Austvik, T., Hustvedt, E., Gjertsen, L.H.,Urdahl, O., Formation and Removal of
Hydrate Plugs, Field Trial at Tommeliten, Proc. Gas Processors Asosication
Conference, San Antonio, Texas, (March 1997)
H-0806.35
9-209
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
7. Baillie, C., Wichert, E., Chart Gives Hydrate Formation Temperature for Natural
Gas, Oil & Gas Journal, 37 (April 1987)
8. Barker, J.W., Gomez, R.K., Formation of Hydrates During Deepwater Drilling
Operations, J. Petrol. Tech., 41, 297 (March 1989)
9. Behar, E., Delion, A.-S., Sugier, A., Thomas, M., Plugging Control of Production
Facilities by Hydrates, 1st Internat Conf. on Natural Gas Hydrates, Sloan,
E.D., Happel, J., Hnatow, M. eds New York Academy of Sciences, Vol.715, p
94, (1994)
10. Berge, L., Gjertsen, L., Lysne, D., The Importance of Porosity and Permeability
of Hydrate Plugs in Pipes, in Proc. 2nd Intnl. Conf. on Natural Gas Hydrates,
p. 533, (Monfort, J.P., ed.), Toulouse, 2-6 June (1996)
11. Bloys, B., Lacey, C., Lynch, P., Laboratory Testing and Field Trial of a New
Kinetic Hydrate Inhibitor, OTC 7772, Proc. 27th Ann OTC, Houston, Texas
May 1-4, (1995)
12. Brown, G.G., A Series of Enthalpy-Entropy Charts for Natural Gases, Trans
AIME, 160, 65 (1945)
13. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (R. King, T. Sharples, J. Stewart, S.
Sortland, authors) CAPP Guideline for the Prevention and Safe Handling of
Hydrates, 10 pages (January 1994)
14. Chevron Canada Resources, Hydrate Handling Guidelines: Safety and Loss
Control Manual, Chevron Internal Report, 27 pages (July 23, 1992)
15. Corrigan, A., Duncum, S.N., Edwards, A.R., Osborne, C.G., Trials of Threshold
Hydrate Inhibitors in the Ravenspurn to Cleeton Line, SPE Prod. & Facil., p
250 (Nov. 1996)
16. Davalath, J., Barker, J.W., Hydrate Inhibitor Design for Deepwater
Completions, Proc. 68th Annual Tech. Conf. of Society Petroleum
Engineering, SPE 26532, Houston, Texas, 3-6 October 1993.
17. Deaton, W.M., Frost, E.M., Jr., Gas Hydrates and Their Relation to the Operation
of Natural-Gas Pipe Lines , 101 pp. U.S. Bureau of Mines Monograph 8, 1946.
18. DeepStar I CTR 230-1 Control Systems, Intec Engineering, 4 Sections and 3
Appendices, (December 1992)
19. DeepStar I CTR 240-1 Chemical Injection System Study, Intec Engineering, 4
Sections and 1 Appendix, (December 1992)
H-0806.35
9-210
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
20. DeepStar II CTR 221-1, Evaluation of the Impact of Methanol Recycle/Recovery

Facilities on Offshore Production Systems, Paragon Engineering Services,
Inc., 34 pages and 3 appendices, (December 1994)
21. DeepStar II CTR 223-1,Deepstar Insulation Requirement for Pipeline Bundles,
Texaco Central Engineering and Purchasing Department ,and Texaco
Exploration Producting Technologty Department (R.W. Barkley, T.L. Dean, S.
Kashou, authors), 216 pages, (June 1994)
22. DeepStar II CTR 230-1, Operational Experience with Hydrate Formation in
Liquid Hydrocarbon Lines, Paragon Engineering, 22 pages and references,
(June 1994)
23. DeepStar II. CTR 640-1, Pipeline/Flowline Pigging Strategies H.O. Mohr
Research & Engineering, Inc., Tutorial and Review (August 1994)
24. DeepStar IIA CTR A208-1, Methods to Clear Blocked Flowlines, Mentor
Subsea (J. Davalath, author), 157 pages and a appendix, (January 1996)
25. DeepStar IIA CTR A209-1, Hydrate Formation Tests Requirements for
Multiphase Oil Systems, IIT Research Institute, Westport Technology Center
International (M.H. Yousif, author) 36 pages, (December 1995)
26. DeepStar IIA CTR A212-1, Paraffin and Hydrate Detection Systems, Paragon
Engineering Services, Inc. and Southwest Reserch Institute, 103 pages, (April
1996)
27. DeepStar IIA CTR A601-a, Insulated Flowline Options Identification Study,
INTEC Engineering Company, 23 pages and 5 appendices, (August 1995)
28. DeepStar IIA CTR A601-b, Deepwater gulf of Mexico Integrated Towed
Flowline Bundle Design Study, Kvaerner - R.J. Brown, 9 Sections and 2
appendices, (December 1995)
29. DeepStar IIA CTR A601-c, Deepwater Gulf of Mexico Insulated Pipe- in-Pipe
Study, Snamprogetti, S.p.A. Offshore Division, 220 pages and 5 annexes,
(December 1995)
30. DeepStar IIA CTR A601-d, Non-Jacketed Insulation Coating, Mentor Subsea (J.
Davalath, author),16 pages and 2 appendices, (February 1996)
31. DeepStar IIA CTR A900-3, GC-184 Paraffin/Hydrate Inhibition Study - Phase
Two, Conoco, Inc., (T.S. Brown author) (June 1992)
32. Edwards, A.R., Personal Communication Regarding the Use and Economics of
Threshold Hydrate Inhibitors, BP Dimlington Terminal , U.K., (July 17, 1997)
H-0806.35
9-211
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
33. Englezos, P., Kinetics of Gas Hydrate Formation and Kinetic Inhibiton in
Offshore Oil and Gas Operations, Proc. 5th Int. Offshore & Polar Eng. Conf.,
, pg 289, the Hague, Netherlands (June 11, 1995)
34. GPSA Engineering Data Book, Revised 10th Edition, Gas Processors Suppliers
Association, 6526 East 60th Street, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74145
35. Gjertsen, L.H., Austvik, T., Urdahl, O., Duus, R., Removal of a Gas Hydrate
Plug From a Subsea Multiphase Pipeline in the North Sea, Proc. BHR Group
1997 Multiphase 97 Conference, Cannes, France, (June 18-20, 1997)
36. Grainger, M., TR Oil Services Perspectives on the Use of Alternate Hydrate
Inhibitors, written personal communication to E.D. Sloan, (September 3,
1997)
37. Hatton , G.J., Barajas, A.M., Kuhl, C.A., Hydrate Plug Decomposition Test
Program, Final Report, SwRI Project 04-8217, October 1997, Prepared for
DeepStar 3204 Subcommittee.
38. Houston,C., Personal Communication: Survey of USA Methanol Usage, July 31,
1997
39. Katz, D.:L., Prediction of Conditions for Hydrate Formation in Natural Gases,
Trans. AIME, 160: 140 (1945)
40. Katz, D.L., Cornell, D., Kobayashi, R., Poettmann, F.H., Vary, J.A., Elenbaas,
J.R., Weinaug, C.F., Handbook of Natural Gas Engineering, McGraw-Hill
Book Co., Inc., New York, 802 pp. (1959).
41. Kelkar, S.K., Selim, M.S., Sloan E.D.,Hydrate Dissociation Rates in Pipelines,
Proc. 13th Symposium on Thermophysical Properties, June 22-27, 1997,
Boulder, Colorado
42. Kent, R.P., Coolen, M.E., Hydrates in Natural Gas Lines, Mobil Internal Report,
7 pages (1992)
43. Lingelem, M.N., Majeed, A.I.,m Stange, E., Industrial Experience in Evaluation
of Hydrate Formation, Inhibition, and Dissociation in Pipeline Design and
Operation, 1st Internat. Conf. on Natural Gas Hydrates, Sloan, E.D., Happel,
J., Hnatow, M. eds., New York Academy of Sciences, Vol.715, p 75, (1994)
44. Loh, J., Maddox, R.N., Erbar, J.H., New Hydrate Formation Data Reveal
Differences, Oil & Gas Journal, 81(20), p. 96 (1983)
45. Lynch, P., Orwell Field Pipeline Blockage Report, April - June 1996, ARCO
British Ltd. Report, 23 pages, November 1996
H-0806.35
9-212
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
46. Lysne, D., An Experimental Study of Hydate Plug Dissocation by Pressure

Reduction, D.Ing. Thesis, Norwegian Institute of Technology, University of
Trondheim (1995)
47. Makogon, Y.F., Hydrates of Natural Gas, Pennwell Publishing, 237 pages, (1981)
48. Makogon, Y.F., Hydrates of Hydrocarbons, Pennwell Publishing, 482 pages
(1997)
49. Manning, F.S., and Thompson, R.E., Oifield Processing of Petroleum: Volume
One: Natural Gas, Pennwell Publishing, Tulsa (1991)
50. Monfort, J.P., ed, Proc. 2nd Intnl. Conf. on Natural Gas Hydrates, F. Foucaud,
Secretariat, 18 Chemin de la Loge, 31078 Toulouse Cedex, France 2-6 June,
1996
51. Ng, H.-J., Robinson, D.B., Equilibrium Phase Composition and Hydrating
Conditions in Systems Containing Methanol, Light Hydrocarbons, Carbon
Dioxide, and Hydrogen Sulfide, GPA Research Report RR-66, Gas
Processors Association, (joint with Canadian Gas Processors Association)
Tulsa, (April 1983)
52. Ng, H.-J., Chen, C.-J., Vapour-Liquid and Vapour-Liquid-Liquid Equilibria for
H2S, CO2, Selected Light Hydrocarbons, and a Gas Condensate in Aqueous
Methanol or Ethylene Glycol Solutions, GPA Research Report RR-149, Gas
Processors Association, Tulsa, Gas Research Institute, Chicago (1995)
53. Ng, H.-J., Chen, C.-J., Robinson, D.B., The Influence of High Concentrations of
Methanol on Hydrate Formation and the Distribution of Glycol in LiquidLiquid Mixtures, GPA RR-106, Gas Processors Association, Tulsa, (April
1987)
54. Nielsen, R.B., Bucklin, R.W., Use of Methanol for Hydrate Control in Expander
Plants, Proc. Gas Conditioning Conference, Norman, OK (1983)
55. Notz, P.K., Discussion of the Paper, The Study of Separation of Nitrogen from
Methane by Hydrate Formation Using a Novel Apparatus, 1st Internat Conf.
on Natural Gas Hydrates, Sloan, E.D., Happel, J., Hnatow, M. eds New York
Academy of Sciences, Vol.715, p 425, (1994)
56. Notz, P.K., Texaco Technical Memorandum (TM 94-0145) on Relative Inhibitor
Costs, July 26, 1994
57. Notz, P.K., Bumbgartner, S.B., Schaneman, B.D., Todd, J.L., The Application of
Kinetic Inhibitors to Gas Hydrate Problems, OTC 7777, Proc. 27th Ann OTC
, Houston, Texas May 1-4 (1995) and SPE Prod & Facil, 256 (November 1996)
H-0806.35
9-213
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
58. Polderman, L.D., "The Glycols as Hydrate Point Depressants in Natural Gas
Systems," Proc. Gas Conditioning Conference, Norman, OK (1958)
59. Robinson, D.B., Ng, H.-J., Hydrate Formation and Inhibition in Gas or Gas
Condensate Streams, J. Can. Petrol. Technol., 25(4), 26 (1986)
60. Sas-Jaworsky, A., II., Blount, C.G., Tailby, R.J., Coiled Tubing...Operations and
Services, World Oil, pg 55, (June 1993)
61. Shuler, P.J., Chevron Production Technology Co., Personal Communicatio n of
HYDCALC program (June 10, 1997)
62. Sloan, E.D., The Colorado School of Mines Hydrate Program, Proc. 64th Ann.
GPA Convention, Gas Processors Association, Houston (March 1985)
63. Sloan, E.D., Jr., Clathrate Hydrates of Natural Gases, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New
York, (Second Edition) 704pp (1998)
64. Sloan,E.D., Happel, J., Hnatow, M.A., eds, (First) International Conference on
Natural Gas Hydrates, Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, 715, 1994
65. Stange, E., Majeed, A., Overa, S., Experimentations and Modeling of the
Multiphase Equilibrium and Inhibition of Hydrates, Proc. 68th Annual GPA
Convention, San Antonio, Texas (March 1989)
66. Texaco (J. Todd, K. Barbin, E,. Busby, S. Hourcade, D. Hall, B. Peterson)
Reliability Engineering - Gas Freezing and Hydrates, (a handbook for
operating personnel), 16 Sections (1996)
67. Todd, J.L., Personal Communication, June 18, 1997
68. Townsend, F.M., Reid, L.S., Hydrate Control in Natural Gas Systems, L.S. Reid
and Assoc, P.O. Biox 1188, Norman, OK 73070, (September 23, 1978)
69. Urdahl, O., Personal Communication on Safety, Prevention, Remediation, and
Economics at Statoil Reseach Center, Trondheim, Norway, July 14, 1997.
70. Xiao, J.J., Shoup, G., Amoco Letter to G. Hatton, Southwest Research Institute,
OLGA Simulation - Steady-State Results, September 16, 1996a.
OLGA Simulation - Plug Movement Results, September 23, 1996b.
OLGA Simulation - Plug Movement Results: Efect of Injecting Condensate
on Plug Movement,November 6, 1996c.
H-0806.35
9-214
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Flow Pattern Maps for the Kerr McGee 4 Inch Pipeline, February 5, 1997.
74. Yousif, M., Austvik, T., Berge, L., Lysne, D., The Effects of Low Concentration
Methanol Solutions on Hydrate Formation, in Proc. 2nd Intnl. Conf. on
Natural Gas Hydrates, p. 291, (Monfort, J.P., ed.), Toulouse, 2-6 June (1996)
75. Yousif, M.H., Li,P.M., Selim, M.S., Sloan, E.D., Depressurization of Natural Gas
Hyrates in Berea Sandstone Cores, J. Inclus. Phenom. and Molec. Recog., 8,
71, (1990)
H-0806.35
9-215
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
APPENDIX A
GAS HYDRATE STRUCTURES, PROPERTIES, AND HOW THEY FORM
H-0806.35
Appendix A.
Gas Hydrate Structures, Properties, and How They Form
The following discussion is excerpted from the monograph by Sloan (1998,
Chapters 2 and 3), to which the reader may wish to turn for a more complete explanation.
Two recent hydrate conference summaries (Sloan et al., 1994; Monfort 1996) also provide
research and applied perspectives of the hydrate community.
Gas clathrates are crystalline compounds which occur when water forms a cage-like
structure around smaller guest molecules. While they are more commonly called hydrates, a
careful distinction should be made between these non-stoichiometric clathrate hydrates of
gas and other stoichiometric hydrate compounds which occur for example, when water
combines with various salts.
Gas hydrates of current interest are composed of water and the following eight
molecules: methane, ethane, propane, isobutane, normal butane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide,
and hydrogen sulfide. Yet other apolar components between the sizes of argon (3.5 ) and
ethylcyclohexane (9) can form hydrates. Hydrate formation is a possibility where water
exists in the vicinity of such molecules at temperatures above and below 32oF. Hydrate
discovery is credited in 1810 to Sir Humphrey Davy. Due to their crystalline, non-flowing
nature, hydrates first became of interest to the hydrocarbon industry in 1934, the time they
first were observed blocking pipelines. Hydrates concentrate hydrocarbons: 1 ft 3 of
hydrates may contain 180 scf of gas.
Hydrates normally form in one of three repeating crystal structures shown in Figure
A.1. Structure I (sI), a body-centered cubic structure forms with small natural gas
molecules found in situ in deep oceans. Structure II (sII), a diamond lattice within a cubic
framework, forms when natural gases or oils contain molecules larger than ethane but
smaller than pentane. sII represents hydrates which commonly occur in hydrocarbon
production and processing conditions, as well as in many cases of gas seeps from faults in
ocean environments.
The newest hydrate structure H (sH) named for its hexagonal framework, has
cavities large enough to contain molecules the size of common components of naphtha and
gasoline. Some initial physical properties, phase equilibrium data, and models have been
determined for sH and one instance of in situ sH in the Gulf of Mexico has been found.
Since information on structure H is in the fledgling stages, and since it may not occur
commonly in natural systems, most of this appendix concerns sI and sII.
A.1. Hydrate Crystal Structures.

Table A.1 provides a hydrate structure summary for the three hydrate unit crystals
(sI, sII, and sH) shown in Figure A.1. The crystals structures are given with reference to
the water skeleton, composed of a basic "building block" cavity which has twelve faces with
five sides per face, given the abbreviation 512. By linking the vertices of 512 cavities one
1
obtains sI; linking the faces of 512 cavities results in sII; in sH a layer of linked 512 cavities
provide connections.
Spaces between the 512 cavities are larger cavities which contain twelve pentagonal
faces and either two, four, or eight hexagonal faces: (denoted as 51262 in sI, 51264 in sII, or
51268 in sH). In addition sH has a cavity with square, pentagonal, and hexagonal faces
(435663). Figure A.1 depicts the five cavities of sI, sII, and sH. In Figure A.1 a oxygen
atom is located at the vertex of each angle in the cavities; the lines represent hydrogen
bonds with which one chemically-bonded hydrogen connects to an oxygen on a neighbor
water molecule.
Table A.1 Geometry of Cages in Three Hydrate Crystal Structures in Figure A.1
Hydrate Crystal Structure
Cavity
Description
Number of Cavities/Unit Cell
Average Cavity Radius,
Variation in Radius1, %
Coordination Number2
Number of Waters/Unit Cell
I
Small Large
512
51262
2
6
3.95 4.33
3.4 14.4
20
24
46
II
Small Large
512
51264
16
8
3.91 4.73
5.5
1.73
20
28
136
H
Small Medium Large
512
435663 51268
3
2
1
3
3
3.91
4.06
5.713
Not Available
20
20
36
34
1. Variation in distance of oxygen atoms from center of cage.

2. Number of oxygens at the periphery of each cavity.
3. Estimates of structure H cavities from geometric models
Inside each cavity resides a maximum of one of the small guest molecules, typified
by the eight guests associated with 46 water molecules in sI (2[512]6[51262]46H2O),
indicating two guests in the 512 and 6 guests in the 51262 cavities of sI. Similar formulas for
sII and sH are (16[512]8[51264]136H2O) and (3[512]2[435663]1[51268]34H2O)
respectively.
Structure I, a body-centered cubic structure, forms with natural gases containing
molecules smaller than propane; consequently sI hydrates are found in situ in deep oceans
with biogenic gases containing mostly methane, carbon dioxide, and hydrogen sulfide.
Structure II, a diamond lattice within a cubic framework, forms when natural gases or oils
contain molecules larger than ethane; sII represents hydrates from most natural gas systems
gases. Finally structure H hydrates must have a small occupant (like methane, nitrogen, or
carbon dioxide) for the 512 and 435663 cages but the molecules in the 51268 cage can be as
large as 0.9 (e.g. ethylcyclohexane). Structure H has not been commonly determined in
natural gas systems to date.
A.2. Properties Derive from Crystal Structures.

A.2.a. Mechanical Properties of Hydrates. As may be calculated via Table A.1, if
all the cages of each structure are filled, all three known hydrates have the amazing property
of being approximately 85% (mol) water and 15% gas. The fact that the water content is
so high suggests that the mechanical properties of the three hydrate structures should be
similar to those of ice. This conclusion is true to a first approximation as shown in Table
4
A.2, with the exception of thermal conductivity and thermal expansivity.

mechanical properties of have not been measured.
Many sH
Table A.2 Comparison of Properties of Ice and sI and sII Hydrates

Property
Spectroscopic
Crystallographic Unit Cell
Space Group
No. H2O molecules
Lattice Parameters at 273K
Dielectric Constant at 273 K
Far infrared spectrum
H2O Diffusion Correl Time, (sec)
H2O Diffusion Activ. Energy(kJ/m)
Mechanical Property
Isothermal Youngs modulus
at 268 K (109 Pa)
Poissons Ratio
Bulk Modulus (272 K)
Shear Modulus (272 K)
VelocityRatio(Comp/Shear):272K
Thermodynamic Property
Linear. Therm. Expn: 200K (K -1)
AdiabBulkCompress:273K(10-11Pa)
Speed Long Sound:273K(km/sec)
Transport
Thermal Condctivity:263K(W/m-K)
Ice
Structure I
Structure II
P63/mmc
4
a =4.52 c =7.36
94
Peak at 229 cm-1.
220
58.1
Pm3n
Fd3m
46
136
12.0
17.3
~58
58
Peak at 229 cm-1 with others
240
25
50
50
9.5
8.4est
8.2est
0.33
8.8
3.9
1.88
~0.33
5.6
2.4
1.95
~0.33
NA
NA
NA
56x10-6
12
3.8
77x10-6
14est
3.3
52x10-6
14est
3.6
2.23
0.49.02
0.51.02
A.2.b. Guest: Cavity Size Ratio: a Basis for Property Understanding. The hydrate
cavity occupied is a function of the size ratio of the guest molecule within the cavity. To a
first approximation, the concept of "a ball fitting within a ball" is a key to understanding many
hydrate properties. Figure A.2 may be used to illustrate five points regarding the
guest:cavity size ratio for hydrates formed of a single guest component in sI or sII.
1. The sizes of stabilizing guest molecules range between 3.5 and 7.5 . Below 3.5
molecules will not stabilize sI and above 7.5 molecules will not stabilize sII.
2. Some molecules are too large to fit the smaller cavities of each structure (e.g. C2H6 fits
in the 51262 of sI; or i-C4H10 fits the 51264 of sII).
3. Other molecules such as CH4 and N2 are small enough to enter both cavities (512+51262
in sI or 512+51264 in sII) when hydrate is formed of single components.
4. The largest molecules of a gas mixture usually determines the structure formed. For
example, because propane and i- butane are present in many natural gases, they will
cause sII to form. In such cases, methane will distribute in both cavities of sII and
ethane will enter only the 51264 cavity of sII.
5. Molecule sizes which are close to the hatched lines separating cavity sizes exhibit the
most non-stoichiometry, due to their inability to fit securely within the cavity.
Table A.3 shows the size ratio of several common gas molecules within each of the
four cavities of sI and sII. Note that a size ratio (guest molecule: cavity) of approximately
0.9 is necessary for stability of a simple hydrate, given by the superscript . When the size
ratio exceeds unity, the molecule will not fit within the cavity and the structure will not form.
When the ratio is significantly less than 0.9 the molecule cannot lend significant stability to
the cavity.
Table A.3 Ratios of Guest: Cavity Diameters for Natural Gas Hydrate Formers
Molecule
Cavity Type=>
Guest Dmtr ()
N2
CH4
H2S
CO2
C2H6
C3H8
i-C4H10
n-C4H10
4.1
4.36
4.58
5.12
5.5
6.28
6.5
7.1
(Molecular Diameter) / (Cavity Diameter)

Structure I
Structure II
12
12 2
5
5 6
512
51264
0.804
0.855
0.898
1.00
1.08
1.23
1.27
1.39
0.700
0.744
0.782
0.834
0.939
1.07
1.11
1.21
0.817
0.868
0.912
1.02
1.10
1.25
1.29
1.41
0.616
0.655
0.687
0.769
0.826
0.943
0.976
1.07
indicates the cavity occupied by the simple hydrate former
As seen in Table A.3, ethane as a single gas forms in the 51262 cavity in sI, because
ethane is too large for the small 512 cavities in either structure and too small to give much
stability to the large 51264 cavity in sII. Similarly propane is too large to fit any cavity
except the 51264 cavity in sII, so that gases of pure propane form sII hydrates from free
water. On the other hand, methane's size is sufficient to lend stability to the 512 cavity in
either sI or sII, with a preference for sI, because CH4 lends slightly higher stability to the
51262 cavity in sI than the 51264 cavity in sII.
A.2.c. Phase Equilibrium Properties. In Figure A.3 pressure is plotted against
temperature with gas composition as a parameter, for methane+propane mixtures.
Consider a gas of any given composition (marked 0 through 100% propane) on a line in
Figure A.3. At conditions to the right of the line, a gas of that composition will exist in
equilibrium with liquid water. As the temperature is reduced (or as the pressure is
increased) hydrates form from gas and liquid water at the line, so three phases (liquid water
+ hydrates + gas) will be in equilibrium. With further reduction of temperature (or increase
in pressure) the fluid phase which is not in excess (water in pipeline environments) will be
exhausted, so that to the left of the line the hydrate will exist with the excess phase (gas).
All of the conditions given in Figure A.3 are for temperatures above 32oF and
pressures along the lines vary exponentially with temperature. Put explicitly, hydrate stability
at the three-phase (LW -H-V) condition is always much more sensitive to temperature than
to pressure. Figure A.3 also illustrates the dramatic effect of gas composition on hydrate
stability; as any amount of propane is added to methane the structure changes (sI sII) to
8
a hydrate with much wider stability conditions. Note that a 50% decrease in pressure is
needed to form sII hydrates, when as little as 1% propane is in the gas phase.
Any discussion of hydrate dissociation would be incomplete without indicating that

hydrates provide the most industrially useful instance of statistical thermodynamics
prediction of phase equilibria. The van der Waals and Platteeuw model which forms the
basis for HYDOFF was formulated after the determination of sI and sII structures shown in
Figure A.1. With the model, one may predict the three-phase pressure or temperature of
hydrate formation, by knowing the gas composition. For further detailed discussion the
reader is referred to Sloan (1998, Chapter 5).
10
A.2.d. Heat of Dissociation. The heat of dissociation (Hd) may be considered to

be the heat (rigorously, enthalpy change) required to dissociate hydrates to a vapor and
aqueous liquid, with values given at temperatures just above the ice point. For sI and sII, to
a fair engineering approximation (10%) Hd depends mostly on crystal hydrogen bonds,
but also the cavity occupied within a wide range of component sizes.
Enthalpies of dissociation may be determined via the univariant slopes of phase
equilibrium lines (ln P vs. 1/T) in previous paragraphs, using the Clausius-Clapeyron relation
[Hd = -zR d(ln P)/d(1/T)]. As one illustration, simple hydrates of C3H8 or i-C4H10 have
similar Hd of 55,500 and 57,200 BTU/(lbmol gas) because they both occupy 51264
cavities, although their guest:cavity size ratios differ (0.943 and 0.976).
As a second illustration, similar slopes of lines in Figure A.3 show that mixtures of
CH4 + C3H8 have a value of Hd = 34,000 BTU/(lbmol gas) over wide ranges of
composition, wherein C3H8 occupies most of the 51264 cavities, while CH4 occupies a small
number of 51264 and many 512. Figure A.4 shows similar line slopes (and thus Hd values)
for binary mixtures of methane when the large guest is changed from C3H8, to i-C4H10, to nC4H10. Since natural gases almost always contain such components, Hd = 34,000
BTU/(lbmol gas) is valid for most natural gas hydrates.
A.3. Formation Kinetics Relate to Hydrate Crystal Structures.

The answer to the questions, "What are hydrates?" and Under what condition do
hydrates form? in the previous sections is much more certain than answers to "How do
hydrates form?". We dont know how hydrates form, but we can make some educated
guesses about kinetics. The mechanism and rate (i.e. the kinetics) of hydrate formation are
controversial topics at the forefront of current research.
The kinetics of hydrate formation are clearly divided into three parts: (a) nucleation
of a critical crystal radius, (b) growth of the solid crystal, and (c) the transport of
components to the growing solid-liquid interface. All three kinetic components are under
study, but an acceptable model for any has yet to be found.
A.3.a. Conceptual Picture of Hydrate Growth. In a conceptual picture, this
laboratory proposed that clusters at the water-gas interface may grow to achieve a critical
radius as shown schematically in Figure A.5, by the following steps:
1. When natural gases dissolve in water there is conclusive evidence that water molecules
organize themselves to maximize hydrogen bonding around each apolar molecule. The
resulting
liquid
clusters
resemble
the
solid
hydrate
cavities
of
11
12
13
2.
3.
4.
5.
Figure A.1. These fluid clusters are envisioned to join other clusters as the beginning of
the hydrate crystallization process.
Figure A.5 indicates an autocatalytic reaction mechanism hypothesized for hydrate
formation based upon limited experimental evidence. The figure depicts the progress of
molecular species from water [A], through metastable species [B] and [C], to stable
nuclei [D] which can grow to large species.
At the beginning of the process (point A), hydrogen-bonded liquid water and gas are
present in the system. Water clusters around gas molecules to form both large and
small clusters [B] similar to the hydrate cages of sI and sII. At point [B], the cages are
termed labile - they are relatively long-lived but unstable.
The cages may either dissipate or grow to hydrate unit cells or agglomerations of unit
cells [C], thus forming metastable nuclei. Since these metastable unit cells at [C] are of
subcritical size, they may either grow or shrink in a stochastic process. The metastable
nuclei are in quasi-equilibrium with the liquid-like cages until the nuclei reach a critical
radius. After attaining the critical radius [D], the crystals grow rapidly in a period
sometimes called catastrophic growth.
In our conceptual picture, when the system is heated, it is driven to the left in Figure
A.5, and stable hydrate crystals are dissociated. Once the hydrate dissociation point is
reached and passed, there are still labile microscopic species in the water that range in
size from multiple hydrate unit cells [C] to metastable nuclei [B]. These residual
structures are present up to a certain level of thermal energy above dissociation. At
temperatures below that upper boundary, these species causes a decrease in induction
or metastability time of a successive run, because the building blocks of crystals
remain in the liquid. However, once about 100F is passed, no residual structure
remains to promote hydrate formation.
The above cluster model conceptual picture is most likely to occur at the interface,
either in the liquid or the vapor side. The reader should note that the above is a largely
unproven hypothesis, whose only justification is to serve as a mental picture for qualitative
predictions and future corrections.
In contrast to well-determined thermodynamic properties, kinetic characterization of
hydrates is very ill-determined. One has only to turn to the recent review of hydrate kinetics
by Englezos (1995) or to the authors monograph (1998) to determine the following
unsettling facts which act as a state-of-the-art summary:
Hydrate nucleation is both heterogeneous and stochastic, and therefore is only

approachable by very approximate models. Most hydrate nucleation models assume
homogeneous nucleation and typically cannot fit more than 80% of the data generated in
the laboratory of the modeller.
Hydrate growth kinetics are apparatus-dependent; the results from one laboratory are
not transferable to another laboratory or field situation.
In both kinetics and thermodynamics the hydrate phase is almost never measured.
The hydrate dissociation models derived from solid moving-boundary differential
equations do not account for the porous, surface formation, and occlusion nature of
hydrates on a macroscopic scale.
14
No satisfactory kinetic model currently exists for formation or dissociation. Due to the
unsatisfactory state of hydrate kinetics knowledge, this area is the subject of intensive
research at the present.
15
DEEPSTAR
APPENDIX B
USERS GUIDE FOR HYDOFF AND XPAND PROGRAMS
H-0806.35
Appendix B.
Users Guide for HYDOFF and XPAND Programs
A Word of Caution
While it is hoped that the programs accompanying this book will be of use in
estimating the limiting conditions of hydrate formation, the author should not and cannot be
held totally accountable for the use of the predictions which the program provide. If there is
a safety consideration or an important process decision to be made based upon the
programs predictions, the user is cautioned to obtain a second opinion from someone
knowledgeable in hydrate phase equilibria, before proceeding.
Executive Summary
Program Specifications
This program has been developed to run in IBM-PC compatible computers having
DOS as operating system. The program is executable without any additional hardware or
software requirements.
Contents of the Disk
The 3.5 in. disk provided with this handbook contains four files:
1. HYDOFF.EXE, an executable file to prediction hydrate formation conditions,
2. FEED.DAT, a file to be used as external input of the feed components and composition
for HYDOFF. FEED.DAT is an optional file; it should be noted that HYDOFF will run
regardless whether the file FEED.DAT is present.
3. XPAND.EXE an executable file to determine the isenthalpic (H=0) and isentropic
(S=0) gas expansion conditions, and
4. HYDCALC.XLS, a shortcut estimation spreadsheet to calculate methanol or
monoethylene glycol amounts. Use of this program is specified in Section II.B.
Appendix B provides common examples using HYDOFF and XPAND which may
then be modified by the engineer for his/her own purposes. Section B.1 considers the use
of HYDOFF (and FEED.DAT), while Section B.2 details the use of XPAND.EXE.
B.1. HYDOFF
B.1.a. Running the Program
The program can be executed directly from the 3.5 in disk or copied to the harddrive and then executed. It is recommended to make a backup copy of the program in case
problems occur (e.g. virus). At the DOS prompt, simply type HYDOFF and follow the
instructions given by the program.
B.1.b. Program Overview

The essence of the program is same as the program accompanying the monograph
by Sloan (1998), to which the reader is referred for a full explanation. The program has the
central purpose of providing information about hydrate phase equilibria with and without
thermodynamic inhibitors. However, the version accompanying this handbook has been
abbreviated for rapid use. The program provides pressure predictions of structure I and II
hydrates at a given temperature with and without thermodynamic inhibitors (methanol, salt
(NaCl), or mixtures thereof) at three- and four-phase conditions (I-H-V, LW -H-V, LW -HV-LHC ).
The method used by the program for hydrate phase equilibria is based on the van
der Waals and Platteeuw model, as described by Sloan (1997, Chapter 5) and the
hydrocarbon fluid phases are modeled with the Soave-Redlich-Kwong equation of state
with parameters obtained from experimental measurements.
B.1.c. Specifications for a Problem

Before any calculation is performed by the program, the user is asked to input some
basic information, such as: units that he/she prefers to operate in, components present in the
feed, feed composition, temperature, type and amount of thermodynamic inhibitor(s).
The feed components and composition can be directly input in the program or
specified in the FEED.DAT file which can be read by the program. It should be noted that
the FEED.DAT file must be present in the same directory as HYDOFF.EXE. The units and
feed composition can be changed at any point during the execution of the program without
actually exiting.
Note: When specifying components directly in the program (i.e., not using FEED.DAT for
feed input) components can be separated by a space or comma or <ENTER (or)
RETURN>.
The program has a MAIN MENU that directs the user to the desired type of
calculation. Once a particular calculation is chosen, the user is asked to enter the
temperature, and if applicable, concentration of thermodynamic inhibitor(s) in the free
aqueous phase.
It should be noted that at no point in the program is the user asked to enter an initial
guess for the calculations (for pressure predictions). The program has its own internal initial
guess. Also, the user does not have to specify the equilibrium phases for any calculation.
The equilibrium phases are given as output of the predictions.
B.1.d. What to Expect for an Answer
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The standard output for hydrate phase equilibria calculations will display:
Equilibrium phases (I-H-V, LW -H-V or LW -H-V-LHC ).
Equilibrium pressure.
Hydrate equilibrium crystal structure (sI or sII).
Phase components and compositions (i.e. feed, fluid hydrocarbon, and hydrate).
Fractional occupancy of cages by hydrate formers in each type of hydrate cavity.
Different outputs will be shown for each calculation type. Examples to follow will
better illustrate how the program is structured and the format of the output.
B.1.e. Some Important Notes

The program is structured to prompt the user whenever incorrect or improper
information is input. Following is a list of limitations and guidelines of which the user should
be aware.
1. The maximum number of components is limited to 17 (seventeen).
2. The weight percentage of methanol as inhibitor is limited to 50 wt%.
3. The freezing point depression for systems containing both methanol and salt is determined
by additive contributions of methanol and salt in solution.
4. The total amount of methanol is assumed to be in the aqueous phase. Possible partitioning
of methanol into other phases (condensate or gas) is neglected.
Example 1 - Temperature and Pressure predictions for Hugoton Gas (experimental data
by Kobayashi, R., et al. (1951))
Gas Composition:
Component
Mole %
Methane
Ethane
Propane
i-Butane
n-Butane
Nitrogen
n-Pentane
73.29
6.70
3.90
0.36
0.55
15.00
0.20
n-Hexane
0.00
Pressure prediction @ T = 51.35 F

HYDRATE PREDICTION PROGRAM:
HYDOFF
(ACCOMPANYING THE OFFSHORE HYDRATE HANDBOOK)

Release Date : July 3rd, 1997
COPYRIGHT :
Professor E. Dendy Sloan
Center for Hydrate Research
Department of Chemical and Petroleum-Refining Engineering
Colorado School of Mines, Golden, CO 80401
PHONE:(303) 273-3723
FAX:(303) 273-3730
This program has been designed to provide phase

equilibria of hydrates in a manner consistent
with available experimental data. Your comments
and feedback are welcome for future
improvement of the program.
Press RETURN to continue ...
AVAILABLE UNITS ARE AS FOLLOWS :
(1)
(2)
TEMPERATURE
Fahrenheit
Kelvin
PRESSURE
psia
kPa
Please select the desired set of Units :

1
The program has been designed to allow the user to input

the feed components and composition directly in the
program or through an external file, namely, FEED.DAT
If the user wishes to read the feed components and
composition from FEED.DAT, please make sure the
information is entered correctly into FEED.DAT (user has
to CHANGE the COMPOSITIONS ONLY) and FEED.DAT is in the
same directory as the executable HYDOFF.EXE file.
Is the FEED COMPONENTS and COMPOSITION saved under FEED.DAT (No=1 Yes=2)?
1
How many COMPONENTS (excluding Water) are present?

8
sII HYDRATE FORMERS

1. Methane
4. i-Butane
7. Nitrogen
2. Ethane
5. n-Butane
8. Carbon Dioxide
3. Propane
6. Hydrogen Sulfide
NON-HYDRATE FORMERS
9. n-Pentane
13. Octane
10. i-Pentane
14. Nonane
11. Hexane
15. Decane
12. Heptane
16. Toluene
Which Components are present? Please list Hydrate formers first

1 2 3 4 5 7 9 11
Enter the MOLE FRACTIONS of each Component :

Mole Fraction of
Methane
: 0.7329
Mole Fraction of
Ethane
: 0.0670
Mole Fraction of
Propane
: 0.0390
Mole Fraction of
i-Butane
: 0.0036
Mole Fraction of
n-Butane
: 0.0055
Mole Fraction of
Nitrogen
: 0.1500
Mole Fraction of
Pentane
: 0.0020
Mole Fraction of
Hexane
: 0.0000
THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS ARE CURRENTLY AVAILABLE

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
MAIN Program for Equilibrium Hydrate Predictions

Display CURRENT Feed Composition
Change FEED Composition
Change Program UNITS
DISCARD all Data and begin NEW Problem
Exit HYDOFF Program
PLEASE CHOOSE ONE OF THE FOLLOWING OPTIONS

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
PRESSURE
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
PREDICTION
prediction
prediction
prediction
at
at
at
at
a given
given T
given T
given T
TEMPERATURE
with Methanol
with Salt (NaCl)
with Salt+MeOH
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

Change UNITS
Return to MAIN Menu
Quit HYDOFF
Enter the required Temperature (in

51.35
F)
THREE-PHASE (Lw-H-V) EQUILIBRIUM CONDITION

Temperature : 51.35 F
Equilibrium PRESSURE :
399.92
psia
Experimental pressure
365.1 psia
Press RETURN to Continue . . .
Equilibrium Hydrate : STRUCTURE II

Composition of Phases at Equilibrium
Methane
Ethane
Propane
i-Butane
n-Butane
Nitrogen
n-Pentane
n-Hexane
FEED
.7329
.0670
.0390
.0036
.0055
.1500
.0020
.0000
VAPOR
.7329
.0670
.0390
.0036
.0055
.1500
.0020
.0000
HYDRATE
.5777
.0299
.3076
.0408
.0063
.0377
.0000
.0000

Fractional Occupancy of Cages
Methane
Ethane
Propane
i-Butane
n-Butane
Nitrogen
n-Pentane
n-Hexane
SMALL
.6916
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0461
.0000
.0000
LARGE
.0444
.0739
.7602
.1008
.0155
.0011
.0000
.0000
Do you wish to do another calculation at the SAME composition? (No=1 Yes=2)

1
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
PRESSURE
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
PREDICTION
prediction
prediction
prediction
at
at
at
at
a given
given T
given T
given T
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

Change UNITS
Return to MAIN Menu
Quit HYDOFF
TEMPERATURE
with Methanol
with Salt (NaCl)
with Salt+MeOH

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Exit HYDOFF Program
6
End of run : HYDOFF
Stop - Program terminated.
Example 2 - Pressure prediction with methanol (experimental data by Ng, H.-J., and
Robinson, D.B. (1983))
HYDRATE PREDICTION PROGRAM: HYDOFF
COPYRIGHT :
PHONE:(303) 273-3723
FAX:(303) 273-3730

(1)
(2)
TEMPERATURE
Fahrenheit
Kelvin
PRESSURE
psia
kPa

1

1

7
sII HYDRATE FORMERS

1. Methane
4. i-Butane
7. Nitrogen
2. Ethane
5. n-Butane
8. Carbon Dioxide
3. Propane
6. Hydrogen Sulfide
NON-HYDRATE FORMERS
9. n-Pentane
13. Octane
10. i-Pentane
14. Nonane
11. Hexane
15. Decane
12. Heptane
16. Toluene

1 2 3 5 7 8 9

Mole Fraction of
Methane
: 0.7160
Mole Fraction of
Ethane
: 0.0473
Mole Fraction of
Propane
: 0.0194
Mole Fraction of
n-Butane
: 0.0079
Mole Fraction of
Nitrogen
: 0.0596
Mole Fraction of
Carbon Dioxide
: 0.1419
Mole Fraction of
Pentane
: 0.0079

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Exit HYDOFF Program

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
PRESSURE
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
PREDICTION
prediction
prediction
prediction
at
at
at
at
a given
given T
given T
given T
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

Change UNITS
Return to MAIN Menu
Quit HYDOFF
TEMPERATURE
with Methanol
with Salt (NaCl)
with Salt+MeOH

47.03
F)
Enter the WEIGHT PERCENT of Methanol (up to 50wt%)

10
FOUR-PHASE (Lw-H-V-Lhc) EQUILIBRIUM CONDITION WITH INHIBITOR(S)

Inhibitor :10.00 wt% Methanol
773.01
psia
800.6 psia

FEED
.7160
.0473
.0194
.0079
.0596
.1419
.0079
Methane
Ethane
Propane
n-Butane
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
n-Pentane
VAPOR
.7160
.0473
.0194
.0079
.0596
.1419
.0079
LIQUID
.7159
.0473
.0194
.0079
.0596
.1419
.0079
HYDRATE
.6033
.0405
.2615
.0132
.0167
.0647
.0000

SMALL
.7630
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0221
.0679
.0000
Methane
Ethane
Propane
n-Butane
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
n-Pentane
LARGE
.1036
.1094
.7064
.0358
.0011
.0390
.0000

1
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
PRESSURE
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
PREDICTION
prediction
prediction
prediction
at
at
at
at
a given
given T
given T
given T
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

Change UNITS
Return to MAIN Menu
Quit HYDOFF
TEMPERATURE
with Methanol
with Salt (NaCl)
with Salt+MeOH
2
33.71
F)
Enter the WEIGHT PERCENT of Methanol (up to 50wt%)

20
10
FOUR-PHASE (Lw-H-V-Lhc) EQUILIBRIUM CONDITION WITH INHIBITOR(S)

Inhibitor :20.00 wt% Methanol
566.2
691.8 psia
psia

FEED
.7160
.0473
.0194
.0079
.0596
.1419
.0079
Methane
Ethane
Propane
n-Butane
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
n-Pentane
VAPOR
.7159
.0473
.0194
.0079
.0596
.1419
.0079
LIQUID
.7159
.0473
.0194
.0079
.0596
.1419
.0079
HYDRATE
.5931
.0367
.2772
.0139
.0150
.0642
.0000

SMALL
.7618
.0000
.0000
.0000
.0199
.0709
.0000
Methane
Ethane
Propane
n-Butane
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
n-Pentane
LARGE
.0786
.0991
.7487
.0375
.0007
.0317
.0000

1

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
PRESSURE
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
PREDICTION
prediction
prediction
prediction
at
at
at
at
a given
given T
given T
given T
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

Change UNITS
Return to MAIN Menu
Quit HYDOFF
TEMPERATURE
with Methanol
with Salt (NaCl)
with Salt+MeOH
11

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Exit HYDOFF Program
6
End of run : HYDOFF
Example 3 - Temperature and Pressure predictions with salt(s) (experimental data by

Dholabhai, P.D., et al. (1994))
HYDRATE PREDICTION PROGRAM:
HYDOFF

COPYRIGHT :
PHONE:(303) 273-3723
FAX:(303) 273-3730

(1)
(2)
TEMPERATURE
Fahrenheit
Kelvin
PRESSURE
psia
kPa

1
12

1

2
sII HYDRATE FORMERS

1. Methane
4. i-Butane
7. Nitrogen
2. Ethane
5. n-Butane
8. Carbon Dioxide
3. Propane
6. Hydrogen Sulfide
NON-HYDRATE FORMERS
9. n-Pentane
13. Octane
10. i-Pentane
14. Nonane
11. Hexane
15. Decane
12. Heptane
16. Toluene

1 8

Mole Fraction of
Methane
: 0.8470
Mole Fraction of
Carbon Dioxide
: 0.1530

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Exit HYDOFF Program

(1) PRESSURE PREDICTION at a given TEMPERATURE
(2) Pressure prediction at given T with Methanol
13
(3) Pressure prediction at given T with Salt (NaCl)

(4) Pressure prediction at given T with Salt+MeOH
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

Change UNITS
Return to MAIN Menu
Quit HYDOFF

40.01
F)

496.75
494.6 psia
psia
Equilibrium Hydrate : STRUCTURE I

FEED
.8470
.1530
Methane
Carbon Dioxide
VAPOR
.8470
.1530
HYDRATE
.7222
.2778

SMALL
.7737
.1034
Methane
Carbon Dioxide
LARGE
.6610
.3191

1

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
PRESSURE
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
PREDICTION
prediction
prediction
prediction
at
at
at
at
a given
given T
given T
given T
TEMPERATURE
with Methanol
with Salt (NaCl)
with Salt+MeOH
(5) Change FEED Composition
14
(6) Change UNITS

(7) Return to MAIN Menu
(8) Quit HYDOFF

Mole Fraction of
Methane
: 0.823
Mole Fraction of
Carbon Dioxide
: 0.177

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
PRESSURE
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
PREDICTION
prediction
prediction
prediction
at
at
at
at
a given
given T
given T
given T
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

Change UNITS
Return to MAIN Menu
Quit HYDOFF
TEMPERATURE
with Methanol
with Salt (NaCl)
with Salt+MeOH

47.93
F)
Enter the WEIGHT PERCENT of Salt

5.02

Inhibitor : 5.02 wt% NaCl
980.03
1012.4 psia
psia
Equilibrium Hydrate : STRUCTURE I

FEED
VAPOR
15
HYDRATE
Methane
Carbon Dioxide
.8230
.1770
.8230
.1770
.7150
.2850

SMALL
.8028
.1136
Methane
Carbon Dioxide
LARGE
.6566
.3305

1

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
PRESSURE
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
PREDICTION
prediction
prediction
prediction
at
at
at
at
a given
given T
given T
given T
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

Change UNITS
Return to MAIN Menu
Quit HYDOFF
TEMPERATURE
with Methanol
with Salt (NaCl)
with Salt+MeOH

(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)

Exit HYDOFF Program
6
End of run : HYDOFF
B.2. XPAND
16
B.2.a. Program Overview

This program is used to calculate Joule - Thomson cooling of a gas with expansion
across a restriction, such as a control valve. Please note that this program can only
calculate gas expansions which contain methane, ethane, propane, n-butane, i-butane, and ipentane. The program will not accurately calculate expansions for gases containing
nitrogen, carbon dioxide, or hydrogen sulfide.
B.2.b. Running the Program

The file is located in the floppy which has been attached to this handbook. To
install XPAND:
1) Insert the disk into the drive.
2) Copy the file XPAND.EXE from the disk to the hard drive.
3) Obtain/copy the file DOSXMSF.EXE to the same hard drive directory.
After copying, to access the program on your computer, you must be in MS-DOS
or a Windows MS-DOS prompt. To run XPAND, do the following:
1) Locate the directory which contains XPAND.EXE and DOSXMSF.EXE
2) Type XPAND
The program will run and with the initial display Enter the number of components.
Execute the program through the following steps:
1) Enter the number of components in the expanding gas. The value entered must be
between 1-6.
2) A menu will be displayed listing six different gas components. Select the components
which are present in the natural gas by entering the number corresponding to each
component and pressing <Enter (or) Return>. Continue to do this until all the components
in the gas are entered.
3) A screen appears requesting input of the mole fraction of each component specified in
the previous screen. After entering each value, press <Enter (or) Return>.
Note: The composition of the gas has to be entered on a mole fraction basis and not on a
mole % basis.
4) A prompt appears requesting you to enter the following
a) the upstream pressure (psia) before the gas expansion,
17
b) the upstream temperature (oR) before the gas expansion, and

c) the downstream pressure (psia).
Press <Enter (or) Return> after each entry.
5) A prompt appears requesting input of a first guess (oR) of the downstream temperature
T2. This guess is the decreased temperature after expansion.
Once T2 is entered, a table appears listing the initial conditions and the H across
the expansion. For Joule-Thomson cooling, at the correct T2 the H across the expansion
should be negligible (zero). Consequently, guesses for T2 should be input until the H is
within 0.500 BTU/lbmol. Once this is done, record the XPAND initial and final conditions,
before pressing enter to leave the program.
B.2.c. Output from the Program

This method may be used to get the final temperature upon expansion of a gas from
an upstream temperature and pressure to a downstream pressure. However, because the
expansion curves are not linear in pressure and temperature, repeat this process with the
same upstream temperature pressure, but with several intermediate downstream pressures.
Plot the H=0 expansion pressure-temperature line to determine an intersection with the
hydrate formation line, obtained using HYDOFF.
Example 1 - Step-by-step calculation of the gas expansion found in Example 12, Section
II.F.3. These steps were used to calculate the final temperature of a gas expanded from
1500 psia, 100 oF to 300 psia.
Gas Composition:
Component
Mole %
Methane
Ethane
Propane
i-Butane
n-Butane
i-Pentane
92.70
5.30
1.40
1.40
0.34
0.14
Enter the number of Components:

6
Which components are present?
1= CH4, 2= C2H6, 3= C3H8
4= i-C4H10, 5= n-C4H10, 6= i-C5H12
18
Component
1
Component
2
Component
3
Component
4
Component
5
Component
6
1:
2:
3:
4:
5:
6:
Enter the mol fraction of each component.

Methane:
0.927
Ethane:
0.053
Propane:
0.014
i-Butane:
0.014
n-Butane:
0.0034
i-Pentane:
0.0014
Enter P1 (psia):
1500
Enter T1 (R):
559.7
Enter P2 (psia):
300
1st
Input your guess for T2 (R)

(Enter 0 to exit the program).
520
8.336287E-01
9.461145E-01
P1 = 1500.000 psia
P2 = 300.000 psia
T1 = 559.700 R
T2 = 520.000 R
1st delta H =
891.234 BTU/lbmol
Ideal gas delta H =
-376.414 BTU/lbmol
2nd delta H =
201.219 BTU/lbmol
Total delta H =
313.602 BTU/lbmol
1st delta S =
Ideal gas delta S =
2nd delta S =
Total delta S =
.179 BTU/lbmol-R
2.501 BTU/lbmol-R
.059 BTU/lbmol-R
2.620 BTU/lbmol-R
19
Guess
If the above values are unsatisfactory, enter

another guess for outlet temperature in
degrees Rankine.
2nd Guess
Input your guess for T2(R)

500
8.336287E-01
9.377816E-01
P1 = 1500.000 psia
P2 = 300.000 psia
T1 = 559.700 R
T2 = 500.000 R
1st delta H =
891.234 BTU/lbmol
Ideal gas delta H =
-562.102 BTU/lbmol
2nd delta H =
216.348 BTU/lbmol
Total delta H =
112.784 BTU/lbmol
1st delta S =
Ideal gas delta S =
2nd delta S =
Total delta S =
.179 BTU/lbmol-R
2.136 BTU/lbmol-R
.070 BTU/lbmol-R
2.245 BTU/lbmol-R

degrees Rankine.
3rd

488.7
8.336287E-01
9.324399E-01
P1 = 1500.000 psia
P2 = 300.000 psia
T1 = 559.700 R
T2 = 488.700 R
1st delta H =
891.234 BTU/lbmol
Ideal gas delta H =
-665.909 BTU/lbmol
2nd delta H =
225.689 BTU/lbmol
Total delta H =
-.364 BTU/lbmol
1st delta S =
Ideal gas delta S =
2nd delta S =
Total delta S =
.179 BTU/lbmol-R
1.926 BTU/lbmol-R
.078 BTU/lbmol-R
2.027 BTU/lbmol-R

degrees Rankine.
20
Guess
The 3rd guess of T2 = 488.7 oR resulted in a XPAND calculation of H = - 0.364

BTU/lbmol for the 6 component gas mixture. This value of Total delta H is sufficiently close
to zero indicating an isenthalpic expansion process.
This result indicates that a pressure drop from 1500 psia, 100 oF to 300 psia will
cause a gas temperature reduction to 29 oF (488.7 oR). Several such calculations at
intermediate downstream pressures should be done, because the expansion P-T line is nonlinear. The intersection point of the P-T expansion line (obtained from several XPAND
calculations) with the hydrate formation line (obtained from HYDOFF) will differ from the
intersection point obtained by just using a straight line drawn between the two end points for
the P-T expansion (1500 psia, 100 oF, and 300 psia, 29 oF) and the hydrate formation line
21
DEEPSTAR
APPENDIX C
HYDRATE BLOCKAGE AND REMEDIATION
H-0806.35
Appendix C - Additional Case Studies of

Hydrate Blockage and Remediation
Case Study C.1* 1
Placid experienced a hydrate plugging problem in an export pipeline. The
prospect was located at Greens Canyon Block 29 in the Gulf of Mexico in 1527 ft of
water. A flexible line was installed between the floating production platform to the
top of a rigid riser, located 200 ft below the water line. The flexible pipe was 12 inch
ID and 16 inch OD with a working pressure rating of 2160 psi. The export line
carried gas and condensate over a distance of 52 miles. Flowing conditions prior to
the blockage were 12 MMSCFD of gas, 5500 BOPD condensate. The API oil gravity
was 49. The gas gravity was 0.68. The pipeline inlet conditions were 70oF and 1050
psi.
Over the first few weeks of production, the wells did not produce significant
quantities of water. To save operating costs, the gas dehydrators were shut down.
When additional wells were brought onstream, there was some residual water-base
completion fluid being produced. When the wet gas and condensate entered the cold
export line (65oF), water condensed and accumulated at the bottom of the catenary
loop in the flexible line at 200 ft below the surface. Since the line was not being
pigged, water was being accumulated in this low spot. The high pressure gas exposed
to the cold water in the flexible line formed a complete hydrate blockage over a
period of 14 hours, causing the line pressure to increase to 1800 psi before production
was stopped.
The blockage was located by venting the gas above the plug and filling the
void with liquid. The volume of liquid and pressure was recorded. The volume of
fluid required to fill the line corresponded to approximately 200 ft of pipeline,
suggesting that the blockage was located near the surface. The blockage length was
suggested to be 8 to 10 ft long. The export line was depressurized on both sides and
the gas dissociated from the hydrates was vented. The line was successfully pigged
with the product gas and condensate the next day. This incident resulted in three days
of production downtime at an operating cost of $40,000.
To prevent hydrate formation three changes were made to the pipeline
operations:
-methanol was injected
-gas was continuously dehydrated and
-the line was cleaned periodically with foam pigs.
Studies from DeepStar II.A. CTR 208A-1 by Mentor Subsea (1996) denoted by *
Case Study C.2*

Chevron had a 4 inch OD, 2200- ft long gas flowline plugged with hydrates
during the winter. This flowline is in the Whitney Canyon field located in the Carter
Creek area of Wyoming. The flowing conditions were 120F and 360 psig at the
wellhead. The ground surface temperature was -20F, which was well below the
hydrate formation temperature at 360 psig.
The flowline is wrapped with heating tape and insulation to keep the line
warm enough to prevent freezing or hydrate formation. Before this blockage
occurred, there were no hydrate inhibitors used. A corrosion inhibitor was used to
prevent corrosion. The line is not equipped for pigging. The line ID is 3.826 inch
with a working pressure limit of 1800 psi. The flowline material is carbon steel
A333. The heat input was lowered to conserve electrical energy consumption.
However, there was no mechanism to monitor the fluid temperature throughout the
line to insure that hydrates would not form as the heat input was reduced, a blockage
occurred.
A combination of depressurization, chemical, and thermal techniques was
used to remove the plug. First, the pressure on both sides of the plug was equalized so
that the plug would not move like a projectile. Then, the pressure on both sides of the
plug was reduced. Methanol was injected upstream of the hydrate plug. Then, the line
was heated using the heating tape. This was effective in dissociating the hydrate plug.
Production was shut down for one day for this remedial operation.
There were several lessons learned from this experience. Future operations
considered the use of hydrate inhibitors in the winter months. Currently Chevron is
installing pumps to inject a kinetic inhibitor or alternative cost-effective chemicals.
Case Study C.3*

In Chevron's platform operations in the Gulf of Mexico, typically, hydrates
form in the gas- lift distribution valves on the platform. The gas is generally not
dehydrated. In the winter as the gas is throttled through the distribution valve, the
Joule-Thomson cooling across the valve drop causes hydrate formation (see Section
II.E). The gas pressure is approximately 1100 psi. The problem is usually not severe.
Since surface access is usually available to the blocked location, methanol can be
injected to clear the blockage in the line. To prevent this problem, typically,
methanol is injected. One solution recently being tested is to vary the gas flow rate to
keep the valves and gas distribution lines warm enough to keep them above the
hydrate formation temperature.
Case Study C.4*

Chevron reported a hydrate problem in their Carter Knox field in South
Central Oklahoma. Hydrates formed in an uninsulated 4 inch Schedule 80 (4 inch ID,
4 inch OD) sales gas line. Flowing wellhead conditions were 105F and 5750 psi.
After choking the well stream to 620 psi at the production unit, the temperature drops
to approximately 62F at the pipeline inlet. The production unit is designed to
remove liquids from the well stream but the gas is saturated with water vapor and
there is always some liquid carryover into the vapor phase. In the winter when the
ambient temperature is in the upper 40's, the gas cools rapidly due to the cold
environment. Before hydrates formed, there was no methanol or other chemicals
injected at the wellhead or at the processing unit. The well was flowing 200 bbl/day
of oil (API 57) and 7.5 MMscf/d of gas. Water production rate was 10 bbls/day.
Two flow meters were installed about 120 ft downstream from the production
unit on the sales line. One meter is 4 inch ID with a 2
1/4 inch orifice plate and another meter is 3 inch ID with a 2
1/8 inch ID orifice plate. Additional pressure drop occurred under flowing conditions
at the second meter. This caused hydrates to form at the second meter. In fact, the
hydrate accumulation near the meter caused an erroneous flow reading that deviated
from the first meter. This was an early indicator of the hydrate formation and it was
detected before a complete blockage occurred. It took several hours for the hydrates
to form.
To remove the hydrate plug, the line was depressurized and a pump injected
methanol into the line. The production unit was preheated to 190F prior to start-up.
It took four hours to completely remove the hydrate accumulation. Furthermore,
production was shut down for about eight to ten hours. Based on this experience,
methanol is currently injected at the rate of 10 gallons/day whenever ambient
temperature drops belo w 50F. The operator is currently considering changing the 3
inch ID flow meter to a 4 inch ID flow meter to eliminate the restriction in the sales
line.
Case Study C.5*

Chevron reported several incidents of hydrate blockages in onshore gas
gathering lines in Canada. In one incident, a complete blockage formed in a 6 inch,
15 mile pipeline. The pipe was X42, rated to a working pressure limit of 1000 psi.
The line was insulated with a polymer coating which is sufficient to keep the gas
above the hydrate formation temperature under flowing conditions. The condensate
content was approximately 20 bbls/MMscf. Although there was no free water, the
gas was saturated with water vapor at the pipeline inlet pressure and temperature.
The condensed water contributed to forming the hydrate plug. Ambient temperature
is approximately 3 to 5C (37 to 41F). The blockage occurred during an extended
shut-in period over a 300-ft section underneath a road crossing. Previously, hot taps
had located a blockage in the same location. While hot tapping was an option, in this
case, it was considered too risky. Furthermore, hydrates do not typically form in
these 6 inch lines if depressurized within the first 24 hours.
To remove the blockage, two methods were used simultaneously. First, the
line was depressurized on both sides of the plug. Then, a welding rig applied
electrical current directly to the 300- ft section of the steel pipe. The line was heated
to 20 to 25 C (68 to 77F) using the welding rig. This approach was effective in
melting the hydrate plug. The remedial operation took two days to complete.
Case Study C.6*

LASMO experienced a wax and hydrate combination in its Staffa field in the
UK sector of the North Sea in 1993. A single, uninsulated, 8 inch flowline was
installed between two satellite wells and a minimum processing platform facility
(Ninian Southern Platform), located 6.3 miles away. Furthermore, there was no
capability of round-trip pigging the line because a single line was used. The seabed
terrain near the tree was uneven and the flowline passed over another flowline about
1.2 to 1.9 miles from the tree.
Production conditions were 6000 BOPD with a GOR of 1600 scf/bbl, 0.5 to
1% water cut. The produced fluid consisted of a high GOR, high API gravity crude
with some water. Fluids were produced from the reservoir by a pressure decline
mechanism. The average cloud point temperature of the crude oil was 79F. The
wax content in the crude oil was 5%. The flowing wellhead conditions were 942 to
1595 psia and 122 to 194F.
Due to the very high heat losses to the sea through the uninsulated line, the
unseparated multi-phase stream cooled to the seabed temperature within 1.2 to 1.9
miles from the tree. The fluid arrived at the platform at a temperature of 44F, which
was well below the wax cloud point temperature.
Without thorough documentation, it is believed that hydrate formation (due to
erratic methanol injection) might have served as a nucleation point to cause wax
precipitation in this line. In any case, wax deposited in the flowline within a period of
several days after production was started. Even though certain paraffin inhibitors
were used, they were not completely effective. Periodically, the flowline was soaked
with chemical solvents without much success. Sometimes, pressure was applied to
force the plug, but this actually exacerbated the problem by accumulating the paraffin
into a ball. Thermochemical, heat generating chemicals were considered, but were
rejected because they were considered relatively new technology.
As a contingency plan, LASMO developed an inductive heating coil to be

deployed using an ROV to heat the flowline and melt the wax inside the line.
Although this technique was developed, it was never implemented in the field. Two
problems with this technique were that a significant amount of power and time were
required to heat the flowline and its contents. Furthermore, even after melting the
wax and flowing it, it could cool and re-deposit before arriving at the platform.
Approximately 1.2 miles of the pipeline, filled with a wax blockage, was cut
out and replaced. Even after replacing the blocked section of the line, the line
became plugged with wax a second time. Injection of chemical inhibitors, methanol
or solvent soaking did not work.
In 1995 due to multiple problems with hydrates and wax, LASMO abandoned
the field. Repeated attempts to clear the blockages with chemical such as methanol
have failed and the operated decided that it was not economical, considering the
amount of reserves remaining, to replace another section of pipe as was done in 1993.
Case Study C.7*

Texaco experienced a hydrate plug in a 12-3/4 inch gas export line at a
platform, located in Garden Banks 189. The water depth is 725 ft. The line connects
to a larger gas transportation line located on the seafloor. In this case, the gas was not
dehydrated sufficiently before pumping the gas into the export line. As a result, the
water vapor condensed and settled out in an U-bend at the bottom of the riser. The
condensed water collecting at the low spot formed hydrates. In this case, hydrates
formed very rapidly and formed a near-complete blockage before it was detected.
The line injection pressure rose very rapidly.
To remove the hydrate plug, the gas was vented from the platform end and
methanol was lubricated down the riser. The line had a check valve downstream of
the riser to prevent gas from backflowing to the platform. After injecting some
methanol, the hydrates completely melted and the line was cleared. A total of twenty
to thirty 55- gallon drums of methanol was used for the entire operation. Production
of 8000 bbls of liquid/day and 70 MMscf/d from the platform was shut down for two
to three days during this remedial operation.
Case Study C.8*

Texaco reported a hydrate restriction in another gas export line from a
platform at Greens Canyon Block No. 6 in 600 ft. of water. In this case, hydrates
slowly accumulated in a 10-3/4 inch line over a period of several days. While
production was not shut down, two actions was taken to remove the restriction: (1)
the gas dehydrator was turned on to remove water vapor from the gas stream and (2)
methanol was injected into the gas export line.
Case Study C.9*

Texaco also reported a gas hydrate blockage in an instrument isolation valve
block in their Strathespay field in the North Sea. However, there have been no
reports of hydrate blockage in the flowline because the line is adequately insulated.
This field is located in 442 ft of water. The valve block has a 1/4 inch ID port leading
to a pressure transducer. Since the fluid is static in this section of the line, the
produced gas had water vapor that condensed and formed hydrates. The valve block
and pressure port is uninsulated and exposed to very cold seawater (4C). The
hydrate blockage resulted in erroneous pressure transducer readings.
To remove this blockage, the line was purged with methanol. Periodically,
the line is now purged with methanol to prevent this problem. This workover
operation, however, is undesirable and increases operating cost.
One design flaw with this system is that the transducer line (1/4 inch ID) is
situated above the valve block. Even if this line is periodically filled with methanol,
the fluid will drain out and into the flowline. This will allow the wet gas to enter the
transducer line and plug it with hydrates. One design option is to change the
orientation of the valve block so that the transducer line is connected to the bottomside of the valve block instead of the top side. With this configuration, the line can be
filled with an oil-based gelled fluid, mixed with methanol, glycol or an oil-based fluid
between the flowline and the transducer sensor. Otherwise, it may fill with water,
causing hydrate formation. In deepwater systems where transducers may be changed
as part of a larger system, isolation valves may not be necessary.
Case Study C.10*

Elf Norge has reported hydrate formation in their North East Frigg subsea
flowline. The 16 inch flowline transported gas condensate from a subsea template
with six wells, located 11.1 miles from the Frigg platform.
During some period, only one well was flowing at a rate of 35 MMscf/d. At
this low gas flow rate, most of the water and condensate settled out and accumulated
in the pipeline. After a few days, the gas flow rate was increased by starting three
other wells. After the gas flow rate increased to 70 MMscf/d, the pressure and liquid
level in the inlet gas- liquid separator became unstable. The wells were shut down.
The separator was found filled with hydrates. Samples taken from the separator
contained large, solid blocks of hydrates, which took about one day to melt.
Analysis of the liquid samples showed that the methanol content was 11-wt%,
which was well below the 26-wt% required to avoid hydrate formation. However, Elf
reported that the flowline did not plug with hydrates although it experienced
subcooling up to 6C. Hydrates were found just downstream of the choke on the
platform. Due to Joule-Thomson cooling (see Section II.E) the gas/water mixture
experienced the lowest temperature downstream of the choke.
Before re-starting production, the separator was depressurized and circulated
with steam to remove the hydrates. About 9000 gal of methanol were injected into
the pipeline inlet, the outlet and upstream of the pipeline outlet choke. An additional
21,000 gal of methanol was injected during the first two days of restart, when the gas
flow rate was gradually re-established.
The liquid outlet valve of the inlet separator was severely eroded during the
hydrate formation period. This might have been due to a combination of metallic
particles, scale, or hydrate crystals flowing at high velocities through the valve. The
valve had to be replaced. Another reason for forming hydrates downstream of the
choke was the lack of an upstream heater. In many subsea completions, a heater is
installed upstream of the separator and choke to prevent hydrates or wax formation
and to improve the separation efficiency.
Case Study C.11*

The following information was provided by Marathon on gas hydrate
formation observed in a gas export pipeline from their Ewing Bank 873 platform in
the Gulf of Mexico:
"Hydrate formation occurs in the gas export line from the Ewing Bank 873
platform The line leaves the platform and contains a 900-ft deep loop before joining
a subsea "T" connection. The line is 8 inch nominal size. The water depth ranges from
775-ft at the EW 873 platform to a maximum of 950- ft then 470-ft at the subsea
connection. Seafloor temperature is estimated to be 55F. Hydrate formation is
inferred from pressure buildup in the line, and the fact that methanol can be
successfully used to remediate. Metha nol is pumped continuously for inhibition at
approximately 140 gal/day for 32 Mmscf/d. The pressure drop in the line is a
function of flow rate. It is normally in the range of 50 to 100 psi, depending on flow
rate. It can be modeled accurately. If it increases much beyond the normal level (say
an additional 30 psi), then a slug of methanol is periodically pumped. The hydrate
restriction appears to be between the EW873 platform and the low point. Pigging has
not been attempted, for a variety of reasons, but primarily due to high risk for
minimal benefit. Methanol is cheap and low risk. The routine technique of
depressurizing the line is not used at EW 873 because shutting- in production would
be required."
Case Study C.12*

Phillips reported gas hydrate plugging problems in their Cod pipeline in the
North Sea. The pipeline is 47 mile, 16 inch (ID=15.124 inch) carbon steel, designed
to transport gas and gas condensate from the Cod platform to the Ekofisk center. The
liquid is a light hydrocarbon with a specific gravity of 0.66. The current Cod
production is approximately 35 MMSCFD and 1700 BPD of condensate.
Gas hydrates completely plugged the Cod pipeline several times. In March
1978 hydrates formed and a pig became stuck in the hydrate accumulation. The
hydrates were removed by depressurizing the line. The line was backflowed in an
attempt to remove the pig. The backflow attempt was unsuccessful. While the pigs
remained in the line, the restriction did not prevent the gas flow. A slug of 1700
gallons of methanol was pumped to try to dissolve all the hydrates in the line. During
the re-start, methanol was continuously injected into the pipeline.
On the Cod platform, even though the gas stream was dried adequately, the
liquid condensate stream was not dried properly. Therefore, the wet condensate
stream mixed with the high-pressure gas to form hydrates in the pipeline. Since 1981
the operating pressure has declined so that the pipeline is now operating outside the
hydrate- formation conditions.
Case Study C.13*

Texaco performed field tests in several of their Wyoming wells to evaluate the
use of PVP, a kinetic inhibitor (see Section II.F.2.b). The kinetic inhibitor can be
used at very low concentrations, ranging from 1/2 to 1 wt% instead of using 10 to 50
wt% of methanol to achieve the required level of hydrate inhibition.
Prior to the field tests, these Wyoming wells and flowlines were experiencing
hydrate plugging problems in the wells and the surface flowlines at methanol
injection rates of 30 gallons/day. Flowing wellhead conditions were up to 2000 psi
and 52 to 56 oF. Gas production ranged from 0.8 to 1.4 MM scf/d. Freshwater
production rate ranged from 2 to 40 bbls/d.
Methanol was replaced with a 4% polyvinylpyrrolidone (PVP ) solution. The
4% PVP solution consisted of 4-wt% PVP, 16-wt% water and 80-wt% methanol. The
PVP solution was pumped at a rate of 2 to 21 gallons/day, representing an aqueous
phase concentration of less than 0.05 wt%. At these concentrations, the kinetic
inhibitor was effective in preventing hydrates. This represents a cost savings in the
order of 50% compared to using 100% methanol.
Case Study C.14*

Similar to Case Study 13, Texaco conducted another series of field tests in
East Texas to evaluate PVP, a kinetic gas hydrate inhibitor. In this field, tests were
conducted on 4 inch to 6 inch flowlines that were one to eight miles long. The gas
flow rate ranged from 1 to 24 MM scf/d. Water flow ranged from 0.8 to 40 bbls/day.
Similar to the Wyoming field tests, hydrates formed rapidly when the
methanol rate was greatly reduced. Following depressurization subsequent hydrate
plugging was prevented by injecting the kinetic inhibitor at concentrations in the
range 0.1 to 0.5 wt% of the aqueous phase.
Texaco has completed extensive testing of kinetic gas hydrate inhibitors in
onshore U.S. fields. Many of their fields are currently using kinetic inhibitors to
reduce methanol consumption costs. Texaco is continuing to experiment with
alternative chemicals for optimizing costs and for application in offshore flowlines.
Combined Case Study C.15

Statoil conducted 19 controlled field experiments of gas hydrate blockage
formation and dissociation. A comprehensive summary is listed in the references by
Austvik et al., 1995, 1997. The experiments were done in 1994 using a 6 inch
test/service subsea line in their Tommeliten Gamma field. The line is connected to
the Edda platform, located 7.1 miles away from the subsea manifold. Two, 9 inch
production lines and one 6 inch test/service line are installed to carry the flow from a
subsea production manifold. The manifold gathers the flow from six subsea wells.
Condensate content is 16wt% and water content is 2wt%.
Nineteen hydrate formation and dissocia tion experiments were conducted
using the 6 inch test/service line, in three types of experiments as follows:
1. Continuous flow - Statoil lowered the flowing temperature by reducing the flow
rate and entered the hydrate region.
2. Continuous flow without methanol injection- Production rate was reduced and
methanol injection is stopped.
3. Re-start after shut-in using four approaches:
a. Cool pressurized line; re-start without methanol injection.
b. Cool pressurized line; re-start with 5-wt% methanol injection.
c. Pressurize line from template side; re-start at high flow rate.
d. Pressurize line from platform side; re-start at high flow rate.
During these experiments, Statoil measured pressure and temperature at the

following places: (1) at the manifold, (2) at the top of the riser upstream of the heater,
(3) at the choke, and (4) in the separator. Statoil also used two gamma densitometers
to detect the arrival of slugs and hydrate lumps on the platform. A thermocamera was
used to detect the temperature profile of the topside lines and to detect ice/hydrate
formation.
Table C.1 summarizes the observations in these field tests and operations used
to form and remove hydrate blockages. Following are general conclusions reported
by Statoil on these field experiments:
1. Hydrates formed easily and rapidly after fluid conditions entered the hydrate
region. In some cases, hydrate chunks flowed to the platform and plugged the topside
piping, valves and bends.
2. Underinhibition of methanol increases rate of hydrate formation and risk of
plugging. Field tests were done at 5-wt% methanol. Laboratory tests performed with
10 to 20-wt% methanol also found similar results (reported by Yousif et al., 1996).
3. Hydrate plugs were porous and permeable. he n the plug was subjected to a
differential pressure, the gas from the manifold side flowed through the plug. This
was indicated by a gradual drop in pressure at the manifold when the gas was being
vented from the platform side. See Case Study 12 (Section III.B.2.b) for a plug less
permeable to a Statoil black oil.
4. Gas flow through the plug causes Joule-Thomson cooling leading to additional
hydrates or ice. If additional hydrates or ice form in pore spaces within the hydrate
plug, the dissociation rate will be reduced.
5. Combinations of depressurization and methanol injection were effective to remove
all plugs. Methanol can be injected at the manifold end or at the platform end.
6. Methods to remove hydrates in the topside piping include injecting methanol
and/or spraying warm water on the outside surface. However, heating the pipe from
the outside can be risky. If the gas released from hydrate dissociation is not properly
vented, the trapped gas may potentially over-pressure the line.
7. Statoil also concluded that the results and recommendations developed from these
field experiments cannot be directly applied to other fields with different conditions
and fluid compositions.
10
Case Studies C.16 and C.17

This case study summarizes two blocking events in the above Statoil field
study on hydrate formation in the Tommeliten Field of the North Sea.
Case Study C.16. The experiment originated as a depressurized line that was
brought into production. Methanol was injected continuously into the line throughout
the start-up process to prevent hydrate formation. When the production reached a rate
of 12 MMscf/d, methanol injection was stopped, allowing hydrates to form at the
temperatures of 60oF. The riser temperature was 16oF below the hydrate formation
region. After several partial blocking events, a complete hydrate plug formed
approximately 2.5 miles from the platform. (26 hours after start-up). The plug
location was estimated from evaluating the rate of pressure change on both plug sides.
Upon blockage, the pipeline was depressurized to dissociate the hydrate plug.
Additionally, 3400 gallons of methanol were injected into the wellhead to assist in
dissociation. Due to the fact that MeOH had to travel five miles, the horizontal nature
of the pipeline, small buckling in the pipeline, and liquid present in the pipeline, it is
believed that the MeOH never reached the plug. One-sided depressurization of the
pipeline removed the plug after seven days. The total blockage time was 25 days.
Case Study C.17. The uninhibited line was shut- in at full well pressure and
cooled to ambient sea temperature. The line was then started and began producing at
a rate of 12MM scf/d without any methanol present. The production line was
maintained for 40 hours without any hydrate blockage of the line. Several blocking
events occurred topside before a blockage occurred somewhere between the template
and riser. After observing pressure changes on both sides of the plug, it was
determined that the plug was approximately 2.5 miles away from the platform. The
hydrate plug was removed through one-sided depressurization. The hydrate plug
dissociated slowly, taking nine days before it was removed.
Figure C.1 shows the measured pressure difference across the two plugs in
Case Studies C.16 and C.17 as a function of time. These curves have been generated
removing large pressure fluctuations that occurred while reducing the pressure. The
figure highlights the change of permeability of the plug as a function of time.
Figure C.2 shows the pressure in the riser during the hydrate removal process.
The equilibrium pressure for the hydrate plugs was approximately 200 psi at the
ambient temperature. Plug 1 was kept under the equilibrium temperature until it was
dissociated. Plug 2 was temporarily kept above the equilibrium point to limit the
cooling effects caused by Joule-Thomson cooling. It was thought that this practice
had little effect on increasing the rate of dissociation.
11
Figure C-1 - Pressure Difference Across Plugs

(From Berge, 1996)
1600
Pressure Difference (psi)
1400
1200
Plug 1 (Case Study 16)
1000
800
600
400
200
0
0
50
100
150
Time (hours)
12
200
250
300
Figure C-2 - Riser Pressure vs. Time

(From Berge, 1996)
400
350
Pressure (psi)
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
0
50
100
150
Time (hours)
13
200
250
300
Case Study C.18

Occidental Oil and Gas Company reported hydrate blockages forming in a gas
and associated condensate transport line located in the North Sea. Hydrate plugs
usually form in subsea interfield pipelines and in the bottom of incoming risers. The
export pipeline operates at 4930 psig with a wellhead temperature of 86oF, which
cools down to the ambient sea temperature of 35oF at the outlet. The cold
temperatures place the pipeline within hydrate formation conditions for the gas. To
combat this, methanol is injected maintaining 25 wt% in the free water phase.
Hydrates form when insufficient amounts of methanol are injected into the
pipeline. Early symptoms of hydrate formation are increases in differential pressure
and reductions in gas production. A late symptom of hydrate plugs is complete
blockage of flow. When blockages occur in the pipeline, two methods are used to
remediate plugs. The first method consists of methanol injection and depressurization
of the pipeline from both sides; the usual time needed to remove blockages through
this method is 1/2-1 days. Depressurization can be avoided by adding large volumes
of methanol until dissociation occurs, the usual time needed to carry out this
remediation is 4-14 days.
Occidental also emphasized the importance of minimizing the differential
pressures across the plug to prevent hydrate projectiles. Secondly, they emphasized
that the pressure must be maintained above 87-145 psig. If the pressure drops below
these values, the equilibrium temperature moves well below 32oF, causing ice
formation. Ice cannot be dissociated through depressurization and consequently takes
more time to remove than hydrate plugs.
Case Study C.19

Amoco reported hydrate plug formation in a 70 mile export pipeline located in
the North Sea. Under normal operating conditions, the gas is dehydrated and then
compressed from 350 psig to 1300 psig. The concentration of water in the gas phase
is usually low enough to prevent free water formation. However, the line had not
been pigged for three mo nths and during that time offshore process upsets were
thought to allow free water into the line. High pressure drops began to form in the
pipeline, requiring pigging, but the pig became stuck in the line and had to be
removed through flow reversal. Hydrate slush appeared with the pig on the offshore
platform. After pigging, the pipeline became completely blocked with hydrates
approximately 30 miles from the offshore platform. The amount of gas used to
displace the pig was utilized to estimate the plugs location.
Two possible tools for pipeline remediation were methanol injection and
depressurization of the pipeline. Methanol could not be used as a remediation method
because of the plugs distant location; consequently two-sided depressurization
became the only viable means of dissociating the hydrate plug. Depressurization was
14
carried out over a two week period, and was done in slow steps to prevent any high
pressure buildups due to multiple plugs. After eight weeks, the plug was completely
dissociated and full production could resume. The line was restarted by slowly
sweeping the pipeline with dry gas, building up to high gas rates. The line was
consistently pigged, first with undersized pigs and then full-sized. No problems were
witnessed during start- up.
The hydrate remediation process lasted eight weeks and cost $500,000 to
carry out. Overall, the plug shut-down production for three months and cost $5.5
million due to remediation expenses and loss of sales.
Case Study C.20

Petrobras reported a hydrate blockage in a subsea manifold, located around
2000 ft water depth. The manifold was initially loaded with water, and was not
drained and loaded with ethanol prior to production start-up, as is normal practice.
Consequently, a hydrate plug formed in the manifold, blocking valves in a production
line. However, production was maintained through a test production line.
Two methods were attempted to dissociate the pipeline. First, ethanol was
injected into the manifold to begin dissociatio n. Some dissociation did occur
(indicated by pressure increases), but the hydrate plug was still present after 2 days.
Depressurization of the manifold was then used to dissociate the plug.
Depressurization was carried out on both sides of the plug, dissociating the plug in
twelve hours. Start- up of the pipeline was carried out by filling the manifold with
ethanol and then resuming production.
Overall, the hydrate plug was in the manifold for sixty days, but production
was maintained throughout that time via a test production line.
During
depressurization, all production from the wells flowing into the manifold had to be
shut down. The total economic loss due to the hydrate was 31,500 bbl oil and the
wages of two engineers(1 week) and two technicians (3 days).
Case Study C.21

Barker and Gomez (1989) describe an Exxon experience with a hydrate in a
well located in 1,150 ft of water off the California coast. While drilling, gas flowed
into the well from the formation, channeling through the primary cement column at
7,750 ft, and the migrating gas entered the freshwater mud at the subsea wellhead.
Due to difficulties with the wellhead hanger packoff, the gas influx was stopped by
perforating the casing, with a result of severing the drillstring and stripping it up
through the BOPs until the severed drillstring end was above the gas sand.
15
A through drillstring perforating gun was then run to shoot the 7 in. casing
just above the gas snad. The gas influx was killed by pumping a 14.2 lbm/gal mud
down the drillstring and into the formation at surface pressures up to 3,100 psi. At
the conclusions of the kill operation, both the chokeline and the kill ine were found
plugged. Subsequent operations were hampered by the inability to use either line.
After cementing operations which secured the well bore, the BOPs were recovered.
Hydrates and trapped gas were found in the chokeline and the kill line of the bottom
eight riser joints.
Case Study C.22

A second Exxon drilling instance was reportedby Barker and Gomez (1989) in
3,100 ft of water in the Gulf of Mexico, with a ocean bottom temperatuere of 40oF.
Gas flowed into the well and plugged the choke and kill lines. After four days of
warm drilling mud circulation, the lower-middle ram-type BOPs could not be
completely opened or closed, possibly because of hydrates in the ram-block recesses.
The drillstring was perforated about 400 ft above the annular gas/liquid
contact. After coiled tubing was run inside the drillstring, hot mud was circulated and
gas was allowed to migrate into the coiled-tubing/drillstring annulus before being
circulated out of the well. Three sets of successively shallower performations were
required to remove the gas completely in the annulus.
After all ram-type BOPs were opened, the drillstring was backed off at 5,000
ft. and recovered, and a cement plug was set in the casing. The well was secured and
the BOPs were pulled, resulting in a recovery of hydrates. Testing of BOPs at the
surface indicated that the failure was not caused by mechanical failure from the
BOPs which were then free of hydrates.
Case Study 23
Davalath and Barker (1993) described a hydrate problem in 595 ft. of water
located offshore South America. The well was completed with a 7 inch casing and
3.5 inch tubing. Production was gas and condensate at several hundred barrels per
day with a water cut of about six percent. A 15 hour production test was followed by
a 25 hour shut- in period to collect reservoir pressure buildup data.
The well was shut-in at the surface, which exposed the tubing to high pressure
gas and cold 45oF water, which led to the formation of hydrates. Under these
conditions the tubing fluid was about 29oF below the hydrate formation temperature.
Wireline tools were blocked by a bridge inside the tubing string and further pulling
caused separation. Subsequently the lubricator was found to be full of hydrates.
16
Attempts were made to melt hydrates by (1) pouring glycol into the top of the
tubing, (2) using heated mud and seawater, (3) increasing the pressure up to 7,000 psi
at the surface to break the hydrate plug. The above attempts were unsuccessful and
the authors noted that the pressure increase caused a more stable hydrate, rather than
blowing it from the tubing.
A coiled tubing string was stripped inside the tubing and 175oF glycol was
circulated to the hydrate plug at 311 ft. Direct contact with the hot glycol removed
the hydrate plug but more than 13 days were lost because of this incident.
Case Study 24
Davalath and Barker (1993) also reported hydrate formation during well
abandonment in the Gulf of Mexico. During normal production methanol was
injected at the subsea tree. After stopping production the flow lines and tree piping
were filled with seawater and corrosion inhibitor from the surface to the seafloor.
During plug and abandonment operations, the operator found ice- like solids inside the
tubing bore of the tree at the seafloor and in the annulus bore. The solid hydrate
plugs were dissolved by circulating heated CaBr2 brine through a coiled tubing string
run inside the tubing.
Case Studies 25, 26, 27

Three controlled hydrate field tests were completed on Devon Energy-Kerr
McGee 900 psia gas condensate line in the Powder River Basin of Converse County,
Wyoming from 1/27/97 to 2/20/97. The object of the tests was to show that one-sided
depressurization can be safely performed in the field. As indicated in the Hydrate
Plug Remediation portion (II) of this handbook, the standard onshore dissociation
procedure is (a) to balance the pressure on both sides and (b) to reduce the balanced
pressure to move outside of the hydrate region.
The test line was 4 inch, 17,381 ft long from wellhead to separator-receiver
(SRU-10) and pig receiver, and mostly buried to a depth of 5 ft with a ground
temperature of 34o F. Elevation varied over 250 ft. Normally in winter, the flowline
is continually treated with MeOH and pigged daily to prevent hydrate problems.
The pipeline had the following instruments at five sites: (1) the wellhead
(Werner-Bolley) with P,T sensors, 1.5 flow orifice, back-P control valve, and pig
launcher, (2) 3,7852 ft downstream with P,T sensors and blowdown, (3) 5,395 ft
downstream with P,T sensors, (4) 6,624 ft downstream with P,T sensing, methanol
injection, blowdown capability, and dual gamma-ray sensors to monitor plug
velocity, length, and density, (It was difficult to discern the differences between
water, plugs, and condensate) and, (5) 11,483 ft with P,T, sensing. At the end of the
17
line was a Separator- Receiver Unit (SRU-10) which contained a pig receiver and
blowdown.
Temperatures were not analyzed because the RTD was an external measurement.
However, the pressures at the four sites, the orifice measurement, and the gamma ray
measurements proved invaluable in analyzing hydrate formation and dissociation.
The following steps were used to conduct a test:
Data collection initiated
Methanol injection stopped at the wellhead
Methanol injection begun at site 4
Pig launched at site 1 and received at SRU-10
Blockage formation monitored
Line isolated after blockage formation
Blockage dissociation by blowdown at sites 2,4, or SRU-10.

The average steady state liquid holdup at Site 4 is 3.9%. The liquid in the
water/condensate plugs was between 4.5 and 4.9%. Average superficial gas velocity
was 6.3 ft/s in the pipeline, without blockages.
Case Study 25 (Test 1) had 2 blockages. One relatively impermeable
blockage was formed in the cold portion of the line between Sites 4 and 5. The other,
more permeable blockage was formed in the warm portion of the line. Both were
cleared by blowdown at site 4. The differential pressure across the blockages ranged
between 112 and 174 psi, corresponding to a total load between 6,300 and 9,800
Newtons.
Test 2 was aborted because hydrates formed upstream of site 2 (undesirable
form a safety standpoint because site 2 is above ground with 2 ball valves and 2 45o
bends. Hydrates were dissociated by reducing balancing the pressures on either side.
Case Study 26 (Test 3) resulted in a short (25 ft) blockage with low
permeability, which dislodged and passed site 4 with a speed of 270 ft/s, before
eroding further down the pipeline. The differential pressure ranged from 271 to 475
psi, corresponding to a total load between 15,300 and 26,900 Newtons, about double
that of more porous blockages.
Case Study 27 (Test 4) had a blockage which formed on the downstream side
of site 4 and then was moved upstream of site 4, via line depressurization at site 2.
Each time the plug was driven past site 4, then lodged to form another, less permeable
blockage. These plugs were longer (ca. 90 and 175 ft) than those of Test 3.
On the next page is a table summarizing the characteristics of the plugs:
18
Test
Dates
Block Time, hrs
Plug Length, ft
Max P, psi
Max Gas Sprfcl
Velocity cm/s
Max Load, n
Leakage, Mass/
Load (g/s/n)
Max plug
Velocity, ft/s
Shr Strss N/cm2
1
1/27-31/97
85
NA
174
12.07
2
2/1-5/97
62
NA
Aborted
NA
3
2/6-8/97
37
25
390
NA
4
2/19-20/97
143
90, 300, 30, 70
475
1.15
9857
0.00150.0067
NA
NA
NA
2960
0.00029
26908
0.00038
NA
270
65
0.13
NA
2.14
2.29
19
DEEPSTAR
APPENDIX D
RULES OF THUMB SUMMARY
H-0806.35
Appendix D. Rules-of-Thumb Summary

A summary is presented for all of Rules of Thumb in the handbook, together with
the Section from which they were extracted. As indicated at the outset, these Rules-ofThumb are based upon experience and they are intended as guides for the engineer for
further action. For example, using a Rule-of-Thumb the engineer might determine that a
more accurate calculation was needed for inhibitor injection amounts, or that further
consideration of hydrates was unnecessary. Rules-of-Thumb are not intended to be
Absolute Truths, and exceptions can always be found; where possible the accuracy of the
Rule-of-Thumb is provided in the appropriate Section.
Rule of Thumb 1: (Section II.A) At 39oF, hydrates will form in a natural gas system
if free water is available and the pressure is greater than 166 psig.
Rule-of-Thumb 2: (Section II.B.3.a) For long pipelines approaching the ocean

bottom temperature of 39oF, the lowest water content of the outlet gas is given by
the below table:
Pipe Pressure, psia
500
1000 1500 2000
Water Content, lbm/MMscf
15.0 9.0
7.0
5.5
Rule-of-Thumb 3: (Section II.B.3.b) At 39oF and pressures greater than 1000 psia,
the maximum amount of methanol lost to the vapor phase is 1 lbm MeOH/MMscf
for every we ight % MeOH in the free water phase.
Rule-of-Thumb 4: (Section II.B.3.b) At 39oF and pressures greater than 1000 psia,
the maximum amount of MEG lost to the gas is 0.002 lbm/MMscf.
Rule-of-Thumb 5: (Section II.B.3.c) The concentration of methanol dissolved in

condensate is 0.5 wt %.
Rule-of-Thumb 6: (Section II.B.3.c) The mole fraction of MEG in a liquid

hydrocarbon at 39oF and pressures greater than 1000 psia is 0.03% of the mole
fraction of MEG in the water phase.
145
Rule-of-Thumb 7. (Section II.E) Natural gases cool upon expansion from

pressures below 6000 psia; above 6000 psia the temperature will increase upon
expansion. Virtually all offshore gas processes cool upon expansion, since only a
few reservoirs and no current pipelines or process conditions are above 6000 psia.
Rule-of-Thumb 8. (Section II.E.3) It is always better to expand a dry gas, to

prevent hydrate formation in unusual circumstances, e.g. changes in upstream
pressure due to throughput changes.
Rule-of-Thumb 9. (Section II.E.3) Where drying is not a possibility, it is always

better to take a large pressure drop at a process condition where the inlet
temperature is high.
Rule-of-Thumb 10. (Section II.F.1.b) Monoethylene gylcol injection is used when

the required methanol injection rate exceeds 30 gal/hr.
Rule-of-Thumb 11. Section II.F.2.a) Use of anti-agglomerants requires a

substantial oil/condensate phase. The maximum water to oil ratio (volume basis)
for the use of an anti-agglomerant is 40:60 on a volume basis.
Rule-of-Thumb 12. (Section II.F.2.b) PVP may be used to inhibit pipelines with
subcooling less than 10oF for flow lines with short gas residence times (less than 20
minutes).
Rule-of-Thumb 13: (Section II.F.2.b) VC-713, PVCap, and co-polymers of PVCap

can be used to inhibit flow lines at subcooling less than 15oF, with water phase
residence times up to 30 days.
Rule-of-Thumb 14: (Section III) Hydrate blockages occur due to abnormal

operating conditions such as well tests with water, loss of inhibitor injection,
dehydrator malfunction, startup, shutin, etc. In all recorded instances hydrate
plugs were successfully removed and the system returned to service.
146
Rule-of-Thumb 15: (Section III.A.1) In gas-water systems hydrates can form on

the pipe wall. In gas/condensate or gas/oil systems, hydrates usually form as
particles which agglomerate to larger masses in the bulk streams.
Rule-of-Thumb 16: (Section III.A.1) Agglomeration of individual hydrate particles

causes an open hydrate mass which has a high porosity (often > 50%) and is
permeable to gas flow (permeability to length ratio of 8.7 - 11 10-15 m). Such an
open hydrate mass has the unusual property of transmitting pressure while being a
substantial liquid flow impediment. Hydrate particles anneal to lower permeability
at longer times.
Rule-of-Thumb 17. (Section III.B.1.a) A lack of hydrate blockages does not

indicate a lack of hydrates. Frequently hydrates form but flow (e.g. in an oil with a
natural surfactant present) and can be detected in pigging returns.
Rule-of-Thumb 18: (Section III.B.2.a) When a hydrate blockage is experienced, for

safety reasons, inhibitor is usually lubricated into the line from the platform in an
attempt to determine the plug distance from the platform. Attempts to blow the
plug out of the line by increasing the upstream pressure will result in more
hydrate formation and perhaps rupture due to overpressure
Rule of Thumb 19. Regardless of the method(s) used to dissociate the hydrates,
the time required for hydrate dissociation is usually days, weeks, or months. After
a deliberate dissociation action is taken, both confidence and patience are required
to observe the result over a long period of time.
Rule of Thumb 20. (Section III.C) When dissociating a hydrate plug, it should
always be assumed that multiple plugs exist both from a safety and a technical
standpoint. While one plug may cause the initial flow blockage, a shut-in will cause
the entire line to rapidly cool into the hydrate region, and low lying points of water
accumulation will rapidly convert to hydrate at water-gas interfaces.
Rule of Thumb 21. (Section III.C.3) Because the limits of a hydrate plug cannot be
easily located in a subsea environment, heating is not recommended for subsea
dissociation.
147
Rule-of-Thumb 22. (Section IV.B.1.a) Methanol loss costs can be substantial when
the total fraction of either the vapor or the oil/condensate phase is very large
relative to the water phase.
Rule-of-Thumb 23. (Section IV.B.1.b) The cost of a fixed leg North Sea platforms
is $77,000/ton.
Rule-of-Thumb 24. (Section IV.B.2) In order to achieve a desired heat transfer

coefficient of 0.3 BTU/hr-ft2-oF, a non-jacketed system costs $1.5 million per mile.
Typical costs of insulation via bundled lines are $1.5 -$2.0 million/mile.
148
10.0
PARAFFIN WAXES
10.1
Introduction
DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELIN E
As hydrocarbon fluids are produced from the reservoir they will inevitably cool and
undergo changes in pressure. As a consequence of these changes, high molecular weight
components of the oil have the potential to precipitate as solids. Among these are the
saturates or paraffins which can crystallize as waxes and have the potential to cause a
host of operational problems anywhere throughout the production and export system.
Waxes can solidify in the bulk oil as discrete particles or crystals and they can condense
onto cooled surfaces such as pipe walls and tubulars. The vast majority of the waxes will
crystallize in the bulk oil impacting the low temperature flow behavior, potentially
resulting in pumping and restart difficulties. Another major issue, especially for subsea
flowlines, is the build-up of solid waxy layers on the pipe walls. These layers, if allowed
to form, will require periodical removal to avoid blockages or reduced throughputs.
Although these two issues are the main focus of this section and of most design concerns,
there are other ways in which wax can equally impact production and export systems.
While the majority of waxes are transported straight through the system, a small
percentage can have detrimental effects on downstream process equipment. Another
major problem is that of gravity settling in which waxy layers or sludges are formed in
the bottom of storage tanks, shipping and process. A common problem for shipping
crude is the loss of cargo to sludge formation. A VLCC tanker may leave 10,000 BBL of
waxy sludge in its tanks on discharge, which may have to be dug out manually.
The key to preventing or mitigating operational problems caused by waxes is to identify
the potential problems early in the design phase of a project. All the problems associated
with paraffin wax formation are not insurmountable and most can be readily designed out
with proper consideration to fluid properties.
This section is structured to aid the facilities designer ident ify and effectively manage the
risks to production and the environment from paraffin wax formation. The section begins
by briefly outlining what waxes are, how to predict their behavior, and then explains how
they can impact production systems giving examples where appropriate. It then
continues by addressing design issues associated with wax and the development of wax
management strategies to avoid or minimize their impact in a controlled, safe and
economical manner.
H-0806.35
10-1
1-Dec-00
10.2
DEEPSTAR
The Questions to be Answered

In addition to the usual design parameters and fluid properties obtained from PVT
analysis, the presence or potential of wax raises a number of specific design issues
associated with fluid transportation at low temperatures.
What are the equilibrium pressure/temperature/flow characteristics?

While PVT is crucial, the influence wax exhibits on low temperature viscosity is
often neglected. With a waxy, viscous oil, the highest pressure drop can be
experienced at low laminar flow rates due to the influence of temperature and nonNewtonian behavior of the fluid.
If the pipeline is shut- in and allowed to cool, can it be restarted?

If the ambient temperature is below the pour point the oil may solidify and exhibit a
yield stress. That is until a certain minimum force (pressure drop) is applied there
will be no flow. Even if this minimum pressure is available, will the achievable flow
rate be sufficient to allow the incoming oil to warm up the line, displacing the cold
viscous oil and reestablish normal operating conditions.
Will paraffin wax deposit or build- up layers within the production system?
If so, it is crucial to determine where and when it may occur and whether it will
adversely impact production or monitoring/control. If left unchecked a wax can
effectively choke back production. In severe cases wells have been killed and
flowlines have been totally blocked.
Will intervention to remove wax deposits be required?

In most cases some form of intervention will be required at some point if deposition
does occur. The rate of wax build-up and its impact on production will dictate the
type and frequency of intervention, e.g. pigging. However, rates of wax build-up are
notoriously difficult to estimate.
Can wax formation or deposition be prevented or minimized within the production

system?
There are a number of effective methods available to minimize wax formation rates.
Although often prohibitively expensive these are best designed into the production
system as an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!
To address these questions the design must assess the following:
How long does the pipeline/production system take to cool?

Under steady state operating conditions this information will be critical in
determining where and when wax may form. Under shut- in conditions there may be
window of opportunity to avoid restart problems if facilities are available for restart
within a specific period of time.
H-0806.35
10-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
What are the fluids low temperature rheological properties?

These along with PVT data will not only dictate the pressure drops but also the
cooling rates.
What is the wax formation behavior?

This includes the onset temperatures (cloud points), crystallization rates and potential
deposition characteristics. These can be used to assess when and where wax related
problems might arise and estimate potential rates of deposition.
What are appropriate methods to prevent or control waxes in my system?

While methods exist control wax formation few are fully understood and rarely 100
percent effective.
A decision tree outlining basic requirements to address paraffin wax related issues is
shown (HOLD).
10.3
Phase Behavior
To assess any impact paraffin wax may have on production or export systems; knowledge
of the basic wax formation behavior is required.
In its simplest form all wax related problems could be avoided if the fluid and surfaces in
contact with the fluids can be maintained above the wax formation onset temperature or
cloud point or wax appearance temperature. Therefore, at the very least the onset
conditions must be determined. However, the onset temperature can range from below
20F for condensates to over 140F for waxy oils. In most cases, especially subsea, it is
generally impractical to achieve the goal of maintaining the system temperature
sufficiently high to avoid wax formation. Eventually the fluids have to cool and waxes
will form, but being able to dictate where and the rate at which the waxes form is the goal
of good design.
This section deals with what waxes are and how they behave in relation to condensate
and black oil production. Understanding this phase behavior is critical when assessing if
and where wax will form. The impact of and how to dealt with this wax formation on
fluid rheological properties and system pumpability is the subject of section 10.4. While
the build- up of solid wax layers is addressed in section 10.5.
10.3.1 Wax Forming Compounds

Paraffin waxes are not a single compound but rather a wide range of high molecular
weight alkanes that can solidify from crude oils primarily due to a decrease in the fluid
H-0806.35
10-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
temperature. It is generally regarded that waxes consist of branched (iso), cyclic and
straight chain (normal) alkanes having chain lengths in excess of 17 carbon atoms (C 17 )
and potentially up to and over C100 . The distribution of these compounds depends on the
individual crude oil, but generally above C20, the amount of any single carbon number
paraffin decreases exponentially. Typically the amount of C60 plus material will be less
than one weight percent of the total oil.
The normal paraffins are generally the more abundant species forming macro-crystalline
structures. Iso and cyclic paraffins may also be present in significant quantities, which
can form microcrystalline waxes. These paraffins have structures which are extremely
varied from near straight chain n-paraffins with several methyl branches to very complex
cyclic structure as illustrated in Figure 10.3-1. Each isomer has slightly different
physical and chemical properties, and the number of possible isomeric variations for
waxes is very large. However, it is a characteristic of crude oils that the isomers are
predominately those with single methyl branches. The cyclic paraffins may consist of a
single cyclo-pentane or cyclo-hexane ring structure on a long chain normal or branched
paraffin, or any number of ring structures with many straight or branched chains.
(n o r m a l ) n - p a r a f f i n
iso-paraffin
Cyclo-paraffin
Figure 10.3-1: Paraffin Wax Structures

10.3.2 Wax Behavior
High molecular weight paraffins are only minutely soluble in crude oil at reservoir
conditions. As the temperature of the crude oil drops during production, these
compounds begin to crystallize. The temperature where the first crystals occur is called
the cloud point or wax appearance temperature (WAT) of the crude oil. At the cloud
point only a tiny fraction of these compounds crystallize. The solid fraction formed will
consist of a distribution of the longest chain paraffins. However, as the temperature of
H-0806.35
10-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
the oil is reduced, more and more of the wax forming paraffins of decreasing chain length
will subsequently crystallize.
The wax content of a crude is only a measure of the total amount of wax forming
compounds in the oil. It does not represent the amount of material that could crystallize
at a given set of conditions, nor how this will impact fluid properties.
The structure of the paraffin molecules will also impact the morphology and growth rate
of the wax crystals. Pure normal paraffins produce large regular macro-crystalline
structures, while isomers and cyclic paraffins produce a microcrystalline wax. In crude
oils both types of waxes regularly occur. The large crystals associated with pure nparaffins are rarely encountered in reality due to poisoning from the incorporation of
isomers and other materials in the oil.
Melting points of normal paraffins are affected by whether the chain contains an even or
odd number of carbon atoms. N-paraffins with an even number of carbon atoms pack
more closely in the crystalline state and result in higher melting temperatures. The iso
and cyclic paraffins produce microcrystalline waxes with higher melting temperatures
than their n-paraffin counterparts.
The cloud point and solid wax fraction wax at a given temperature are not constants for a
given fluid. They are affected by pressure and the amount of light ends in solution. The
cloud point represents a phase boundary that is dependent on the solubility of the waxes
in the oil. The higher the proportion of wax solvents, such as benzene, the lower the
cloud point. Pressure also has an effect through the differential compressibilities of the
light and heavy components.
The Figure 10.3-2 illustrates a typical wax phase envelope. The cloud point will be
lowest at the fluids bubble point. Above the bubble point, increasing pressure reduces
the relative volume of the light ends raising the formation temperature, even for stock
tank oil. Below the bubble point, these light ends are lost to the gas phase again raising
the cloud point.
H-0806.35
10-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Wax Formation
Pressure
Re
ser
vo
ir F
lui
d
No Wax
Sto
ck
Ta
nk
Oi
l
STO Cloud Point
Bubble Point
Temperature
10.3-2: Wax Formation Phase Diagram

10.3.3 Fluid Analysis for Wax Deposition and Gellation Studies
To assess wax phase behavior and onset temperatures it is necessary to measure some
basic fluid properties. Details of the techniques used to measure these properties are
presented in separately in section 10.6.
Samples
To perform any analysis a representative valid sample is essential. Critical properties
such as the cloud point are reliant on obtaining uncontaminated samples representative of
the fluids to be produced througho ut the life of the field.
Serious errors have occurred through sample contamination (with drilling fluid) or where
waxes have been lost during sampling. These issues can usually be identified and
H-0806.35
10-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
addressed. However, others such as analyzing fluids from one zone when the well will
be producing from multiple zones are harder to correct.
If no samples are available:
An estimate of the phase boundaries including the cloud point may be possible from the
PVT and geo-chemical compositional analysis. Such an estimate should be checked
against a database of previously analyzed fluids.
If no sample or compositional data are available:
Some limited comparisons could be drawn from adjacent wells or fields producing from
similar fluids to those expected with the he lp of the geo-chemists. However, there are
many examples were fluids from adjacent wells producing from the same field exhibit
significantly different behavior to each other and from that expected.
Even though these comparisons can be made where no samples or data exists it is
advisable to consider that wax will form somewhere in the production system and
measures should be taken to ensure it can be dealt with. Wax formation has been
experienced at temperatures in excess of 140F.
Cloud Point (Wax appeara nce temperature)
The wax appearance temperature (WAT) or cloud point is the singularly most important
parameter relating to wax formation. It is the temperature at which waxes first crystallize
from solution. If the fluid or any surface in contact with the fluid are below the cloud
point wax has the potential to form. Waxes can exist above the cloud point, due to
hysteresis, if previously precipitated.
There are a number of measurement techniques available (see section 10.6). The choice
of which to use will depend on the type of oil and amount of sample available as well as
the companys individual preference. These preferences are usually linked to experience
and comparisons to a database.
Due to crystallization kinetics, the measurement techniques themselves can influence the
derived value. It is highly recommended that cloud point be determined using two
different techniques or are at least consistent with the operators experience. With care
the cloud point can be determined to an accuracy of 5F between two different
techniques performed by the same laboratory.
H-0806.35
10-7
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Cloud points are usually determined experimentally at atmospheric pressure on stock

tank or dead oil. However, system pressure and the presence of light ends will both have
an effect. Live oil cloud point measurements at elevated pressures are possible, but it is
more usual to utilize a thermodynamic simulator to predict the effects of light ends and
pressure.
Comparisons between live and dead oil cloud point measurements are not always va lid,
as the sensitivities of the different tests used may be significantly different. Suitable live
oil measurement techniques such as the filtration are generally less sensitive than those
used for dead oil determinations. It is therefore advisable to calibrate the live method
with a dead oil condition test.
The live fluid cloud point measurements are difficult and expensive to perform. Further,
the rule of thumb for design purposes is that the maximum deposit formation occurs at
the temperature in the production system that corresponds to the dead oil cloud point.
Wax Content
Wax content is a parameter which has no direct use in designing a production system.
Rather it is a useful parameter for fluid comparisons as a first indicator as to potential
problems. High wax contents (>10 percent) can indicate potential fluid flow and restart
problems.
There are two primary ways in which wax content is usually defined. The first method is
to use a compositional analysis of the crude oil to determine the weight percent of normal
waxes with a chain length of C17 or greater. The second method is to precipitate solids
from the crude oil at a given temperature. The amount of solids precipitated will depend
highly upon the procedure used and the temperature at which the test was performed.
Most precipitation tests are performed at approx. 35F. This is substantially lower than
most operating temperatures, where for example the actual amount of solid wax present
in an oil at seabed temperature may be less than 25 percent of the total wax content.
A much more useful measurement is the amount of wax precipitated as a function of
temperature. This type of information is used in wax deposition models to predict rates
of wax deposition. Wax content as a function of temperature can be obtained
experimentally via filtration, NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) or inferred from the
DSC (Differential Scanning Calorimetry). Figure 10.3-3 presents examples of the wax
content as a function of temperature for two oils.
H-0806.35
10-8
1-Dec-00
Solid Wax Content
DEEPSTAR
18
16
WaxyCrude(17%wt)
Solid Wax Fraction %wt
14
12
10
8
6
4
Light Oil (2.5%wt)
2
0
-25
-5
15
35
55
75
95
115
135
Temperature F
Figure 10.3-2: Solid Wax Content
It is now more usual to predict the wax content as a function of temperature using
thermodynamic models. This information is then used in subsequent deposition
modeling.
Compositional Analysis
To predict the wax phase behavior a compositional analysis of the wax forming
compounds in the crude oil are required. As these are the longer chain paraffins, a
standard C7+ analysis from a PVT report is generally insufficient. A quantitative
compositional analysis out to C30 should be performed as a minimum requirement. This
type of analysis can be obtained from a PVT or geochemistry laboratory.
Since waxes are predominately the longer chain paraffins (C 30+), a detail analysis of these
is required to accurately predict phase behavior. This can be obtained via high
temperature gas chromatography (HTGC) compositional analysis, sometimes referred to
as an extended paraffin analysis. The technique has been only been recently developed
for high molecular weight paraffins and is not as readily obtainable. A geochemistry
laboratory is the most likely source for this analysis. Most laboratories offer a semi
quantitative HTGC analysis which must be normalized using the standard C30 PVT
analysis.
H-0806.35
10-9
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 10.3-4 is a plot of HTGC data for two crude oils which shows normal waxes
extending out to a carbon number of 80. Recent research has indicated that the cloud
point of a crude oil can possibly be correlated to the C50+ fraction.
10
Crude A
N-Paraffin (wt%)
1
0.1
Crude B
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Carbon Number
Figure 10.3-3: Weight Percent on Paraffins in Crude

HTGC can detect n-paraffins out to C100+. However the sensitivity of the technique is
stretched beyond about 1ppm (0.0001 percent), which in most cases corresponds to the
C60+ components. Thus quantification above C60 is reserved for specialist laboratories.
Additional information includes SARA or PARA analysis. Here chromatography is used
to characterize the crude into its saturates or paraffins, aromatics, resins and asphaltenes.
This data is used by some models together with the compositional analysis to predict wax
phase behavior
10.3.4 Thermodynamic Predictions
Although wax phase behavior can determined experimentally, it is usually predicted
using a thermodynamic simulator. These simulations are used to determine the cloud
point and solid wax fraction with respect to system pressure. The cloud point can be used
directly in determining where and when wax may form in a production system, and the
solid wax phase behavior is used predominately in further modeling of wax deposition
H-0806.35
10-10
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
build-up. However, on its own the phase behavior will not determine how much wax will
stick to a surface or how the precipitated waxes will influence flow behavior. Thus most
wax thermodynamic simulators are coupled with pipeline wax build- up simulators to
generate the property tables required for deposition simulation.
All the models calculate the vapor- liquid equilibria of the system including the phase
envelope, saturation and critical points, cricondentherms and cricondenbars. Cloud
points and solid paraffin fractions are calculated as a function of temperature and
pressure; however, they can differ significantly in their handling of the wax phase.
The thermodynamic prediction usually takes the form of a solid- liquid-vapor equilibrium,
in which the fluid phases are described by an Equation of State (EOS) such as SoaveRedlich-Kwong (SRK) or Peng-Robinson (PR), and the solid phase is usually modeled as
a solid solution such as those proposed by Won. Here the solid wax fraction is assumed
to be a single solid composed of a mixture of the individual wax components. An
alternative approach proposed by Firoozabadi uses a multi-solid model in which the wax
components individually freeze out to form a mixture of solids.
Models generally differ in their treatment of the C7+ fraction or solid phase and require
different levels of sophistication in their input parameters.
Some models treat the C7+ fraction as a single or series of pseudo-components and
assume a homogenous solid mixture is precipitated. Others assume a heterogeneous solid
mixture where waxes crystallizing at a given point remain isolated and do not mix with
waxes precipitating later these may also take account of the changing liquid composition.
The majority of models assume the solid phase is formed predominately from the nparaffins and ignores the iso and cyclic components.
The former models require a limited C7+ characterization as input and the model assumes
or calculates a distribution of the wax components. The latter allow the user to input a
detailed composition or distribution of these wax- forming compounds. The chemical and
physical properties of these components needed to calculate the phase behavior are preprogrammed into the code but can be tuned in some instances.
In performing phase behavior predictions for waxes it is recommended to seek expert
advise. The choice of model and validation of input and output data is still a new and
developing science.
H-0806.35
10-11
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Modeling Considerations
In performing phase behavior predictions for waxes it is recommended to seek expert
advise. The choice of model and validation of input and output data is still a new and
developing science. Wax is not a single component but a complex mixture of many
individual species. Hence the phase behavior can be difficult to predict and variations in
the predicted cloud point of over 20C are not uncommon.
The simplest models utilizing a single or very limited number of pseudo components for
the C7+ characterization have the advantage of being easier but may over simplify the
complex nature of waxes. However, the cloud point and phase behavior of the depositing
waxes are dictated by the behavior and amount of the longer chain paraffins. It is
therefore important to account for these components when describing wax formation.
This is usually done but utilizing a series of pseudo components each describing a
different wax fraction. Here averaged physical and chemical properties are used based on
an assumed (exponential) distribution of the individual wax components within a given
Molecular weight range. However, detailed characterizations of these fractions indicate
that the n-paraffin distributions do not always exhibit an exponential decay with
increasing carbon numbers. In theory a more robust prediction should be obtained from
models utilizing a measured distribution of all the individual components. However, the
limiting factor is the level of sophistication and accuracy of such an extended paraffin
characterization required as input. Often the analysis does not extend reliably beyond
C50 . Therefore, an extended exponential distribution is often assumed. (Also Iso, cyclo
paraffins are not included in extended analyses).
HTGC techniques used to characterize these high n-paraffin distributions are still
evolving. The analysis is limited by the detection limit of the instrument currently
around 0.0001 percent. For many crude oils the amount of any single component beyond
C50 is close to this limit.
As previously mentioned variations in how the fluid is characterized can lead to
significant changes in the predicted cloud points and phase behavior. The definition of
cloud point within the models can also lead to wide variations in the results. Here the
cloud point is usually defined at a certain fraction of solid wax present. This may vary
between 0.00001 and 0.001 percent by weight, which can lead to a variation of over 20C
in some cases.
H-0806.35
10-12
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Therefore, wherever possible the predictions should be tuned to reliable experiment data.
This is usually in the form of the stock tank oil cloud point. There are several methods of
tuning this data. Firstly the amount of solid phase required in the model could be
adjusted to meet the value determined in the measurement. An alternative is to vary the
amount of and/or physical and chemical properties in any lumped or pseudo components
or the distribution of any assumed extended paraffin distribution.
Thermodynamic modeling can also be used to validate the compositional analysis and
sample integrity. If the modeling results and cloud point approximate to the temperatures
of sampling then waxes could have deposited waxes during sampling. A sudden tail off
in the higher n-paraffins can also indicate waxes may have been lost. It is possible to
correct the paraffin distribution to account of any lost components and determine an
improved cloud point.
10.3.5 Design Considerations
To properly assess the potential for wax to impact production operations or system design
it is essential to characterize the fluids. Wax analysis should be incorporated into the
sweet of fluid characterizations and not be left as an afterthought.
To perform a meaningful analysis a representative valid sample is essential. Serious
errors have occurred through sample contamination (with drilling fluid) or where waxes
have been lost during sampling. These issues can usually be identified and addressed.
However, others such as analyzing fluids from one zone when the well will be producing
from multiple zo nes are harder to correct. Where no samples are available some limited
comparisons can be drawn from PVT and geo-chemical data or from adjacent wells.
Details of fluid analysis are given in sections 10.3.3 and 10.3.4
The first questions that need to be asked are: Is wax going to form and if so where and
when?
To totally avoid wax in the system, the fluid and the surfaces in contact with the fluid
must be maintained above the cloud point. However, this is often impractical especially
during shut- ins and periods of reduced production.
Avoiding Wax Formation:
If maintaining a high system temperature is a feasible option then an accurate
determination of the cloud point may be sufficient without further analysis. This may be
H-0806.35
10-13
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
the case for the entire productio n system or to assess whether wax can be avoided in a
specific area such as the wellbore.
To avoid wax formation and not consider remediation or control strategies in the design
there must be confidence that the system temperature profiles will be sufficiently above
the cloud point in all the areas of interest (i.e. the entire wellbore or flowline) for the
entire production lifetime.
It is therefore important to understand the behavior, risks and uncertainty in both the
cloud point and the thermal performance of the system.
With care the cloud point can be determined to an accuracy of 5F. However, predicted
thermal profiles such as flowing wellhead temperatures, may not be so accurate,
especially over the life of the field. Large areas of uncertainty exist in the reservoir
performance in terms of projected production profiles and with external environmental
conditions. The performance of the insulating materials or systems and thermal profile
modeling must also be considered and not taken for granted.
Generally, it is recommended that to totally avoid wax formation, the lowest predicted
temperature profiles should be no less than 10F above the maximum cloud point value.
Confidence in Cloud Point
Cloud points are a phase boundary in that the onset of wax formation will vary with
temperature, pressure and liquid phase composition. In a production system the fluids
will exhibit a minimum cloud point as they pass through the bubble point. This usually
occurs within the wellbore. As the fluids are produced the pressure will fall and the
cloud point will increase. The maximum cloud point is usually equivalent to the stock
tank value and experienced downstream of separation.
H-0806.35
10-14
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Bubble
point
Temperature
Choke
STO Cloud point
Distance
Flo
wli
ne
We
llbo
re
Res
erv
oir
Live Cloud points
Figure 10.3-4: Wax Formation in a Production System
Figure 10.3-5 illustrates the care that must be exercised when assessing where wax will
form. The dark shared area represents the uncertainty in temperature profile of the fluids
flowing in the system. The lighter shade indicates the potential differences in cloud
points.
The dead oil cloud point gives an absolute maximum value for a multiphase system.
However, in some systems the dead oil value may be overly conservative (up to 30F for
some condensate systems), or margin of safety between measured cloud point and
predicted system temperature is unacceptably slim. Then it will be appropriate to
determine the actual in-situ live oil cloud points.
The difference between live and dead oil cloud points can be anywhere from a few
degrees to over 40F. However, the live values often quoted are determined at the
reservoir fluid bubble point which is likely occur in the wellbore where fluids are
H-0806.35
10-15
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
relatively hot. At the cool end of a flowline the pressure may have reduced significantly
and the in-situ cloud point could be much closer to the stock tank oil value.
The dead oil cloud point represents a realistic maximum value for design purposes and
does agree well with field data for the onset of wax deposition build-up.
Multiphase Flow & Turbulence
The flow regimes have no effect on the thermodynamic properties of the waxes, however
they can affect wax crystal growth, effecting rheological properties. These are described
in detail in sections 10.4 and 10.5.
Water
The production or introductio n of wax has no discernable effect on the phase behavior of
the waxes themselves. However, partitioning of gas and chemicals into or out of the
water phase could have some effect.
Water will raise the heat capacity of the production stream thus effecting where the in the
system the fluids cool below the cloud point.
Shut-Ins
It is inevitable that production will be shut- in occasionally. Depending on the length of
the shut- in it may not be possible to prevent the system from cooling below the cloudpoint. If this occurs wax will form and the impact of wax structures on fluid rheological
properties and solid wax build-up must be addressed (Sections 10.4 and 10.5).
Commingling Fluids
If two or more fluids are mixed the resulting phase behavior will be dependent on both
the paraffin wax composition and the solvency of the blend. Providing the fluid streams
are all mixed above the cloud point of each individual fluid, then the resulting blend can
be treated as a single fluid and the phase behavior easily predicted using a
thermodynamic simulator.
However, if the fluids are mixed below any one of the individual cloud points the
resulting wax formation behavior is complicated by potential dissolution of precipitated
waxes in fresh solvent and co-crystallization onto existing wax crystals. These
phenomenon are fairly insignificant in predicting wax phase behavior but can have a
H-0806.35
10-16
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
major impact on the rheological behavior of waxy oils downstream of the mixing point
(See section 10.4).
Gas Lift
For the purposes of predicting wax phase behavior gas lift can be treated as commingling
of two fluids. However lift gas can have a detrimental effect on the wax formation
properties of the oil. If lean gas is used it can strip out light-end solvents into the gas
phase thus raising the cloud point. Again these effects should be simulated using a
thermodynamic model. The cooling effect the lift gas may have on the tubing must also
be considered.
Chokes/Flashing
High pressure gradients when flashing cause Joule Thomson cooling effects which may
result in large sub-cooling of the waxes. Coupled with the highly turbulent flow and
presence of gas bubbles crystallization is likely to be instantaneous in the bulk fluid when
the fluids drop below the cloud point. Crystal structure could be very different, forming
many tiny individual crystals as opposed to larger amorphous growth associated with
slow cooling. These effects may impact wax deposition and rheological behavior but are
ignored in modeling wax phase behavior.
Inhibition
In addition to avoiding wax formation through controlling temperature the phase
behavior and onset temperatures can also be modified. The guaranteed method,
sometimes used, is to dilute the fluid with a wax solvent. This is akin to methanol or
glycol for hydrate control. The solvent could be a proprietary product or another light
hydrocarbon production stream. Either way a significant volumetric quantity (5 to 50
percent) is needed to have any significant effect at lowering cloud points.
Alternative lower dosage kinetic inhibitors are now under development. These like the
kinetic Threshold Hydrate Inhibitors work by suppressing nucleation and/or preventing
crystal growth. Being kinetic inhibitors they can suppress wax formation by a certain
level of subcooling for a given time period. The greater the subcooling (suppression of
cloud point) the greater the driving force for crystallization and therefore the shorter the
time period before the inhibitor fails and the wax precipitates. This is unlikely to be of
major concern in a producing stream where the fluids are constantly cooling and the
target is to inhibit to a given temperature. However, they will be of concern when
H-0806.35
10-17
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
protecting a system during a shut- in, where the system will continue to cool and remain at
or below the design target temperature for a significant time period.
These cloud point suppressants (CPS) although new to the upstream industry have been
used in diesel fuels for a number of years. However, at present the degree of suppressio n
is still small (<10F), performance is case specific and expensive requiring up to 0.5
percent volume of inhibitor. They are not to be confused with pour point depressants
(PPD), which act on wax crystal morphology at lower temperatures.
A more realistic approach is to accept wax will form and utilize a number of control
methods to prevent or minimize its impact on viscosity and solid wax build- up. These
include chemical wax inhibitors, which can modify wax crystal growth, dispersant, and
surfactants. Most are relatively effective at dosage rates (<0.1 percent by volume) but
again are case specific. Details of all these inhibitors are given in the relevant sections on
pumpability and wax deposition (sections 10.4 and 10.5).
Further Reading:
Won K W Thermodynamics for Solid Solution-Liquid-Vapor Equilibria: Wax Phase
formation from Heavy Hydrocarbon Mixture. Fluid Phase Equilibria, 30, 1986
Brown T S, V G Niesen and D D Erickson The Effects of Light Ends and High
Pressures on Paraffin Formation. SPE 28505 1994
Pedersen Karen Schou, Prediction of Cloud Point Temperatures and Amount of Wax
Precipitated. SPE Prod & Facilities, Feb. 1995
Lira Galeana C, Firoozabadi A and Prausnitz J M. Thermodynamics of Wax
Precipitation in Petroleum Mixtures. AIChE Journal 42 1995
Hanson, Asger B, Elfinn Larsen, Walther B Pedersen, Anne B Nielsen and Hans Petter
Ronningsen.
Wax Precipitation from North Sea Crude Oils 3. Precipitation and
Dissolution of Wax Studied by Differential Scanning Calorimetry. Energy & Fuels 5
1991
Hansen et al Wax Precipitation from North Sea Crude Oils 2. Solid Phase as Function of
Temperature Determined by Pulsed NMR. Energy & Fuels 5 1991
H-0806.35
10-18
1-Dec-00
10.4
DEEPSTAR
Impact on Pumpability/Restart
Wax crystallization can have a significant impact on the low temperature flow behavior
of crude oils and waxy condensates. When an oil cools below its cloud point waxes will
start to crystallize from solution. Here the amount and morphology of the crystallized
wax fraction will influence the flow behavior of the oil.
At low enough temperatures sufficient wax may have crystallized to from structures and
the oil will start to solidify (gel). Under conditions of no- flow the temperature at which
this occurs is approximated by the pour point. However, the pour point does not
necessarily represent the temperature at which the fluid in the pipeline will suddenly
solidify and become immovable. There are many examples of production systems
operating at temperatures below the pour point where the oil is still pumpable providing
sufficient energy is applied.
Fortunately, most oils behave in a predictable fashion being relatively fluid and easy to
pump. However, as the solid wax fraction increases the behavior will become
increasingly difficult to predict. At low temperatures fluid properties can be orders of
magnitude different from that anticipated. Such behavior normally manifests itself
during shutdowns or later in field life when production rates drop off. Here at low
production rates the apparent viscosities may be high, in some cases so high that the
available pumping pressure is insufficient to maintain flow. This is a potential problem
in subsea lines where the fluid temperatures fall to that of the seabed.
This section outlines the potential behaviors of crude oils when wax is present. It will
deal with the impact or this behavior on pipeline design and methods available to mitigate
any problems. Whether the fluid is a highly waxy high pour point crude or a light oil the
basic methodologies are the same.
To account for the influence of wax on fluid pumpability and restart behavior the
following questions must be addressed.
What is the fluids rheological behavior?
What data are required?
How is the data used?
What correlations are available?
What are the effects of flowrate?
What is the effect of pressure and live oil composition?
H-0806.35
10-19
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
How will the fluids behave during normal production?
How will the fluids behave on restart?
How will the fluids behave in storage?
What are the appropriate mitigation strategies
10.4.1 Waxy Fluid Behavior

Above the cloud point no solid wax is present and the fluid behavior is generally
Newtonian. That is the viscosity is dependent on temperature and pressure but
independent of flowrate. Non-Newtonian behavior may be encountered if the fluids
contain other suspended solids or are emulsions.
Below the cloud point solid waxes will be present and the oil can be initially considered
to be particulate system or dispersed slurry. Here an oil may exhibit a number of nonNewtonian behaviors depending on the amount of solid wax particles present, their size
and morphology. Generally the higher the solid wax fraction the greater the divergence
from Newtonian behavior. Thus at low temperatures such as deepwater seabed, where a
significant fraction of the waxes may have crystallized, many oils exhibit non-Newtonian
behavior.
At low temperatures the solid wax fraction may be sufficient to form structures and the
fluids will become increasingly viscous and difficult to pump. Eventually the oil will
solidify or gel when a sufficient amount of wax has crystallized forming a porous media
entrapping the liquid oil.
Non-Newtonian Behaviors
There are a number of non-Newtonian behaviors that waxy oils can exhibit. These will
depend not only on the amount of wax out of solution but also the size and morphology
of the wax particles and developing structures. Here, the particle interactions and
developing structures can be affected by the shear rates and thermal history experienced
by the fluid.
Shear rate is the internal velocity gradient or strain rate experienced by a fluid under
flow and is proportion to flowrate.
H-0806.35
10-20
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Shear Thinning
Shear thinning is generally the first non-Newtonian behavior experienced in most oils on
cooling below the cloud point. At zero shear or flow the fluid exhibits a finite but not
infinite viscosity. As the shear rate is increased the viscosity decreases. This fall in
viscosity does not continue indefinitely but tends to an asymptotic value beyond a certain
shear where the fluid exhibits apparent Newtonian behavior (see figure). The variation in
viscosity with increasing shear rate is reversible, thus as shear rates (flowrates) reduce the
viscosity will increase. Figure 10.4-1 illustrates the relationship between viscosity and
shear rate for a shear thinning fluid.
The relationship between the shear rate and shear stress can be expressed as a power law
function:
= n
Note: for Newtonian fluids: n = 1
and
K = Viscosity
As the viscosity is no longer a constant at a given temperature, the measured value is

termed apparent viscosity and quoted at the shear rate or conditions to which it applies.
100
90
80
Viscosity cP
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
Shear Rate s-1
Figure 10.4-1: Typical Shear Thinning Behavior
H-0806.35
10-21
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
This behavior is relatively easy to characterize. There are several methodologies and
wide range of instruments available suited to waxy crude oils. However, simple
kinematic or PVT viscosity data are not appropriate below the cloud point, as they do not
measure viscosity as a function of shear rate.
Shear Thickening (Dilatancy)
Dilatant behavior is essentially the opposite of shear thinning. Here the viscosity
increases with increasing shear rate. This behavior is usually associated with high solids
fractions at high shear rates. It is rarely experienced in crude oil transportation.
Fluid characterization and methodologies for design are basically the same as for shear
thinning behavior. Dilatant behavior can generally be described by the same power law
equations.
Thixotropic Behavior
In addition to temperature and shear dependency, the viscosities of many waxy oils also
exhibit a time dependent effect. At a given temperature the viscosity of an oil can
decrease with time when subjected to shear. When the shear is removed or reduced the
fluid can fully or partially regain its original viscosity.
This behavior is caused by interactions between the individual wax particles and the
development of macro structures. As the temperature falls and the solid wax fraction
increases this behavior can become dominant. This is especially true near to and below
the pour point
At a given flow or shear rate structures and ordering of the wax fraction will develop with
time affecting the viscosity. If the shear is then increased these structures can be broken
down resulting in a reduction in viscosity (shear thinning) and new ordering established.
If the shear is then reduced new additional structures can develop and the viscosity may
recover. Figure 10.4-2 illustrates this behavior.
H-0806.35
10-22
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Apparent Viscosity
Flowrate
Time
Figure 10.4-2: Thixotropic Behavior
Most waxy oils are not strictly thixotropic but are shear degradable as the structures are
not fully recove rable.
Gelation and Yield Stress
When sufficient solid wax has precipitated the particles can start to form interlocking
structure networks. These structures can dramatically increase viscosity and eventually
solidify or gel the oil. The flow behavior of this gelled oil is very complex and requires
careful analysis at conditions relative to production conditions. In addition to shear
thinning or thixotropic behavior the oil may exhibit a yield stress where the apparent
viscosity at zero shear is infinite. Yield stress is the force required to initialize flow.
Under flowing conditions the oil will become very viscous and highly non-Newtonian
once cooled close to and below the pour point. Under these conditions the oil exhibits a
dynamic yield stress which must be overcome to maintain flow. If the applied stresses
fall below this value then flow will cease.
Under static conditions there is no shear to disrupt the developing structures and the oil
can form a gel easily. The temperature at which this occurs approximated by the pour
point. The force required to overcome this gel structure is known as the static yield stress
or more often just yield stress. On applying a small force the gel may deform and start to
creep eventually flowing. But for practical reasons the yield stress is the force required to
initiate flow in a reasonable time frame (minutes for a pipeline).
H-0806.35
10-23
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
At lower temperatures the wax structures can form into a porous media in which the wax
forms a solid matrix entrapping the liquid oil. Such a structure will behave as a solid,
requiring very high stress before flowing.
Once the yield stress has been overcome and flow has initiated the gel structure will
break down under the action of shear. The rate of breakdown and development of flow is
very important to ensuring that full equilibrium flowing condition can be re-established.
Here characterizing the time dependence thixotropic behavior of the fluid is crucial.
Note that for most oils the pour point corresponds to a solid wax fraction of between only
2 to 5 weight percent. This is generally irrespective of the oils quoted or nominal wax
content. However, generally the higher the nominal wax content, the greater the solid
wax fraction at a given temperature, and thus the higher the pour point.
Sample History (The Importance Sample Handling)
Thermal and mechanical shear history an oil is subjected to can significantly effect the
low temperature flow properties. Viscosities and yield stresses at a given temperature
can be very different depending on the flowrates and temperature profiles throughout the
entire production system or its handling in the laboratory.
Here the formation of wax structures is dictated by the rate of wax crystallization,
morphology and crystal growth. These will be influenced by the amount of energy in the
system and the presence of existing wax particles and structures, which provide suitable
sites for further crystal growth. These particles and structures will in turn have been
influenced by the shear and thermal conditions in which they developed.
Temperature cycling: On heating waxes will start to dissolve. However, unless all the
crystalline and microcrystalline waxes are returned to solution they can act as nucleation
sites for subsequent crystal growth. The oil may retain a memory of past handling
resulting in a high viscosity state. The microcrystalline cyclo and iso paraffins can have
significantly higher melting temperatures than the n-paraffins. Thus the temperature
required to destroy the oils me mory of past history may be significantly higher than the
cloud point.
H-0806.35
10-24
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
This effect can be illustrated by the pour point of a waxy oil in which the sample was
subsequently reheated to increasing temperatures. It can be seen in Figure 10.4-3 that a
temperature of at least 50C to 60C was required to dissolve all the waxes and start to
destroy sample memory.
30
25
20
Pour Point C
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Re-heat Temperature C
Figure 10.4-3: Pour Point of Waxy Oil
Cooling rates: Rapid cooling can lead to supercooling and tends to produce many small
wax crystals while slow cooling can produce large crystal agglomerates. These effects on
crystal morphology and the effects of the morphology on flow properties can be
significant but are not very well understood and are very unpredictable.
Shear: Structures developing under low shear conditions may result in higher viscosities
but can be degraded by high shear.
These issues are important in a pipeline as the fluids flow properties may change with
changing production profiles or during transients such as start-up.
It is therefore important when analyzing waxy fluids to simulate conditions the fluids are
likely to encounter in the field. This includes restoring the sample to a condition it would
have in the production system, i.e. as if it where produced from the reservoir. Here it is
probable that initially all the waxes will be in solution. When examining export systems,
thermal profiles during processing (separation) may impact downstream flow properties.
H-0806.35
10-25
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The Figure 10.4-4 illustrates some of these effects
700
600
High Shear 1000s-1
Temp Cycled
Viscosity cP
500
Low Shear 1s-1

Temp Cycled
400
300
200
Low Shear 1s-1
100
High Shear 1000s-1
0
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Temperature F
Figure 10.4-4: Waxy Oil Viscosity Behavior
The viscosity of a waxy oil (25 weight percent wax, ASTM pour point 70F) was
measured as a function of temperature at two shear rates. In the first instance the oil was
temperature cycled to 50C prior to cooling resulting in the very high viscosities.
Cooling under high shear produced lower viscosities and a lower pour point (40F
compared to 70F for the low shear case). A second sample was subjected to an identical
procedure except the oil was heated to reservoir temperature 85C prior to cooling. This
resulted in the much low viscosities for both the high and low shear cases and lower pour
points (<20F and 25F for the high and low shear respectively).
Emulsions
Flow properties of emulsions can be very complex and virtually impossible to predict.
They will depend on the oil viscosity, water cut, the presence of waxes and other
suspended solids both in the oil and water and the droplet sizes.
There are two categories of emulsion associated with hydrocarbon production: oil
external and water external. In most black oil systems emulsions formed from produced
water start out as oil external. Here the water droplets are carried in a continuous oil
phase. At low water cuts (<5 percent) there is little impact on flow properties. As the
water cut increases the emulsion becomes increasing viscous until they invert into a water
H-0806.35
10-26
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
continuous phase and the apparent viscosity is radically reduced. The Figure 10.4-5
illustrates the effect water cuts, in the form of emulsion, can have on viscosity.
The effect on viscosity will depend not only on the water cut but also on the size and size
distribution of the droplets. Very small tightly pack droplets can increase the viscosity
my several orders of magnitude. Droplet size will also impact emulsion stability and the
inversion point. The inversion point can be anywhere between 25 and 70 percent water.
It is rarely a clear inversion; at high water cuts viscous oil continuous emulsions are often
carried along with free water.
Apparent Viscosity
Inversion Point
Water Cut %
100
Figure 10.4-5: Effect of Emulsified Water

Droplet size and distribution are controlled by the shear the fluid receives as it is
produced. Areas of high shear such as perforations and chokes are likely to dic tate
emulsion formation. Unfortunately it is very difficult to estimate the type of emulsion
that will be produced.
The behavior illustrated above will occur at all temperatures even where no wax is
present. As the fluids call the severity of the change in viscosity and the inversion point
will change. Cold waxy fluids compound the effect with maximum viscosities being
several orders of magnitude greater than the base oil with as little as 20 percent water cut.
Emulsions tend to exhibit non-Newtonian shear thinning behavior. However, they also
tend to exhibit lower pour points and yield stresses than the base oil. This may facilitate
cold restart but the apparent viscosities at low temperatures and shear rates may be
substantially greater than anticip ated.
H-0806.35
10-27
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Where water is present at low temperatures the risk of hydrate formation must be
considered. While the water is emulsified there may be less tendency to agglomerate
hydrates. However, very strong gels have been experienced where conditions for
hydrates and gelation from waxy oils existed together.
10.4.2 Fluid Analysis
Flow properties for crude oils are not easily predicted even for non-waxy low pour point
fluids. Wherever possible viscosity data should be obtained on relevant samples. PVT
derived data and correlations are generally only suitable where fluids are Newtonian, i.e.
above the cloud point. Once the waxes have started to precipitate flow behavior should be
thoroughly investigated.
Given the complex behavior of waxy crude oils and their dependence not only on
temperature but also on applied shear and past history, it is important that fluid analysis
programs are designed and conducted at conditions appropriate to the production system
under investigation.
Fluid flow properties are predominately determined on stock tank dead oil at
atmospheric conditions. This tends to lead to an over-estimate of the pipeline viscosities
and yield stresses. In specific cases where fluid properties at production or ambient
temperatures cause significant pumping difficulties, live oil rheological measurements
should be considered.
Details of analysis techniques are given in section 10.6.
Non Newtonian Indicators
Cloud point can be an indication of where an oil is likely to transition from Newtonian to
non-Newtonian behavior. Most oils will exhibit Newtonian behavior above the cloud
point simplifying the analysis and enabling correlations or extrapolations to be used with
confidence. This may not necessarily be the case for emulsions or oils carrying other
suspended solids.
Wax contents and pour points are first guides as to whether an oil may exhibit significant
non-Newtonian behaviors or present pumping difficulties. High wax contents >20
percent (many Chinese and Indonesian crudes) are usually viscous and exhib it high pour
points. Pumping difficulties are commonly experienced close to and below an oils pour
point.
H-0806.35
10-28
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Sample Conditioning (Pretreatments)

Waxy oil flow properties can be very dependent on both the thermal and mechanical
shear histories the sample is subjected to, both in the field and during the analysis.
Therefore, it is crucial to assess whether sample handling, past history and the conditions
of determination of the fluid properties will influence the results.
This can be achieved through subjecting the oil to a number of pretreatments. If the
fluids are sensitive to past history and/or handling then it is crucial to ensure that the
sample is conditioned to simulate the production or process conditions. This must
include transients such as shut- ins and startups. Often details of these transients may not
be known, it is therefore useful to assess the extremes of fluid flow properties a waxy oil
is likely to exhibit.
In most cases conditioning the fluid at a high (preferably reservoir) temperature will
destroy past thermal memory producing a low viscosity state. This process is known as
beneficiation. Beneficiation can be followed by cooling and mechanical shear programs
to simulate a number of production scenarios.
A high viscosity state can usually be achieved through temperature cycling by warming
the oil to a temperature insufficient to dissolve all the waxes prior to subsequent cooling.
The ATSM upper pour point procedure is statistically based on this behavior, where the
reheat of 46C produces a high pour point/high viscosity state. Often the sample as
received is in a high viscosity state having been through many unknown temperature
cycles.
Viscosity
Crude oils generally exhibit Newtonian behavior above the cloud point. However, until
sufficient waxes have crystallized to influence flow behavior, many oils also exhibit
Newtonian behavior below the cloud point. Hence viscometry is not a reliable method to
determine cloud point.
Where hydrocarbon fluids exhibit Newtonian behavior a linear relationship exists
between the log of viscosity and temperature. This relationship can be used to establish
the transition from Newtonian to non-Newtonian behavior. When waxes begin to
influence flow properties the viscosities will deviate from this relationship.
H-0806.35
10-29
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Above the cloud point a few kinematic or PVT viscosity determinations are normally
sufficient to establish this relationship. However, the data must be converted to dynamic
viscosity, by multiplying by fluid density at the measured temperatures, before it is useful
for system design.
Preferably dynamic viscosity determinations as a function of shear should be performed
at a number of temperatures. These will confirm the limits of Newtonian behavior and
can be used directly for hydraulic analysis.
Below the cloud point and where non-Newtonian behavior is suspected, dynamic
viscosities should always be determined as a function of shear as well as temperature.
The temperature and shear rate ranges examined should cover the anticipated production
conditions including transients such as start-up.
A typical analysis will consist of performing flow curves (see section 10.6) at a number
of individual temperatures, as illustrated in Figure 10.4-6. Depending on the flow
behavior, models can be fitted to these curves. In most cases the fluid can then
characterized as a series of power law functions. Viscosities at intermediate shear rates
and temperatures can be interpolated from correlations (section 10.4.3).
50
45
40
40F
Viscosity cP
35
30
25
20
60F
15
10
80F
100F
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Shear Rate s-1
Figure 10.4-6: Wax Oil Viscosity Behavior
H-0806.35
10-30
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
If it has been established that the oil is sensitive to thermal and/or mechanical
pretreatments and handling then the viscosity, shear and temperature relationships for
each potential fluid state or pre-treatment will need to be established.
Some waxy oils may exhibit thixotropic behavior which can be very complex and
difficult to characterize. This behavior becomes significant at temperatures close to and
below the pour point. In these cases it is essential to seek expert assistance.
The figures below illustrate how thixotropic behavior can effect viscosity determinations.
Here it is apparent as a hysteresis in the flow curves. Depending on the starting point and
whether initially ascending or descending in shear rate the apparent viscosities can be
substantially different.
100
X
Initially Increasing Shear
90
Initially Decreasing Shear
80
Viscosity cP
70
60
50
40
30
*
*
Starting Point
Starting Point
C
Z1
20
10
1
Y1
A
10
100
10
100
1000
Shear Rate s-1
Figure 10.4-7: Effect of Shear on Flow Curves

Figure 10.4-7 illustrates two flow curves from a waxy North Sea oil. Starting from the
same shear rate (10 s-1 ), if the shear is initially increased (point A) the developed
structures are eroded and the resulting viscosities at all subsequent shear rates are
lowered. When the original shear is restored (C) the viscosity is lower than the starting
value but may recover given time. If however, the shear is initially decreased the
subsequent viscosities are higher. At the lowest shear (X, 1 s-1 ) the viscosity is much
higher than in the previous case (B). As the shear is then increased the viscosities still
remain higher even at point Y 100 s-1 . When the original shear is then restored (Z) the
resulting viscosity is again higher but may eventually recover to the original value given
H-0806.35
10-31
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
time. The resultant viscosity values can be further dictated by the highest or lowest
applied shear rates, e.g. inc reasing the highest applied shear from 100 s-1 (Y) to 1000 s-1
(Y1) eroded the wax structures resulting in the final viscosities being lower at the initial
shear rate.
If thixotropic behavior or sensitivity to past sample handling is apparent then an
alternative methodology may be adopted. Here the apparent viscosity is determined as a
function temperature at a series of fixed shear rates, illustrated in Figure 10.4-8. This is
akin to actual thermal and shear history a sample may undergo in a pipeline where oil is
produced at a fixed rate and subsequently cools.
Waxy Oil Viscosity Behavior

500
450
400
Low Shear 0.1s-1
Viscosity cP
350
300
250
200
Ture Cloud Point
150
100
50
High Shear 1000s-1
0
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
Temperature F
Figure 10.4-8: Waxy Oil Viscosity Behavior
In this case temperature viscosity relationships can be established at each individual shear
rate.
Live Oil Measurements
In most cases these are not required as available correlations are adequate or the oils are
sufficiently fluid so as not to cause pumpability concerns.
However, under live conditions the viscosity of very waxy crudes can be significantly
lower and exhibit less seve re non-Newtonian behavior than the stock tank oil.
H-0806.35
10-32
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
To study the non-Newtonian behavior of live fluids requires highly specialized

equipment. The principles of measuring viscosity vs. shear are the same. However PVT
type falling sinker and some capillary viscometers are not suitable (see section 10.6)
Yield stress and Restart
If the oil is likely to cool below its pour point and potentially gel, then restart behavior
should be determined at the minimum environmental temperatures. While the restart
behavior of crude oils cooled just below the pour point can be readily determined, the
yield stresses and subsequent flow development of very waxy fluids cooled significantly
below the pour point can be very complex and requires expert assistance.
As with other flow properties the yield stress is dependent on the developing wax
structures. These can be influenced by final temperature, cooling rates and applied shear
during the cooling. Therefore any laboratory study should consider the conditions the
fluids have undergone both during and prior to the shut- in.
Yield stresses are usually determined in model pipelines. Providing the fluids yield
readily within the available production system pressure these values can be scaled up to
the production system.
If however, the resulting yield stresses could cause restart problems then a detailed
investigation of the complex yielding properties and flow development will be required.
Constant stress rheometry is ideally suited for this purpose. The papers sited at the
beginning of this section give further details.
Where restart may give cause for concern it is worth considering the following points:
Yield stress may vary along the length of the line. The fluids will have undergone different
thermal and shear histories from one end of a line to the other and may exhibit different
behaviors.
Insulated pipelines cool slowly therefore there is a finite time before the fluids cool to a
temperature at which the yield stresses become unacceptable. Where a line is likely to be
restarted before it has fully cooled, the relationship between yield stress and temperature
should be explored.
H-0806.35
10-33
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
10.4.3 Correlations
There are a number of correlations used in predicting fluid flow in pipelines
wellbores. The majority of are based on Newtonian fluid behavior developed
reservoir fluids at high temperatures or adapted from petroleum products. These
therefore generally suitable only above the cloud point, unless Newtonian behavior
been confirmed at lower temperatures.
and
for
are
has
Some equations exist for non-Newtonian behaviors such as shear thinning where the
Reynolds number and friction factors can be calculated from power law models fitted to
the fluid properties.
However, when dealing with waxy oils at low temperatures and below the cloud point
most correlations are unsuitable and actual data should always be used.
Dead Oil Viscosity
Newtonian Fluids (Above Cloud Point)
Interpolation of measured data.
Newtonian hydrocarbon fluids generally exhibit a linear relationship between the log of
viscosity and temperature. The viscosity at a desired temperature is extrapolated between
two experimentally determined values. These relationships are strictly only true for
Newtonian fluids and generally not suitable for extrapolation to low temperatures below
the cloud point.
A widely applicable equation is: ln() = A+TB.
(T is in absolute temperature K or R).
A and B are determined from experimental data.
Another widely used method is ASTM D341.
log( +0.7) = A - B log(T)
Where A and B are constants calculated from the measured viscosities, kinematic
viscosity () in centiStokes, and temperature in absolute units of Kelvin or degrees
Rankine.
H-0806.35
10-34
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
This correlation is often misused with dynamic viscosity data and extrapolation outside
the measured data set and below the cloud point. Kinematic viscosity must be converted
to dynamic viscosity () for calculating friction factors and pressure drops.
API Correlations
Correlations exist for estimating the viscosity of stock tank oil from API Gravity. These
should only be used with caution where no measured data (including PVT) is available.
They should never be used below the Cloud Point. The two acceptable correlations are:
Beal, C: The viscosity of Air, Water, Natural Gas, Crude Oil and Its Associated
Gases at Oil Field Temperature and Pressures. Trans AIME 1946.
Beggs H D and Robinson JR Estimating the Viscosity of Crude Oil Systems.
J PF Pet Tech. Sept 1975
Viscosity Index ASTM D2270
This is an extension of the ASTM D341. In this method the variation of kinematic
viscosity with temperature is described by a single parameter. The higher the Viscosity
Index the smaller the effect of temperature on viscosity.
This correlation is widely used in product formation and in calculating the viscosity of
blended fluids. It can be applied to crude oils and condensates but is not suitable below
the cloud point.
Non-Newtonian Fluids (Below Cloud Point)
Newtonian interpolations may be extrapolated below the cloud point providing the oil has
been determined to remain Newtonian over the temperature range of interest. Few
correlations if any are suitable for fully describing the viscosity temperature relationship
for non-Newtonian fluids. In this case the viscosity is also dependent on the applied
shear and potentially sample history.
Providing the oil is well characterized over the temperature and shear rates of interest
power law and other fluid property models may be used to describe the behavior at a
given temperature. It may also be possible to fit a log viscosity temperature relationship
across this data at an individual shear rate or fluid state.
H-0806.35
10-35
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Where the oil has be characterized as a function of temperature for a given shear rate a
viscosity temperature relationship can be established, then power law or other fluid
descriptions applied at a given temperature.
Where possible the measured data should always reflect conditions appropriate to
production.
Live Oil Viscosity
The standard methodology for estimating live oil viscosity is to determine the dead oil
viscosity at the temperature of interest then apply the following correlations to account
firstly for the dissolved gases then compensate for pressure.
These correlations can strictly only be applied above the cloud point where no wax is out
of solution. The GOR and pressure will also influence the solubility of waxes and their
impact on flow properties. Whist the impact on wax phase behavior can be predicted the
impact on viscosity is very difficult to assess.
For low wax content oils or where behavior is Newtonian the additional effects are likely
to be insignificant and these correlations can be applicable. However, for waxy oils or
fluids near the pour point the effects can be dramatic and laboratory measurements may
need to be considered.
Live Oil Viscosity at Saturation Pressure.
live oil = A( dead oil)
A and B are functions of the solution gas oil ratio (RS).

Beggs & Robinson and Chew & Connolly both proposed equations for A and B which
are widely used and fairly reliable for a wide range of fluids.
Chew J and Connolly C A. A Viscosity Correlation for Gas Saturated Crude Oils.
Trans AIME 1959
Beggs H D and Robinson JR Estimating the Viscosity of Crude Oil Systems.
J PF Pet Tech. Sept 1975
H-0806.35
10-36
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Viscosity Above Saturation Pressure

For under-saturated systems as may be the case in wellbores or export pipelines the
viscosity at a given pressure can be determined from Vasquez correlation:
= live oil x (pressure/saturation pressure)
1.187
m is a function of pressure m = 2.6Pressure
[-0.000039Pressure 5]
x10
Vazquez A M E: Correlations for Fluid Physical Property Prediction.

M.S. Thesis, Tulsa University.
Blending / Commingling of Fluids
Viscosities of petroleum oils do not blend linearly but are weighted to the lighter
viscosity oils. Methods are available for blend fluids, which were developed for
petroleum products. However they have proved reliable for a wide range of crude oils
providing the crudes behave as Newtonian fluids.
The commonly employed method suitable for crude oils and condensates is the W.A.
Wright ASTM D341 blending model.
For waxy non-Newtonian fluids at low temperatures or where fluids below their cloud
points are blended resulting in temperature change the resultant viscosity cannot be
predicted. Here the effects of changing the solubility of the wax or in very waxy fluids
the change in shear history can only be assessed though laboratory or field measurement.
10.4.4 Design Considerations
An accurate description of the fluid flow behavior is essential for predicting friction
factors, heat transfer rates and pressure drops. They will dictate flow regime,
determining whether flow is laminar or turbulent, gas- liquid holdup and multiphase flow
regimes.
Fortunately most crude oils exhibit are relatively easy to handle. However, they may still
exhibit some non-Newtonian behaviors at temperatures below the cloud point but these
rarely present significant pumping problems.
Waxy crude oils with high pour points such as those from S.E. Asia can exhibit severe
non-Newtonian behaviors presenting extreme handing difficulties. The oil may become
too viscous to pump especially at low throughputs or during a shut in the oil may even
H-0806.35
10-37
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
solidify requiring a finite pressure before flow even begins. This behavior may also
impact crude oil processing, storage and shipping.
Steady State Flow
Pour point is a poor indicator of flow behavior with many oils successfully flowed at
temperatures significantly below the pour point. The key parameter is dynamic viscosity.
Viscosity is sensitive to changes in temperature and pressure but can also be sensitive to
flow rate. The in-situ dynamic viscosities can be estimated from stock tank oil viscosity
data then adjust for the effect of solution gas and pressure, using empirical correlations
given in section 10.4.3.
These procedures and correlations are reliable providing the fluids remain Newtonian.
So is the fluid Newtonian at the conditions of interest? Fortunately most oils behave in a
predictable Newtonian fashion above the cloud point, although this may not be the case
for emulsions or slurries (see section 10.4.1).
Validation of Newtonian behavior can be determined from laboratory generated flow
curves (see section 10.6). PVT or kinematic viscosity data are not suitable. For
Newtonian fluids the standard Reynolds Number (N RE) and friction factor equations can
be used adjusted for liquid holdup and flow regime in multiphase flow.
If the fluids cool below the cloud point, wax will crystallize and non-Newtonian behavior
may be encountered. The point at which the behavior starts to deviate from Newtonian
will depend on the amount and rate of wax crystallization or other solids content. This
transition temperature can be established from the convergence of slopes of log() versus
temperature.
The relationship between viscosity, temperature, solution gas and pressure can start to
deviate from expected values and the correlations break down. Vis cosity will not only be
dependent on temperature but also upon the shear rates or flow regimes applied to it and
even past handling. The viscosity will become increasingly difficult to predict as the
temperature decreases and solid wax phase increases.
Experimental data should always be used where the fluids exhibit non-Newtonian
behavior. Fortunately most oils are relatively fluid even at temperatures significantly
below the cloud point. These can then be described by a series of temperature dependent
shear thinning power law equations. Apparent viscosity at any given temperature and
H-0806.35
10-38
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
shear rate can be interpolated from these models. These analyses can then be handled in
a conventional manner. However, very waxy oils can exhibit very complex flow
properties (see section 10.4.1.) requiring a thorough characterization and complex design
calculations.
Handling Moderately Waxy Non-Newtonian Behaviors
Frictional pressure drop calculations with non-Newtonian fluids can be handled in several
ways.
Assumed Newtonian Fluid.
Here fluid is considered Newtonian for calculating NRE, friction factors and pressure
drops. Viscosity is assumed not to vary with flow or shear rate. Therefore a different
viscosity temperature relationship must be used for each flowrate being examined.
As viscosity does vary with shear, the viscosity data used must be correctly matched to
the shear rate in the field.
8v Under laminar flow conditions Newtonian shear rates are given by:
d
Where v = fluid velocity or two-phase mixture velocity.
=
However, for a shear thinning fluid the shear rate is also a function of the fluid properties.
In these cases the shear rate must be adjusted by the shear thinning index n.
8v 3n - 1
x
d 4n
n is the slope of a logarithmic plot of shear stress versus 8V/d.

Note: for Newtonian fluids n = 1 and shear rate reverts to 8V/d
Under turbulent flow conditions appropriate shear rates and viscosities can be obtained
through iteration of pressure drop vs. viscosity values in the line. Here the shear rate can
be back calculated from the apparent viscosity via the wall stress w. w can be determined
for a given P and apparent viscosity from the power law description of the fluid.
The effects of non Newtonian behavior on shear rate can be generally ignored unless the
fluids are extremely shear thinning (n <0.5).
H-0806.35
10-39
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The appropriate viscosity data can then be selected for a given shear rate and a viscosity
temperature relationship established. Reynolds numbers and friction factors can be
calculated assuming the fluids are Newtonian and a separate viscosity temperature
description used for each distinct flowrate.
Power Law Model
The assumed Newtonian model is generally adequate for low pour point oils. However, a
more actuate method is to use shear thinning parameters in calculating NRE and friction
factors.
The shear thinning index (n) can have a significant effect on Reynolds number, viscosity
and friction factors. Shear rates are not directly used in the calc ulations but used in the
data analysis to determine apparent viscosity and n.
Reynolds number can be redefined based on the apparent viscosity :
4n 8v
= K

3n - 1 d
n-1
N Re
d 4n d
=
x
K 3n 1 8v
n 1
or
Re P L
(2- n )d n
=
8( n-1) K
NRe can be expressed as:

In laminar flow the Fanning friction factor is used where:
f =
16
N
Re P L
1
4.07
2.65
d
=
log + 6.0 f
n
n
2
In turbulent rough flow the Torrance equation is used:
Power law models are normally obtained from laboratory viscosity data at several
discrete temperatures. Careful interpolation of this is essential to ensure an accurate
description of the oil at intermediate temperatures required in the pipeline simulation.
H-0806.35
10-40
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Time dependence and fluid history

Waxy fluids at low temperatures can also exhibit time dependent thixotropic behavior
and a dependency on past thermal and shear history. Here the viscosity at a given
temperature or point in a line can be influenced by the flowrates and temperature profiles
previously experienced. Details for these behaviors are given in section 10.4.1.
These behaviors are not easily modeled. The solution is to use a number of viscosity
behavior data sets matched to process conditions obtained from a specifically designed
fluid. The Reynolds numbers and friction factors can then be determined for each set of
behaviors.
Handling Very Waxy Crude Oils.
Very waxy fluids can produce some unexpected phenomenon in especially in singlephase export lines. Here the viscous highly and shear thinning nature of the oil at low
temperatures can result in exceptionally high-pressures at low flow rates. In some cases
the maximum pressure drop can occur in laminar flow at low throughputs.
A
D
Pressure
Very Waxy Oil

Newtonian Oil
C
Flowrate
Figure 10.4-9: Effects of Shear Thinning on Frictional Pressure
Figure 10.4-9 illustrates the potential effects a waxy fluid may have on a single-phase
export pipeline. The line is insulated and cools from a high inlet temperature to an
ambient of 40F. Three fluids are illustrated; a non waxy oil Newtonian over the entire
pipeline temperature profile, a black oil exhibiting some shear thinning behavior at low
temperatures, and a very waxy crude.
H-0806.35
10-41
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
At high throughputs (A) a significant proportion of the line is relatively warm and the
flow is fully turbulent. The resultant pressure drops are similar for each fluid. As
flowrates are reduced more of the line will have cooled to ambient temperature resulting
in higher viscosities and pressures. At a given point the combination of reduced flow
velocity and increased viscosity will result in a transition to laminar flow (point B)
towards the exit end of the line. This transition is most likely to occur at much higher
throughputs for the waxy oil which exhibits the high viscosities.
Once in laminar flow, pressure drop is directly proportional to viscosity and flowrate. As
flowrates reduce the viscosity increases thus the pressure drop may be higher than
anticipated (Point C). This behavior is compounded by the increase length of line at
ambient temperature at low throughputs. In the case of the waxy oil this behavior can
lead to a surprising effect where the pressure drop becomes exceeding high (Point D) due
to very high viscosities over a significant length of the line.
This behavior will impact line sizing. Smaller diameters yield higher shear for a given
flowrate and a warm temperature profile both resulting in lower viscosities. There are
examples of lines sized for waxy fluids according to the viscosity under high shear
turbulent conditions. Unfortunately the frictional pressures at low throughputs exceeded
the design pressure of the systems and design throughputs could not be achieved without
retrofit or remediation.
The effects of sample history can also be significant. Upstream process conditions can
have a big impact on the downstream low temperature flow behavior. In addition
laboratory data can be easily misinterpreted or conducted under inappropriate conditions.
It is therefore critical when dealing with very waxy fluids to ensure the data is
appropriate to field conditions and the effects of time dependency are accounted for.
There are several successful methods for reducing the effects of viscosity and the degree
of non-Newtonian behavior. These include modifying the system design to keep the
fluids warmer and at higher shear and modifying the fluid viscosity with chemicals or
processing. These methods are discussed in section 10.4.5.
Transients/Restart
The shutdown of a pipeline or flowline is usually determined by events other than the
flow conditions in the line. However, in the case of very waxy crudes there may be a
condition where the increasing viscosity or dynamic yield stresses at low throughputs
may result in a premature shutdown as available pumping or design pressures are
H-0806.35
10-42
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
exceeded. In effect the behavior described in section 10.4.1 may dictate a minimum
throughput for a waxy oil pipeline. If this condition occurs restart may not be easily
achieved without some form or remediation or treatment (see section 10.4.5)
The major concern for most pipelines is whether the oil will gel following shutdown, and
if so, can the line be restarted. Following a shutdown it is important to determine if the
oil could potentially solidify at the minimum environmental conditions. Pour points are
useful indicates of potential solidification. If the pour points are near or above minimum
ambient temperature then the yield stresses must be determined.
Yield stress can be translated into pipeline restart pressure by the following equation.
Yield Stress wall =
Pressure x diameter
4 x length
As with other waxy fluid flow properties, yield stress is dependent on wax structure
development and can therefore be effected by the conditions prior to and during the
shutdown. Reduced throughputs prior to shutdown will result in different temperature
and shear profiles and potentially different fluid behavior than if the operating at full
production rates. The external environment can also exert an influence other than final
temperature. Higher cooling rates during specific periods such as storms or winter ice
melts and wind chill may all influence gelation and restart. Note that wind chill does not
lower the final ambient temperature, rather it accelerates the heat losses to the
environment as if exposed to a lower temperature.
If sufficient pressure is available to easily overcome the yield stresses of a line fully
packed with gelled oil then further analysis is not required. However, if the yield stress
give rise to cause for concern then following should be considered:
The yield stress at one end of the line may be different to that at the other.
On shut down the fluids at one end of a pipeline are likely to undergo a different
thermal and shear history than the fluids at the other. At the inlet the fluids are likely
to be warm. On shutdown these fluid will have undergone a short history of cooling
under shear followed by static cooling to ambient if the shut- in is long enough.
Fluids at the exit end will experience a very different history. They will have
undergone a different temperature profile all under shear/flow conditions. At any
point along the line the fluids will have been subjected to intermediate thermal and
shear profiles.
Laboratory analysis may show that a single yield stress value for the entire line is
inappropriate.
H-0806.35
10-43
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The fluids rarely cool to the minimum design temperature.

In reality the minimum design temperature may only be achieved infrequently or for
short periods. On shutdown the fluids will take a finite time to cool to the minimum
temperature. The cooling rate can be fairly slow if the line is insulated or buried
where the thermal mass of the surrounding soil will maintain heat for some
considerable time. In these cases the oil is likely never to experience the absolute
minimum temperature and a seasonal average minimum would be more appropriate.
There is a time in which restart can be initiated.

Yield stress is a function of temperature. In a production system which is cooling
there will be a finite time following a shut- in before a critical length of the line falls
below a critical temperature and the averaged yield stress in the line exceeds the
available pressure. In an insulated or buried line this can be in order of days
dependent on environmental and seasonal conditions. As most unplanned shut downs
are of short duration <24 hours. There are potential opportunities to use this time
frame to displace the line. With planned shut downs the fluids can be pre-treated or
displaced. Pipelines with significant lengths at isothermal conditions at ambient
temperature will not benefit from this.
Multiphase flowlines are no t full of gelled oil.

On shutdown the oil in a multiphase line will drain and accumulate at low points.
Assuming the fluids totally fill the line at these points the total length of potentially
gelled oil will only equivalent to the liquid holdup. The available pressure is
therefore applied over a shorter length and a much high yielding stress can be
generated. Additionally, the light ends and dissolved gas in the live fluids will
solubilize some of the waxes resulting in weaker structures and lower pour points.
Flow Development
Following the shutdown of a pipeline the available pressures may be sufficient to
overcome the yield stress and initiate flow, but the pressure required to re-establish full
production rates may be substantially higher.
In a waxy crude oil line the thixotropic characteristics of the fluid will dictate the rate at
which the flow will develop. If the rate of decay of viscosity and increase in flowrate are
insufficient to displace these cold viscous fluids with fresh warm oil prior to this fresh oil
also cooling and becoming sufficiently viscous, it may not be possible to re-established
full production rates. Such cases have occurred during winter months whereby full
production could not be achieved until the environment had warmed sufficiently during
the following spring.
Methods to alleviate restart problems are presented in section 10.4.5
H-0806.35
10-44
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Storage / Shipping
Flow properties are also important to storage and shipping. Here the available forces to
move viscous or gelled oil are much lower than in a pipeline. In a static storage or
shipping vessel it is crucial that the oil does not solidify. In these cases it is appropriate
to maintain fluids above the pour point.
Viscosity is also crucial dictating rates of discharge (export pumps have limited suction)
and stirring. Shear thinning behavior can compound high viscosity problems, as the
shear rates within the tanks are very low.
High pour point waxy fluids should always where possible be stored in heated stirred
tanks. Where this is not possible the fluids should be kept circulated between vessels, or
discharged before cooling below the pour point
Another significant problem associated with waxy oil storage is sludge formation. Here
over time wax particles will settle out under gravity forming a viscous waxy layer at the
bottom of the tank. The sludge can be purely waxy oil but is more usual to be a
combination of waxy oil sediment and water in an emulsified form. This layer is very
difficult to discharge often requiring ma nual efforts.
The formation of sludges has a significant cost element associated with them, not just
attributed to clean up and operational expense. A large tanker may be unable to
discharge this sludge which could account of 0.1 percent of the loaded cargo. For a
VLCC this could amount to a days production from a medium sized field.
In many large shipping vessels it is common to prevent the formation of waxy layers
through maintaining the oil temperature above the cloud point. Thus no wax particles are
formed. This too has its own set of problems resulting in significant vapor pressures,
flash point concerns and loss of lighter ends.
The rate of sludge formation is difficult to predict but the rate of wax settling is governed
by Stokes Law. Here the lower the viscosity and greater the density different between
the solid wax particles and the liquid oil the faster the settling. Fortunately the density
difference is small and a stirred tank or circulation within and between tanks is usually
sufficient to prevent any sediments from forming.
H-0806.35
10-45
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Storage temperature is therefore important; maintaining the oil at a high temperature will
reduce the viscosity thus increasing the rate of any settling. While storing at low
temperature, increases the risk of gelation if the heating or circulation systems fail.
Crude Oil Processing and Monitoring
Viscous waxy oils can be difficult to process partly due to the high viscosities and partly
to the suspended solids content.
Separation of water is often a major problem requiring high temperatures or long
residence times coupled with chemical demulsifiers. Dehydration studies and chemical
demulsifier screening are strongly recommended for waxy oils at the design stage, as
retrofit is very costly. Waxy sludges can also form and begin to fill separators if
residence times are too long.
In addition to crude dehydration, water clean up to meet oil in water discharge
specifications can also prove difficult. Again this should be addressed through separate
studies at the design stage.
Chemicals used to mitigate flow problems such as pour point depressants (PPDs) can be
detrimental to separation. Chemical selection studies should always check compatibility
not just with other production chemicals but also with processing.
Waxy oils can also cause problems in heat exchangers. As well as fouling with
deposition (see section 10.5.4) suspended wax particles and viscous or semi- gel slugs can
block the inlets to both heaters and coolers. Plate heat exchangers are particularly
vulnerable to this type of plugging.
Filters and injectors for crude oil driven engines are also susceptible to plugging with
suspended wax particles or gelled oil. These issues become prevalent when pigging a
waxy oil line. Here in addition to the solid deposited wax removed from the wall, slugs
of gelled oil and suspended wax particles carried ahead of the pig cause significant
process upsets. These normally only manifest them once the system is on production.
Solutions will be specific to each case, but generally filters are removed and problem
areas bypassed when a pig is due to arrive.
H-0806.35
10-46
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Impact of gelled oil on safety instrumentation

Take-off and dead legs for pressure monitoring or relief will contain static oil which is
likely to solidify if cooled below the pour point, even if the main line is still flowing. In
most cases if these lines are short pressure will still be transmitted through the gel.
However, if the lines are long and/or the gel is very strong the pressure wave will be
dissipated. In critical areas such as safety relief and pressure integrity systems it is
recommended to trace heat the relevant lines.
Metering can also be affected. There are several meter types which cannot handle
viscous waxy oils or suspended wax particles. If the oil is shear thinning the viscosity at
low flow rates may be out of range for a turbine meter installed to deal with low
viscosities as experienced at high flow rates.
Although waxy fluids can impact crude oil processing, the processing often has a
substantial impact on the downstream flow properties of waxy oils. The fluids will
experience thermal and shear profiles through the process train, which may effect wax
structure development. Very different flow properties can be experienced depending on
the temperature the oil is heated to in the separator. A change of 10C in separator
temperature can bring about changes of orders of magnitude in the downstream pour
points and low temperature viscosities (see section 4.1)
Where waxy fluids are sensitive to handling and past history the fluid analysis should
incorporate all the relevant information on likely process conditions to ensure the
resulting fluid properties are relevant
10.4.5 Mitigation Strategies
Most low wax content low pour point crude oils will not present any handling problems
either in steady state flow or on start- up. Providing any non-Newtonian behavior is
accounted for in the design calculations there is little need for any fluid property
modifications or contingency for remediation on start- up.
High pour point waxy oils or where fluids may present pumping or restart problems can
be handled in a number of ways. The methods chosen will depend on the physical
properties of the fluids and the environment in which they are to be handled. Generally
these are either in form of modification to the production system design or modifying the
fluid properties. Often the optimum solution is combination of the two. However, many
problems have been encountered because of insufficient consideration to the fluids low
temperature behavior or lack of data.
H-0806.35
10-47
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Prevention System Design

Many of the problems associated with handling waxy oil can be successfully alleviated
through system design. If the fluid properties are well characterized and their impact on
pumpability understood then the following options may be appropriate.
Available pressure: The pumping pressures available should be sufficient to overcome
the yield stresses at the minimum environmental temperatures and be able to re-establish
full production rates.
Line sizing: The larger the diameter of the line the greater the maximum yielding stress
that be applied for a given pressure. Although potentially easier to restart, a larger line
may be detrimental to steady state flow conditions. Here lower fluid velocities and shear
rates and cooler thermal profiles can compound high viscosity behavior.
Insulation: Keeping the fluids warmer will reduce viscosities and the severity of nonNewtonian behavior. This is of significant benefit both in steady state flow and
following a shutdown. On shutdown, although the line will eventually cool to the
ambient temperature, the fluids will cool more slowly. Providing the shutdowns are
relatively short the window of opportunity to restart the line before the oil gels to strongly
can be extended.
Line Burial: Burial affords some insulation properties which will keep the fluids warmer
thus reducing the viscosities. Although not as effective as some insulation materials,
burial can offer significant advantages during shutdowns. Here the surrounding soil will
be warmed during normal production, which on shutdown will act as a thermal mass
further slowing the cooling rates in the line. Depth of burial and soil type will be critical
factors. Fully saturated soil especially were water is flowing (winter run-off from
mountain ranges) will be detrimental, significantly accelerating heat losses and cooling
rates.
Heating: Very high pour points fluids may have to be maintained at temperatures
substantially above ambient. This may only be achievable through some form of pipeline
heating.
Annual/Core Flow: The frictional pressures can be substantially reduced by using a low
viscosity lubricating layer adjacent to the pipe wall. The viscous or semi solid oil is
transported untreated as the core with water as the lubricating layer. This technology has
H-0806.35
10-48
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
been successfully applied but requires carefully monitoring of process and poses some
risks during prolonged shutdowns where the core may settle to the bottom of the pipe.
Alternative schemes: Alternative production strategies, i.e. offloading to heated shuttle
tankers through short productions lines, have been used as more cost effective than
insulation or heating a long export line.
Prevention Fluid Modification
Waxy crude oils are generally sensitive to past history and handling in which the fluid
flow properties can vary widely (see sections 10.4.1). In these cases it is probable the
fluid properties can be modified to yield lower viscosities, pour points and yield stresses.
If the oil is non-waxy or not sensitive to handling then modification of the fluid flow
properties, other than dilution, will be more difficult.
Dilution: Waxy oils can be diluted with solvents or production fluids from adjacent nonwaxy wells or fields. The amount of dilution to achieve pumpable viscosities or
reduction in yield stress can vary from a few percent to over 50 percent diluent. Studies
to determine optimal amounts will be required; the blending correlations (section 10.4.2)
can be used as an initial guide. The success and economics will depend on the local
availability of the diluent. In some cases solvent recycling has been used, with the
solvent transported back along a dedicated line.
It is absolutely critical that the solvents or diluent are compatible with the waxy oil.
Dilution with paraffinic solvents can lead to instability and precipitation of asphaltenes
especially in low asphaltene content oils. Lowering of viscosity can also accelerate the
build-up of solid wax layers on pipe walls (see section 10.5).
Emulsification: The apparent viscosity of very viscous oils can be substantially reduced
by forming a water external emulsion as in the case of Orimulsion. However, significant
process problems in both forming and breaking stable emulsions and in general
processing may be encountered. Substantial amounts of surfactants may also be required.
Thermal Treatment: A waxy oils low temperature viscosity and pour point can often be
reduced by heating the oil above a predetermined temperature. This can be used to
advantage during processing prior to transportation or export. Dedicated crude oil
heaters or even the temperature of separation can be adjusted to potentially achieve a
lower viscosity state.
H-0806.35
10-49
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
This method has been successfully used for export lines where increases in separation
temperature reduced the need for chemical treatments. In some cases the fluids have
required complex temperature cycling and the addition of mechanical shear (Nahorkatiya
field is an example). Laboratory studies will be needed to identify suitable process
conditions to achieve a low viscosity state and the sensitivity to changes or upsets in the
process.
Microbes: Long chain paraffin molecules can be digested by bacteria resulting in a
lightening of the viscosity. More commonly used as an enhanced oil recovery
mechanism the microbes are squeezed into the near wellbore region of the reservoir and
allow to establish a sizable population prior to bringing production back on-line. Due to
this method of application and the rate of generation of microbe population this
technology is more suited to low production and stripper wells and may have to be
repeated frequently.
Chemical: Low dosage chemicals are widely available to treat waxy oils and reduce
viscosity pour point and yield stress values. These chemicals are generally wax crystal
modifiers or wax dispersants. They will only be effective on waxy fluids below the cloud
point and cannot effect the viscosity above the cloud point or of non-waxy oils. These
chemicals have a number of potential benefits but when used to modify the low
temperature flow properties they are generally referred to as Pour Point Depressants
(PPDs).
Effectiveness and selection of PPDs are crude oil specific. Therefore, a screening and
performance study will be required. Selection of the chemicals' ability to reduce pour
point alone is no guarantee as to its performance at reducing viscosities and yield stress.
These parameters must be incorporated into a screening program and performance
specifications should be matched to the system parameters. The same data is required of
the treated oil as for any other fluid. The procedures and behaviors outlined in section
10.4.2 should still be followed.
PPDs are most effective at reducing the low temperature viscosities and yield stresses.
They will reduce the degree of non-Newtonian behavior thus having a greater impact on
the low shear low flowrate behavior. If the high temperature and/or the high shear
viscosities appropriate to full production are of concern then PPDs are unlikely to be as
effective as modifying the system design.
H-0806.35
10-50
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
PPDs are generally successful at reducing viscosities and yield stresses at dosage
concentrations of between 50 and 2000 PPM although the majority of usage has been
optimized to between 200 to 500 PPM depending on the concentration of and category of
active ingredient.
Deployment of these chemicals can cause problems. They can be waxy fluids and can
solidify at low temperatures. To be effective they need to be injected into the oil stream
above the cloud point ideally at the wellhead or downhole. Thus they may require
significant dilution if deployed via a long umbilical. Careful umbilical selection will be
required to ensure that sufficient quantities of the active chemical can be delivered and
that the chemical is compatible with all materials.
PPDs are also used to meet tanker, storage and trunk line entry specifications. Often
these are little more than a pour point requirement and have little relevance to the
viscosity or restart ability. If a chemical is needed to meet such a requirement placed on
the export oil then consideration should be given to achieving maximum benefit from the
product in the upstream production system.
Remediation
Occasionally pumping problems due to waxy oils are unexpectedly encountered either in
the form of excessive pressure drop and restricted throughput or through inability to
restart following a shut- in. Equally a new waxy discovery may be routed through an
existing system which may not be able to handle the viscous or high pour point nature of
the fluid. Methods to alleviate pumpability problems will depend on the nature of the
problem being encountered.
Not all increases in frictional pressure are caused by the viscous non-Newtonian behavior
of waxy oils. The line may be plugging due to deposition of waxes (section 10.5) or
other solids. Plugging due to deposition is usually associated with a gradual but
consistent increase in pressure in areas subjected to heat loss. Whereas viscosity related
problems are associated with an equilibrium increase in pressure. If a line plugged
following a shut- in were it cooled below the pour point it is highly probable the oil
gelled. If however, it plugged while it is likely to be caused by deposition of solid wax
(section 10.5)
If the line is flowing but the throughput is restricted or falling due to viscous waxy oil
there are a number of options available.
H-0806.35
10-51
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Never stop or reduce the flowrate even if the waxy oil is commingled. This could
result in gelation or a significant increase in viscosity as shear rates and temperature
profiles fall.
Chemical treatment in the form of PPDs or solvent dilution will reduce viscosities
and friction pressure drops. They can be rapidly deployed to solve an immediate
problem, then optimized for regular use.
Heating the input crude may be sufficient to raise the temperature profile and avoid
the non-Newtonian behavior. This option is unlikely to be of benefit in long or
uninsulated lines.
If the line is shut-in and cannot be restarted with the available pressure:
Maintain maximum pressure across the line and wait. Gelled oil will often creep and
can be slowly displaced. Ensure the displacement fluid is of a low viscosity,
preferably treated water. Restart may have to wait until environmental temperatures
warm.
Heating may be used. If the gelled oil can be warmed by applying external heat to the
pipeline the yield stresses will be reduced. The oil does not have to be warmed to
above the pour point but sufficient to reduce the yield stress to that available for
restart.
Intervention into the line via taps or coil tubing has been successful in restarting
gelled oil lines. The line can be sectioned effectively shorting the line and increasing
the applied yield stress. Displacement with solvents or lighter oils is recommended.
Intervention can also be used to locally introduce heat, mechanical shear or chemicals
to break-up the gel structure.
Blowdown for multiphase lines reducing the pressure will expand and evolve gas
from the liquid phase. This gas expansion is likely to break any gel structures and
mobilize the oil.
Retrofit
If the system cannot achieve design throughputs or cannot be restarted due to waxy oil
behavior then retrofit or treatment of the fluids will be required.
Replace or upgrade the system. The export pumps and sections of the production
system could be upgraded or resized to adequately handle the fluid properties. This
could include insulation or burial, which will improve the steady state frictional
pressures as the line, will operate warmer. However, they do not afford ultimate
protection in the event of a shut down.
Modification of the fluid properties is commonly adopted, see section 10.4.5. This
can be achieved by dilution, thermal treatment or more usually via the use of flow
improver additives such as PPDs. These offer advantages in that they can be
H-0806.35
10-52
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
optimized according to the production rates and environmental conditions. In many

cases the problems only occur during winter months.
Strong magnetic fields are claimed to affect wax crystallization resulting in viscosity
reduction. Fluids flow through a strong magnetic field generated by either permanent
or electro- magnets. Research and field experiences are inconclusive as to their
effectiveness and there exists no method of evaluating their performance prior to
installation. Therefore, they may provide a relatively low cost retrofit for a particular
application if they work. But they are not yet reliable enough to incorporate in to a
preventative design strategy
Start- up Strategy: Often if full production rates can be established there is no

requirement for additional heat, insulation or chemical treatments. It is the transient
conditions especially shutdowns and restarts that give rise to these requirements.
At initial commissioning and start-up the line could be preheated by pumping hot water.
The waxy oil could also be heated during this initial stage until equilibrium temperature
conditions are established. Dilution or the use of PPDs can also be very effective here.
During periods of planned shutdowns or low production the fluids can again be
chemically treated or diluted or even displaced with a non-waxy oil or treated water.
Unplanned shutdowns require special consideration, as fluids already in the line cannot
be treated. If the line is insulated or buried there is a probability that a significant length
is warm and above the pour point. Here there will be a finite time before a significant
length of the line will have cooled to form a gel of sufficient strength that it cannot be
restarted. Fortunately most unplanned shutdowns are relatively short <24hours and the
line can be restarted as the gel has not yet fully developed. The level of insulation and
production rates prior to shutdown will dictate the time window available. Ideally this
should be in the order of several days to a week or longer.
During a prolonged shut down it may still be possible to apply pressure and/or partly
displace the oil. This may have to be achieved with separate pumps. The introduction of
shear even for short periods will partly degrade the gel structure reducing the yield stress
and prolonging the time window.
10.4.6 HSE
The safe operation of a production system is dependent on understanding the fluid
behavior and design capabilities of the system. If the implications of transporting waxy
fluids are not fully considered pipeline blockage and even rupture may occur. The
handling of waxy crude oils gives rise to additional HSE implications above and beyond
the handling of crude oils and multiphase hydrocarbon production streams. Chemicals
H-0806.35
10-53
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
may be required to treat the oil. With good design practice the risks posed by these issues
can be fully assessed and minimized.
The following issues are specific to waxy oils.
Gelled oil in dead legs to instrumentation can dissipate or prevent transmission of

pressure. This could impact pressure monitoring and safety relief systems. Where
gelation could be an issue for these lines heat tracing is recommended.
Gelled oil within a pipeline that cannot be restarted poses risks to the environment.
There is a potential for fluid escape if the line has to be entered. Equally there is a
potential for leakage if the line is abandoned full of gelled oil.
Any blockage within a system has the potential for generating high local pressures
with pose a risk to pipeline integrity. Very strong gels can support high differential
pressures for short periods.
Waxy sludges formed in the bottom of storage and ships tanks may have to be
eventually dug out by hand.
Heating hydrocarbons to prevent or alleviate wax problems will lead to higher vapor
pressures and flash point concerns.
The use of chemicals and solvents to treat waxy oils also leads to a number of HSE
concerns. While most wax inhibitors themselves are generally of low toxicity many
contain substantial proportions of aromatic solvents required to facilitate deployment.
Here unless the products are sufficiently dilute they can block delivery systems and
umbilicals. At typical treatment rates significant quantities of these products must be
shipped and stored onsite on a regular basis. In some cases the cold flow
characteristics required these products to the stored in heated tanks. Most solvent
systems have a high flash point and are carcinogenic.
Any chemical treatments or oil heat must be compatible with all materials they come
in contact with both in the physical pipes and seals and other production chemicals.
Wax inhibitors tend to be incompatible with methanol.
Waxy oils and the use of inhibitors can have detrimental effects on dehydration and
on the quality of the oil in water discharge specs. Here it is essential that chemical
treatments are compatible with the whole process.
10.4.7 Further Reading

Fluid Characterization
L.T. Wardhaugh & D.V Boger, Measurement of the Unique Flow Propertied of Waxy
Crude Oils, Chem. Eng. Res Des., Vol. 65, Jan. 1987
Han Petter Ronningsen, Rheological Behavior of Gelled Waxy North Sea Crude Oils,
Journa l of Petroleum Science & Engineering, 7, 1992
H-0806.35
10-54
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
T.C Davenport & R.S Somper, The Yield Value and Breakdown of Crude Oil Gels,
Journal of Institute of Petroleum, Vol. 57, No. 554, March 1971
Chang C & Boger D, Influence of Thermal History on the Waxy Structure of Statically
Cooled Waxy Crude Oils, SPE 57959
Sifferman T R, Flow Properties of Difficult to Handle Waxy Crude Oils, JPT, Aug. 1979
Barnes H A., Thixotropy A Review, Journal of Non-Newtonian Fluid Mech., Vol. 70,
No. 1, 1997
Pipeline Design
Wardaugh and Boger, Flow Characteristics of waxy crude oils: application to pipeline
design, AIChE Journal, Vol 37, June 1991
Ells J W & Brown V R R, The Design of Pipelines to Handle Waxy Crude Oils, Journal
of Inst of Pet., Vol. 57, No 555, 1971
Perkins T K & Tur ner J B, Starting Behaviour of Gathering Lines and Pipelines Filled
with Gelled Prodhoe Bay Oil, JPT, 301, March 1971
Mitigation
Russel R.J. & Chapman E.D., The Pumping of 85F Pour Point Assam (Nahorkatiya)
Crude Oil at 65F, J. of Inst. of Pet. Vol. 57, No. 117, 1971
Mike H F and Norway F, Thermally Insulated Pipelines Successfully Move High-WaxContent Crude Offshore Gabon, Oil & Gas Journal, Vol. 25, No. 179, 1982
El-Eman N & Bayoumi A., A Study on the Suitable Techniques for Improving the Flow
Properties of the Egyptian Waxy Crude Oils, Revue De Inst Francais Du Petrole, Vol. 48,
No. 4
Brod M Deane B C & Rossi F., Field Experience with the Use of Additives in the
Pipeline Transportation of Waxy Crudes, Journal of the Inst. Of Petroleum, Vol. 57, No.
554, 1971
Price R C, Flow Improvers for Waxy Crudes, Journal of the Inst. Of Petroleum, Vol. 57,
No. 554, 1971
H-0806.35
10-55
1-Dec-00
10.5
DEEPSTAR
Solid Wax Deposition

Where conditions are favorable paraffin waxes can condense or deposit onto surfaces in
contact with the oil such as pipewalls and well tubing. Over time, the build-up of a solid
layer will reduce the internal diameter and eventually block the system. However,
operational problems are likely to be encountered much earlier than any blockage or
restriction. The waxy layers can be rough, increasing the surface roughness of the
pipewall. The resulting increase in friction pressure can effectively choke the system,
resulting in higher pumping costs or reduced throughput.
Fortunately total blockages of flowlines and pipelines due solely to wax build-up, are
relatively rare, but they do occur. Blockages can be more often attributed to
inappropriate remedial actions in attempting to clean partially restricted pipelines of wax.
Other apparent blockages have occurred due to restrictions coupled with the roughness
effect effectively choking and eventually killing a well even though the flow path is open.
Methods to manage deposition and avoid restrictions in throughput or productivity
decline have revolved around thermal insulation to maintain the system above the wax
formation envelop and/or mechanical intervention such as pigging to periodically remove
deposited wax. Where these techniques are difficult and expensive to implement
chemical inhibitors can be used to minimize the intervention requirements.
Traditional platform wells and on-shore fields enable relatively easy access into the
wellbore and flowlines thus wax can effectively be controlled through frequent
intervention. However, such access can become prohibitively expensive for remote
subsea wellheads.
Preventing wax formation through insulation also becomes
prohibitively expensive as flowline tieback distances increase. The optimal wax control
strategy will be a combination of inhibition and intervention striking a balance between
up- front capital expenditure and operation cost including downtime.
Controlling wax deposition in subsea production systems requires an estimate of how
much wax will deposit and where along with its impact on system hydraulic
performance over the production lifetime. In addition to this an understanding of the
efficiencies and limitations of the inhibition and remediation technologies are vital to
avoid nasty suspires. The following questions will be addressed in this section:
How does the wax deposit
Section 10.5.1
What fluid properties are required
Section 10.5.2
How is the data used
Section 10.5.3
H-0806.35
10-56
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
What is the impact on design and production
Section 10.5.4
How will the fluids behave during normal production
Section 10.5.1
How will the fluids beha ve during shut- in and start- up
Section 10.5.1
What are the appropriate mitigation strategies
Section 10.5.5
10.5.1 Deposition Mechanisms

The position and rate of wax build-up within a production system is governed by the fluid
properties, temperature and flow regimes. The processes are not fully understood and
other effects including aging (hardening with time) and surface properties may also be
influential.
Build-up rates are generally slow and can be considered a steady state process. This is
because the amount of wax that actually deposits and permanently sticks onto a surface is
only a small fraction of the total waxes crystallizing out of solution.
There are three main mechanisms governing the rate of transport of wax to the wall,
molecular diffusion, shear dispersion and gravity settling. However, shear stresses
imparted by the flow regimes act to strip deposition wax away from the deposit layer.
The amount of wax that sticks to the wall and builds up in to a solid layer will be
dependent on a combination of these mechanisms.
Molecular Diffusion.
Molecular diffusion describes the rate of transportation of dissolved wax in solution
towards the cooled surface. Here, wax has the potential to condense onto any cooled
surface, such as a pipewall, in contact with the oil providing the surface is below a critical
temperature (WAT or cloud point). The mechanism is akin to moisture in the air
condensing onto a cold window.
Figure 10.5-1 illustrates the process. Oil flowing in a pipeline under turbulent conditions
will consist of a uniform core and a thin laminar boundary layer adjacent to the wall.
Within the core velocity and temperature profiles are fairly uniform. However, a large
temperature and velocity gradient exists across the laminar boundary layer.
Where the pipewall cools to below the cloud point the oil flowing adjacent to the
pipewall will become fully saturated with dissolved waxes. These can then condense out.
H-0806.35
10-57
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Because the pipewall is inherently rough, it provides suitable nucleation sites and the
precipitated waxes become incorporated into an immobile layer.
Figure 10.5-1: Molecular Diffusion

As wax is precipitated, the oil layer adjacent to the wall becomes depleted of wax and a
concentration gradient of dissolved waxes is established across the laminar layer. The
waxes in the core will therefore diffuse towards the wall where they will subsequently
precipitate. In laminar flow the process is identical expect the boundary layer extends to
the center of the pipe.
The rate of diffusion of waxes to the wall is dependent on the diffusivity of the waxes in
the oil and the radial concentration gradient of wax across the pipe. Ficks Law defines
this.
n md = ? w D md
dC w
dr
where :
n md
mass flux of wax to surface (kg/cm 2 )
?w
density of wax (kg/m 3 )
D md
diffusion coefficien t (cm 2 /s)
dC w
dr
H-0806.35
concentrat ion gradient of wax to pipewall
10-58
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The diffusion coefficient can be determined empirically and is inversely proportional to

the oils' viscosity. Here as the oil cools and the viscosity increases, the diffusion of wax
is inhibited. Methodologies to calculate the diffusion rate are discussed in sections 10.5.2
and 10.5.3.
The radial concentration gradient can be calc ulated from the phase behavior of the waxes
(see section 10.3) and the radial temperature gradient across the pipe, which is dependent
on the rate of heat loss from the oil through the pipewall.
Above the cloud point the oil is not saturated with waxes and the concentration gradient
is zero. However, as the temperature of the oil adjacent to the wall decreases waxes will
precipitate and the concentration gradient will attain a small finite value and deposition
will take place. Both the diffusion coefficient and the radial temperature/concentration
gradients decrease with decreasing temperature. Therefore, the diffusion rate will be at a
maximum where the oil is warm and tend to zero as the oil cools to ambient temperature.
Given the temperature gradients between the pipewall and bulk oil, the waxes can deposit
where the wall first cools below the cloud point even though the bulk oil is somewhat
warmer.
Shear Dispersion
When small particles, such as precipitated wax crystals, are suspended in a flowing fluid,
the particles tend to move with the mean speed and direction of the surrounding fluid.
However, the radial velocity gradient within the pipe induces a lateral movement of the
particles known as shear dispersion.
The wax particles can be transported from the high velocity field of the turbulent core to
a lower velocity field i.e. the pipewall. Figure 10.5-2 illustrates how wax particles are
moved towards the wall by the velocity gradient. At the wall the velocity is zero and the
particles can become incorporated into an immobile deposit.
H-0806.35
10-59
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 10.5-2: Shear Dispersion

For shear dispersion to occur precipitated wax particles must be present in the oil. The
parameters that affect shear dispersion are: the amount of precipitated wax in the oil, size
and shape of the wax particles the velocity gradient (shear rate) and the oil viscosity.
The rate of transport to the wall by shear dispersion is given by:
nsd = kC md ?
where :
2
nsd
mass flux of wax to surface (kg/cm )
shear dispersion rate constant (kg/cm 2 )
C md
concentrat ion of wax (%)
rate of shear (s -1 )
The dispersion rate constant can be determined empirically and is a function of the wax
particle morphology.
Shear dispersion becomes important at low temperature where a significant fraction of
wax has precipitated in the bulk oil and is possible where the fluids are at ambient
temperature. Increasing shear rates should increase the rate of transportation to the wall.
However, shear dispersion will not occur under conditions of no flow.
H-0806.35
10-60
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Gravity Settling
Precipitated wax particles can be of slightly higher density than the surrounding crude oil.
Therefore, in the absence of any agitation these particles will tend to settle under the
influence of gravity. As the density differences are small, under flowing conditions the
shear forces generally exceed the gravitational effect. Hence gravity settling is usually
associated with storage and bulk transportation as described in section 10.4.4.
The rate of settling is governed by stokes, the important parameters being the densities of
the liquid and solid phases and the oil viscosity.
Shearing / Sloughing
In addition to transporting wax to the wall (shear dispersion) the flow regime can provide
energy to remove deposited wax. If the wall shear stresses imposed by the flowing fluid
exceed the adhesive forces binding the wax layer together and/or to the wall, some or all
the wax can be stripped away. Generally the higher the wall shear stresses the slower the
wax layer build-up rate, contrasting with shear dispersion.
Waxes developing under high shear stresses tend be harder and more tenacious than those
formed under static or low shear fields. Here the softer loosely bound depositing waxes
are continuously stripped away.
Aging
It has been observed that depositing layers tend to harden and change in composition over
time. Fresh deposits tend to be soft and contain a high fraction (>80 percent) of entrapped
oil. Over time these deposits reorder and some of this entrapped oil is excluded, resulting
in a harder more tenacious layer. The mechanisms are still unclear and the effect is often
ignored. However, this may be of significance when considering infrequent cleaning
strategies where the wax may have be so hard and impervious that it proves difficult to
remove (see section 10.5.5).
Overall Deposition Mechanism
The actual deposition rate is a combination of all the above mechanisms. Laboratory and
field evidence indicates that deposition begins at the cloud point and on further cooling
rapidly attains a maximum rate. This then tails of to zero as the fluids cool as shown in
Figure 10.5-3.
H-0806.35
10-61
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Temperature
p
em
li T
O
te
Ra
n
o
siti
po
e
D
Cloud Point
Ambient Temp
Distance
Figure 10.5-3: Deposition Profile in Subsea Flowline

This behavior suggests that molecular diffusion is the rate-determining step transporting
wax to the pipewall. Here the temperature profile and rate of heat loss govern the
deposition rate. Shear dispersion appears to be negligible, as it should become prevalent
at temperatures significantly below the cloud point even where no temperature gradients
exist. No evidence of this has been found.
The effects of shear also dominate. Here the mechanical forces acting on the pipewall
imparted by the flow will govern the amount of wax that adheres and remains
incorporated into a waxy layer. Empirical evidence again suggests that shear dispersion
is insignificant as increasing shear rates restrict deposition growth as shown in Figure
10.5-4. The effect is most dramatic at low shear rates through to the transition from
laminar to turbulent flow. Here the deposited wax softer and more readily stripped away.
As flow becomes turbulent only the most tenacious waxes remain and growth is
substantially restricted.
H-0806.35
10-62
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Laminar
Deposition Rate
Turbulent
Flow / shear rate
Figure 10.5-4: Effect of Flow Rate on Deposition Rate
Flow Regime Effects

In multiphase oil and gas systems the flow regimes can have a dramatic effect. However,
these are still not yet fully understood. The following are a series of observations and
descriptions made for a number of commonly encountered flow regimes.
Single Phase Laminar
Laminar
Under laminar flow conditions wax layers tend to be
fairly soft and smooth containing a high oil fraction (>90
percent). The deposit is generally evenly distributed
around the circumference of the pipe. If flowrates
increase the growth rate is slowed and some of the softer
deposited wax can be removed.
H-0806.35
10-63
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Single Phase Turbulent

In single phase turbulent flow eddies and turbulent bursts
from the flowing core result in very highly localized wall
stresses, significantly greater than the average wall shear
stress. This tends to result in thinner harder wax layers
than expected. Here the wax layers contain a lower oil
fraction (40 - 80 percent) being fairly rough but again
evenly distributed around the circumference of the pipe.
Within the flow regime as flow rates increase the deposit
growth rate slows and the layer becomes harder.
Turbulent
Stratified Flow (smooth and wavy)

Deposition occurs only on the area of the wall wetted by
Stratified
the oil. Therefore, growth is predominately on the bottom
of the pipe. Wax can also be deposited where the oil
washes the upper surface, but is unlikely to deposit
directly from the gas phase. The deposited wax is fairly
soft and smooth similar to that deposited under single
phase laminar conditions. The rate and hardness of the
deposit will be regulated by the shear stress imposed by
the flow. Under stratified waxy flow it may be possible for the highest deposit growth
rates to be in the areas occasionally washed by the oil where the imposed stresses may
lower than in the area permanently contacted with oil.
Annular Mist Flow
Here a liquid film will contact the entire inner surface area
Annular Flow
of the pipe, therefore, a waxy layer will is likely to be
evenly distributed around the circumference. As the mass
flow of liquid oil and potential wax in the core is
relatively low, compared with single-phase flow, the rate
of deposition is likely to be slower. Due to the high shear
imparted by the high core velocity, deposits are likely to
be hard and tenacious, similar to that formed under singlephase turbulent flow. The deposit may also be inherently rough. Deposit growth is
unlikely to be affected by pipeline inclination even to the vertical (risers).
H-0806.35
10-64
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Dispersed Bubble Flow

Given the liquid oil is the predominant phase and the pipewall is entirely contacted with
the oil the gas bubbles are not likely to have a significant effect on deposition.
Depending on the liquid velocity the deposition will be similar to that imparted from
single-phase laminar or turbulent flow. Again inclination angle is unlikely to effect
deposit which flow is evenly distributed.
Intermittent Flow
Elongated Bubble (Plug)
Plug
Here large pockets of gas travel along the top of the pipe
with an average velocity of the liquid phase. The liquid
phase is likely to dominate the deposition rate with a
thicker deposit forming on where the pipewall is
permanently contacted with the oil (pipe bottom).
Towards the top of the pipe the intermittent liquid contact
time may reduce the deposition rate. The hardness of the
deposit form will be dominated by the stresses imposed by the bulk flowing oil. As in the
single-phase cases the deposit will become hardened and rougher with increasing flow
rate.
Slug Flow
Slug flow can be characterized by a period of relatively low
Slug
liquid flow followed by the rapid acceleration and
deceleration of oil slugs to the gas velocity. The flow
within these slugs can be extremely turbulent and will
dominate the formation of any deposit. Any deposit formed
in the relatively calm period between the slugs is likely to
be stripped away once the slug arrives. The high stresses
within the slug may be compounded by the action of entrapped gas bubbles that can
impact the bottom of the pipe at high velocities further eroding the deposit. Thus deposit
growth rates at the bottom of the pipe are likely to be lower and harder in nature than at
the top.
H-0806.35
10-65
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Churn Flow (Risers)

Churn Flow
As the liquid phase contacts the entire pipewall deposition
will be evenly distributed around the pipe circumference.
The growth rate and hardness will again be determined by
the shear imposed by the flow. In this case this will be
governed by the gas velocity (lifting the liquid). The
shear imposed can be relatively low. Also liquid oil can
flow both in the upward and downward directions
increasing the potential contact time. These effects are likely to result in a softer thicker
deposit than expected. Increasing gas velocity (gas lift) will increase shear and reduce
growth rates but harden deposits.
Live Oil Effects.

The above sections have dealt with the effects flow regime has on deposition through the
impact of mechanical shear. However, another aspect of multiphase flow is the effect of
pressure and light ends on the solubility of the waxes. These effects will occur in all the
flow regimes including single-phase flow.
The solubility of the waxes will be dependent on the solution GOR and system pressure
(as described in section 10.3). This will effect the amount of wax out of solution and the
concentration gradient of wax with respect to the pipewall at any given point in the
system. Thus influencing the rate of wax transportation to the wall by shear dispersion
and molecular diffusion respectively.
However, the gases and light-ends dissolved in the liquid oil will act to lighten the oil
viscosity. As the diffusivity term is inversely proportional to the viscosity this will act to
increase deposition rate.
The overall effect of GOR and pressure can be either an in crease or decrease due to these
two competing effects. However, it is usual to experience a fall in deposition rate with
increasing solution GOR.
Water
Paraffin waxes do not react with water, and the deposition process should not be effected,
except that:
H-0806.35
10-66
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Water increases the thermal capacity of the fluids resulting in higher temperature
profile thus effecting deposition.
In the form of an emulsion water can substantially increase the fluid viscosity
inhibiting deposition.
A water wet surface or water external emulsion may prevent wax from contacting the
wall.
These effects are uncertain and subject of research.

Impact on Hydraulic performance
Deposit wax layers will impact the performance of a production system in a the following
ways:
They will reduce the internal diameter restricting the available flow area.
Deposited waxy layers are inherently rough increasing the effective wall roughness.
They act as a thermal insulating layer.
The former two will effect the frictional pressure gradients. Under turbulent flow
conditions the roughness effect will dominate significantly increasing frictional pressure
long before any noticeable restriction in diameter. It is assumed that for relatively thin
deposits <10mms the roughness is equal to the thickness of the wax layer.
The latter effect is also important, as wax is an effective insulator. Here the thermal
profiles will change as wax is deposited. This may impact fluid temperatures, viscosities
and subsequent deposition rates. It is also of significance in heat exchangers where the
efficiency of oil coolers will be severely impaired.
Deposit Composition
At any given position (below the cloud point) along the length of the production system
the waxes precipitating from solution will have a specific Molecular weight distribution
depending on the temperature of the pipewall and bulk oil. The deposit will typically
exhibit a guassion distribution of n-paraffins. Figure 10.5-5 illustrates a HTGC analysis
of a deposit, showing the distribution of n-paraffins. The peak to the right hand side
represents the deposited waxes while the components to the left are the oil entrained in
the deposit (C 7 C20 ).
H-0806.35
10-67
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 10.5-5: HTGC Analysis of a Wax Deposit

The distribution of the waxes consists typically of 10 to 15 carbon chains and its peak is
dependent on the pipewall temperature. The higher the wall temperature the higher the
peak and average n-paraffin chain length of the waxes as shown in Figure 10.5-6. Thus
deposits laid down at a warm temperature will be different in composition to those
deposited near ambient temperature.
H-0806.35
10-68
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 10.5-6: Distribution of Carbon Number in Waxes Deposited at Different

Pipewall Temperatures.
Although the n-paraffins are the predominant species, the deposited waxes also consist of
branched (iso) and cyclic saturates. These are more difficult to analyze but are believed
to play an important role in initializing deposition. Deposits also contain a high
proportion of entrapped oil, the amount of which will depend on the rate of cooling and
the flow regime. Generally the more turbulent and higher the shear the less entrapment
of oil. It has been observed that soft deposits are of lower average Molecular weight and
contain a high proportion of entrapped oil.
10.5.2 Fluid Analysis
To assess where and when wax may deposit and to estimate the rate of deposition there
are a number of basic fluid properties that need to be obtained. The section below
outlines the basic fluid properties required and how they relate to assessing deposition in
a production system. Details of the techniques used are given in section 10.6.
As in the case of assessing fluid flow properties and the phase behavior of waxes it is
imperative that a good quality representative sample is obtained. It is also important that
H-0806.35
10-69
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
the sample is handled correctly to ensure that no waxes are lost during sub-sampling or
sample transfers.
To ensure correct waxing behavior it is important to restore the fluid to a condition it
would have during production. Here the fluids would start out at reservoir temperature
potentially with all the waxing in solution and gradually cool until waxes start to
precipitate. Therefore a pretreatment to condition the fluid is always recommended prior
to any testing. Suitable pre-treatments are outline in section 10.4.2 and 10.6.1.
Onset Conditions (Cloud Point)
Wax has the potential to deposit onto any surface that is being cooled and is below the
wax appearance or cloud point temperature.
Cloud points or wax appearance temperatures are usually determined experimentally on a
small sample of stock tank oil. With care the cloud point can be determined to within
5C. Although the effects of pressure and GOR can be measured they are usually
determined via a thermodynamic prediction tuned to the dead oil value. The methods
used to measure cloud point are discussed in section 10.3 and described in detail in
section 10.6.1.
Note. It is the deposition surface temperature that is important, deposition can occur onto
a cold surface even when the bulk oil temperature is above the cloud point.
Solid Wax Fraction Behavior
A measure of the solid wax fraction with respect to temperature is required to calculate
the wax concentration gradient for molecular diffusion (section 10.5.1). Wax content
alone is insufficient as it does not account for the effects of temperature and pressure.
A thermodynamic simulator is generally employed to predict the phase behave and yield
the solid fraction with respect to temperature oil composition and pressure. Details of the
fluid parameters needed together with a description of the predictive models are given in
section 10.3.3 and 10.3.4.
Oil Viscosity
Oil viscosity is a crucial parameter governing the rate of transport of wax by molecular
diffusion.
H-0806.35
10-70
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Once the oil has cooled below the cloud point solid wax is present and the oil can exhibit
non-Newtonian behavior. Here the oil viscosity will be dependent on flowrate as well as
temperature. Simple extrapolation of kinematic or PVT data obtained from above the
cloud point can seriously underestimate the viscosity at low temperatures.
Non-Newtonian viscosities should be determined for at shear rates appropriate to the
range of normal production rates. Transient flow periods and shut- ins are generally
ignored as wax deposition is considered a steady state flowing phenomena.
In addition to any shear rate dependency, other issues to consider in determining viscosity
include the oils' sensitivity to past thermal and shear history, any time dependent
behavior and the effect of solution gas and pressure.
Methodologies to measure non-Newtonian viscosities are detailed in section 10.4.2.
Deposition Rate Measurement
In order to estimate deposition growth in a production system a measure of the fluid's
tendency to deposit wax onto a surface is required. Although true diffusion coefficients
can be determined experimentally, the complex nature of crude oils and the combination
of shear rate effects require an alternative measure of the oils overall transport
mechanism incorporating shear dispersion and shear stripping. This is usually achieved
by measuring the rate of deposition in a laboratory or pilot plant scale test apparatus.
The are a number of test configurations commonly employed including simple cold
fingers where a cooled deposition surface is immersed into a reservoir of oil through to
large scale flowloops. The choice of which to use will depend on availability of samples
and level of data required. Test equipment and methodologies are described in section
10.6.1.
The deposition rate itself should ideally be measured directly as a mass recovered in a
given time period. However, the duration of the test can influence the outcome. Here in
a closed system with a set volume of oil as the deposit builds up depletion of wax in the
oil n begin to inhibit deposition. As the deposit grows thicker insulation effects will also
restrict heat flow, the main driving force. It may not be possible to always recover the
wax therefore, an indirect measure of growth may be derived from increasing in frictional
pressure or changes in the thermal conditions within the test cell. These issues are
discussed in section 10.6.1.
H-0806.35
10-71
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The deposits formed both in the laboratory and field will contain high proportions of
entrapped oil (>70 percent by volume). Depositio n rates are most often quoted including
this entrapped oil. Where pure wax has been isolated from the deposit to determine a
deposition rate the subsequent predictions must consider addition of an entrapped oil
phase.
Deposition Rate Terms
Parameters measured will depend on the methodology used to scale up the laboratory
deposition rate to the full scale. This is generally accomplished by deriving the
molecular diffusion and shearing terms from the measured data and applying these to full
scale thermal and flow conditions.
The diffusion rate element of deposition is separated from the phase behavior of the
waxes, by calculating the concentration gradient of wax derived from the thermal
conditions within the test cell or flowloop.
Flowrate effects cannot easily be separated from diffusion. Therefore, the diffusion rate
coefficient is usually measured as a function of flowrate. Experimental test programs
must therefore simulate the likely flow conditions expected in the full scale system.
Generally increasing the flowrate reduces deposition especially when the flow becomes
turbulent.
The flow parameter to use to scale to field conditions can be crucial. . Unfortunately due
to the different flow geometry, the exact flow regimes cannot be simulated. Whatever
parameter is chosen to match field conditions the other flow parameters may be
significantly different. The parameters usually chosen are either shear rate or actual fluid
velocity
Example: In studying deposition in a flowloop with 1/100th the internal bore of the full
scale line the shear rates will be 100 times greater in the flowloop for the same fluid
velocity.
These effects can be crucial if the flowrate of interest is in the laminar or transition
regions but less significant is under fully developed turbulent flow. It is also important to
consider that under turbulent flow conditions, laminar calculation of shear rate (8V/D)
are not be appropriate and turbulent shear calculation are needed. (Turbulent vs. laminar
shear is discussed in section 10.4.4).
H-0806.35
10-72
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Oil entrapment in the deposit will substantially effect the derived diffusion rate terms and
impact subsequent prediction modeling. As the oil fraction can be greater than 80 percent
in both the laboratory and field the diffusion rate coefficient can be 5X to low if the oil
fraction had be subtracted from the deposit. It is usual to quote deposition rates inclusive
of the oil fraction. However, values obtained from the literature and defaults
programmed into deposition rate models may only be for the wax components. These
points must be clarified with the source of the data.
Determining the diffusion rate term can be a complex procedure especially if the
temperature and thermal gradients vary within the test. It is therefore recommended to
determine these parameters at a series of constant temperature and flow rate conditions.
Deposition Tendency
The Deposition Tendency is a measure of the overall deposition rate normalized to heat
flux. It enables the diffusion coefficient and wax phase behavior effects to be isolated
from temperature gradients within an experimental set- up. Thus, waxing characteristics
determined under different temperature regimes can be directly compared.
Deposition tendency is a function of surface temperature and flowrate rate, as illustrated
in Figure 10.5-7, and is usually quoted in units of grams/day*watt.
Clo
ud
Poi
nt
Increase flowrate
Deposition Tendency
Deposition Tendency
Temperature
Figure 10.5-7: Deposition Tendency

H-0806.35
10-73
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
As temperatures cool below the cloud point, the wax concentration gradient increases,
raising the deposition tendency. The increase in deposition tendency may be reversed at
low temperatures due to high viscosity inhibiting the diffusion rate.
Deposition tendency is determined at a number of discreet surface temperatures ranging
from just below the cloud point to the minimum ambient temperature. The effects of
flowrate or flow regime are accounted for by producing these data at a number of shear
rates or fluid velocities.
Diffusion Coefficients
The diffusion coefficients (required by some models) can be backed out from the
deposition rate or deposition tendency by isolating the wax concentration gradient with
respect to the deposition surface. To achieve this knowledge of the wax phase behavior
and temperature gradients within the experimental set-up are required. The temperature
gradients can be derived experimentally and the phase behavior predicted as detailed in
section 3.4.
This derived diffusion coefficient (quoted in units of cm2 /s) is dependent on liquid
viscosity and will therefore vary with temperature. It also incorporates the shear
dependent deposition mechanisms and therefore will be a function of flowrate.
Diffusion Constant
If viscosity is isolated from the diffusion coefficient the deposition rate term can be
described as a constant for a given oil. However, it is still a function of flowrate and
must be determined appropriately. This diffusion constant (cP.cm2 /s) is the parameter
most often used as input for deposition rate modeling.
Wilke Chang proposed a valve, however, those derived from most crude oils are
substantially higher, ranging from 1E-5 to 1E-4 cp-cm2 /s. These derived values may or
may not take account for the entrapped oil fraction (see previous page).
H-0806.35
10-74
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Deposit Analysis
Although not used in estimating deposit growth, the properties of the deposit itself can be
useful in selecting remediation strategies including inhibitor selection.
Deposit Composition
In the first instance a melting temperature (section 6.1.6) will indicate the relative
Molecular weight and relative conditions under which the deposit formed. The higher the
melting temperature the higher the average Molecular weight of the waxes and the higher
the temperature at which the deposit formed. Heating will also highlight any non-waxy
solids present. If they do not melt they are unlikely to be waxes.
The ratios of paraffins to aromatics are useful in further identifying the origin of the
deposit as wax or other solid precipitation. High resin and/or asphaltene contents would
indicate other deposition mechanisms involved. These ratios are determined using a
SARA or PARA analysis (section 10.6.1).
The distribution of individual Molecular weight wax components will help identify the
conditions under which a deposit formed (section 10.5.1). This can be achieved using
HTGC (section 10.6.1). Figure 10.5-8 illustrates a typical HTGC fingerprint of a waxy
deposit. The ratios of the entrapped oil can also be determined using the relative
quantities of C20 + material to C20 and below.
Figure 10.5-8: Distribution of Wax Deposit Components
H-0806.35
10-75
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Mechanical Properties
The mechanical strength of the deposit is not normally determined but can also useful in
assessing intervention requirements and effectiveness of inhibitors. The softer the
deposit the more easily it can be removed. However, some soft deposits can be very
sticky which can agglomerate in front of a pig.
There are no set methods for estimating deposit strength. The adhesive forces between
the wax and pipewall are difficult to determine and ideally should be done so with the
wax deposit in-situ. However, most measurements are carried out on samples of wax
recovered from pig traps or laboratory tests. The yield stress may be measured using a
number of rheological tests such as oscillatory viscometry and creep tests. Alternatively
a probe penetration test developed for greases will yield an approximate value.
10.5.3 Description of Deposition Models
Overview
Wax deposition models fall into two categories:
Thermodynamic models. These predict the phase behavior and onset conditions for
wax formation. These describe the total amount of wax precipitating with respect to
pressure and temperature. However, they do not describe how much and at what rate
the wax builds- up on a pipewall or other surface.
Deposition rate models. These estimate the rate of wax growth onto the wall along
the length of a pipeline or tubing. They may also estimate the thickness profile over
time and evaluate the impact the deposit has on frictional pressure drop and
temperature profile.
The thermodynamic models are described in detail in section 10.3.

A measurement or estimation of the on set conditions (cloud point) can be used with
temperature profiles from a steady state pipeline simulator to evaluate the areas of the
production system at risk from wax deposition. Here wax has the potential to deposition
onto any surface that falls below the cloud point.
The deposition rate models are semi-empirical using experimentally generated deposition
rate functions together with a thermodynamic model to predict the wax and fluid phase
behavior and a steady state pipeline simulator to generate the temperature and pressure
profiles.
H-0806.35
10-76
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
There are a number of these thermodynamic and deposition rate models available both
commercially and as proprietary in-house models offered by specialist fluid/engineering
design houses and oil companies.
The deposition rate models are all based on the assumption that molecular diffusion is the
predominant mechanism. They differ from one another in their treatment of the diffusion
term, the effect of shear, phase behavior and to a lesser extent the treatment of
temperature and pressure within the pipeline simulator.
Thermal profiles, fluid properties and deposition rates are calculated within individual
calculation elements making up the production systems. The output of one element used
as the input for the next.
Deposition Rate Terms
The deposition rate is defined as:
Molecular diffusion + shear dispersion shear stripping
The diffusion term calculated from
dC w
dr
The diffusion coefficient Dmd is calculated from a user defined constant divided by the
liquid viscosity. This diffusion constant can be either a single value for a given fluid or
multiple values depending on the temperature range or Molecular weights of the waxes
depositing.
rate = ? w D md
Diffusion constants are usually derived from experimental deposition rates, although
most models incorporate a default value the commonest being that defined by Wilke
Chang. User defined values normally incorporate a high fraction of entrapped oil present
in most deposits. However, default values may or may not incorporate this fraction
depending on the model or source of the data.
Liquid viscosity is estimated using the calculated temperature profiles, pressure and
GOR. The models can generally only handle Newtonian viscosities. Non-Newtonian
viscosity behavior may have to be accounted for within the user input data.
H-0806.35
10-77
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
dCw
is calculated using a
dr
solid/liquid/vapor equilibrium thermodynamic model to yield the concentration gradient
of wax with temperature and a steady state pipeline simulator to estimate the thermal
profiles.
The concentration gradient of wax with respect to the pipe wall
The shear rate terms are not normally evaluated separately. The effects of shear or flow
rate are handled by making the diffusion rate term a function of flow rate. This is
achieved by either:
purely through the experimentally derived diffusion constants measured at shear or

flow conditions appropriate to the full scale, or
applying a shear factor to the diffusion constant, depending on the shear rate or flow
velocity. This factor can be user defined or derived from a database of measured
values from a number of fluids.
The former is the more common approach.

Heat Transfer
Wax deposition is a temperature driven phenomenon where deposition rates are directly
proportional to the heat flux and the internal pipewall temperature. Therefore an accurate
prediction of thermal profiles within the production system is essential.
The heat flow through the pipe can be calculated from:
H = UA(Toil Tenv).
Where:
H = heat flow (watts per mtr)
U = overall heat transfer coefficient (Watts/m2 C)
A = surface area of pipe id (m2 per mtr of pipe)
Toil = bulk oil temperature
Tenv = external environmental temperature.
The overall heat transfer coefficient is used to describe the thermal properties of the
combined pipewall and insulation along with environmental conditions.
H-0806.35
10-78
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
1
1
1
x
x
=
+
+
+
U
h int h ext K wall K insl
Ignoring radiation effects the overall heat transfer is defined as:
Where:
hint = Internal heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 C)
hext = External heat transfer coefficient (W/m2 C)
Kwall = Thermal conductivity of pipewall (W/mC)
Kinsll = Thermal conductivity of insulation (W/mC)
x = Thickness of pipewall or insulation layer
The internal pipewall temperature is calculated from:
H = hintA(Twall Toil)
Where:
Twall = Internal pipewall temperature
In deposition modeling the internal pipewall temperatures and heat transfer coefficients
must be estimated with reasonable accuracy.
Depending on the model the input data can vary from a single overall heat transfer
coefficient to a composite of individual environmental parameters and insulation data.
Multiphase Flow
Currently the models available treat the flowing fluids, including those in multiphase
flow regimes as a homogenous single-phase fluid. Thermal and hydraulic profiles and
flow velocities are adjusted via the average liquid hold-up in the line. However, the flow
regime effects described in section 10.5.1 have not yet incorporated into modeling.
The effect of water cut is taken into account in the thermal and physical of the liquid
phase. Any effect on the deposition mechanisms is ignored.
Heat transfer is also treated as single-phase homogenous flow. Heat transfer coefficients
for internal films in multiphase flow regimes is complex and still under investigation.
H-0806.35
10-79
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Time Dependent Effects

Deposition rates are converted to thickness profiles by assuming the deposition rate
constant over a short time step (usually a day). Iterations are then made over user
specified time period. At the end of each time step the temperature and frictional
pressures are recalculated as the increasing thickness of wax will act as an insulator
changing the heat transfer and deposition rates.
Some models may also allow the user to tune the amount of oil entrapment in the deposit.
Here the fraction of entrapped oil generally reduces over time and deposits become
harder.
Impact on Hydraulic Performance
Most deposition simulators assess the impact the deposit wax has on the frictional
pressure gradients within the production system.
The thickness of the deposited waxy layers is used to reduce the diameter, resulting in
increased fluid velocity, temperature and pressure profiles.
Many simulators also account for the deposits inherent roughness. For relatively thin
deposits (>10mm) the roughness is assumed to be equal to the thickness of the wax. This
will have a dramatic effect on frictional pressure under turbulent flow, potentially
restricting throughput long before any noticeable reduction in diameter.
Some models allow a scaling factor to be inputted allowing the roughness to be specified
as a proportion of the thickness. However, the effects of roughness with deposits thicker
than 10mm is uncertain and not strictly relevant as thick deposits should be avoided.
10.5.4 Design and Modeling Considerations
Modeling wax deposition comprises can be divided into two distinct groupings.
Assessment of where and when deposition may occur. This requires an accurate
knowledge of the wax onset conditions and the temperature profiles within the
system. The tools available to assess these are fairly mature and have proven
reasonably accurate.
Estimating deposition rates and thickness throughout the production system. This
type of modeling is more subjective providing an indication of the profile and
magnitude of the problem. They are valuable design aids is assessing the level of and
level of risk to production from deposition and in assessing the relatively
effectiveness of various design mitigation options.
H-0806.35
10-80
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Direct comparisons between fields producing similar oils are often used but these can be
misleading, as deposition behavior is complex and case specific. Two oils of similar
gravity and wax content can exhibit very different behavior. Furthermore the main
driving forces for deposition, flow-regimes and temperature profiles, within the
production schemes are likely to be different.
Onset Conditions
Wax has the potential to deposit onto any cooled surface that is below the cloud point or
wax appearance temperature. Providing the pipewall can be maintained above this
temperature wax will not deposit.
With care the cloud point can be determined to 5C. The effects of pressure and
dissolved gases in the live fluids can be simulated but the confidence in the accuracy
reduces especially if not confirmed with a measured value.
The origin and validity of the sample used to determine the cloud point must also be
considered. Is it representative of the production fluids over the life of the field
especially if producing from multiple zones?
However, consideration must be given to the accuracy of the predicted production and
temperature profiles. Uncertainties in the environmental conditions and effectiveness of
insulation can lead to substantial ranges temperature profiles within a flowline. This can
be compounded by uncertainties in the projected production profiles where the well rates
and WHFTs can be significantly different than expected.
Areas of the production system subject to changes in environmental conditions or
different levels of insulation must be evaluated. Although the bulk fluid temperatures
may not be greatly effected, it is the wall temperature that is critical and this can drop
significantly in an uninsulated section.
It is also important to ensure the assessment is based on the minimum environmental
temperatures and the lower range of projected production rates.
All these factors must be taken into consideration when assessing the risk of whether wax
will form within a specific area of the production system or in assessing the level of
insulation required to maintain the system above the formation temperature.
Figure 10.5-9 illustrates the point for a typical well and flowline system. The darker
shaded area represents the range in predicted temperature profile based on normal
H-0806.35
10-81
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
production rate forecasts. The lighter shaded area represents the uncertainty in formation
onset conditions or cloud point.
Wax Formation in a Production System

Bubble point
Temperature
Choke
STO Cloud point
Distance
Flo
wli
ne
We
llbo
re
Re
ser
voi
r
Live Cloud points
Figure 10.5-9: Temperature Profile and Cloud Points in a Production System

Temperature profile forecasts should include uncertainties in production rates, external
environmental conditions and the accuracy of the algorithms used.
STO cloud points are generally considered pessimistic with no account of light end
solvents which can lower the cloud point. In this example the system would cool to the
STO cloud point approximately half way along the flowline under the cooler pessimistic
temperature boundary.
Live oil cloud points are often quoted for reservoir fluids at saturation or bubble point
pressure. Under these conditions the cloud point will be at a minimum. Indicated by the
lower dashed line in the figure. In reality the saturation pressure will occur in the
wellbore or near wellbore region where temperatures are significantly warmer and no
H-0806.35
10-82
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
wax will form. If this cloud point value were to be used the system in the example would
always be above the onset temperature.
However, in the flowline where temperatures are likely to cool to the cloud point the
pressure is lower and system will be multiphase. Light end solvents will have eluded into
the gas phase and the cloud point will increase. This behavior is indicated by the lower
boundary of the lighter shaded area. Here the onset conditions occur towards the exit of
the line.
The level of risk from deposition increases as the lower temperature boundary falls below
first the STO then the live cloud points. If both the live and STO cloud points are below
the lower temperature boundary wax will be avoided under these flowing conditions.
When the upper temperature boundary falls below the live cloud point wax mitigation
measures will be required.
In the example there is still a degree of uncertainty as to whether wax will occur due to
the range in the temperature profile.
Deposition Profile
Experience has shown that wax generally always deposits wherever it has the potential to
i.e. onto any cooled surface that is below the cloud point. Once the risk has been
identified measures to assess the magnitude of potential deposition will be required.
Wax deposition is dominated by temperature. Deposition rate is dependent on the
temperature and directly proportional to heat loss through the pipewall. As a
consequence deposition rates are very low or zero at ambient temperatures, even though
there may be a high percentage of wax out of solution. Deposition rates are highest
where heat losses are greatest. This usually occurs immediately downstream of where the
pipewall first cools below the cloud point. Figure 10.5-10 illustrates a typical deposition
and temperature profile for a flowline.
H-0806.35
10-83
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Thickness / Temperature
Deposition Rate Profile

p
em
lT
i
O
mp
Te
l
al
W
te
Ra
n
io
sit
po
e
D
Cloud Point
Ambient Temp
Distance
Figure 10.5-10: Deposition Rate Profile

Exceptions
Occasionally even though conditions are suitable for deposition, wax may not stick or
grow into a substantial layer. This may be caused by a number of effects including.
Surface chemistry or high flow velocities including cavitation of gas bubbles may
prevent wax from sticking.
Self hot oil flushing: in an uninsulated system the flowing oil phase may be
substantially hotter than the cloud point. Here Mechanical action from turbulent
bursts together with the heat and solvency of the hot oil may effectively flush the wax
from the surface.
Self limiting thickness: as the wax layer deposits it forms an additional insulating
layer on the pipewall. Overtime the temperatures of the flowing oil and inne r surface
of the wax layer will increase. When the wax surface temperature rises to the cloud
point wax deposition will cease.
The first two are virtually impossible to predict and it must be assumed that deposits will
form. The latter case can be predic ted and is relevant to short uninsulated sections such
as connectors and manifolds where the fluids are still hot.
H-0806.35
10-84
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Sensitivity
It is imperative to have an accurate estimation of thermal conditions within the system.
Uncertainties in calculating internal pipewall temperatures and heat flow will directly
impact where wax will form and the rate of deposition. Temperature profile will also
have an impact on the waxing properties of the oil via the solid liquid phase behavior and
viscosity.
Sensitivity studies should be considered to assess the impact of these issues on the overall
deposition rate profile. Figure 10.5-11 illustrates the point. The dark shade area
represents the predicted wax profile that exists under all conditions. Whereas, the upper
boundary of the lighter shaded area represents the profile that only occurs from a
composite of worst case conditions. The likely profile exists within the light shaded area
Deposit thickness
Typical Deposition Predictions
Distance
Figure 10.5-11: Typical Deposition Predictions
H-0806.35
10-85
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Factors influencing deposition

Pipewall / Insulation Properties
The thermal conductivity and thickness of the pipewall and any insulation will govern the
heat of heat loss to the environment and thermal profile within the system. The overall
thermal resistance of the wall will dictate the position and rate of deposition.
Improving the insulation properties will suppress heat transfer and thus reduce
subsequent deposition rates as well as shifting the onset point downstream, as illustrated
in Figure 10.5-12.
In a Subsea Black Oil Flowline

1
0.9
Wax Thickness mms
0.8
0.7
0.6
Uninsulated
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
Insulated
0.1
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Distance Kms
Figure 10.5-12: Impact of Ins ulation on Deposition Rates

The pipewall thermal resistance can have a dramatic effect on deposition rates especially
where initial heat losses are high. Consideration must be given as to the effects of
protective coatings such as a tar wrap or concrete on the overall thermal resistance of the
wall. A 1mm layer of tar warp can reduce the overall pipewall thermal conductivity from
45W/mC to 2W/mC for a typical 4- inch carbon steel line.
Additional insulation is an effective method to avoid or inhibit wax deposition rates.
However, the deposition is spread over a longer length of the line, as the fluids take
longer to cool. In long lines where the fluids eventually cool to, the total mass deposited
H-0806.35
10-86
1-Dec-00
100
DEEPSTAR
will be roughly the same irrespective of the level of ins ulation. Thickness and overall
mass will impact mitigation strategies (discussed in section 10.5.5).
The impact on production is not so clear and must be individually assessed. In the
uninsulated case the deposit may form a localized restriction with a potential risk of
blocking the line. Overall pressure drop may not be significantly effected if the
restriction is fairly short. However, in the insulated case the increased roughness over a
long length of the line may cause higher overall frictional pressure drops. But the lower
viscosities due to the warmer profile may counter this.
External environment
External environmental conditions will also govern the temperature profiles in the
production system.
The external temperature will dictate the ultimate fluid temperature, while the thermal
properties and potential convection currents will govern external heat transfer rates. Here
wind speed or sea currents will dictate the external heat transfer coefficient having a
substantial effect on the rate of cooling and thus deposition.
A typical production system can be exposed to a number of different environments.
These may vary widely in their thermal and physical properties. Each section of the line
will have to be assessed individually.
It is usual to design to worst case environmental conditions. However, as deposition is a
relatively slow process daily fluctuations and conditions that occur very infrequently for
short periods should be ignored (i.e. absolute minimum temperatures may only occur
once every 10 years and then only last less than a day). Rather an average minimum
winter temperature should be used.
The variation in mean seasonal temperatures and currents should also be considered.
Here, deposition rates may be substantially different at different times of the year
impacting mitigation strategies.
Example Arctic or alpine environmental minimum temperatures will occur during the
winter However, buried lines will be surrounded by frozen ground preventing convection
and affording some insulation. During the spring thaw, meltwater flowing through the
ground can increase the heat transfer and deposition rates by orders of magnitude even
though the ultimate temperature is warmer.
H-0806.35
10-87
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
External heat transfer coefficients can be difficult to estimate because of uncertainty and
variations in these environmental conditions. Therefore, it is generally appropriated to
utilize an overall heat transfer coefficient (U). This is useful where assessing the impact
on deposition for a range of design options.
Typical values for an exposed uninsulated system range from 80 to 150 W/m2 C. Here
the environment dominates U.
Overall U values for insulated systems become less dependent on environmental
conditions. Values range from < 1 to over 20 W/m2 C. These are discussed in section
10.5.5.
Exposed systems (risers & flowlines)
External heat transfer is highly dependent on convection. Here air or sea currents
accelerate the heat losses. Only a slight current is needed to induce forced convection,
which will have dramatic effect on the external heat transfer coefficient. Figure 10.5-13
shows the differences in the predicted deposition profiles for an exposed subsea pipeline.
The lower deposition rate was produced assuming no subsea current while the higher rate
resulted from a current of 1knot flowing over the pipe. The impact will be greatest in
poorly insulated systems.
H-0806.35
10-88
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Thickness
Deposition Rate Profile
1 Knot
Static
Distance
Figure 10.5-13: Impact of Seawater Currents on Deposition Profiles
Burial
Burial can prove very effective at reducing heat losses, as the pipe is insulated from the
major environmental convection currents.
External heat transfer coefficients will depend on the thermal properties, porosity and the
level of saturation of the soil. These properties will vary over the length of the line. A
muddy seabed will have a considerably high thermal conductivity than a dry sandy soil.
Also natural convection may also take place in saturated soils further accelerating the
heat losses. If the pipeline is buried less than 1mtr below the surface, and currents along
the seabed may have an effect. Subterranean currents such as spring melt water flows
must also be considered. Here heat losses can be orders of magnitude greater than from
normal convection.
H-0806.35
10-89
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Partial Burial
Flowlines are rarely fully exposed to sea or air. A significant proportion will be in
contact with the ground. Here external heat transfer will be predominantly from the
exposed area of the pipe. This will greatly affect the rate of heat loss and deposition rate.
Sections of a flowlines may also become totally buried. Here heat losses and deposition
rates will be suppressed.
Overall the deposition rates may vary significantly over short distances. However, given
the uncertainties in predicting these environmental conditions, these localized effects are
ignored and an average heat transfer coefficient U should be used for the whole system.
Flow rate effects
Changes in fluid velocity or flow regime will have a number of effects on deposition.
Increased flow velocity will change the temperature profile and heat transfer rates; which
will also be different between laminar and turbulent flow. Mechanical shear will also
impact the rate of transport to the wall and rate of stripping of wax from the wall.
The combined effects are illustrated in Figure 10.5-14. In laminar flow the heat losses
are relatively low but the deposition rates are high because of the low shear rates. As
flow rates increase the onset point is moved downstream. As flow becomes turbulent the
heat transfer rates increase which raises the deposition rate, this is countered by the effect
of increased shear. As flow further increases the deposition rates are dominated by the
effect of shear stripping depositing wax from the wall.
H-0806.35
10-90
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Deposit Thickness
w
Lo
ce
len
u
rb
Tu
nar
mi
a
L
ly
gh
Hi
t
len
u
b
r
Tu
Distance
Figure 10.5-14: Impact of Flow Effects on Deposition Profile

Deposition rates should be assessed over the range of full projected production rates. It is
possible that high deposition rates may only occur at specific production rates or
conditions. If these can be avoided it may be possible to reduce mitigation measures.
Periods of restricted production and shut- ins are dealt with separately.
Increasing flow rate will also result in increased frictional pressure drops. Although the
deposition rates may be reduced, the impact on overall friction factors at the higher flow
rates may lead to greater pressure increases than those from thicker deposits under lower
flow rates.
While deposition rate models account for the effects of flowrate on mass and heat transfer
the effects of mechanical shear is often user defined.
These shear effects are normally accounted for by tuning the diffusion rate constant.
Here the empirical deposition rate functions must determined at flow condition
appropriate to the full scale. However, this parameter is typically generated at only one
flow condition and may not be appropriate for the entire production range.
H-0806.35
10-91
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Thickness
Laminar
Turbulent
Distance
Figure 10.5-15: Impact of Deposition Rate Constant on Deposition Profile
The impact of using an inappropriate deposition rate constant is shown in Figure 10.5-15.
Here the temperature profiles and heat losses are normalized so as to highlight purely the
effects of flow regime and shear.
Line Sizing
For a given throughput a smaller diameter line will reduce overall deposition growth
rates. Here maintaining a high fluid velocity will maintain a higher temperature profile
displacing deposition down stream and increase the wall shear stresses which will restrict
growth. However, the impact of the deposit roughness on frictional pressure drop will be
increased and negate any benefit of reducing the deposition rate.
Viscosity
The liquid viscosity will also impact deposition rate and predicted heat transfer rates.
Deposition rate is inversely proportional to viscosity.
Proper account of non-Newtonian behavior should be made. Viscosities at low shear
rates can be significantly higher than those estimated by extrapolation of PVT data. Also
live oil may be significantly less viscous than the STO experimental data.
H-0806.35
10-92
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Multiphase Flow Effects

Multiphase flow regimes can influence deposition through the effects of mass and heat
transfer and through the impact of mechanical shearing on the wax layers. Currently
multiphase flow properties can only be simulated via the average liquid holdup.
The heat transfer and deposition rates are calculated on the assumption that the fluid is a
homogenous mixture of different the phases including water cut.
The effects of GOR and water cut are significant to wax deposition in their effect on
mixture density, viscosity and thermal properties together with wax phase behavior.
Flow regime effects can be estimated by determining the laboratory generated diffusion
rates match to actual liquid velocities in multiphase flow.
The different shear regimes of multiphase flow may have a dramatic impact on the
deposit growth as described in sections 5.1.6. Also heat transfer may be not uniform
especially in segregated flows. These effects have not yet been incorporated into current
deposition models but are currently under investigation at the University of Tulsa.
Long Term Growth
Estimating deposition profiles over extended time periods will compound any
uncertainties in the deposition rates. Also the deposition rates will diminish with time as
the wax layer thickness increases. Here the wax acts as an insulator inhibiting heat loss.
The thermal conductivity of the deposit is estimated to be between 0.2 to 0.4 W/mC.
Where initial deposition rates are very high the amount of wax deposited in one time step
could significantly impact heat loss through insulational effects. Here the deposition rate
should not vary significantly (>10 percent) over the period of a single time iteration.
Inhibition
Chemical inhibition can be assessed by altering the diffusion rate constant inputted into
the model. The effectiveness of an inhibitor can be assessed experimentally and a revised
diffusion constant can be derived. Alternatively a level of performance can be assumed
and the default diffusion constant altered accordingly.
Inhibitors generally slow the growth rate but are unlikely to change the position and
profile significantly.
H-0806.35
10-93
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Transients
Wax deposition is relatively slow and considered as steady state process, building into
thick layers over significant time periods. Although, transients such as shut- ins and startups can be modeled, the impact of deposition during these periods is relatively minor.
Shut ins are not normally modeled as the deposited waxy layer is very weak and is
usually stripped away by the shear stresses as soon as the flow is restored.
A shut in can be modeled as a static no- flow condition (higher diffusion constant).
However, over time the fluid temperatures fall and the driving force will diminish.
Eventually deposition will cease when the fluids have cooled to ambient.
Deposition during a shut- in will not plug the line. However, accumulation of solids at
low points and oil gelation at low temperatures (pour point) may occur. These are
described in section 10.4.4.
In periods of steadily decreasing flow, wax will continue to deposit on top existing wax
layer.
Increasing flow rate or temperature will effect existing wax deposits. Any increase in
fluid temperature will start to dissolve and soften the wax layer.
Some simulators allow wax to be redissolved out of the deposit back into the flowing oil.
However then softened wax may begin to be stripped away especially if the shear
stresses are increased due to higher flow rates. This phenomenon is not currently
predictable.
Despite the dissolution or removal of the existing wax layers fresh wax will start to
deposit (providing conditions are suitable) and these deposits will be more resilient to the
prevailing shearing forces.
Sensitivity Studies
Given all the potential uncertainties in predicting wax deposition it is advisable to
perform a sensitivity study to determine the probable range of depositions rates that
might occur for a given production scenario.
These should include the ranges in expected environmental conditions, production
profiles and deposition rate parameters derived from laboratory tests.
H-0806.35
10-94
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
While these uncertainties can be significant in certain cases the prediction modeling is
still extremely valuable in assessing the impact deposition could have on production
operations. They are also especially useful in the comparison of different production
scenarios, production rates over the field life and the relative effects of insulation as
indicated in Figure 10.5-16.
Deposition Rate Sensitivities
Deposit thickness
Uninsulated
Insulated
Distance
Figure 10.5-16: Deposition Rate Sensitivities

Here the relative differences in the insulated and uninsulated cases are substantially
greater than the uncertainties within each case (represented by the lighter shaded areas).
10.5.5 Impact on Design
Solid wax deposition will impact production and design in several ways.
Reduced productivity through increased frictional pressure in pipework.
Potential for changing flow regime
Potential for blockage - pipelines and facilities (filters)
Efficiency of oil coolers
H-0806.35
10-95
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Inhibition and remediation requirements
The latter is discussed in the next section. However, it may directly impact production in
that intervention or servicing of inhibitor systems may require downtime.
Reduced Productivity
In addition to the actual amount and profile of the wax deposited, the impact on
productivity is required to assess design and mitigation requirements.
Wax layers will impact frictional pressure drop through both the reduction in internal
diameter of the pipework and through increased surface roughness. In most cases, flow is
turbulent and the increase in roughness will dominate the frictional pressures long before
the reduction in pipe area. For relatively thin waxy layers (<10mm) the roughness can be
taken as equal to the thickness of the wax layer. Thicker layers may differ but it is
unrealistic to allow wax layers to build-up to that level. Figure 10.5-17 shows the effects
of roughness and ID change compared with field data for a turbulent flow line.
Total Pressure Drop Increase

Due to Roughness and Decrease in Diameter
16
Roughness
Diameter
Field Data
14
Presure drop increase (%)
12
10
0
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
Wax Thickness mm
Figure 10.5-17: Impact of Roughness and Diameter Reduction on Pressure Drop
H-0806.35
10-96
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Under turbulent flow conditions very thin layers can have dramatic effects on the
frictional pressure. Most large export pipelines require regular pigging in the order of
days to prevent the deposition from restricting throughput as pressure approaches the
capability of the pumps or design pressure of the line. The example above and several
other major trunk lines required cleaning continuously with a pig launched every couple
of days even though the wax thickness where less than a millimeter in thickness.
For systems operating near capacity in which thin layers will quickly impact throughput,
regular frequent cleaning will be required. Where pipelines are operating below capacity
there is more scope for thicker layers to deposit before throughput is restricted. Here
deposition rate modeling can be used to estimate cleaning frequencies based on the rise in
frictional pressure.
Sufficient pressure must be available to overcome the additional frictional component
due to deposited wax, otherwise the throughput will be restricted. This will have a knock
on effect in reducing wall stresses and changing the temperature profile. The deposition
rates may be accelerated and onset point may start progress up stream as the flowrates
reduce. As more wax is deposited the frictional pressure component increases and the
throughput continuously declines.
Figure 10.5-18 illustrates this effect on the performance curves of a typical well. Wax
starts to deposit at the top of the well effectively choking back production. Within a few
days the deposition has growth significant to restrict production by 60 percent. Here the
effect of wax is represented by new performance curves.
H-0806.35
10-97
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Well Performance
Wellhead Pressure
Shut-in
Pressure
Clean Tubing
Production
3 Days
1 Day
Flowrate
Figure 10.5-18: Impact of Wax Deposition on Well Performance
The overall productivity of the production system can be very susceptible to deposition
within the flowline. Deposition anywhere in the flowline or riser system will increase
frictional pressure. If the flowline inlet pressure exceeds the well performance the system
will be choked and production will be restricted. As deposition continues the rate at
which the well(s) can supply the flowline will decline. Even when operating below
capacity the wax may ultimately restrict production either when production is stimulated
and higher rates are delivered or when sufficient wax has built- up to increase the inlet
pressure requirements to the well performance curve. Figure 10.5-19 illustrates this
effect.
H-0806.35
10-98
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Flowline Inlet Pressure / WHFP
Well Performance
Well Performance
1 week
Deposit
Clean
Flowrate
Figure 10.5-19: Impact of Wax Deposition on System Performance
In deepwater systems and/or long flowlines the margins in available pressure are smaller
as the flowline inlet conditions are further up the well performance curves. Wax
deposition can rapidly impact throughput in such circumstances. Figure 10.5-20
illustrates this effect on deepwater/long flowlines.
H-0806.35
10-99
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Flowline Inlet Pressure / WHFP
Well Performance
Clean
1 week
deposit
Well Performance
Flowrate
Figure 10.5-20: Impact of Wax Deposition on Deepwa ter/Long Flowline
Performance
Deposition anywhere within the entire system can lead to production restrictions and
subsequent deposition upstream. The decline in productivity may accelerate and it may
be possible to kill a well or system without completely blocking the flowline or wellbore
with wax.
It is therefore important to assess both the deposition rates and their impact on hydraulic
and thermal performance throughout the entire system over the production lifetime. The
results will be a series of deposition profiles and a plot of potential productivity decline
over time, both of which are needed to assess and optimize mitigation strategies and
project economics.
Start-up
Deposition rates can be extremely high for relatively short periods of time where
flowlines or wellbore are warming- up i.e. following a start-up. Here the pipewall or
tubing and any surrounding insulation or soil will be cold. Heat losses and deposition
H-0806.35
10-100
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
rates will therefore be relatively high until steady state thermal profiles have been
achieved. This can be in the order of several days.
As the system warms up deposition may slow down stop and wax may even be stripped
away if temperatures rise above the cloud point.
However, it may be possible for deposition rates to be sufficiently high that production is
restricted prior to steady state conditions being achieved. Such conditions have occurred
in wellbores where the top of the tubing and annuls temperatures never achieve thermal
equilibrium before the wax deposit chokes production. Here wireline is run to clean
deposits out during which time the wellbore begins to cool. Consequently the well is
regularly shut in to treat wax. If the wellbore can be preheated or the deposition inhibited
so as the system is in thermal equilibrium deposition rates can be significantly restricted
allowing the well to operate for longer before cleaning is required. Similarly flowlines
may also require similar treatment, if deposition rates are unacceptably high during startup.
Potential Blockage
Wellbores and Flowlines
If left unchecked wax can completely plug a flowline or wellbore. Such occurrences
(purely from deposition) are rare as production will have dramatically declined and some
form of remediation will have been attempted long before the system could physically
plug.
The decline in productivity or increase in frictional pressure is an effective indicator of
wax build-up. In highly turbulent systems relatively thin layers can be detected,
however, under multiphase flow conditions any effect on hydraulic performance may be
harder to discern.
The greatest risk form forming a blockage arises from the inability to effectively clean a
partially blocked line of deposited wax. The most common cause of blockages due to
wax deposition is a stuck pig resulting from inappropriate remedial action. Such
occurrences can be avoided through careful selection of cleaning strategy or ideally
through preventative measures.
Ideally the intervention or cleaning frequency should be dictated by the productivity
decline. However, it is more usual to specify intervention requirements based on the
ability to clear the line of deposition.
H-0806.35
10-101
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Methods to deal with total and partial blockages are described in section 10.5.6
Instrumentation Lines / Metering
Narrow bore tubing for instrumentation and or drainage can plug with solid wax.
Plugging through deposition is rare as the fluids within these lines are usually static and
at ambient temperature. Here there is insufficient wax and no driving force for wax to
deposit. However, deposition can occur if the fluids are flowing, i.e. a sampling point.
These lines are more susceptible to plugging caused by solid wax being forced into them
during a pigging of other wax remediation operation.
Some flow meters can be adversely effected by the presence of solid wax particles or
more usually by wax depositing onto the turbines or internal cavities of the meter.
Meters are generally sited where deposition is unlikely to occur i.e. where the fluids are
above the cloud point or at isothermal conditions.
Insulation and/or heat tracing or the ability to back flush to melt or blow out any deposit
should protect crucial instrumentation lines and equipment.
Process Equipment
Deposition rarely effects possessing equipment other than oil coolers. Here the high heat
fluxes and cold surface temperatures will promote high deposition rates. Fouling of heat
exchanges with solids is a common problem and there are a wide number of anti- fouling
solutions available. Fouling due to wax will only occur in oil coolers and is difficult to
control. The build up of a solid wax layer will reduce the efficiency of the cooler due to
the insulation effects of the layer. Some designs especially plate exchangers are more
susceptible to fouling from wax. Shell and tube exchangers are preferred ideally with the
maximum effective tube diameter suitable.
Methods to control wax in coolers are detailed in section 10.5.6. However, the most
effective solution is to occasionally flush the oil side with hot oil to soften and melt out
any deposits. This should be performed before the cooler becomes totally plugged.
Other process equipment such as separators and storage vessels may occasionally fill up
with solid wax particles settling out from the oil. This can usually be solved by
increasing the process temperature or introducing some agitation. These phenomena are
described in section 10.4.4
H-0806.35
10-102
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Consideration must also be given to handling solid deposits following a cleaning or

pigging operation. If significant amounts of deposits are anticipated to be recovered then
heated pig receivers and drainage lines should be considered. Steam heated pig traps
have been successfully deployed on several North Sea Platforms. Here the recovered
deposit is melted and returned to the flowing oil stream.
10.5.6 Mitigation
The only guaranteed method for preventing deposition is to maintain the fluid and
pipe/tubing wall temperatures above the cloud point. However, this may often be cost
prohibitive especially for long flowlines. Once the system temperatures fall below the
cloud point wax has the potential to deposit and will require some form of control and
removal. Regular cleaning such as pigging has proved the most effective method for
minimizing the impact of deposition. However, this may not be straightforward for
remote subsea satellite wells and flowlines. It is therefore necessary to estimate the
cleaning frequency in-order to optimize system design. If cleaning of the line can only be
instigated infrequently then some form of deposition inhibition may be required. In
either case knowledge of the amount and position of wax in the system is required along
with the effectiveness and applicability of the chosen mitigation strategy.
Techniques
There are a wide number of techniques to control paraffin wax deposition. These vary in
there effectiveness and applicability but fall into the four main categories detailed below.
Mechanical
Here any deposited wax is scrapped off the tubing or pipewalls. The choice of which
system to select will depend on the level of access into the well or flowline and the
amount and hardness of the deposited wax layer.
Wireline
Mechanical scrappers are attached to wireline for scrapping wax out of wellbores. Care
must be taken not to produce a plug of wax and push it downhole. A variety of cutters
exist which can be run down below the lower limit of wax then expanded to scrap only
on the upward stroke. Wireline operations require ready access into the wellbore
requiring shut- in of production. As such it is undesirable as a regular cleaning technique.
H-0806.35
10-103
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Pumping rod Scrappers

Mechanical scrapers are attached to the pump rods of beam pump wells to continuously
scrape wax from the tubing. However, these often become fouled as wax is compressed
between the scrappers on each stroke.
Through Flowline Tools (TFL).
A series (train) of pistons with an assortment of cutters are deployed into the wellbore via
the flowline. The cutters are a tight fit and are pumped along the flowline from the host.
Wax is removed and pushed ahead of the train. The system requires two identical sized
flowlines and twin tubulars within the wellbore. The tubulars are joined downhole above
the perforations. The train can be deployed into the wellbore via one of the tubing
strings. The pumped flow is reversed and the tools returned to the host where any wax is
recovered.
The system is suited for remote subsea satellite wells and flowlines. However,
production may have to be shut- in in order to deploy the cutters. As the length of the
flowlines increase this option becomes unattractive due to the requirement of twin
flowlines, complex well completions and the significant downtime during the cleaning
operation.
Pigging
Regular frequent pigging is by far the most effective and widely used method for
controlling wax build-up in flowlines and pipelines. A pig is a piston device with can be
pumped or pushed by the production stream along the flowline. There are many different
types of pigs for different duties ranging from simple foam pistons and spheres to
complex trains with numerous brushes and cutters.
The major concern with pigging subsea systems is that the pig cannot be readily
deployed. A second line or subsea pig launcher may be required to deliver the pig to the
flowline inlet. For frequent pigging the downtime while delivering the pig and cleaning
the line may be significant. In frequent cleaning runs a higher risk of accumulating
significant deposit ahead of the pig and causing a blockage. Ideally the pigging
frequency should be dictated by the decline in flowline or wellbore productivity but in
reality it is dictated by the uncertainty in the effectiveness of pigs and the risk of blocking
the line due to a stuck pig.
The main types of pigs are described below:
H-0806.35
10-104
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Spheres: An inflatable sphere used to sweep accumulated liquids form gas and gas
condensate lines. Fairly ineffective for removing wax.
Foam Pigs: Compressible polyurethane foam pigs generally form a seal with the
pipewall and can be pumped or pushed with production. The pigs will deform to fit the
pipework and as such can be deployed around tight bends and elbows and though dual
diameter pipework. Petrobras have successfully deployed foam pigs around dual
diameter pipeline loops in the Campos basin.
However, tight fitting foam pigs can to accumulate the removed wax ahead of them as a
long slug. Here there is very little bypass of liquid around the pig to disperse the
removed wax. Eventually this slug can become sufficiently long that the force needed to
displace the pig and slug becomes greater than that available forming a blockage.
Foam pigs come in a range of densities suited to different applications < 30Kg/m3 for
light cleaning and up to 180kg/m3 for heavy scraping. Brushes metal studs and cutters
can be embedded into the pig body to provide additional mechanical scrapping as the pig
traverses the line.
Solid Cast Pigs: These are one piece solid pigs moulded usually from polyurethane.
They consist of a series of discs or cups along the length of the pig. They are usually a
tight fit into the pipe with the front and back discs or cups forming a seal against which
the pig is driven by the flow. These pigs are fairly effective at removing wax but again
susceptible to forming a plug of wax ahead of them.
Pigs moulded with discs perpendicular to the main body are generally preferred over cups
as they are more effective at scrapping wax and can be flowed in either direction in case
of a blockage.
Mandrel pigs: These have a central body tube, or mandrel, on to which various
components can be assembled for a specific duty. The front and back will usually consist
of a series of discs or cups enable the pig to be driven with the flow. The front discs also
often provide the main cleaning or scrapping edge. A wide variety of cutters brushes and
studs can also be attached to provide additional cleaning. However, the effectiveness of
these has not been fully verified.
Mandrel pigs are amongst the most effective pigs for removing wax deposits on a regular
basis but are fairly inflexible and require precise sizing and shallow radii bends. They
can be designed with a significant bypass of fluid which can be utilized to disperse the
H-0806.35
10-105
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
removed wax into the flow ahead of the pig. Thus they rarely accumulate significant
deposits ahead of them.
Aggressive Pigs: Where significant amounts of wax have been allow to deposit into a
thick layer it may be necessary to consider the use of heavy duty cleaning pigs. There are
a number of these available but the selection will depend on individual circumstances.
They are not recommended for routine cleaning operations.
Dual Diameter Pigs: These pigs can be deployed along a pipe of one diameter then
expand into a larger flowline. There are a number of designs consisting of petals that
open up in the larger line. However, the cleaning efficiencies of these type of pigs are
significantly lower than for the rigid body or madreal pigs. Foam pigs may also offer an
effective method of pigging or deploying through dual diameters.
Coil Tubing
Coil tubing can be deployed into a flowline or wellbore as a last resort to clear a totally or
partial blocked line. The coiled tubing is used to deploy heat, chemicals, mechanical
cutters or hydraulic jetting to the wax plug. Currently coil tubing can only be deployed
less than2 miles into a line. However, new technology has been developed Startak in
which the coil is deployed on skates. Here the coil can be pushed much further into the
line with little resistance. 5miles + is estimated to be readily achievable.
Shear Stripping
Existing wax deposits can be removed by increasing the wall shear stresses through
increased throughput. The increase in stress of flowrate required to achieve removal will
depend on the nature of the waxes and the conditions under which they deposited.
Increases of an order of magnitude may be required which is likely to prove unattainable
for most production systems.
Thermal
Thermal methods can be used in a number of ways to control and remove solid wax
deposits. Firstly if the temperature of the fluids and pipewall can be maintained above
the cloud point wax can be totally avoided. Contingency will be required for shutdown
and start- up. Secondary the deposition rate can be significantly reduced through
inhibiting the rate of heat loss to the environment i.e. through insulation. Finally wax
deposits can be softened and removed or melted by heating the line either directly or by
flushing with hot fluids.
H-0806.35
10-106
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Insulation
There are a number of insulation systems available for wellbores and flowlines including
risers. These range from external coatings to complex pipe- in-pipe and bundle systems.
The type chosen will depend on the performance required and the suitability with the
external environment
For relatively short systems and systems carrying benign fluids a simple external
insulation coating may be sufficient to maintain temperatures above the cloud point. In
subsea systems with flowlines in excess of 5 miles simple insulation is unlikely to be
sufficient to prevent deposition. Here high performance insulation systems will be
required. However, beyond 20 miles these become infeasible both on cost and
performance grounds.
Where wax cannot be avoided standard external insulation offer a capital cost solution to
inhibiting deposition rates. The level of inhibition is directly proportional to the thermal
resistance afforded by the insulation. Table 10.5-1 presents some typical external
insulations and coatings.
Table 10.5-1: External Coatings and Insulation
Material
Therma l Conductivity*
Btu/hrFft.
W/mC
Typical Overall U+
Btu/ft 2 hrF
W/m2 C
Bare Carbon steel

FBE or Coal Tar Wrap
26
0.115
45
0.2
25 35
20 25
150 - 200
100 - 150
High density Concrete

Neoprene/EPDM
Polyurethane Foam PUF*
1.18
0.156
0.017
2.04
0.27
0.03
3.5 10
2 3.5
0.2 2
20 50
10 - 20
1 - 10
PVC Foam
0.023
0.04
0.07
0.04
0.07
0.12
0.2 2
1 - 10
1 2.5
5 - 15
Syntactic PU
*Values depend on water depth, temperature and age.

+
Base on fully exposed subsea systems.
There area number for high performance insulation systems available which are
described below:
Pipe-in-pipe: The flowline carrying the process fluids is contained within a second pipe.
The annulus between the pipes provides the thermal insulation. Depending of the system
H-0806.35
10-107
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
it may contain a gas (including air), a variety of insulation materials such as crushed
quartz or foams and may even be evacuated.
Pipeline Bundles: A similar principle to pipe- in-pipe in which a number of flowlines and
utility lines are contained within a carrier pipe or pipes. The internal flowlines may be
individually insulated within the system. Again the carrier pipe offers protection from
the harsh environment with the annulus providing additional insulation. The carrier pipe
may be evacuated or contain a high-density gas for buoyancy.
There are a number of pipe-in-pipe and bundle systems operating successfully in the
North Sea and GoM. Typical thermal properties range from overall U values of
0.1W/m2 C to 1W/m2 C. However, the method of fabrication, installation restricts the
ultimate length to under 20miles.
Vacuum Tubing/pipeline: Vacuum insulated tubing strings and pipeline sections are
available. Here a vacuum within a doubled skinned wall provides a very high degree of
insulation. It is possible to achieve flowing wellhead temperatures within a few degrees
Celsius of the bottomhole temperature. Special insulated connectors are required, as this
is the major source of heat loss.
Flexible Pipes: Through the nature of their construction, flexib le flowlines have an
inherent insulation effect built into them via the polymer layers. The actual level of
insulation afforded by these layers will be case specific but typically it will be equivalent
that afforded by an inch of concrete.
In order to prevent deposition it is most likely that additional external insulation will be
required. However, selection of a foam which is compatible with the flexing of the
flowline is essential.
Wellbore gelled annulus fluids: Within the wellbore the major mechanism for heat loss is
usually through convection from the annulus fluids. By utilizing a fluid with a low
thermal conductivity such as a hydrocarbon (diesel) and preventing convection through
solidification the wellbore can be effectively insulated. Gelled diesel has been
successfully employed in a number of GoM developments.
Burial: Burial of a pipeline offers protection for forced convection currents. Thus heat
losses can be substantially reduced even where the backfill is relatively poor in insulation
properties. In many cases the heat losses are treated as conduction. But in fully saturated
H-0806.35
10-108
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
soils such as sea beds natural convention may also have an effect. Here insulation may
not be as effective as expected.
An additional advantage of burial is the large thermal mass of soil surrounding the pipe.
During normal operation this soil will warmup and on shutdown will significantly slow
the cooling.
Heating
While insulation offers a passive method for preventing and inhibiting wax deposition,
heating offers a method for both preventing and removing existing deposits. In order to
remove existing deposits the pipewall temperature must be heated sufficiently to either
melt the deposited wax or sufficient to soften it such that the shear impacted by the flow
can strip it away. In most cases the ability to raise the pipewall to 60C couple with flow
at normal production rates is sufficient to remove the majority of deposits. Higher
temperature > 80C may be required to totally remove all waxes in some cases.
Electrical Heating: A number of electrical systems exist for heating pipelines and
tubing, each with its own limitations of applicability and power requirements. Where
installed electrical heating is usually employed to continuously prevent deposition or to
provide minimum temperature protection against a shut-in.
Trace heating. The most widely used on-shore and on surface production equipment.
Heating elements are wrapped around the pipework and covered with insulation.
This is effective but subject to high maintenance and safety concerns where
hydrocarbons may be vented.
Impedance heating. This has been tested and used to heat tubing on onshore
installations. Here an electrical current is passed along a series of carrier wires or
pipes which induce current within the main pipe producing heat.
Direct heating. Current is passed along the main pipe itself inducing heat with the
pipe wall.
All these systems require good thermal insulation to be effective. The latter two may be
suitable for subsea use providing good electrical insulation is also achieved. However,
power consumption, reliability and insulation costs have yet to be fully proven.
Heated Bundles: Bundled pipelines have been installed in which additional flowlines are
included through which hot water or gas can be circulated to warm the entire system.
The systems can be used either to maintain a higher thermal profile thus avoiding
deposition or to heat the system in the event of a shut- in or cleaning requirement.
H-0806.35
10-109
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Caution should be used with heating. Applying external heat to a shut- in pipe can lead to
the build-up of excessive pressure. This is especially true when dealing with plugged
lines (especially hydrates) in which large volumes of gas can be generated. See hydrate
section.
Hot fluid Flushing: Wax deposits can also be removed by flushing with hot liquids. This
technique is widely employed onshore especially in wellbores where it has proven to be a
very effective remediation technology.
The fluids must be heated sufficiently so that they warm, soften and melt out the
deposited wax. As indicated above this will require a temperature generally in excess of
60C at the point where the wax is to be removed. To facilitate removal the fluids are
pumped at a high rate.
Ideally hot oil is used as this is a reasonable solvent for the wax and gives rise to minimal
compatibility issues. Solvents can also be used however as with the oil the low flash
point can give rise to safety concerns. Alternatively hot water has been used. Although
not a solvent for the wax the higher heat capacity of water allows longer lines to be
flushed while achieving a minimum flushing temperature.
In flushing wellbores the fluids should be pumped down the annulus and returned
through the tubing. This will avo id displacing solid wax from the tubing into the
perforations and reservoir. Solid wax may have a melting temperature higher than the
reservoir temperature and permanent formation damage may occur.
Flush of flowlines will require a deployment or return line. The levels of insulation on
the flowline must be sufficient to achieve the minimum flushing temperature at the point
where wax first occurs within the flowline.
The amount of wax that can be removed will depend on the temperature and solvency of
the flushing fluid and the time and flow rate over which it is deployed. In theory all the
wax can be removed. However, the flow path must not be totally plugged otherwise the
flushing fluid cannot be deployed.
Chemical reactions: An exothermic reaction can be created by the mixing of various
salts. Several processes are available the most notable based on nitrogen salts such as
SGN from Petrobras. The reagents are mixed and deployed with an organic solvent to
aid dissolution and removal of the wax. The chemical reaction produced heat which
softens and melts the wax and N2 gas which helps mechanically remove the deposit.
H-0806.35
10-110
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The chemical reagents are deployed either via a small diameter service line or by directly
into the riser and allowed to flow down to the blockage. Controlling the reaction so as to
take place in contact with the major wax blockage is crucial. This is achieved by
delaying the reaction via the control of pH and further chemical reagents.
Petrobras have used this system to clean a significant number of wax blockages in the
Campos basin. However, this is considered a drastic remediation technique to be
deployed when flowlines have become severely restricted or blocked. It is not a method
for the routine frequent cleaning to maintain maximum throughputs.
Chemical
Chemical additives can be used to both remove existing deposition and to inhibit growth
rates. They offer an operation cost based solution requiring minimal capital investment
for installation of injection facilities.
Methods for selecting inhibitor are presented in section 10.6.2
Solvents and dissolvers
Solvents are used to remove or soften and aid removal of deposited wax layers and plugs.
Large quantities are usually pumped into the flowline or wellbore and allowed to contact
the wax for a given period of time depending on the severity of the wax plug.
Wax solvents are usually aromatic based solvents (xylene is very common) containing
proprietary agents and dispersants to aid dissolution and dispersal of the wax. Given
their nature they can pose HSE concerns in storage and handling of the large quantities
required. Plus they may be incompatible with seals and liners in injection facilities and
flowlines. As such the use of solvents are usually reserved to back-up any severe
remediation requirements where intervention is difficult.
Solvents are also used in hot flushing operations (see above).
concerns preclude their use in some regions.
However, the HSE
Deposition rate inhibitions

The continuous injection of small quantities (100 1000 PPM vol/vol) of chemical
additives to inhibit the growth rate of wax layers is widely utilized. Unfortunately
chemical performance is fluid specific and rarely 100 percent effective. Therefore,
periodic intervention to clean the wax out will be required. Also actual field performance
H-0806.35
10-111
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
of a chemical is difficult to predict ahead of start- up. Therefore, chemicals are generally
used as an additional safe guard and to optimize intervention requirements and
operational costs.
There are several main categories of inhibitor available:
Solvents: Thermodynamic inhibition is possible using wax solvents. However,
substantial quantities (>10 percent vol) are required to have any significant beneficial
effect on suppressing the onset temperature (cloud point) and subsequent deposition rates.
Deployment and cost render these infeasible for most production scenarios.
Wax crystal modifiers: These inhibitors interfere with the growth of wax crystals, though
exactly how they inhibit deposition growth on a pipewall is unclear. They are generally
polymeric (EVAs and PAAs) and only just soluble in the oil. As the chemicals effect
wax crystallization they must be present in the warm oil prior to crystallization occurring.
To have maximum benefit they should be injected above the cloud point of the oil.
Crystal modifiers are generally dosed at between 100 and 500 PPM vol/vol basis. Due to
their polymeric nature many of these inhibitors are waxy solids at minimum seabed
temperatures. Therefore they often diluted into aromatic solvents to facilitate deployment
through long umbilical. Increasing water cut adversely effects some chemistries. Any
such effects should be can during the screening process. However, chemical usage and
selection can be optimized once the filed is on production.
Crystal modifies may also effect the oil rheology effecting low temperature viscosity and
pour point. When used in this capacity they are known as Pour Point Depressants (PPDs,
see section 10.4.5). However, not all pour point depressants will reduce wax deposition
rates and not all wax crystal modifiers will are effective PPDs. It is crucial to select a
PPD and a wax inhibitor accordingly (see sections 10.6.2).
Dispersant /Surfactants: These are similar to the crystal modifiers in tha t they inhibit the
deposition growth rate. However, they work by coating the wax particles and preventing
them from agglomerating together and reduce the adhesive forces sticking them to the
pipewall.
They are generally effective at concentrations of between 100 and 1000 PPM vol/vol and
are less viscous than the polymeric crystal modifiers. They also tend to be less sensitive
to water cut but can cause compatibility and process separation problems.
H-0806.35
10-112
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Deployment Issues
As with the continuous use of any production chemicals consideration must be given to
deployment and compatibility issues. Umbilicals and injection facilities must be suitable
for dosing significant rates of potentially viscous materials. Many wax inhibitors can be
very viscous or even semi solid at temperatures close to 40F, which poses significant
pumping problems for long umbilical. Storage facilities may also have to be heated if
low ambient temperatures are anticipated. Alternatively the inhibitor may have to be
diluted or winterize in-order to be deployed. This will require increased injection
capacity.
Wax inhibitors are generally inert but the solvent used for deployment may give rise to
compatibility issues with umbilical and injection pump seals and materials. The chemical
compatibility with other production chemicals must also be examined both in terms
mixing and inhibitor performance (see section 10.6.2). Wax inhibitors are known to be
incompatible with methanol prior to injection into the flowing oil stream.
Pipewall Coatings
Internal pipewall coating to prevent wax from sticking have been extensively studied.
However, to date no coating have be identified which will prevent wax from depositing.
The only correlation established with reducing deposition has been the thermal insulation
effects afforded by the thicker coatings.
Novel Techniques
In addition to the traditional mitigation technologies indicated above an increasing
number of novel black box technologies such as magnets are being proposed to prevent
and/or remove wax deposits. While some of these have been used in field for many years
there is no conclusive evidence that they actually provide any benefit. With only
circumstantial evidence and no methods of evaluating the performance or how these
technologies work it is not advisable to rely on them as the major or sole mitigation
strategy.
Wax Control Strategies
Choosing a particular strategy to control wax deposition will be cases specific It will
depend not only on the severity of the waxing but also on the efficiency and applicability
of the mitigation technologies for the particular production scenario. The solution must
H-0806.35
10-113
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
be both technically and economically robust to variations in production, fluid properties

and the oil price.
There are three main strategies for dealing with wax:
Prevention
Wax can be totally avoided providing the fluid and pipewall temperatures are maintained
above the cloud point. As wax deposition is regarded as a steady state flowing
phenomenon transients such as shut-ins are generally ignored. Here the levels of
insulation required to maintain the system or part of the system wax free can be readily
calculated and the associated capital cost can be assessed.
This option must consider the sensitivity of the project production profile, environmental
temperatures and variation in production over the life of the field. This strategy is well
suited to fairly short flowlines and risers systems such as from FPSOs and Spars. Beyond
a tieback distance of 15 miles this option becomes both technically and economically
infeasible. It is also suited to protecting areas of the production system which cannot be
readily intervened for cleaning such as sub sea wellbores.
Protecting long flowlines from deposition may only be possible with additional heating
which at present has yet to be proven and may not be economically attractive compared
to periodic intervention to remove deposited wax. Onshore systems can be trace heated
effectively but such systems have proved troublesome.
The strategy relies on an accurate assessment of the wax formation onset conditions,
production temperature profiles, and insulation performance.
Frequent cleaning
This strategy has been widely and very successfully adopted everywhere where there is
relatively easy assess into the wellbore or both ends of the flowline. Here the emphasis is
on frequently removing the deposited wax before it impacts production through increased
frictional pressure or gives rise to problems in conducting the cleaning operations.
Frequent pigging is the most common approach for cleaning flowlines whist wireline
scrapping and hot oil flushing are widely employed in wellbores.
Where there is ready assess into the system the capital cost of installing the cleaning
facilities is minimal and the overall cleaning frequency has little impact on operation
H-0806.35
10-114
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
costs. However, cleaning frequency should be optimized based on cost of performing a

given number of interventions vs. the cost of lost production due to productivity decline,
as illustrated in Figure 10.5-21.
Optimising Operational Costs
Total operational cost of wax control
Costs p.a.
Cost of Intervention
inc. Lost production
Optimal nos of
interventions
Cost of lost production

due to productivity decline
12
15
No of Interventions pa
Figure 10.5-21: Optimization of Operating Costs

However, as the cleaning frequency reduces and the amount of wax deposited increases
between operations the risk of encountering problems with removing the wax increases.
Here for instance the type of pig chosen may be crucial in avoiding a build up of a large
slug of wax and encountering a stuck pig and blocking the line.
Wax Management
In subsea systems and remote satellite wells both the cost of frequent intervention
including the delivery of pigs and the cost of avoiding deposition through insulation
becomes prohibitively expensive. A cost effective and technically robust combination of
inhibiting deposition so as to perform infrequent cleaning is required.
Due to the complexity and cost of entering a subsea well deposition is best totally
avoided in the wellbore. Ideally WHFTs should be at least 15F above the cloud point
H-0806.35
10-115
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
under normal flowing conditions. Fortunately in most cases this is relatively easy to
achieve with no additional insulation. Gelled annulus fluids have been utilized to provide
additional insulation and vacuum tubing provides ultimate protection if required.
Flowline jumpers and manifolds are also difficult to intervene and should therefore also
be protected with suitable insula tion where possible.
Flowlines can be pigged but the length of the line and the required cleaning frequency
will dictate the method of delivering the pig to the inlet. Relatively short lines
(<25miles) requiring regular cleaning usually incorporate round trip pigging or TFL
systems. TFL also allows intervention into the wellbore and jumpers. Longer flowlines
and lines with infrequent cleaning requirements may incorporate a subsea pig launcher.
Round trip pigging and TFL provides a technically robust solution in which pigs can be
run frequently if required. If problems are encountered reversing the flow can retrieve
the pig and subsequent cleaning frequencies can be adjusted accordingly. The system
also provides dual lines if one should become plugged production may not be totally lost.
However, production may be affected as the system may have to be shut in while the pig
or TFL is pumped down the line to the inlet. It may be possible to flow the pig back with
production but it is usual to pump it around the entire circuit. In a relatively long circuit
this may take a day with the associated lost production intervention cost can escalate.
A subsea pig launcher provides a much lower capital investment but carries a higher
technical risk. Here the cost and availability of launching pigs may be limiting if
deposition is worse than expected. There is also the risk of being unable to retrieve a
stuck pig as flow cannot be easily reversed. However, a normal pigging operation will
not impact production as the pig is pushed by normal flow.
The cleaning frequency itself must be determined from an assessment of the amount of
wax deposited in the line, the impact and cost to production, the efficiency of the
intervention technology and the cost of performing the intervention.
The amount of wax present and its impact on production can be estimated using a
deposition rate simulator. This yields the productivity decline curve illustrate in the
previous figure. The efficiency of the cleaning technology is harder to assess and will be
dependent on the type of pig or TFL tool chosen. Some manufactures recommend a
maximum thickness of deposit that can be removed while others recommend a total
volume or mass that can be removed. Either way these estimates are based on individuals
experience and require further investigation to tune these models.
H-0806.35
10-116
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR

Insulation
Costs p.a.
Poorly insulated
Highly insulated
6
9
12
15
Figure 10.5-22: Impact of Insulation on Operational Costs
Having assessed the intervention requirements for a given production scenario the effects
of inhibiting the deposition rate can be addressed. Here the effects of insulation on
reducing heat loss and thus deposition rate can be predicted with a deposition rate
simulator. The capital cost of each insulation and production option can be compared
with the impact it has on intervention frequencies and costs.
Insulation is generally a very cost-effective method of reducing the intervention
frequency. For long lines where the fluid still cool to ambient temperature it will only
reduce the average thickness but not the total mass deposited. This may be beneficial
where the cleaning technology is determined by thickness alone and not by total mass.
Figure 10.5-22 illustrates this.
Chemical inhibitors provide an alternative operational cost method to reduce intervention
freque ncies. However, their performance is not guaranteed but they can be optimized
once the field is producing.
H-0806.35
10-117
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Assumptions as to the performance and cost of providing inhibitors can be estimated

from existing operations Then as with the insulation options the cost of providing
inhibition can be assessed against optimizing the cleaning frequency. This is illustrated
in Figure 10.5-23.

Chemical Inhibitor
Costs p.a.
Ineffective
Good Performance
Exceptional
100% effective
6
9
12
15
Figure 10.5-23: Impact of Chemical Inhibitor on Operational Costs
The optimal solution for a given filed is often a combination of all the above methods. It
is advisable to rely on insulation to provide sufficient inhibition to optimize development
and operation costs providing a workable technically robust wax management solution.
Chemical inhibitors enable the operational costs to be optimized by further reducing
cleaning frequencies. However, they can also be used to provide additional protection or
reduce insulation requirements if needed to protect production during specific production
periods, i.e. initial production stages where temperatures are low prior to full rates or
water breakthrough.
10.5.7 HSE
The safe operation of a production system is dependent on understanding the fluid
behavior and design capabilities of the system. If the implications of transporting waxy
H-0806.35
10-118
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
fluids are not fully considered pipeline blockage and even rupture may occur. The buildup of solid wax layers gives rise to additional HSE implications above and beyond the
handling of crude oils and multiphase hydrocarbon production streams. Chemicals may
be required to treat the oil. With good design practice the risks posed by these issues can
be fully assessed and minimized.
The following issues are specific to the deposition of solid wax from crude oils.
10.6
The attempted removal of solid wax layers can lead to the build-up of solid wax plugs
ahead of pigs. These can totally plug the line which may require abandonment or
opening for further cleaning. These wax plugs can also foul downstream process
equipment and instrumentation lines.
Accumulation or deposition of solid wax in dead legs to instrumentation can dissipate

or prevent transmission of pressure. This could impact pressure monitoring and
safety relief systems. Where this could be an issue these lines should be insulated or
heated.
Any blockage within a system has the potential for generating high local pressures
with pose a risk to pipeline integrity. Wax plugs can support high differential
pressures.
Heating hydrocarbons to prevent or alleviate wax problems will lead to higher vapor
pressures and flash point concerns.
Wax recovered from pig traps and TFL operations are hydrocarbons. They will be
flammable and may contain carcinogens. Handle accordingly.
The use of chemicals and solvents to treat waxy oils also leads to a number of HSE
concerns. While most wax inhibitors themselves are generally of low toxicity many
contain substantial proportions of aromatic solvents required to facilitate deployment.
Here unless the products are sufficiently dilute they can block delivery systems and
umbilicals. At typical treatment rates significant quantities of these products must be
shipped and stored onsite on a regular basis. In some cases the cold flow
characteristics required these products to the stored in heated tanks. Most solvent
systems have a high flash point and are carcinogenic.
Any chemical treatments or oil heat must be compatible with all materials they come
in contact with both in the physical pipes and seals and other production chemicals.
Wax inhibitors tend to be incompatible with metha nol.
Waxy oils and the use of inhibitors can have detrimental effects on dehydration and
on the quality of the oil in water discharge specs. Here it is essential that chemical
treatments are compatible with the whole process.
Experimental Parameters
This section outlines the main experimental parameters associated with waxy oils and
deposition. They are intended as a guide to what the parameters are, how they are
H-0806.35
10-119
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
determined with respect to crude oils and the parameters which may influence them.
Also presented are guidelines as to screening and selecting chemical inhibitors.
10.6.1 Fluid Characterization
Fluid flow and deposition properties are predominately determined on dead oil at
atmospheric conditions. Although measurement techniques exist for examining live fluid
flow behavior, it is usual to rely on dead oil measurements and apply live oil correlations.
Live oil measurements need only be considered when dealing with specific cases where
fluid properties at production or ambient temperatures could significant cause pumping
difficulties.
Cloud Point (Wax appearance temperature)
The wax appearance temperature (WAT) or cloud point is the singularly most important
parameter relating to wax formation. It is the temperature at which waxes first crystallize
from solution. Waxes can exist above the cloud point, if previously precipitated due to
hysteresis. But generally from a design standpoint if the fluids and pipewalls throughout
the production system can be maintained above the cloud point wax formation can be
avoided.
There not as yet a standard procedure for determining cloud points. There are a number
of generally accepted measurement techniques available, each with a number of
advantages and disadvantages. The choice of which to use will depend on the type of oil
and amount of sample available as well as each companys individual preference. These
preferences are usually linked to experience and comparisons with a database.
Cloud point is a crystallization temperature and therefore kinetics will influence any
measurement. That is the methods used to determine cloud point will influence the value
derived. Given the potential influences the measurement techniques may have on the
derived value, it is strongly recommended that cloud point be determined using two
different techniques. With care the cloud point can be determined to an accuracy of
5F.
Cloud points are usually determined experimentally at standard conditions on dead oil.
This dead oil Cloud point is generally conservative, but does agree well with field data
for the onset point of wax layer build-up (see section 10.5.3). However, system pressure
and the presence of light ends will both have an effect. Live oil cloud points
measurements at elevated pressures are possible but it is more usual to utilize a
thermodynamic simulator to predict these effects.
H-0806.35
10-120
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Comparisons between live and dead oil cloud points are not always valid, as the
sensitivities of the different tests used may be significantly different. Suitable live oil
measurement techniques such as the filtration are generally less sensitive than those used
for dead oil determinations. It is therefore advisable to calibrate the live method with a
dead oil condition test.
Tables 10.6-1, 10.6-2, and 10.6-3 compare commonly used cloud point measurement
techniques.
H-0806.35
10-121
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTA
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELIN
Table 10.6-1: Cloud Point Methods - Recommended Direct Methods

These methods directly detect wax crystals
Technique
Description
Cross Polar
Microscopy
A small sample is observed at approx. 100X through

crossed polars. Crystalline structures are visible as
polarized light is defracted. Wax crystals can
therefore be observed in thin samples (<200um) of
black oils. Using programmable a heating stage and
video microscopy the system can be fully automated.
Sensitive
Small sample size
wide range of cooling rates
Validated
Unrepresentative sample size

Can miss amorphous waxes
Potential light ends loss
Not readily adaptable for Live oils
Filtration
Fluids are pumped through a fine (>2um) filter and

the resulting pressure monitored. On cooling wax
will start to plug the filter. The sensitivity will
depend on the filter size and type. Viscosity effects
can be negated and sensitivity improved either
through slow cooling or fixed temperature steps.
Representative sample size

Suitable for Live fluids
Solids can be recover
Can determine solid fraction vs.
temperature
Small Crystals may not be detected

Other solids may be detected
Lower sensitivity (filter size)
Time consuming
large sample volume
Cold Finger
Cooled probes each at a preset temperature are

inserted into warm oil above the anticipated cloud
point. After a period of time the probes are removed
and inspected for wax deposits.
Kinetics eliminated.
Representative sample size.
Automated.
Suitable for live fluids
Actual measure of wax deposit
Detects deposition on surface,

which may not be same as bulk oil
cloud point.
Time Consuming
H-0806.35
Advantages
10-2
Disadvantages
1-Dec
DEEPSTA
Table 10.6-2: Cloud Point Methods - Recommended Indirect Methods

These methods detect an effect caused by wax crystallization
Technique
DSC
Infrared
Detection /
Light
Scattering
Description
When wax crystallizes from crude oil, small
quantities of heat are generated (much like heat
given off when water freezes). The temperature at
which this "heat of fusion" first occurs can be
detected by a Differential Scanning Calorimeter
DSC
Wax crystals will deflect and scatter light passing
through the oil. Infrared can be absorbed by waxes
and will penetrate black oils. Changes in light
reflected or absorbed as the oil cools will indicate
wax formation
NMR
Technique
Thermodynamic
prediction
H-0806.35
Advantages
Small sample size
Automated
quick
can estimate wax content
High cooling rates potentia l for

subcooling.
Sensitivity: low wax contents
difficult
Subject to interpretation
Sensitive
Small sample size
suitable for live fluids

Little published validation
Sensitive
Small sample size
estimate solid wax content
suitable for live fluids

Little published validation
Description
Model uses detailed compositional analysis of oil and
published properties of components to predict
solubility of wax components.
Disadvantages
Advantages
Predicts cloud point and solid wax
phase for range of pressures and oil
compositions.
10-3
Disadvantages
Very detailed input data.
Needs tuning to measured value
1-Dec
DEEPSTA
Table 10.6-3: Cloud Point Methods - Not Recommended Methods

These methods are not recommended to evaluate cloud points
Technique
Visual or
Turbidity test
Description
Disadvantages
Simple.
Representative sample size
Adaptable for live fluids
Sensitivity (needs finite amount of

crystals
Operator dependant (Visual only)
Other solids may be detected
Not suitable for Black Oils
Viscosity
As solid wax crystallizes it will effect the oils Representative sample size.
rheology causing non-Newtonian behavior. The
Newtonian viscosity / temperature relationship of the
oil is altered as the solid phase increases.
Sensitivity. May require presence

of significant solid wax phase
underestimating initial
crystallization.
May detect other solids formation
Pyknometry
Crystallization will change the temperature density

relationship of the fluid as it cools.
May detect other solids formation

Sensitivity: May require presence
of significant solid wax phase
underestimating initial
crystallization.
No published validation
(ASTM D2500)
Density/volume
changes
H-0806.35
The term cloud point is taken from a turbidity test

used to determine wax precipitation from fuels. The
wax crystals are detected by a change in turbidity as
the wax crystallizes. Often this test is performed by
eye but turbidity meters increase sensitivity
Advantages
Representative sample size.

(new techniques are improving
sensitivity )
10-4
1-Dec
DEEPSTAR
When considering the merits of a particular method the following should be considered.
Sensitivity
Wax crystallization is a gradual process with only a tiny fraction of the wax forming
compounds crystallizing at the cloud point. Methods that rely on detecting a phase
change, such as DSC, may not pick-up the first crystals or require subjective
interpretation if the rate of crystallization is slow. Visual methods lead themselves well
to detecting individual crystal formation. The higher the magnification the greater the
sensitivity but the smaller and less potentially representative the area under study.
Filtering techniques will require a finite amount of wax to block sufficient pores to be
detected. The pore size and sensitivity of the pressure sensor will also dictate the
sensitivity. Rheological techniques need sufficient a solid wax phase present in order to
influence viscosity. Sensitivity of the viscometer is also critical as most oils are of fairly
low viscosity (<10Cp) and changes eve n over a wide temperature range may be small.
Thermodynamic simulators define cloud point at a preset concentration of solid phase
wax. A specification of 100-PPM solid wax may yield significantly lower values than a
specification of 10 PPM.
Supercooling
There is a finite time and energy required to initiate wax crystallization. Most methods
used to determine cloud points cool the sample from reservoir temperature using a single
cooling rate. Care must therefore be taken to ensure that the fluids do not become
artificially super-saturated with wax and subjected to supercooling. This can be avoided
by using cooling or heating steps or more usually by using an appropriate or several
cooling rates and extrapolating to those projected profiles for the field. Work by
Deepstar (CTR 90-A) and Marathon suggest that to avoid supercooling when determining
cloud points, cooling rates should ideally not exceed 0.2F/min.
Kinetics
In addition to supercooling is also important to ensure that the sample under test is free
from any pre-crystalline waxes or other introduced particles, which could serve as crystal
nuclei yielding inconsistent results. This is normally achieved by conditioning the
sample at reservoir temperature for a given time.
H-0806.35
10-1
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Solubility Live Oil

There are only a few experimental techniques which lend themselves to evaluating live
oils at elevated pressure. It is more usual to assess the effects of light ends and pressure
using a thermodynamic model tuned to a dead oil cloud point. When measuring live oils
the composition of the live fluid and pressures must be appropriate to projected operating
conditions. It is therefore advisable to measure live cloud points at several pressures
above and below the reservoir fluids' saturation pressure.
In considering whether to assess live oil cloud points it is also worth considering that for
most black oil systems the difference between the cloud points at STO and reservoir
bubble point conditions are less than 15F. Taking into account where the system is
likely to cool to these temperatures, the pressure may be significantly below the bubble
point and much of the gas and light ends may have eluded into the gas phase. Thus the
difference between dead oil and flowline or wellbore cloud points may become relatively
insignificant for design proposes.
Wax Content
The wax content defines the weight percent of wax in the oil. However, it should first be
stated that it is not possible to predict phase behavior, flow behavior or wax deposition
rates from the wax content. The wax content is only useful as a guide for comparing
different crude oils. For instance, highly waxy crudes with wax contents of over 20
percent are likely to be more viscous and to suffer from restart problems. Many
Indonesian and Chinese crudes fall into this category. Table 10.6-4 lists the wax contents
for a variety oils as a comparison. Crudes with low wax contents are less likely to suffer
flow problems; however, even crudes with wax contents of less than 1 percent wax have
been know to cause blockages via wax depositing on pipe walls.
Table 10.6-4: Wax Contents
N. Sea
N. Sea
Forties
Beatrice
6% wt
17% wt
Alaskan
S. E. Asia
Prudhoe
Dulang
3% wt
30% wt
Arabian Light
2-4% wt
5% wt
GOM
Mid. East
There are two primary ways in which wax content is usually defined. The first method is
to use a compositional analysis of the crude oil (see below) to determine the weight
H-0806.35
10-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
percent of normal waxes with a chain length of C17 or greater. The second method is to
precipitate solids from the crude oil at a given temperature. The amount of solids
precipitated will depend highly upon the procedure used and the temperature at which the
test was performed. Most precipitation tests are performed at approx. 35F. This is
substantially lower than most operating temperatures, where for example the actual
amount of solid wax present in an oil at seabed temperature may be less than 25 percent
of the total wax content.
A much more useful measurement is the amount of wax precipitated as a function of
temperature. This type of information is used in wax deposition models to predict rates of wax
deposition. Wax content as a function of temperature can be obtained experimentally via
filtration, NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance) or inferred from the DSC (Differential Scanning
Calorimetry). Figure 10.6-1 presents the wax content as a function of temperature for two oils.
18
16
Waxy Crude (17%wt)
Solid Wax Fraction %wt
14
12
10
8
6
4
Light Oil (2.5%wt)
2
0
-25
-5
15
35
55
75
95
115
135
Temperature F
Figure 10.6-1: Solid Wax Content
It is now more usual to predict the wax content as a function of temperature using
thermodynamic models. This information is then used in subsequent deposition
modeling.
H-0806.35
10-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Asphaltene Content
Asphaltenes are very complex high molecular aromatic components which can
agglomerate and deposit primarily due to a reduction in pressure. They are usually
associated with resins and will flocculate if these resins are solubilized by light end
saturates such as pentane.
Asphaltene content is usually determined by precipitation. The oil is titrated with a light
paraffinic solvent usually n- heptane until precipitation occurs (IP143/90). The amount of
material precipitated from a given oil will be dependent on the solvent used.
There is much confusion as to the nature of solids formed form hydrocarbons due to the
precipitation methods used to describe asphaltenes and waxes. Some high molecular
waxy saturates can be precipitated in the asphaltene content test and visa versa.
Saturates, Aromatics, Resigns & Asphaltenes (SARA)
SARA or PARA (paraffins Aromatics Resins and Asphaltenes) is a useful way of
characterizing a crude oil or fraction. A sample is characterized according to its main
constituent groups. These can be used to assess solvency of an oil and in wax modeling
to identify the relative paraffinic components from a total carbon number analysis.
Wax Dissolution Temperature
The wax dissolution temperature is the temperature at which precipitated wax crystals in
the bulk oil dissolve. In theory the cloud point or wax appearance temperature should be
the same as the dissolution temperature. However, because of kinetic effects like
supercooling, the cloud point is often times lower than the dissolution temperature by a
few degrees to over 30C depending upon the heating and cooling rate.
The dissolution temperature is not commonly measured but can be used for ensuring that
all wax is re-dissolved back in solution before filtering or storage of a crude oil.
Wax Melting Point
The wax melting point is the temperature at which a sample of solid wax melts. The
solid deposit is often obtained from the wax content measurement or from a field sample.
The melting point is higher than the wax dissolution temperature because there is no
solvent for the wax to dissolve in. Soft waxes have melting temperatures in the range of
50-60C while harder waxes may have melting temperatures as high as 90C.
H-0806.35
10-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The wax melting point may be used to define the temperature at which pipe walls or
storage facilities may need to be heated in order to remove solid deposits or sludges
Compositional Analysis
To predict the wax phase behavior a detailed compositional analysis of the crude oil is
required. A standard C7+ analysis from a PVT report is not adequate for predicting the
cloud point or the wax precipitation as a function of temperature, both of which are used
by some models for predicting wax build-up.
At a minimum, a quantitative
compositional analysis out to C30+ is required. This type of analysis can be obtained from
a PVT or geochemistry laboratory. The analysis can also be used to estimate the wax
content by totaling the normal waxes from C17+.
A second quantitative compositional analysis called high temperature gas
chromatography (HTGC), sometimes referred to as an extended paraffin analysis is
highly desired for the purposes of predicting cloud points and wax precipitation as a
function of temperature. This technique has been only been recently developed and is not
as readily obtainable. In general, a geochemistry lab is the most likely source for this
analysis. Figure 10.6-2 is a plot of HTGC data for two crude oils which shows normal
waxes extending out to carbon number 80. Recent research has indicated that the cloud
point of a crude oil can possibly be correlated to the C50+ fraction.
H-0806.35
10-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
10
CrudeA
N-Paraffin (wt%)
1
0.1
Crude B
0.01
0.001
0.0001
0.00001
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
CarbonNumber
Figure 10.6-2: Weight Percent n-Paraffins in Crude
Sensitivity of HTGC above C40 is a major concern. It is these high carbon number
paraffins that have been identified as the major wax forming compounds. However, they
are only present in tiny amounts oft en at the very limits of detection. Methods to
improve sensitivity include topping the oil by distillation of the lighter volatile
fractions, concentrating the waxes in the remaining oil and high resolution HTGC, the
resolution of HTGC is improving but it is a difficult and costly procedure.
Most predictions require this extended analysis on the normal straight chain paraffins.
However, there may be a significant proportion of iso and cyclic paraffins present as
well. Although HTGC is sensitive to the normal paraffins it will detect these other
components so it is important to differentiate the normal paraffin in the analysis.
As the predictive models become more complex some may require detailed analysis of
the iso and cyclic paraffins. In these cases HTGC Mass Spectrometry will be required
H-0806.35
10-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Pour Point / Pour Point Inversion

Pour Point is a very misunderstood parameter often misused in pipeline design. It is the
lowest temperature at which a sample of oil is observed to flow under gravity when
cooled under static conditions. It is not necessarily the temperature at which flow in a
pipeline will crease or even the temperature below which flow cannot be restarted
following a shut down.
Pour point has no quantitative valve in describing fluid flow properties used to predict
pumping and restart pressures. The parameters required to assess pumping pressures are
dynamic viscosities and for restart the yielding stresses are required. However, pour
points are often used by pipeline operators as an entrance specification for storage and
transportation in main export and trunk pipelines. They are particularly relevant to
storage tanks and shipping, where fluids flow under gravity or suction.
Rather pour point is a useful guide to the temperatures below which flow may not occur
and apparent viscosities will be highly dependent on shear (flow) rate. It can be used as
qualitative indicator of an oil's sensitivity to past sample handling and history.
An oil can exhibit a range of pour points depending on how it is handled. The most
commonly used value is the ASTM D97 (also IP 15) Upper Pour Point. However, this is
rarely relevant to fluids in a production system. A sample is warmed to 45C then cooled
either in uncontrolled steps or at a fixed rate. If this re-heat temperatures and cooling
rates are varied or mechanical shear added, then the resulting point pours may be
substantially different as shown in Figure 10.6-3.
It is useful to determine the maximum pour point an oil can exhibit and the conditions i.e.
reheat temperature, required to achieve it. The 45C used in ASTM D97 upper pour
point test is statistically based on this behavior.
H-0806.35
10-7
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
30
25
20
Pour Point C
15
ASTM D97 (IP15)
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Re-heat Temperature C
Figure 10.6-3: Pour Point Inversion
Above a certain reheat temperature the pour point values can significantly decline. In
many cases, if subjected to reservoir temperature the resulting pour points are
significantly lower than the ASTM Upper value. The re-heat temperature where the pour
points decline is sometimes referred to as the Pour Point Inversion Temperature".
Kinematic Viscosity
Kinematic viscosity cannot be directly used in predicting flowline or wellbore pressures.
= Kinematic Viscosity cSt

= Dynamic Viscosity cP or mPa.s
= Density
kg m 3
It must be converted to dynamic viscosity by using the following relationship:

Kinematic viscosity data are still quoted as PVT viscometry techniques such as the
falling or rolling ball cannot measure dynamic viscosity directly. These techniques rely
H-0806.35
10-8
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
on gravity or specific gravity of the fluid in the measurement. Glass capillary

viscometers are another commonly used measurement techniques principally for fuels
and lubricants.
Kinematic viscosity data are only valid for crude oils that exhibit Newtonian behavior
over the temperature range of interest. It is recommended that they are not used at
temperatures below the cloud point. Providing they meet these criteria they can be
converted to dynamic viscosity.
Although the most accurate method measurement is by using glass capillary viscometers
where the unit of kinematic viscosity is expressed in centistokes (cSt), other types of
viscometers are sometimes used where the viscosity units are Saybolt Universal Seconds
(SUS) or Saybolt Furol Seconds (SFS). These units can be converted to centistokes using
ASTM tables (D2161).
Non-Newtonian Transition Temperature
Where wax does not impact flow behavior, crude oils generally exhibit Newtonian
behavior and a linear relationship between the log of viscosity and temperature. At
temperature below the cloud point precipitated wax will change this relationship and
cause non-Newtonian beha vior kinematic viscosity as illustrated in Figure 10.6-4.
ln Viscosity
Transition
Newtonian
Temperature
Figure 10.6-4: Viscosity Temperature Relationship
H-0806.35
10-9
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The transition temperature can be determined by plotting viscosity against temperature.

The interest is not always as well defined as illustrated in Figure 10.6-4. Both kinematic
and dynamic viscosity data can be used. However, the relationships are different. When
using dynamic viscosity data the shear rates should be the same for all data points.
Pretreatments
The importance of pretreatment is highlighted in section 10.4.1. All subsequent
measurements and fluid behavior can depend on how the fluid is handled. Pretreatments
can consist of simply warming the oil to a prescribed temperature prior to testing (such as
the ASTM D97 Pour point), through to a complex temperature and shear program to
simulate actual production conditions.
Wherever possible the pretreatment should mimic temperature and shear histories the oil
is likely to experience once on production. It is also desirable to establish if the oil is
sensitive to handling and the magnitude of any high or low viscous states the oil may
exhibit.
Pretreatments can be conducted separately in specifically designed vessels or in the
instrument used to determine the final fluid property of interest. Whatever the case the
vessels should ideally be sealed to avoid or minimize loss of vapor and oxidization during
heating.
High viscosity, high pour point states can be usually achieved by warming the oil to a
temperature insufficient to fully dissolve all the precipitated waxes. Generally this is
close to the cloud point.
Low viscosity, low pour point states can be achieved by fully dissolving the waxes.
Restoring the fluids to reservoir temperature is usually sufficient but sometimes a higher
temperature is required. Where the sample is exposed to high temperatures the vessel
should be sealed and capable of holding a vapor pressure.
Following the heating the samples should be cooled at predetermined rates according to
the projected production profiles. If the system is uninsulated then the cooling rates will
be very high and fluids can be quenched to ambient temperature in under an hour.
Alternatively the cooling make take a day or in an insulated line. When quenching or
using high cooling rates it is important to ensure the rate of cooling is controlled
throughout the entire sample. If the flow properties are sensitive to handling then
uncontrolled cooling cannot be easily replicated or translated to the design.
H-0806.35
10-10
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
In addition to thermal history and pretreatments the effects of mechanical shear should be
assessed. Here the samples can be subjected to agitation or known shear during the
temperature cycle. High shear rates can induce very different fluid behavior from low
shear or fluids cooled statically.
If the subsequent low temperature flow behavior of the fluids is insensitive to
pretreatment then a single sample conditioning treatment can be employed. Otherwise
further investigation of each potential fluid state should be performed.
Dynamic Viscosity
Dynamic viscosity is an essential parameter in predicting pressure drop and heat transfer
rates in flowlines and wellbores. It will dictate Reynolds number and thus determine
whether flow is laminar or turbulent. It will used to predict friction factors and in
determining gas-liquid holdup. It is also important in governing wax deposition rates.
Often referred to simply as viscosity, dynamic viscosity is essentially the fluids
resistance to flow. When a fluid is subjected to a force it will deform and flow. The fluid
is then said to be under a shear stress and will flow with a shear (strain) rate. Its viscosity
is given by the ratio of shear stress to shear rate. Dynamic Viscosity is expressed in Pa*s
or cP (Note: 1 Pa*s = 1000 cP and 1cP = 1 mPa*s).
Viscosity is sensitive to changes temperature and pressure. An increase in temperature
will result in a decrease in viscosity, while increasing pressure will result in increasing
viscosity. However, for hydrocarbon fluids below the bubble point, increasing pressure
will increase the solution gas oil ratio, which in turn will actually reduce viscosity.
Viscosity can also vary with shear rates or flowrates. This behavior is termed nonNewtonian and the measured viscosity at the shear stresses or strain rates applied is called
the apparent viscosity. Details of non-Newtonian behaviors relevant to waxy oil are
given in section 10.4.1.
Most oils will exhibit both Newtonian and non-Newtonian behaviors depending on
applied shear rates and temperature. It is therefore important to assess the viscosity over
the appropriate shear rate range of interest as well as temperature. This can be achieved
by a series of flow curves at a number of fixed temperatures over the range of interest.
Alternatively viscosity can be measured as a function of temperature for a series of fixed
shear rates.
H-0806.35
10-11
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 10.6-5 illustrates the relationship between shear rate and shear stress for
Newtonian and shear-thinning oils.
Shear Stress
Non-Newtonian
Shear Thinning
Newtonian
Shear Rate
Figure 10.6-5: Viscosity Behavior
The apparent viscosity can be readily determined using a number of commercial or

purpose built viscometers. Although there are a wide range of instruments and sensor
configurations available there are just two basic measurement principles:
Constant rate. A shear (strain) rate is applied to a fluid either as a fix flowrate
through a pipe or a fixed speed in a rotational viscometer. The viscosity is derived
from measured stresses via pressure drop or torque on sensor.
Constant stress. A set shear stress is applied either as a fixed pressure drop across a
pipe or an applied torque to a movable surface. The resultant flowrate, deformation
or speed of rotation is measured to derive shear rate and viscosity.
The constant rate principle is widely used and suitable for most analysis. It enables the
behavior at set shear rates to be studied. The constant stress principle is more complex,
but allows study of flow behavior at fixed stresses (i.e. set pressure drop). It is better
suited for analyzing complex non-Newtonian behaviors such as thixotropy or flow
development following a start-up.
H-0806.35
10-12
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
In addition to the detection principles there are a number of sensing methodologies used
to measure viscosity. Table 10.6-5 described the basic principles and advantages of the
most commonly used types of instruments available for measuring oil viscosities. All can
be utilized with either the constant stress or constant rate principles.
Suitability
Many oils exhibit low viscosities requiring fairly sensitive instruments, especially at low
shear rates. When examining fluids over a wide temperature range, care must be taken to
ensure the viscosity remains within the instrument calibration range. Several viscometers
of different ranges may be required to cover reservoir to seabed temperatures.
Commonly used sensor configurations include the concentric cylinder and the tube or
model pipelines. These can suffer significant dimensional errors such as end effects,
which if not properly accounted for can amount to 30 percent of the measured values.
Most viscometers are open systems that could lead to significant evaporation when
dealing with light oils leading to higher viscosities. While when cooling over a wide
temperature the fluids may contract effecting the surface area (stresses) under test,
yielding false low readings.
It is important to note that the nominal shear rates used for calculating viscosity in most
laboratory studies are based on Newtonian behavior in Laminar flow. If fluids are being
measured under turbulent flow or are non-Newtonian then the actual shear rates will also
be a function of the flow properties and well as the flow rates and instrument or pipe
geometry. This is of significance for model pipeline viscometers. Correction factors for
shear thinning behavior are often applied to pipeline design but should also be applied to
the measurement of viscosity
H-0806.35
10-13
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTA
Table 10.6-5: Suitability of Techniques for Assessing Viscosity of Oils
Methods
Description
Falling/rolling Ball/sinker
An object, usually a sphere, is timed as

it falls or rolls under gravity between
two fixed points.
Ideally suited for high pressure systems
Measures kinematic viscosity - needs sp.

gravity determination
Undefined shear rate suitable only for
Newtonian behavior.
Concentric Cylinder
Cup and Bob
The fluid is contained within the

annual gap. The cup or bob can be
rotated to cause flow and the viscous
drag on the bob is measured.
Fixed nominal shear rates

Wide range of shear rates and viscosities
Non-Newtonian behaviors
Easy to use
Shear rate calculation complex for nonNewtonian behavior

Potential large end effects
poor sensitivity at low viscosity low shear
Loss of light ends at high temperatures
Cone & Plate
Fluid is contained within the exterior

angle of a cone and flat plate. The axis
of the cone is normal to and the apex
just touching the plate. The cone or
plate is rotated to impart flow and the
viscous drag measured on the cone
Fixed well-defined shear rates

Wide range of shear and viscosities
High sensitivity at low shear
Non-Newtonian behaviors.
Small sample size
Set-up tolerances critical

Sample can be expelled at high shear
Potential loss of light ends at high
temperatures.
Sample shrinkage if large temperature
range
Rotating disc
The viscous drag is measured on a

rotating flat disc immersed in the fluid.
Simple easy to use

Robust can be used in the field
Wide range of shear
No defined shear rate (variable across disc)

not suited to non-Newtonian behavior
Capillary/Tube/pipeline
The fluid is flowed through section of

tube and the resulting frictional
pressure is measured. Alternatively a
fixed pressure is applied and the
resulting flowrate measured
Pipe flow.
Possible to measure turbulent conditions
Enclosed system. Less evaporation.
Wide range of shear rates
Measurement section must be isothermal.

Shear difficult to define shear in turbulence
Potential large dimensional errors (esp.
capillary tubes)
Need to recondition fluid if recirculating
H-0806.35
Advantages
10-2
Disadvantages
DEEPSTAR
Yield Stress
If an oil cools below its pour point, e.g. during a shut down, it is possible that it may
solidify. The resultant structure, which is gelled oil and not solid wax, will flow
providing sufficient force is applied. This force required to initiate flow is known as the
yield stress.
If the oil is likely to cool below its pour point and potentially gel, then yield stresses
should be determined at the minimum environmental temperatures.
There are two principle methods used to determine yield stress. The most commonly
used is the model pipeline. Here a sample is pumped through small-bore tubing then shut
in and cooled to the required temperature. Incremental pressure steps are applied until
the sample is displaced in a given time. The yield stress can be calculated and scaled-up
to the design system via the wall stress:
Yield Stress wall =
Pressure x diameter
4 x length
The pipeline method can be easily adapted to measure the properties of live fluids at
elevated pressures if required.
The second method is viscometry in which the sample is cooled statically in the
instrument then subjected to either a small hear and the resultant stress measured or
preferably a given stress and the resultant stain (shear) measured. The stress or strain at
which flow occurs is detected.
Alternatively the relationship between measured shear stress and shear rate is
extrapolated to zero shear as shown in Figure 10.6-6.
H-0806.35
10-1
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Shear Stress
Yield Stress
Shear Rate s-1
Figure 10.6-6: Yield Stress Behavior
It is important to note that these methods may not always measure the yielding stresses of
the gel structure. If the gel structure is strong (>20 Pa), breakdown often occurs at the
wall resulting in plug flow of the gel, or in the case of the viscometer breakdown at the
moving surface resulting in a thin fluid layer. This behavior is difficult to scale and is not
consistently repeatable.
However, the available stresses in a typical flowline are likely to be lower than the values
at which this wall breakaway yield behavior generally occurs. For example a yield stress
of 20 Pa is equivalent to a restart pressure of 60 psi per mile in a 12- inch diameter line
and 180 psi per mile in a 4- inch diameter line.
Complex Rheological Properties
For the majority of light fluid oils the apparent viscosity temperature behavior over the
temperature and shear rate range appropriate to the production rates of interest will be
H-0806.35
10-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
sufficient for production system design. Here the fluids exhibit limited non-Newtonian
behavior and are unlikely to cool below their pour points.
However, this may not be the case for waxy, high pour point fluids. Here the pour points
may be significantly above the minimum environmental temperatures. In these cases,
while apparent viscosity may be sufficient to calculate equilibrium steady state pressure
drop, more complex rheological data will be required to predict how flow will develop
during transients such as start- up. Here the development and breakdown of gel structures
with time (thixotropy) as well as flowrate and temperature can be very complex.
Any studies to examine the complex flow properties of waxy oils should be designed and
conducted with the assistance of an expert rheologist. In most cases flow development
studies using constant stress rheometers or model pipelines are appropriate. Studies to
assess theses complex fluid properties should be individually tailored to the specific fluid
and conditions of interest. When conducting a detailed rheological study the issues of
sample handling and past history must still be considered.
Live Oil Rheology.
While nearly all the data for determining the flow properties of waxy oils are performed
at standard conditions on dead oil, yet the fluids in a production system will be live
with associated solution gas, light ends and pressure. The viscosity of live reservoir and
flowline fluids can be significantly lower than that of dead oil especially when containing
a high solution gas fraction.
Fortunately most light oils exhibit low viscosities and near Newtonian behavior even at
low temperatures such that the impact of non-Newtonian behavior on design is minimal.
Here live viscosity data from PVT studies may suffice together with dead oil correlations.
However, these viscosities can only be extrapolated if the fluids exhibit Newtonian
behavior.
Once a solid wax fraction is present the live fluid properties are difficult to predict from
dead oil measurements. If the fluid flow properties (determined on dead oil) are likely to
cause pumping or transportation difficulties then an assessment of the non-Newtonian
properties of the live fluids may be appropriate
PVT viscosity determinations are normally performed using a rolling or falling ball or
sinker viscometer. Here a body is timed as it falls through the fluid under gravity and the
viscosity is derived from Stokes Law. Data from these viscometers, like the kinematic
H-0806.35
10-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
viscosities, must be converted to dynamic viscosity before it is usable for pipeline design.
The fluids are assumed to be Newtonian and shear rates are not measured or controlled.
If the fluids exhibit non-Newtonian behavior PVT type viscosity data is insufficient.
Apparent viscosities are required at a range of appropriate shear rates. Such
measurements are difficult to obtain for live fluids requiring specialist equip ment.
Although commercial instruments are available most are not suited to the viscosity and
low shear rates ranges associated with transportation of crude oils. The sensitivity
required many suffer from significant errors due to friction through seals or magnetic
couplings.
Tube or pipeline viscometers offer a suitable solution. Capillaries through to small-bore
(<1 inch) pipelines can be used as sealed systems. The fluids can be pumped through at a
fixed rate or pushed through at a fixed pressure. Care must be taken that the flow is
laminar and single phase and that the sensitivity of the measurement system is suitable
for the range of viscosities and throughputs. The measurement section should ideally be
straight, isothermal and be at least 100 pipe diameters from any sharp bends or intrusions.
While viscosity is the most important parameter other live fluid flow properties such as
pour point and yield stress can also be considered if the dead oil properties indicate a
potential problem. Both the live pour points and yield stress are likely to be significantly
lower than the equivalent dead oil values. The methodology and equipment used are
essentially the same as for the dead oil tests.
Any measurements made on live oils require the same considerations to temperature and
shear history as for the dead oils. In addition these parameters may have to be
determined for a range of pressures and solution gas fractions.
Deposition Rates
There are no standard procedures for assessing wax deposition and each company or
research group has developed its own methodology. However, most agree that in order to
estimate the rate of solid wax layer build- up on pipe walls some measure of the oils
ability to deposit wax on a surface is required.
A variety of tests ha ve been devised ranging from single static cold fingers to plant sized
flowloops. The Table 10.6-6 details some of the more common equipment used.
H-0806.35
10-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
While all these techniques form a deposit not all directly measure the thickness deposited
or rate of build- up. The main problem is that as yet there is no remote wax thickness
detector. Therefore, the thickness must be derived from the total mass measured at the
end of a test or inferred from other parameters such as pressure rise across a section of
pipe. Similarly the rate of deposition can must be derived from such parameters or
averaged over time given the final mass deposited.
A major concern for studying wax deposition is how to scale-up from the lab test to the
field. There are many parameters which can effect deposition including the surface and
fluid temperatures, heat transfer, flow regimes and stresses and time. They may be
competing and not all can be simulated and scaled together.
Most studies deriving a deposition factor as a function of flow rate and temperature. A
test will simulate a specific portion of the system where the oil or surface temperatures
and a flow parameter (usually shear rate) are fixed. The deposition factor is then used to
scale to field conditions typically from heat transfer rates.
In assessing the deposition rates of an oil the following points should be considered and
incorporated into any study:
Mass Detected. The amount of wax deposited should be within the sensitivity of the
detection system. In small test cells and mini- flowloops this may be fractions of a gram.
Where very little wax has deposited the boundary layer of oil wetting the surface may be
95 percent or more of the total mass. Oil entrapped in thicker deposits may still account
for between 50 and 90 percent of deposit mass (see aging below). Errors here will be
compounded when scaling- up over weeks of months in the field.
H-0806.35
10-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Table 10.6-6: Wax Deposition Rate Measurement Techniques

Test
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
Static cold finger
A cold surface is immersed in a reservoir of oil for

set duration then removed and inspected. The surface
can simple cooled block or finger, cooled tube or
sophisticated probe
No flow effects
risk of depletion of wax in small sample
vol.
Useful inhibitor screening tool
Quick Simple.
Small vols of sample.
Deposit formed.
Deposit directly inspected.
Accurate control of temperatures
Adaptable for live oil
As above but shear can be applied to flow the oil over

the surface. This can be achieved with stirring or
immersing the surface in a flowing stream.
For better control concentric cylinders are used
As above
Addition of shear.
Accurate control of shear/stress or flow
velocity.
Risk of depletion in small sample vol.

Difficult to simulate pipeflow and
turbulence.
Difficult to monitor in-situ deposition
until end of test.
Quick, Simple
Small vols of sample
Qualitative measure of in-situ
deposition rates.
Live oils
No direct measure of deposit.

Laminar flow regimes only.
Uncertain temperature profiles and heat
transfer rates.
Requires thick deposit for detection
Simulates pipeflow regimes

Limited sample volumes
Control of temperature & flow rate
deposition rates
Complex equipment
Cannot scale all flow parameters
No direct measure of deposit at specific
points.
Need to recondition recirculating oil.
DP insensitive in Laminar flow
Potential waxing outside deposition
section.
Dynamic cold
finger
Useful inhibitor screening and deposition

characterization tool
Capillary/tube
blocking
Warm oil is displaced through a narrow bore tube

until pressure increase indicates restriction or
blockage. Often used in uncontrolled cooling but
better results achievable with set temperature regimes
Useful inhibitor screening tool
Recirculating
flowloops
Oil is pumped through a section of pipe in which

conditions of temperature and flow can be defined.
Deposition can be detected by increasing pressure
and recovering of deposit.
Useful qualitative tool for assessing deposition
characteristics.
H-0806.35
10-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Table 10.6-6: Wax Deposition Rate Measurement Techniques (continued)

Test
Description
Advantages
Disadvantages
Once through
flowloops
Fresh undepleted oil is pumped through a section of

pipe. Flow and temperature conditions are controlled
within the section.
Deposition is monitored through increasing pressure
drop and possible finial recovery of deposit.
Reasonable simulation of process.

No depletion effects.
Pipeflow regimes
Control of temperature & flow rate
deposition rates.
Large sample volumes

Cannot scale all flow parameters
No direct measure of deposit at
specific points.
DP insensitive in Laminar flow
Potential waxing outside deposition
section
Close simulation of flow regimes.

Realistic scaling of wax thickness to
dia.
Reduced depletion effects
Multiphase flow regimes possible
Large volumes of oil

Complex and time consuming
DP insensitive in laminar flow
Fluid conditioning difficult if
recirculating.
Difficult to recover deposit form
direct measurement.
Limitless supply of true production

fluids (no conditioning)
No depletion
Realistic pipeflow conditions
HSE Live fluids Permits

Difficult to control flow and
temperatures
Short sections limit temperature
profiles.
Noise impedes sensitivity of DP
monitoring
Difficult to recover deposit (HSE)
Small sample volume

assessment of rheological properties
No formation or measure of deposit

No control of temperature gradients
Ideal research tool

Large pilot plant
Flowloops
Oil is pumped though pipes realistic of field

conditions (2+ dia). Temperature profiles can be
applied to simulate part or entire thermal profiles of
field.
Mainly used as research tool or to answer very
specific questions
Field Side
Streams Tests
A sidestream is taken from the wellhead or separator

and passed through a temperature controlled section
of pipe.
Semi field trial
Viscometry
Wax build up is inferred from rheological behavior.

Not recommended
H-0806.35
10-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Duration of Test. This will effect the amount deposited, too short and insufficient wax
will be deposited leading to large errors. If the oil layer wetting the surface is counted as
deposit then the projected deposition rates will be to high (see figure). Too long a
duration and three effects; aging, depletion and insulation may occur all limiting the
build-up as shown in Figure 10.6-7.
The tests should be designed so that the deposition rate is determined in the area for
steady build-up and effects described can be ignored or accounted for.
Mass Deposited
Averaged
Actual
Time
Figure 10.6-7: Deposit Growth
Ideally, the rate of build-up should be monitored throughout the test to identify this area.
Also in realty the build- up is not steady, especially in a flowing system. Waxes may be
deposited and stripped away unevenly. These peaks and troughs can significantly effect
the average deposition rate.
Aging. Deposits formed in the laboratory are generally forced with high differential
temperatures between the oil and deposition surfaces so as to generate sufficient deposit
in a reasonable time frame. This tends to produce a deposit containing a high proportion
(>80 percent) entrapped oil. In reality deposits are formed over longer periods. Here the
H-0806.35
10-1
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
deposit structure reorders as the waxes are concentrated towards the wall and oil is
excluded. Thus the deposit appears to harden or age with time as the oil content
reduces. The final oil content of the deposit may be anywhere from 25 to 75 percent.
This effect is very difficult to reproduce in laboratory test cells or flowloops unless the
test is run for long enough.
Depletion. At any given temperature there is only a finite fraction of the waxes available
to deposit. In a closed system using a finite volume of oil this can cause significant
problems where the deposition will slow and eventually cease as all the available wax at
the test temperature is used. At temperatures near the cloud point there will only be a
very small fraction of the wax available to deposit. If depletion of the wax phase occurs,
the deposition rate will be underestimated. This can be avoided if fresh oil is continuous
used.
The composition of the liquid phase is also continually changing in a closed system.
Wax Insulation. As a waxy layers builds up on a cooled surface it will act as an
insulator. Heat transfer will predominately be by conduction through the layer and both
waxes and crude oil have a fairly low thermal conductivity. In a test where the deposit
growth is forced through high temperature differences, this insulation effect will reduce
subsequent heat transfer rates and will slow deposit ion growth.
Temperature profiles. Most tests force deposition growth via high heat transfer rates
and high temperature differences between the oil and surface. This may be the case in a
totally uninsulated system by not for the majority of systems even with minimal
insulation. The situation of hot oil above the cloud point flowing over a cold surface at
seabed temperature rarely occurs in reality. The oil and pipewalls will both cool
simultaneously.
Tests that mimic actual conditions would consist of the oil and surface cooling from
above the cloud point to ambient temperatures. In order to scale-up tests which form a
deposit over a wide temperature range must be able to distinguish the growth rates at
specific points or temperatures. A series of fixed temperature condition tests to mimic
specific points in a pipeline may be more appropriate
Flow effects: The flow of oil over the deposition surface will substantially change the
amount and character of the deposit. Heat transfer and temperature profiles will change.
Shear dispersion may also take place but the major effect is from shearing depositing wax
off the wall (sloughing). There is debate as to how the flow should be scales from the
H-0806.35
10-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
test to the field. Shear rate or flow velocity are the parameters most often used.
However, the flow regimes could still be totally different, turbulent in the field versus
laminar in the test. Turbulent flow can reduce the measured deposit thickness by an order
of magnitude.
Multiphase flow regimes effects are much harder to simulate and little is yet known as to
how many of these effect deposition growth.
Sample conditioning. The prior handling of a waxy oil can have a significant effect on
the viscosity. Deposition is indirectly proportional to liquid viscosity so it is essential to
ensure the correct viscosity during the test. Pretreating the oil is recommended both to
achieve the correct fluid state and ensure all waxes are returned to solution so as to be
available for deposition.
Live Oil. Flow loops el nd themselves well for live oil testing if required. However
significant quantities may be required for such a study. Another significantly problem is
depressurizing the system to recover the deposit without destroying it. Here gases
entrapped in the deposit will expand potentially blowing the deposit apart.
Deposition Factors
Having measured a deposition rate in a test cell or flowloop the results must be scaled to
the field. This is usually done by deriving a deposition factor from the tests. This factor
is based on the molecular diffusion mechanism. The factor may incorporate or be
described as a function of temperature and flow rate.
Deposition Tendency
Based on molecular diffusion, deposition tendency is a measure of the fluid deposition
rate normalized to heat transfer rate. It is usually quoted in grams per day per watt. It is
a function of temperature and determined at a number of discrete surface temperatures as
illustrated in Figure 10-22.
As temperatures fall below the cloud point, deposit ion tendency will increase with
concentration gradient of precipitating waxes. However, viscosity has a competing effect
slowing down the rate of diffusion to the surface. Eventually the viscosity will dominate
and the deposition tendency will reduce.
The parameter is easily derived providing an accurate measure of the deposit mass is
taken along with the rate of heat transferred from the oil through the cooled surface.
H-0806.35
10-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Clo
ud
Poi
nt
Increase flowrate
Deposition Tendency
Figure 10-5: Deposition Tendency
Temperature
Flow rate will influence the results as wax is stripped from the surface. It is usual to
determine a series of deposition tendency temperature curves at several shear rates (see
Figure 10-22). Laminar flow may enhance deposition rates but once turbulent is
established deposition rates fall significantly.
Deposition Diffusion Coefficient
The deposition rate and tendency can be further reduced to the diffusion rate by isolating
the phase behavior of the waxes, viscosity and the temperature gradients in the fluids.
Although not a true diffusion coefficient the derived value will vary with flowrate.
A single value can be used to describe the waxing characteristics over the entire
temperature range, providing the fluid viscosity is accounted for. A different value can
be used for each flowrate or flow regime to account for the wax sloughing.
Wilke Chang proposed a value of (HOLD). However, values derived from most crude
oils are substantially higher, ranging from 1 x 10-5 to 1 x 10-4 cP-cm2 /s. These derived
values may or may not take account of entrapped oil depending on the further analysis or
modeling to be performed.
H-0806.35
10-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Inhibitor Evaluation
The selection of any form of fluid property modification usually consists of two stages: 1)
the rapid screening of products to identify a number of potential inhibitors, and 2)
detailed performance studies of the best candidates.
Any screening program must be relevant to the problem and conditions being addressed,
e.g. if a low temperature viscosity improver is required then low temperature viscosities
should be measured.
Having identified a number of potential candidates the final performance of each must be
fully assessed. Here the modified fluid properties should be measured under the full
range of flow conditions appropriate to design conditions. Here the information given in
sections 10.4 and 10.5 should be followed.
The conditions at which the inhibitor is injected can also be critical to performance.
Temperature and shear conditions at the point of injection can have substantial impact on
performance but are often neglected during screening studies. The ultimate success of
any screening and selection program also depends on evaluating a valid representative
sample at representative conditions.
Flow Improvers (PPDs)
Pour Point Depressants are so called because of their ability to modify wax crystallization
and hence low temperature flow properties including pour point. Therefore, pour point is
a useful rapid first screening tool. Several pour point tests are recommended as the fluid
can exhibit different sensitivities to shear and temperature depending test methodology.
The ASTM D97 upper pour point generally this produces a highly sensitive viscosity
state, while restoring the fluid to reservoir temperature may subsequently result in a less
sensitive state in which the inhibitors may not perform so well.
In addition to pour point some measure of flow behavior is essential. Pour point is not an
indicator of flow and some measure of the modification of viscosity is required. It may
not be necessary to inhibit the pout point to below the environmental temperature to
maintain flow in a pipeline. The low temperature dynamic viscosities should be
determined either as several flow curves at set temperatures or measured while cooled
under several separate shear rates. Here both a measure of performance and the
sensitivity to flow conditions can be assessed both above and below the pour point.
H-0806.35
10-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Final performance evaluation of the selected inhibitors should take account of the wide
range of flow and thermal conditions the fluid can be subjected to both in normal
production and during transients.
Restart (PPDs)
As above the pour point test is a useful indicator of modification to flow properties
including yielding behavior. A good inhibitor will not only lower the pour point but will
also significantly reduce the yield stresses and/or dynamic viscosities at a given
temperature. Again it is not always necessary to inhibit pour point to below
environmental temperature to enable a restart. Here an inhibitor should reduce the yield
stress to the design value at the average minimum environmental temperature.
Unfortunately this can be a lengthy test requiring significant quantities of sample or
complex if using constant stress rheology which can also to assess flow development
following restart.
These tests do not lend themselves easily to a quick screening program. However, pour
point is still a useful first indicator and yield stress can be used as a final performance
parameter.
Wax Deposition Inhibitors
To assess the effectiveness of a wax deposition inhibitor, its ability to inhibit the build-up
of solid wax must be measured. Parameters such as pour point or viscosity are of little
relevance. In fact the rate of wax build-up can be accelerated by reducing viscosity.
Irrespective of the test equipment used there are a number of issues associated with
deposition that must be considered in both initial screening and final performance testing:
All tests must form a measurable deposit.
The ratio of entrapped oil to deposited wax should be assessed. Inhibitors which
reduce overall deposit may in reality only reduce the entrapped oil fraction producing
a harder deposit.
A qualitative assessment of the deposit harness and/or tenacity is extremely useful.

Inhibitors producing a thin but hard layer may ultimately prove detrimental for
remediation compare to an inhibitor that produces a soft open potential thicker
deposit.
Tests performed under static or low shear are not indicative of field conditions. The
flow regime or shear rates can have significant impact on the nature of the deposit.
Higher flowrates result in harder deposits containing less entrapped oil. Inhibitors
H-0806.35
10-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
which affect the amount and/or nature of the deposit under static condition may not
perform as well under flowing conditions.
p
em
lT
i
O
p
em
la l T
W
te
Ra
n
io
sit
po
e
D
Cloud Point
Ambient Temp
Distance
Figure 10.6-9: Deposition Rate Profile
The temperature conditions are critical.

Tests should mimic actual conditions
experienced at various points in the system. Many inhibitors are tested for their ability to
inhibit deposition at external ambient temperatures. Figure 10.6-9 illustrates a typical
deposition rate profile in a pipeline. Maximum deposition occurs where the pipewall
cools below the cloud point. Tending to zero at ambient temperature. Therefore tests
should focus where deposition rates are highest.
Cold finger cells provide a useful screening tool. Ideally the test should be dynamic with
control of flow or shear across the surface. Deposits can be recovered and assessed for
mass and composition and potentially mechanical strength. Test conditions should be
picked to assess performance at several discrete realistic temperature conditions. The
drawback is that less wax is deposited in the lab tests at warmer temperatures and the
accuracy is therefore effected.
Tube blocking can provide useful data providing the temperature distribution in the tube
is known and is not too severe. The relative performance of the inhibitors can not be
assessed if the position and temperature at which the blocking occurred cannot be
accurately determined. This is a potential problem for the shock cooling often applied in
H-0806.35
10-7
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
these tests which is also uncontrolled and unrealistic of field conditions. A series of
incremental decreasing temperature steps is preferable Here rates of blocking can be
assessed at each temperature step. The drawback is that no deposit is recovered although
some measure of mechanical strength is feasible through yielding stress measurement.
Both the above provide relatively quick screening procedures with minimal use of
sample. The cold finger has the added advantage of a quantifiable measure of deposit
which can be used for predicting field deposition profiles. However, the performance of
the selected inhibitor must be assessed over the full operating conditions expected in the
line.
Chemical Compatibility\
Wax inhibitors and flow improvers tend to be fairly inert. However, wax solvents and
the solvents used to dilute wax inhibitors tend to be low flash point aromatics that may
give rise to HSE and compatibility problems.
Prior to selecting any production chemical it is essential to establish its compatibility with
the production system including seals and liners, production processing, other production
chemicals and its impact on Health Safety and the Environment. Some regions of the
world preclude the use of certain highly toxic chemistries and all have strict regulations
on oil in water discharges. The use of wax inhibitors especially surfactant type can cause
process and separation problems which could jeopardize the discharge spec.
Prior to using a wax inhibitor the chemical compatibility with other production chemicals
that it may come into contact with in storage or within the injection facilities. Table 10.67 outlines where some incompatibilities are known, notably with methanol. However,
the compatibility must always be checked with the chemical service company.
In addition to checking the above chemical compatibility and that with materials it is also
important to check that the inhibitor does not impair the performance of other production
chemicals and visa versa. This should be done on an individual case by case basis.
H-0806.35
10-8
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Table 10.6-7: Chemical Compatibility

Chemical Inhibitor Compatibility Matrix
Compatibility of binary mixtures of actives
OK = Chemicals can usually be
mixed neat;
? = UNCERTAIN; need testing to
verify compatibility;
NO = Chemicals are likely to be
INCOMPATIBLE.
Paraffin control (all nonionic)
Hydrate
Inhibitors
Olefin/maleic
esters (C18-C30)
Ethylene vinyl
acetate copolymers
Xylene
Polyvinylcaprolactam
Methanol
NO
NO
OK
Ethylene glycol
NO
NO
OK
Olefin/maleic esters (C18-C30)

Parafiin
Inhibitors
Ethylene vinyl acetate copolymers
OK
Xylene
Corrosion
Inhibiors
Scale
Inhibitors
Biocides
Demulsifiers
H-0806.35
Amine fatty acid salts

(OIL SOLUBLE)
Imidazolines
(WATER SOLUBLE)
NO
NO
NO
Imidazolines
(OIL SOLUBLE)
Alkyl quaternary ammonium

compounds (WATER SOLUBLE)
NO
NO
NO
Phosphonates pH 4-8
Phosphate esters pH 4-8
Polyacrylates pH 4-8
Quaternary ammonium
chlorides (cationic)
Gluteraldehyde (nonionic)
Dithiocarbamates (anionic)
Polyglycol resin esters

(OIL SOLUBLE, nonionic)
OK
Sulfonates (anionic)
OK
OK
Oxyalylated amines (nonionic)
OK
OK
10-9
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Glossary
Alkanes
Aliphatic linear chain hydrocarbons Cn H2n+2

also called paraffins. e.g. Methane Propane.
Chains containing >17 carbons tend to be waxy.
Apparent
Viscosity
Dynamic viscosity measured or quoted at a specific shear rate.

Units are Pa.s or cP. Note 1 cP 1mPa.s.
Aromatics
Hydrocarbon ring structures containing 3 double bonds e.g. benzene
Asphaltenes
High Molecular weight compounds consisting largely of highly

condensed aromatics
Cloud Point
Temperature and pressure at which paraffin waxes first crystallize.

Usually quoted at atmospheric pressure.
Cyclic
paraffin/alkane
Alkanes having their carbon atoms linked in rings typically of 5 or 6

carbons e.g. cyclopentanes and cyclohexanes. High Molecular weight
cyclic alkanes may contain several rings plus straight or branched chains.
Deposition
The formation of a solid layer of paraffin wax onto a surface.
Deposition
Tendency
A measure of the deposition rate, incorporating molecular diffusion, heat

transfer rates and flow rate effects. Unit gram/day.watt
Diffusion rate
The rate at which waxes in solution diffuse towards a surface.
Dilatancy
(Shear thickening)
Flow rate dependent non-Newtonian fluid behavior.

The apparent viscosity increases with increasing shear.
Effect is reversible.
Dynamic
Viscosity
Measure of fluid resistance to flow. Units Pa.s or cP

Relationship between applied stress and resulting strain or shear.
Dynamic Yield
Stress
The minimum stress required to maintain fluid flow. Units Pa or psi

Different for Static Yield stress of stationary fluid.
Gelation
Formation of semi solid wax structures, eventually extending throughout

the entire fluid and solidifying the oil.
HTGC
High Temperature Gas Chromatography.
H-0806.35
10-10
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Iso paraffin/alkane
Alkanes consisting of linear backbone and a number of side chains.
Kinematic
Viscosity
Ratio of dynamic viscosity to density. Units m2 s-1 of cSt. Used where

detection system relies on gravity i.e. Falling ball.
Molecular
diffusion
Mechanism by which waxes in solution are transported to a cooled

surface independent of flow.
Newtonian
Description of fluid whose viscosity is finite at zero flow and

independent of applied shear or stress
Non-Newtonian
Fluid whose viscosity varies with applied shear or stress. Fluids can
exhibit increase or decreasing viscosity with increasing shear.
Normal
Paraffin/Alkane
Alkane consisting of straight chain with no branching or ring structures.

Most abundant species in majority of crudes and condensates.
PARA
Paraffin, Aromatic, Resins and Asphaltene characterization of oil.

Number of chromatography techniques employed
Paraffin.
See alkanes. Often applied to alkanes > C17 and to waxy solids
recovered from operations.
Paraffin Wax
Alkanes >C17 .
Pour Point
Highest temperature at which a fluid is observed to flow under presubscribed conditions (usually gravity)
PPD
Pour Point Depressant. Chemical to reduce the pour point and improve
low temperature flow pumpability.
Rheology
Science of Fluid flow.
SARA
Saturates Aromatics, Resins and Asphaltenes. See PARA
Shear dispersion
Mechanism by which precipitated wax is transported to a surface by the

fluid flow.
Shear rate
Internal velocity gradient or strain rate within a fluid under flow. Unit s-1
Shear Stress
Force exerted to or by a fluid under flow. Unit Pa, psi or dynes/cm2
H-0806.35
10-11
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Shear Thinning
Flow rate dependent non-Newtonian fluid behavior.

Apparent viscosity decreases with increasing shear. Effect is reversible.
Static Yield Stress
Force required to overcome internal resistance and initial flow.

Different to dynamic yield stress of flowing fluids. .
Unit Pa psi
Thixotropic
Time dependent non-Newtonian fluid behavior.

The apparent viscosity can decay and recover in time with varying shear.
Viscosity
Measure of fluids resistance to flow. Correctly termed coefficient of

Viscosity. Relationship between applied stress and resulting strain or
shear. Units Pa.s or cP see dynamic and kinematic viscosities.
Wax
High Molecular weight saturates esp. paraffins >C17. May consist of

normal iso and cyclo alkanes, but often applied to any material deposited
Wax appearance
temperature (WAT)
The temperature at which waxes first crystallize from solutions at a given

pressure. See cloud point.
Wax content
Total amount of wax forming compounds. Can be defined in 2 ways.

1 Total amount of C17+ paraffins
2 Total amount of precipitated saturates at specific temperature.
Wax crystal modifier
Chemical which inhibits or modifies wax crystallization and growth.

Used as both wax inhibitors and PPDs
Wax dispersant
Chemical which prevents wax crystal agglomeration.

Used as both wax inhibitors and PPDs
Wax inhibitor
Chemical used to suppress the build up of waxy deposits.
Yield Stress
See static and dynamic yield stresses.
H-0806.35
10-12
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING INC.
11.
ASPHALTENES
11.1
Introduction
DEEPSTAR.
The ASTM D-3279-90 (IP143/90) test defines asphaltenes as solids that precipitate when
an excess of n- heptane or n-pentane is added to a crude oil. Chemically, asphaltenes are
high molecular weight, polynuclear aromatic, polar compounds containing carbon,
hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur and some heavy metals such as vanadium and
nickel. Figure 11-1 gives a representation of an asphaltene molecule; however,
asphaltenes do not have a single, unique structure or molecular weight.
Unlike waxes, asphaltenes do not melt. Consequently, thermal methods such as
insulation, hot oiling, etc. do not work to prevent or remediate asphaltene deposition.
Figure 11-1: Theoretical Asphaltene Molecule
H-0806.35
11-1
1-Dec-00
11.2
DEEPSTAR.
Operational Problems Due to Asphaltenes

Asphaltenes can deposit in reservoirs, wellbore tubing, flowlines, separators, etc. The
deposits can interrupt and potentially stop production due to the formation of plugs.
Asphaltenes are suspended by resins as micelles in the crude oil. Resins are chemically
similar to asphaltenes on one end and similar to alkanes on the other. The first step in the
deposition process is flocculation (aggregation) of molecules.
The asphaltene
flocculation point is the pressure at which asphaltenes first begin to precipitate at a fixed
temperature. At this point, the resins separate from the asphaltenes. An asphaltene with
resins present is illustrated in Figure 11-2.
Figure 11-2: Asphaltene with Resin
If the resins separate from the asphaltenes, then the asphaltenes will flocculate
(aggregate). Asphaltene flocculation may be irreversible. That means if asphaltenes have
flocculated in a sample container, it may not be possible to put the asphaltenes
completely back in suspension. Sampling procedures need to be carefully designed to
preserve the original temperature and pressure conditions.
H-0806.35
11-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
The resins can separate from the asphaltenes for several reasons. A few of these are
highlighted below:
11.2.1 Pressure Decrease
The resins can separate from the asphaltenes as the pressure drops from reservoir
pressure to the bubble point pressure of the fluid. The pressure decreases as the produced
fluids travel up the wellbore. Asphaltene deposition stops at the point in the wellbore
where the bubble point pressure is reached. As the pressure drops from the reservoir
pressure to the bubble point pressure the resins become increasingly soluble in the liquid
phase and separate from the asphaltene micelles. Below the bubble point, the likelihood
of asphaltene deposition drops dramatically.
Figure 11-3 illustrates the process described above in a pressure and temperature diagram
showing the region where asphaltene deposition is expected.
Figure 11-3: Asphaltene Flocculation Zone as a Function of Temperature and Pressure
Asphaltene deposition can begin deep in the wellbore while the pressure is well above the
bubble point. The potential and severity of the problem can be estimated using the graph
shown in Figure 11-4.
H-0806.35
11-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
Figure 11-4: Asphaltene Flocculation Zone as a Function of Temperature and Pressure
The greatest potential for asphaltene deposition occurs for low in-situ crude densities
with reservoir pressures much greater than the bubble point of the fluid (Reference 1). It
is important to note that density changes do not cause asphaltene deposition but can be an
indicator of potential problems.
11.2.2 Miscible Flooding with CO2 or Natural Gas.
Asphaltenes can deposit during miscible flooding. The miscible gas dissolves into the
crude and decreases the density and viscosity so that the crude oil will flow more readily.
Unfortunately, this causes the micelles to become unstable with the resins more likely to
separate from the asphaltenes, which leads to the asphaltenes flocculating.
11.2.3 During An Acidization Process
If a crude oil containing asphaltenes comes in contact with a typical acid solution during
an acidizing job, asphaltenes can flocculate in the near wellbore region. Some wells have
been seriously damaged and even unrecoverable due to asphaltene flocculation during
acidizing. If the potential for the problem is recognized ahead of time, the service
company providing the acidizing job can typically formulate an acid mixture that will
minimize the flocculation.
In addition, certain operational procedures can be
H-0806.35
11-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
implemented as well. For example, it is possible to push a batch of diesel or xylene into
the formation ahead of the acid. This will minimize contact between the in-situ crude oil
and the acid. Also, all chemicals to be pumped into a well (including diesel and xylene)
should be tested for compatibility.
11.2.4 Mixing of Very Different Fluids
Asphaltenes can flocculate when two hydrocarbon fluids are mixed. For example, a
problem may occur when a condensate is mixed with a black oil. This can occur
wherever fluids are being commingled (i.e., in a wellbore, flowline, separator or an
export line). This problem typically occurs when fluids of very different densities (API
gravities) are mixed. For an individual oil, the resin/asphaltene micelles may be stable,
but when another fluid of a lower density (high API gravity) is added, the density of the
entire liquid phase decreases. Resins are more soluble in lower density fluids and
consequently separate from the micelles to dissolve in the hydrocarbon mixture. When
the resins separate from the micelles, the asphaltenes aggregate (flocculate). The
likelihood of the micelles destabilizing in a particular oil can be estimated using the
asphaltene titration technique with a normal alkane or by titrating it directly with the
second hydrocarbon fluid. For live conditions (such as downhole), it is possible to mix
the two fluids directly under live conditions.
11.2.5 Gas Lift
Gas lift can be either detrimental or beneficial to an asphaltene problem. If a lean gas is
used as the lift gas, then the lift gas will extract some of the light ends of the crude oil
into the vapor phase. This will result in increasing the density of the remaining liquid
phase which will promote the resins remaining attached to the asphaltenes and enhance
asphaltene stability.
If a rich gas is used, some of the heavier ends of the rich gas (i.e., butane, propane,
ethane, etc.) will dissolve into the liquid phase and decrease its density. When the
density of the liquid phase decreases, the resins become more soluble in the liquid and
separate from the asphaltenes. If enough resins separate from the micelles, then
asphaltenes will begin to flocculate. This is similar to asphaltene deposition caused by a
light gas (such as CO2 ) dissolving in the crude oil during a miscible flood.
11.2.6 Effect of Asphaltenes on Emulsions
Asphaltenes are polar compounds, which can interact strongly with water. Because of
this interaction, asphaltenes can cause emulsion problems. The emulsions can include a
H-0806.35
11-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
heavy tar type substance (the asphaltenes) and can be very difficult to break. In fact, it is
possible that the first sign of an asphaltene flocculation in the production system is an
emulsion problem showing up on the platform.
Any emulsions that are particularly difficult to break and appear to have a heavy tar type
substance should be tested for asphaltenes. If asphaltenes are found to be enriched in the
emulsion, then it should be investigated as to where the asphaltenes are actually
flocculating in the system so that any necessary remedial action can be taken to prevent a
blockage.
11.3
Prevention and Remediation

The first step to preventing and managing asphaltene deposition is to estimate when and
where asphaltenes will deposit. Armed with that knowledge, potential solutions or
remediation methods can be evaluated to determine the most cost effective options.
11.3.1 Identifying Asphaltene Problems

This section outlines the strategy in determining whether asphaltene depositional
problems are present or not for both new and existing fields.
New Field Developments
The following are the steps to take in determining if asphaltene problems exist or not.
1. de Boer plot
2. Perform laboratory asphaltene measurements.
These measurements include a precipitant titration, composition, and SARA analysis.
For these measurements (assuming that they are at atmospheric pressure), wellhead or
separator oil samples collected under standard sampling procedures are sufficient.
The details of these tests are further discussed in section 3. If different fluids are going to
be mixed, then this may require measurements on the mixed fluids as well. Keep in mind
the points listed below:
Crude oils with low asphaltene contents may be more likely to have an asphaltene
problem than those with higher contents.
Crude oils with low specific gravity and high asphaltene contents are mostly likely to
have asphaltene problems.
H-0806.35
11-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
Reservoirs with pressures significantly greater than the bubble point of the fluid are
more likely to have asphaltene problems.
Table 11-1 shows a comparison between the compositional make up of oils with few or
no asphaltene problems and those with severe asphaltene problems.
Table 11-1: Comparison of Properties of Crude Oil Without Asphaltene
Problems to One with Asphaltene Problems
Name
Crude
Composition
Tank oil
Composition
Properties
Crude with no or few

problems
Crudes with
North
North
North
North
North
North Sea oil 6

Kuwait oil 1
Kuwait oil 2
Kuwait oil 3
Kuwait oil 4
Sea
Sea
Sea
Sea
Sea
oil
oil
oil
oil
oil
1
2
3
4
5
severe problems
1 - C3
<27 mole %
>37 mole %
C7+
>59 mole%
<46 mole%
asphaltenes
>3 weight %*
<0.5 weight %
saturates
<62 weight %
>75 weight %
aromatics
>26 weight %
<22 weight %
heavy ends
>11 weight %
<4 weight %
asphaltenes
>3 weight %*
<1 weight %
bubble point
<6.2 MPa
>10 MPa
reservoir pressure
<35 MPa
>40 MPa
Compressibility at
reservoir
temperature and
bubble point
<1.6 x 10-9/Pa
>2.3 x 10-9/Pa
Compressibility at
reservoir
temperature and
pressure
<1.0 x 10-9/Pa
>1.2 x 10-9/Pa
* as an exception North Sea oil 3 contained only 0.3 weight % asphaltenes
3. Single phase sampling and testing.

This step is unnecessary unless the other indicators/tests point to potential problems.
However, if a single-phase sample already exists (for other reasons), the additional cost
of the asphaltene onset test is minimal and should be performed regardless of the prior
tests.
H-0806.35
11-7
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
For asphaltene flocculation measurements, single-phase samples are required. This is

because there is some evidence that asphaltene precipitation may not be completely
reversible. That means that if asphaltenes precipitate in a sample container it may not
be possible to get all of the asphaltenes back into solution when the sample is
reconditioned to reservoir conditions. Once the intermolecular forces that stabilize
the asphaltene resin micelle is broken, the micelles may not be resolubilized in their
original configuration. For the sample to be completely representative, the oil must
be sampled and maintained as a single-phase fluid. For these types of measurements,
it is suggested that you contact the laboratory where the measurements will be
performed as well as the company performing the downhole sampling. Several
vendors supply sampling systems, which are designed to keep the sample single
phase.
4. Identify the production scenarios & flow rates over the life of the field and if and
where production fluids are mixed.
5. Model the Production System.
While a computer model (using a program such as Pipesim or Pipephase) of the
production system will be needed for other issues, it is not specifically needed for
asphaltene management.
The main area of focus with or without a model will be where the pressure falls below
the bubble point pressure. These locations (across the choke, perforations, in the
tubing, etc) are areas more prone to asphaltene deposition.
6. Model for Asphaltene Deposition
Using the laboratory measurements and/or modeling results, determine the
temperature and pressure region where asphaltenes will flocculate.
Modeling asphaltene deposition is not as well understood as hydrate, scale or wax
deposition modeling. A few models exist which can predict the phase behavior (i.e.,
the conditions where asphaltenes will flocculate) and when the mixing of fluids will
result in asphaltene flocculation, but none can predict the rate of asphaltene
deposition. There are several reasons why asphaltene models are less available:
H-0806.35
Asphaltenes are more complicated chemically and therefore more difficult to model.
11-8
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
While wax, hydrates and scale formation are common operational problems,
asphaltenes problems are less prevalent; consequently less effort has been put into
development of laboratory and modeling techniques.
Laboratory measurements primarily measure conditions where asphaltenes flocculate,

but rarely are able to estimate the amount of asphaltenes that deposit on pipe walls.
Less field data is available for validation of asphaltene models.
There are only a couple of commercial models available and a few companies that have
in- house models. Please contact your company's resource person for recommendations
on asphaltene modeling.
Generic information about asphaltene models
Asphaltene models are designed to predict the conditions under which the asphaltenes
flocculate. In several of the models, the theory is that a critical number of resin
molecules are required to keep the micelle stable. When the number of resin
molecules drops below the critical concentration then the micelles are no longer
stable and the asphaltenes flocculate.
The models attempt to predict the conditions where the micelles drop below the
critical resin concentration. These models always require both compositional data as
well as an estimate of the critical resin concentration from laboratory data.
In
addition it is desirable to have actual asphaltene flocculation measurements on live
samples so that the model can be tuned.
7. Identify prevention/remediation options

Those options might include one or more of the following techniques:
Mechanical
Thermal
Chemical
Novel
These techniques are further discussed in the prevention and remediation section of
this chapter.
H-0806.35
11-9
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
Existing Field Developments

The first step in determining whether asphaltene problems exist or not is to determine the
symptoms.
Typically the first sign of trouble is an increase in pressure drop or decrease in flow rate.
This may occur slowly or very rapidly. Asphaltene deposition usually occurs over a
period of time. Typically asphaltenes form in the production system at a point between
the reservoir pressure and the bubble point. Often this pressure region occurs in the
wellbore. If the problem appears to be in the wellbore, before the pressure drops below
the bubble point, or at high temperatures, then asphaltene deposition is possible. If the
system is not in the hydrate formation region or below the cloud point (WAT), then
asphaltenes are the likely culprit.
Asphaltenes can coprecipitate with wax, so it is difficult to determine which is the
problem. If the asphaltene content of the deposit is greater than 30 percent, it is probably
related to asphaltenes.
11.3.2 Mechanical Methods To Control Asphaltene Deposition
Mechanical methods can be used to periodically remove asphaltene deposits in wellbores,
flowlines and production facilities; however, asphaltenes can be more brittle and harder
to remove than typical wax deposits. Asphaltenes can also form in the near wellbore
region, which are inaccessible by mechanical methods.
Pigging
Pigs can be used to remove asphaltene deposits. However, effective removal requires the
appropriate type pig be used and that pigging be performed on a regular, frequent basis.
The pig should be specifically designed for solids removal. This typically means that a
disk or cup pig be used since they can apply much more force on the pipe wall. Spheres
or foam pigs are not adequate for asphaltene removal. In addition a bypass pig (one that
allows part of the fluid stream to go through the pig) allows the removed solids to be
dispersed into the crude oil ahead of the pig. This prevents a solid buildup in front of the
pig and decreases the likelihood of sticking the pig.
Wireline Cutting
Wireline cutting is an effective means of asphaltene removal if the wellbore is readily
accessible and if the required frequency is not excessive.
H-0806.35
11-10
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
Coiled Tubing
Like wireline cutting, coiled tubing can be used to remove asphaltene deposits provided
the deposit can be reached. At this point in time, the limit of coiled tubing is about 1
mile. New technology is being tested by DeepStar to extend the reach of coiled tubing.
11.3.3 Thermal methods for Asphaltene Prevention
Asphaltene deposition is not a strong function of temperature but rather a strong function
of pressure. So, thermal methods will not alleviate asphaltene problems. Unlike wax and
hydrates, keeping the crude oil warm rarely prevents asphaltenes. Similarly asphaltene
deposits do not melt so heat alone will not remove an asphaltene deposit.
11.3.4 Chemical Methods for Asphaltene Prevention and Remediation
Asphaltene Inhibitors
Asphaltene inhibitors have been developed to prevent asphaltene flocculation. They can
be added either continuously or through a squeeze treatment. Asphaltenes occur much
less frequently than scale, hydrates and wax; consequently, not as much effort and testing
has been put into aspha ltene inhibition.
Asphaltene inhibitors are polymeric dispersants, which help stabilize the micelles, which
prevents the asphaltenes from flocculating. It is believed that the inhibitors act in the
same manner as the resins interacting with the asphaltenes and stabilizing the asphaltene
micelles in the crude oil. These asphaltene inhibitors have a stronger association with the
asphaltenes than the natural resins and are able to stabilize the asphaltenes through
greater changes in pressure, temperature, shear and chemical environment.
Asphaltene inhibitors can be squeezed into the formation or continuously injected
downhole. Squeezing the inhibitor into the reservoir can prevent deposition of
asphaltenes in the near-well bore area. It is important that the asphaltene inhibitors are
added to the crude oil before the asphaltenes become destabilized and flocculation
occurs.
Asphaltene Solvents
The good news is that unlike wax, asphaltenes are very soluble in aromatic solvents such
as benzene and xylene, eve n at seabed temperatures. This is very fortunate since
asphaltenes can form in the near wellbore region and the only way for remediating the
formation damage is to use a squeeze treatment of an aromatic solvent.
H-0806.35
11-11
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
11.3.5 Novel Methods for Preventing Asphaltene Deposition

During the past few years several novel techniques for the prevention and mitigation of
asphaltene deposition have been investigated. The incentive for these investigations is
that current mechanical prevention and removal techniques are considered to be either
prohibitively expensive or not reliable enough or development of fields requiring long
tie-backs or subsea completions.
Novel techniques are considered to be those technologies that are not currently in
common use or widely accepted such as magnets, vibrating quartz crystals, acoustics, and
others. At this point in time, none of the methods have been proven enough to be
recommended as primary methods of mitigation or remediation. However, coatings can
be very effective at preventing asphaltene deposition.
11.4
Laboratory Testing
11.4.1 Common Asphaltene Tests

Asphaltene Content of a Crude Oil
There is one standardized test for determining the asphaltene content of a crude oil
described by IP143/90 or ASTM D-3279-90. In this test, the asphaltenes are precipitated
using an excess of a normal alkane solvent (such as n- heptane). It should be noted that
this is the standard definition of asphaltenes (i.e., solids precipitated during this test);
however, it is very possible that compounds such as very high molecular weight nparaffins will also be found in the solids. None of the tests are standardized and vary
from laboratory to laboratory; consequently, they are only discussed here in generalities.
It has been shown that generally crudes with low asphaltene contents (<0.5%) are more
likely to have asphaltene deposition problems than crudes with higher asphaltene
contents, though this is a relative indicator and is not absolute.
Asphaltene Flocculation and Phase Envelope Measurements
Typically a "live" sample is reconditioned to reservoir conditions and the sample is
slowly depressurized while observing for asphaltene flocculation. The test method may
use one of a number of techniques for detecting the asphaltene flocculation including
visual observatio n, light scattering, filter plugging, etc. If a number of these
measurements are made over a range of temperatures, then an asphaltene flocculation
phase envelope can be generated.
H-0806.35
11-12
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
In addition to determining the asphaltene flocculation point for an individual fluid, it is

also possible to use this technique to determine if mixing of "live" fluids will result in an
asphaltene deposit.
Asphaltene Titration Measurements
Often there is not sufficient "live" sample to generate an asphaltene flocculation phase
envelope. Models have been developed that use stock tank oil properties to predict the
pressure and temperature region where asphaltenes will flocculate. They require that the
stock tank oil be titrated with a normal alkane such as n-pentane. The volume of alkane
necessary to induce asphaltene flocculation at a give temperature and pressure will
indicate the stability of the asphaltene content of the oil and provide the solvency number
which is a necessary input information for an asphaltene model.
Once a particular oil has been assigned a solvency number, additions of oils or
condensates will either reduce or increase this solvency number. Reducing the oil's
solvency will increase the likelihood of asphaltene flocculation. This way oils can be
classified on a common scale and the compatibility of different fluids to a pipeline
determined.
Example of Asphaltene Titration Equipment
Figures 11-5 and 11-6 show an example of an experimental apparatus used for titrating
crude oils with lighter alkane solvent s (such as n-pentane) to determine the volume of
alkane necessary to induce asphaltene flocculation at a give temperature and pressure.
This will indicate the stability of the asphaltene content of the oil and provide the
solvency number, which is a necessary input information for an asphaltene model.
Typically a "live" sample is reconditioned to reservoir conditions and the sample is
slowly depressurized while observing for asphaltene flocculation. The test method may
use one of a number of techniques for detecting the asphaltene flocculation including
visual observation, light scattering, filter plugging, etc. If a number of these
measurements are made over a range of temperatures, then an asphaltene flocculation
phase envelope can be generated as shown below.
In addition to determining the asphaltene flocculation point for an individual fluid, it is
also possible to use this technique to determine if mixing of "live" fluids will result in an
asphaltene deposit.
H-0806.35
11-13
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
Figure 11-5: Asphaltene Titration Lab Equipment
Figure 11-6: Flocculometer Detection System
H-0806.35
11-14
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
Compositional Analyses
Additional compositional analyses such as high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC)
or gel permeation chromatography (GPC) may be required as input into an asphaltene
model. The laboratory tests necessary may be specific to the model that you will be
using should be identified early in the project during the sample planning stage. Please
contact your company's resource person to identify the asphaltene model and tests that
they recommend.
11.4.2 Asphaltene Sample Requirements
Two kinds of samples may be required for asphaltene analysis. For asphaltene
flocculation measurements, single-phase samples are required. This is because there is
some evidence that asphaltene precipitation may not be completely reversible. That
means that if asphaltenes precipitate in a sample container it may not be possible to get
all of the asphaltenes back into solution when the sample is reconditioned to reservoir
conditions.
Once the intermolecular forces that stabilize the asphaltene resin micelle is broken, the
micelles may not be re-solublized in their original configuration. For the sample to be
completely representative, the oil must be sampled and maintained as a single-phase
fluid. For these types of measurements, it is suggested that you contact the laboratory
where the measurements will be performed as well as the company performing the
downho le sampling. Several vendors supply sampling systems that are designed to keep
the sample in a single phase.
For titration measurements at atmospheric pressure, wellhead or separator oil samples
collected under standard sampling procedures are sufficient.
11.5
Field Examples
"Asphaltene Deposition Due to Miscible Flooding and Use of Inhibitors" Beaverhill
Lake Unite in Canada operated by Shell Canada.
Production of the field began in 1957. In 1989, phase 1 of the field was reconfigured into
a water alternated gas (WAG 2:1) drive and was commenced in early 1990. A miscible
solvent (liquified natural gas- LNG) was used consisting of 67% ethane and 33%
methane. Almost coincident with the LNG breakthrough, problems were experienced in
several producers with downhole equipment plugging, such as ESPs and rod pumps.
Compositional analysis of the solids revealed that the problem was caused by
asphaltenes.
H-0806.35
11-15
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
Initially wells were cleaned with a commercially available aromatic solvent by means of
circulating 2 m3 down the annulus and squeezing it into the reservoir. This treatment was
repeated every two weeks. These solvent squeezes were costly due to production
interruption and treatment costs.
Asphaltene inhibitors were tested in the laboratory and in the field. Effective asphaltene
control was obtained at 66 PPM inhibitor resulting in both a technically and an
economically successful trial. Prevention of asphaltene deposition was achieved through
continuous injection through a capillary string resulting in no lost production.
11.6
References
1. SPE 24987, Screening of Crude Oils for Asphalt Precipitation: Theory, Practice, and
the Selection of Inhibitors, 1992.
Additional information reference to asphaltenes can be found in Asphaltene Literature
Database, by P. Ting, G. Hirasaki, and W. Chapman, 1999 (CD-ROM from DeepStar
4200).
H-0806.35
11-16
1-Dec-00
12.0
EMULSIONS
12.1
General
DEEPSTAR
Although water and crude oil are immiscible, produced fluids may be emulsified by the
simultaneous action of shear and pressure drop such as at wellhead chokes and valves.
The produced emulsions can be stable, i.e. the oil and water phases may not readily
separate within a short time scale. Separation can take from a few minutes to a very long
time (for very tight emulsions). From a multiphase flow perspective, the primary effect
of emulsion formation is an increase in fluid viscosity. If the emulsion is stable, this
increase in viscosity can significantly affect pressure drop.
12.2
The Design Process and Emulsions

When oil/water emulsions are present, determination of the liquid viscosity is
complicated. The viscosity of an emulsion depends, in part, on the particle size
distribution, which is largely determined by the flow history of the fluid and the shear
imparted by chokes, pumps, etc. Dispersions that have undergone high shear (e.g. by
flowing under high pressure drop through a choke) will contain water particles of a
relatively small size and this "tight" emulsion will have a relatively large viscosity.
Once formed, emulsions will generally exhibit non-Newtonian shear-thinning flow
behavior so that viscosity is dependent on the shear rate in the pipeline, i.e. the prevailing
flow rate.
Emulsion viscosities are dependent on:
Temperature
Water cut
Flow history, including shear rate experienced when formed
Flowing shear rate, i.e. the flow rate in the pipeline.
Physical characteristics of the oil, the produced water, and presence/size of any
suspended particulates.
Depending on the particular multiphase simulation program being used, there are several
methods to model the effect of water (in general) and emulsions on fluid viscosity:
H-0806.35
12-1
1-Dec-00
12.3
DEEPSTAR
The liquid-phase fluid viscosity can be estimated using a weighted average of water
and water viscosity. The program should modify this liquid-phase viscosity to
account for the presence of gas in the live oil.
The liquid-phase fluid viscosity can be estimated using oil viscosity when water cut is
below the inversion point (the point where the liquid changes from oil-continuous to
water-continuous) or water viscosity when water cut is above the inversion point. The
approach may be more meaningful than the weighted average method above.
A special viscosity estimate may be used to account for tight emulsions when water
cut is near the inversion point, such as the Woelflin correlation. Care should be taken
to assure that viscosity values used in calculations are meaningful.
When viscosity data as a function of temperature is available (it should be obtained

whenever possible), viscosity can be entered as a function of temperature so as to
better tune the programs viscosity predictions. It may be necessary to run analyses
over a number of temperature ranges to properly cover the fluid characteristics.
Control and Management
12.3.1 Terminology
An emulsion is a heterogeneous system consisting of at least one immiscible liquid
intimately dispersed in another in the form of droplets.
The phase present as droplets is the dispersed or internal phase. The liquid phase forming
the matrix within which these droplets are suspended is called the continuous or external
phase.
Two common types of emulsion are:
oil- in- water (o/w), and

water-in-oil (w/o).
12.3.2 Emulsion Instability

The dispersed phase consists of microscopic droplets, usually within the size range 0.1
microns to 100 microns. Such dispersions are never completely stable in the absolute
sense; they are thermodynamically unstable. Simply, the explanation rests with the fact
that work is required to produce interfacial area, i.e. to disperse one liquid within another.
Hence, coalescence of drops (resulting, therefore, in a net reduction of interfacial area)
reduces the free energy of the system and is thermodynamically spontaneous.
H-0806.35
12-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
In discussing emulsion stability it is necessary to distinguish between the mechanisms of

flocculation (or coagulation), creaming, and breaking as shown in Figure 12.3-1.
Figure 12.3-1: Emulsion Mechanisms

Flocculation is the association of droplets forming three-dimensional clusters without
coalescence, which would form individual droplets (note that the mechanism of
coalescence involves the drainage and subsequent rupture of films between contacting
droplets).
Creaming is the term given to the rise (o/w emulsions) or fall (w/o emulsions) of
dispersed droplets under the action of gravity. Again, coalescence is not (necessarily)
involved.
Creaming can only arise if the dispersed and continuous phases are unequal in density.
The rate of creaming (for a single drop only) may be expressed by Stokes Law:
V=
2 gr 2 ( )
9z
Where:
V =
H-0806.35
velocity of rise (or fall)
gravitational constant
droplet radius
12-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
difference in density between the dispersed and continuous phases
viscosity of the continuous phase
Notes
i) Velocity is a function of the square of the radius.
ii) The viscosity is that of the continuous phase, not of the emulsion.
iii)
Stokes Law is useful but often misused. In particular, no account is taken
of the Brownian Motion of the droplets, which are under constant bombardment from
the molecules of the external phase. A detailed comparison of the Stokes Law Effect
versus Brownian Motion is beyond the scope of these notes. Suffice it to say that
only very large droplets (typically >50 microns) truly obey Stokes Law, whereas the
physical displacement of small droplets (typically <1 micron) is dominated by
Brownian Motion.
Breaking of an emulsion occurs when droplets which are flocculated or which collide
(during creaming, Brownian Motion, external turbulence) actually coalesce. To reiterate,
the action of coalescence reduces the free energy of the system by reducing the interfacial
area. In fact:
Gow = owA
Where
Gow = the excess interfacial free energy associated with the oil- water interface,
ow = the interfacial tension,
A = the total interfacial area.
The interfacial tension (units, mN/m) is defined as the force acting parallel to the planar
interface between two immiscible liquids and at right angles to a line of unit length
anywhere in the interface. In effect, the tension arises because the intermolecular
interactions of molecules (of either phase) at the interface are fewer than those between
molecules in the bulk (or interior) of the liquid.
To this point, the discussion has been solely in terms of two components - oil and water.
It is essential that a third component (or class of materials) is present to bestow stability.
This component will provide a physical (repulsive) barrier to droplet-droplet coalescence,
will reduce the interfacial tension (and therefore reduce the free energy of the system), or
both.
H-0806.35
12-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
12.3.3 Emulsion Stability

This section is divided into four parts dealing briefly with emulsion stability in terms of
electrical repulsion, interfacial films, steric stabilization, and solids stabilization.
Electrical Repulsion
Electrically charged droplets may arise through:
the presence of inorganic electrolytes, e.g. NaCl, CaCl2
the adsorption of an ionic surfactant, e.g. C11 H23 CO2Na+
frictional contact
Notes
i) Because the permittivity of oil is low, stabilization through electrical repulsion is
generally of significance only in water continuous (i.e. o/w) emulsions.
ii) Electrical stabilization is mainly ascribed to the long range forces of repulsion
between electrical double layers.
iii) Increasing electrolyte concentration (i.e. increasing the external aqueous phase
salinity) compresses the double layer and, therefore, increases the rate of coalescence.
Thus, electrical stabilization tends to be minimal or insignificant in seawater or
produced water external phase emulsions.
Interfacial Films
The strength and compactness of interfacial films are primary factors favoring (o/w and
w/o) emulsion stability. These are related to the type and amount of surfactant adsorbed.
The formation of a highly viscous, rigid film at the oil-water interface provides a
mechanical barrier to the coalescence of droplets. The formation of such a film is usually
also associated with a decrease in the interfacial tension. Measurements of interfacial
tension versus interfacial area provide useful information about the adsorption and
orientation of surfactant species; in particular, whether the film is gaseous, expanded, or
condensed, as illustrated in Figure 12.3-2.
H-0806.35
12-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 12.3-2: Film Types
Steric Stabilization
When droplets are stabilized with long-chain surfactant molecules or polymers (notably
block or graft copolymers), interpenetration of the chains as the droplets approach one
another gives rise to steric repulsion. This effect can arise in both o/w emulsions,
stabilized, for example, by nonionic surfactants, and w/o emulsions where the
hydrocarbon tail of the stabilizer extends into the oil phase.
Solids Stabilization
Stabilization of emulsions by solid particles, such as sand or produced fines, depends,
firstly, upon the size of the partic les in relation to the dispersed phase droplet size and,
secondly, upon the relationship of the three interfacial tensions: sw (between solid and
water); wo (between water and oil): so (between solid and oil).
If so > wo + sw, the solid remains suspended in the aqueous phase
If sw > wo + so, the solid remains suspended in the oil phase
If wo > sw + so, the solid will collect at the oil- water interface.
It is seldom possible, in practice, to measure sw and so directly. Rather, it often has to be
assumed, from the preferred environment of the solid particles, just which of the above
three conditions holds.
H-0806.35
12-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Notes
i) the size of the solids must be smaller than that of the dispersed phase droplets
typically by an order of magnitude.
ii) the bulk of the particle will be in that phase which most nearly wets it - this phase
should then constitute the outer phase.
iii) coalescence is inhibited because it takes work to displace the particle from the
interface.
If the conditions described above prevail, extremely stable emulsions can be formed.
12.3.4 Crude Oil Emulsions
Except when water cuts are extremely high (>70 to 80 percent), crude oil emulsions are
oil continuous, i.e. of the water- in-oil (w/o) type. At present, produced crude oil- in-water
(o/w) emulsions are exceptional - for our purposes their treatment can be regarded as
being similar to that of oily effluent. This section will discuss only the stability and
destabilization of the more commonly produced w/o type crude oil emulsions.
These produced emulsions are usually stable with respect to water separation - sometimes
extremely stable, remaining unchanged even after several years storage. In the first
instance, therefore, we require to consider, in the light of the preceding section, what
factors (physical and chemical) give rise to pronounced stability.
Naturally Occurring (Indigenous) Surfactants
Water droplets within crude oil are often stabilized by a viscous film (or skin) of
surface-active materials indigenous to the crude oil. This is readily observed, even with a
light crude, by forming an oil droplet at the tip of a syringe immersed in water, allowing
the droplet to age, then withdrawing some of the oil from the droplet via the syringe; a
mechanically strong film is clearly left behind.
It is impossible to define, singularly, the chemical structure of all crude oil surfactants.
Their concentration and composition vary widely from one crude oil type to another.
Indeed, consideration of this fact alone reveals why crude oils of different origin (yet of
similar physical characteristics, such as viscosity, API gravity) can show widely differing
emulsion characteristics. It is, however, possible to categorize broadly four main classes
of crude oil surfactant.
1) Low molecular weight (< ~500) paraffinic/naphthenic hydrocarbon derivatives
H-0806.35
12-7
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
containing polar functional groups e.g. hydroxyl (phenol), ester, carbonyl, amide,
sulfoxide. (These materials reduce the interfacial tension between crude oil and
water).
2) Asphaltenes these are high molecula r weight species (typically 2000 or greater).
They are highly aromatic in nature and generally consist of condensed aromatic
systems linked by aliphatic chains and often containing aliphatic side chains. The
nucleus of the molecule usually consists of a sheet of (typically 6-16) condensed
aromatic rings. Heteroatoms, e.g. metal ions, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur, may be
present in small quantities. Asphaltene molecules have a strong tendency to
associate, the resulting structures (sometimes termed micelles) having molecular
weights supposedly as great as several hundred thousand. Asphaltenes are insoluble
in light n-alkane solvents (e.g. pentane, heptane).
3) Resins these are similar to asphaltenes, but are of lower molecular weight
(generally < 2000) and are soluble in light n-alkanes. They are generally more highly
polar than asphaltenes, containing greater proportions of nitrogen, oxygen and sulfur;
however, the dividing line between asphaltenes and resins is obscure. Their
definition (in literature) often being associated with the chemical means used to
extract either species from the crude oil in question.
4) Waxes in an analytical sense, wax is usually defined as that fraction of a
deasphalted crude oil which is insoluble in dichloromethane at -32C. For our
purposes, the term wax is used to describe all the high molecular weight paraffinic
substances (generally > C20 ) which have crystallized (or precipitated) from the crude
oil at a given temperature. As well as straight chain n-alkanes, the term includes
near-normal paraffins, which contain only a moderate number of short side chains
(branching).
Asphaltenes, and more particularly, resins, may slightly reduce the interfacial tension
between oil and water (ow); the presence of waxes at the interface does not reduce ow.
The relative importance of each of the above four categories of natural crude oil
surfactants in stabilizing water- in-crude oil emulsions depends largely upon the
composition of the crude oil. The stability of heavy (API gravity <20) and of medium
heavy (API gravity >20 to 30) crude oil emulsions is dominated by the presence of
resins and asphaltenes. All four types of surfactant may stabilize lighter crude oil
emulsions (API gravity > 30), but in particular, waxes and wax-asphaltene (-resin) coprecipitates are known to play a dominant role, especially in stabilizing
H-0806.35
12-8
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Crude Oil Emulsion Resolution

Brief consideration will be given, first, to the physical factors, which influence the rate of
sedimentation (i.e. creaming) of water- in-crude oil emulsions. Secondly, more detailed
consideration will be given to those aspects paramount in assisting the actual breaking
(droplet coalescence) of crude oil emulsions.
Sedimentation
This will be discussed in terms of the preceding discussion of Stokes Law as applied to
the creaming of emulsions.
i) The rate of sedimentation will increase with increasing density difference between the
crude and dispersed water phases.
crude oil
range
= 0.8 - 1.0 Kg/L @ 15C
(i.e. 45 to 10API)
fresh water
1.0 kg/l
produced water
1.0 - 1.20 kg /l
Note that certain heavy oils (<10API) are denser than fresh water in certain
temperature ranges. Most crude oils vary in density from 0.8 to 0.95 kg/l and
formation water densities vary from just over 1 kg/l to about 1.20 kg/l. Thus overall
density differences between crude oils and their respective produced waters may vary
from about 0.05 kg/l to about 0.40 kg/l.
ii) The rate of sedimentation will increase in proportion to the droplet radius squared when Stokes Law is valid. The droplet size distribution of produced crude oil
emulsions is polydisperse (as against monodisperse). In most cases, >90 percent by
volume of the water is dispersed as droplets in the size range 5 to 25 microns, and
many droplets may be smaller than 5 microns. Droplets of this size range will not
sediment under gravity. Note that the droplet size distribution may be determined in
part by the degree of mixing at the wellhead choke and the wellhead flowing
pressures.
iii) The rate of sedimentation will decrease with increasing crude oil viscosity. Crude oil
viscosity can vary widely, typically (at 15C) from 10 mPas (light, conventional
crude oils) to 10,000,000 mPas (heavy oils, bitumen, tar sand oils). At the appropriate
temperatures and shear rates of production, most crude oils of interest will have
H-0806.35
12-9
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
viscosity in the range 5 to 50 mPas. It is important to realize that the dispersion of

water as an emulsion in crude oil can substantially change the rheologic properties of
the crude; the viscosity is increased and the viscosity-shear rate properties of the
produced fluids may change.
The viscosity increase depends upon the temperatures of the emulsion, the shear rate
applied to the emulsion, and most importantly, the droplet size and phase volume (i.e.
water cut) of the emulsion.
Thus, particularly at low rates of shear (<10 sec-1 ), viscosity of crude oil emulsions can
be several orders of magnitude greater than that of dry crude oil. Clearly, this viscosity
increase impedes sedimentation and, under worst conditions - namely, low temperatures,
low shear, very high water cut (e.g. 50-65%), the resulting high viscosity can pose a
serious flow impediment.
Note that Stokes Law, derived for the sedimentation of single spheres, takes no account
of emulsion viscosity.
Breaking
The preceding section has discussed emulsion instability in terms of sedimentation
which, while assisting overall oil- water separation, strictly only refers to the process by
which produced fluids may eventually comprise an emulsion deficient (upper) and
emulsion rich (lower) phase. Actual coalescence of the dispersed water droplets is a
prerequisite for emulsion breaking. By some means, the barrier to droplet-droplet
coalescence, i.e. the stabilizing film or layer of natural surfactants at the water droplet-oil
interface, must be overcome. In crude oil production there are three means by which this
is achieved:
Elevated temperatures
Electrostatic field
Chemical demulsifier
Of these three, the use of an electrostatic field would not generally be applicable for
subsea production and is, therefore, not discussed further here.
Elevated wellhead temperatures will tend to promote demulsification of emulsions that
form near the wellhead (e.g., as a result of passage through a wellhead choke.) However,
it will not be generally practical to add head to the flow stream for the purpose of
H-0806.35
12-10
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
emulsion breaking. Flowline insulation will provide additional time-at-temperature

(relative to uninsulated systems ) and, therefore, stable emulsions will be less likely in
insulated lines.
If produced fluids do tend to form stable and troublesome (high viscosity) emulsions,
chemical demulsifiers are the only practical tool available.
Effect of Temperature
-
reduces bulk viscosity

increases Brownian Motion
increases the frequency of droplet-droplet collisions
facilitates film drainage between droplets
increases the density difference between oil and water
Hence, the overall effect of higher temperature is to increase the rate of sedimentation
and the number of droplet-droplet encounters and to assist coalescence. In short, higher
temperatures decrease emulsion stability.
With many light, waxy crude oils (such as are produced in the North Sea) what is
observed during chemical demulsification is not a gradual change in emulsion stability
versus temperature, but a discontinuity within a relatively small temperatures interval
(typically 10 to 20C).
Figure 12.3-3: Effect of Temperature on Demulsification

H-0806.35
12-11
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
This discontinuity occurs in the temperature range at which fine wax crystallites
(observed by optical microscopy) dissolve. In the above example, note that emulsion
stability changes little in range of 20 to 40C, whereas considerable wax dissolution does
occur. The explanation for this lie within the observation that while the overall
concentration of crystallites is essentially unaffected: as fine crystallites dissolve, they are
continuously repleted in number by large wax crystals partially dissolving. Eventually, a
sufficiently high temperature is reached at which an insufficient number of large particles
exists to compensate for the dissolution of the small crystallites - at this point emulsion
stability rapid ly decreases.
While increasing the temperature reduces emulsion stability and facilitates emulsion
breaking, it is found that, even at high temperature, a chemical demulsifier is often
required.
Chemical Demulsification
The addition of a properly selected chemical demulsifier, at very low concentrations
(usually 1 to 50 PPM) can cause rapid and virtually complete breakdown of otherwise
stable water- in-crude oil emulsions.
Chemical demulsifiers comprise, typically, 40 to 60 percent surface active agent
(polymers, usually nonionic, e.g. ethoxylated phenols) and 60 to 40 percent solvent
(usually aromatic).
At present the number of formulations, patented and commercially available, is
enormous; tens of thousands of different demulsifier formulations exist.
How do demulsifiers work? The active ingredient is highly surface-active and can reduce
the interfacial tension (ow) between crude oil and water, from a value of
~30 mNm-1 to <1 mNm-1 at the concentration of usage.
At first sight this seems a paradox, since according to the equation,
Gow = owA
a reduction in Gow should reduce the free energy of the emulsion and, therefore, reduce
the driving force behind coalescence. The explanation lies with the fact that the barrier to
coalescence of water droplets in crude oil emulsions is largely physical: comprising the
film of resins, asphaltenes and waxes surrounding the droplets. The primary function of
H-0806.35
12-12
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
the demulsifier is to break or displace the film of natural surfactants, which prevent
coalescence.
It the stabilizing film is highly condensed, the demulsifier will require assistance to
penetrate it. Increasing temperature, as well as possibly dissolving and reducing the
viscosity of the film, will also increase the rate of droplet-droplet collision; when droplets
collide, if they become non-spherical, the surface area increases and the film is expanded.
Figure 12.3-4: Stabilizing Film

Notes:
i) If too much demulsifier is added then, in addition to having broken or displaced
the original skin of crude oil surfactants, the resulting demulsifier-surfactant film
may stabilize the water droplets. This overdosing effect can produce crude oil
emulsions more stable than before demulsifier treatment and result in emulsions
which are now extremely difficult to destabilize.
ii) The protective film of natural surfactants often takes a finite time (typically minutes,
or even hours) to build up and become condensed; the emulsion ages and becomes
more difficult to resolve. Clearly, in such cases, the earlier the demulsifier can be
introduced to the emulsion, the more easily the emulsion will be broken.
iii) Similarly, it is vital that when demulsifier is injected it is well dispersed; most
demulsifiers are not oil-soluble (but are oil-dispersible). The manufacturers choice
of carrier solvent, and the dilution of the active ingredient within the solvent, can
have a dramatic influence on demulsifier efficiency.
H-0806.35
12-13
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
iv) Other surface-active oilfield chemicals (notably corrosion inhibitors) may interfere
with the demulsifier itself or the mechanism by which demulsifier displaces the
natural crude oil surfactants from the oil- water interface.
12.4
Impact on Facilities and Production

As discussed previously, the primary impact of emulsions on production is a potential
increase in viscosity. If water and oil do not naturally separate and/or if added chemicals
are not effective, the additional fluid viscosity will have to be accommodated in the
hydraulic design.
If water and oil do naturally separate in the flowlines and/or if added chemicals are
effective (and if there is not a large pressure drop upstream from the separator) emulsions
will not be a problem for the facility. If emulsions have not broken in the flowline and/or
if there is significant mixing at the separator entrance, then methods such as:
Chemicals,
temperature and/or increased residence time, and
electrostatic precipitation
will have to be used
H-0806.35
12-14
1-Dec-00
13.
SCALE
13.1
Introduction
DEEPSTAR
Scale is a deposit of the inorganic mineral components of water. This is in contrast with
wax and scales that deposit from crude oil. The key concept in scaling is solubility.
Solids may precipitate and deposit from the brine once the solubility limit or capacity is
exceeded.
Chemical species of interest in oil and gas field brines are present as ions. Certain
combinations of these ions have a relatively low solubility in water. Solid precipitates
may either stay in suspension in the water or form an adherent scale on a surface such as
a pipe wall. Both are undesirable.
Suspended scale solids may cause problems like formation plugging. Adherent scale
deposits can restrict flow in pipes as shown in Figure 13-1 below and damage equipment
such as pumps. Corrosion and microbiological activity are often accelerated under scale
deposits. Because water-formed scales are responsible for many production problems,
scale control is a primary objective of any efficient water handling operations.
Figure 13-1: Scale Deposition in Pipeline
H-0806.35
13-1
1-Dec-00
13.2
DEEPSTAR
Solubility of Scale
The solubility of individual scale species is dependent on the equilibrium constants
(dependent upon temperature and pressure) and the activity coefficients (dependent upon
concentrations plus temperature and pressure) of each individual species, the bulk ionic
strength of the solution and other ionic species present. Once the solution exceeds the
saturation limit, scale will begin to precipitate.
A number of models are available to predict the solubility of the various scales given a
formation water and injection water. Please contact your company's resource person to
identify which model is recommended or used by the company.
13.2.1 Equilibrium Constants and Activity Coefficients

As an example, consider barium sulfate which is only sparingly soluble in water. If
excess barium sulfate is suspended in water, some of it will dissolve until the solution is
saturated (i.e., no more barium sulfate will dissolve). The following equilibrium applies:
BaSO4 (s) -----> Ba 2+ (aq) + SO4 2- (aq)
The equilibrium constant for the reaction can be written as:
K = (mBa 2+ l mSO4 2-) / (gBa 2+ l gSO4 2-)
where m is the molality and g is the activity coefficient of each ion in an aqueous
solution. To determine the solubility of barium sulfate (or any other mineral) in a
specific water requires the equilibrium constant and the activity coefficients to be
calculated. Both are functions of temperature and pressure.
Effect of Temperature
The dissolution of barium sulfate in water is an endothermic process (i.e., the solution
cools as the barium sulfate dissolves) over the temperature range of 35 - 110C.
Therefore, increasing the temperature will cause more barium sulfate to dissolve. In
contrast, the dissolution of strontium sulfate is an exothermic process (i.e., the solution
warms as the strontium sulfate dissolves) over the same temperature range. Increasing the
temperature decreases the solubility of strontium sulfate. The effect of temperature is
more pronounced for some species. The models for scale prediction will account for this
effect.
H-0806.35
13-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Effect of Pressure
The effect of pressure on ionic equlibria in aqueous systems has largely been neglected
due to the scarcity of relevant, thermodynamic data. The variation of the equilibrium
constant as a function of pressure must be known for every chemical equation in the
model.
13.2.2 Effect of Bulk Ionic Strength on Solubility
The solubility of a given scale also depends upon how much and what other ions are
present in the solution (the ionic strength of the solution). The ionic strength of a
solution is given by m:
m = ci zi2
where c is the concentration of the ith ion and zi is its valency. A plot of barium sulfate
solubility as a function of ionic strength of the solution is shown in the figure below.
Figure 13-2: Example of Ionic Strength vs. Solubility Chart for Barium
Sulphate
H-0806.35
13-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
As ionic strength increases from zero, barium sulfate (and all other scales) become more
soluble. This is easily understood in terms of ionic activities:
The presence of foreign ions shields the barium and sulfate ions from each other,
reducing the activities and allowing more of them to co-exist in solution. A solubility
plateau is then reached, whereupon further increase in ionic strength reduces the
solubility. At these ionic strengths, the ions are "unhappy" because they are not well
solvated and the activities begin to increase again with ionic strength. For comparative
purposes, the ionic strengths of various formation waters and North Sea water can be
seen for some sample water analyses shown in the table below:
H-0806.35
13-4
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
Table 13-1: Ionic Strength

IONIC STRENGTH
ION
MAGNUS
FORTIES
BUCHAN
MILLER
ULA
PRUDHOE
BAY
N. SEA
WATER
HP/HT
BRINE A
HP/HT
BRINE E
Sodium
7805
29370
56723
28100
52225
8000
11010
72000
81600
Potassium
200
372
1525
1630
3507
83
460
6300
8000
Magnesium
25
504
1250
113
2249
84
1368
4000
2500
Calcium
70
2808
16075
615
34675
180
428
48000
20000
Strontium
20
574
938
65
1157
24
1000
2000
Barium
70
252
23
770
91
1200
3700
Iron
<1
<1
60
<1
107
<1
11500
52360
121600
46050
153025
11500
19700
21000
174000
11
220
44
10
2960
Bicarbonate
1650
496
100-300
1655
134
2222
124
Total Dissolved
Solids
21350
86747
198614
79003
247214
22107
36058
N/A
N/A
.359
1.58
3.90
1.35
5.28
Chloride
Sulfate
Ionic Strength
H-0806.35
13-5
0.712
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
13.2.3 Effect of Ion Pairing on Solubility

The solubility of a given scale is also affected by the concentration of other ions in the
brine. These other ions have two effects: They affect the solubility of the scale and may
also change the predominate phase of the scale. For example, the concentration of
magnesium, calcium and strontium ions will influence the solubility of barium sulfate.
Magnesium, calcium and strontium form ion pairs as shown below which effectively tieup some of the sulfate ions even though their concentrations are not sufficient to cause
precipitation. This effectively increases the solubility of the barium sulfate in the
solution.
BaSO4 (s) ------> BaSO4 (aq)
<--------> Ba2+ (aq) + SO4 2- (aq)
MgSO4 (s) -----> MgSO4 (aq)
<--------> Mg2+ (aq) + SO4 2- (aq)
CaSO4 (s) ------> CaSO4 (aq)
<--------> Ca2+ (aq) + SO4 2- (aq)
SrSO4 (s) -------> SrSO4 (aq)
<--------> Sr2+ (aq) + SO42- (aq)
13.2.4 Saturation Index (SI)

The solution is said to be saturated when the concentration of the solute is high enough
such that it can no longer remain in solution at a specified temperature. The saturation
index is defined as:
SI = log( [Me][An]/K sp )
Where:
Me = Mg2+, Ca2+, Sr2+, or Ba 2+
An = CO32- or SO42Ksp = solubility product
The following are conditions identified by the sign of the saturation index:
When SI = 0, the solution is at equilibrium with the solid scale

When SI > 0, this indicates a supersaturated or scaling condition
When SI < 0, this indicates a sub-saturated or non-scaling condition
H-0806.35
13-7
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
13.3
DEEPSTAR
Forms of Oilfield Scale

Oilfield scale is generally inorganic salts such as carbonates and sulfates of the metals
calcium, strontium and barium. Oil field scale may also be the complex salts of iron such
as sulfides, hydrous oxides and carbonates.
Major forms of oilfield scale can form in one of two ways:
As a brine (e.g. formation water) undergoes a temperature or pressure change during

production, the solubility of some of the inorganic constituents will decrease and result
in the salts precipitating.
When two incompatible waters (suc h as formation water rich in calcium, strontium and
barium and sea water rich in sulfate) are mixed. Scales formed under these conditions
are generally sulfate scales.
Table 13-2 lists the most common water- formed scales in oilfield waters. Table 13-3 lists
the common causes for the formation of these deposits. A few general remarks about the
most common forms of scales are given below. More information on these types of
scales is given in References 1 through 3.
13.3.1 Calcium Carbonate
Calcium carbonate, the most common scale in oil- and gas field operations, occurs in
every geographic area.
Calcium carbonate precipitation occurs when calcium ion is combined with either
carbonate or bicarbonate ions as follows:
Ca2+ + CO 32- CaCO3 (s)
(1)
Ca2+ +2(HCO-3 ) CaCO3 (s)+CO2 +H2 O
(2)
Equation (2) shows that the presence of CO2 increases the solubility of CaCO3 in brine.
Increasing the concentration of CO2 in solution shifts this reaction to the left, resulting in
less calcium carbonate scale.
Inc reasing CO2 also makes the water more acidic
(decreases the pH). Often, calcium carbonate scaling occurs with a pressure drop (e.g., at
the wellbore of a producer). This reduces the partial pressure of CO2 , thereby increasing
the pH and decreasing the CaCO3 solubility.
An unusual and very important property of calcium carbonate is that its solubility
decreases with increasing temperature.
H-0806.35
13-8
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
13.3.2 Calcium Sulfate

The precipitation of calcium sulfate is given by the reaction
Ca2++SO42- CaSO4 (s)
(3)
This scale may occur in different forms. Gypsum (CaSO4 2H2 O), the most common in
oilfield brines, is associated with lower temperatures. Anhydrite (CaSO4 ) may occur at
high temperatures. Theoretically, anhydrite would be expected to precipitate above
100F in preference to gypsum because of its lower solubility. However, gypsum may be
found at temperatures as high as 212F. With the passage of time, gypsum will dehydrate
to anhydrite.
Gypsum solubility increases with salinity up to about 150,000 mg/L total dissolved
solids. Further increases in salt content increase its scaling tendency. In contrast to
calcium carbonate, gypsum solubility is almost independent of pH.
A common mechanism for gypsum precipitation in the oil field is a reduction in pressure
(e.g., at the production wellbore). The solubility increases with higher pressure because,
when the scale is dissolved in water, the total volume of the system decreases.4,5
Gypsum scale is perhaps the most common in west Texas oil fields because these brines
often have high concentrations of calcium and sulfate.
13.3.3 Barium Sulfate
This scale is especially troublesome. It is extremely insoluble and almost impossible to
remove chemically. Barium sulfate scaling is likely when both barium and sulfate are
present, even in low concentrations.
Ba-2 +SO4 2- BaSO4 (s)
(4)
Most barium sulfate scales also contain some strontium and radium sulfate because these
cations are chemically similar to barium. The presence of radium is a special problem
because it makes the scale radioactive. Extra precautions must be taken in the disposal of
barium sulfate scales if the radio activity is high.6,7
Barium sulfate scale is common in North Sea reservoirs. These fields often have barium
in the original formation brine. Seawater injection (high sulfate concentration) for
secondary oil recovery causes the scale problem. As the water flood matures and the
seawater breaks through, these incompatible waters mix and the barium scale forms.
H-0806.35
13-9
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
Generally, barium sulfate solubility increases with temperature and salinity. Similar to
gypsum, BaSO4 solubility increases with an increase in total pressure and is largely
unaffected by pH. 8,9
13.3.4 Strontium Sulfate
Strontium sulfate is similar to barium sulfate, except fortunately its solubility is much
greater (generally by 2 orders of magnitude). 1,2
Sr2+ +SO4 SrSO4 (s)
(5)
Strontium sulfate solubility increases with salinity (up to 175,000 mg/L), temperature,
and pressure. Again, pH has little effect.10-13
Pure strontium sulfate scale is rare except for some fields in the Middle East. SrSO4
deposits in producing wells where the strontium- rich formation water mixes with the
sulfate-rich injected seawater.14,15
13.3.5 Iron Compounds
The iron deposits are much more complicated than scales. One reason is that the iron
may come from the formation water, corrosion, or both. Another complication is that the
dissolved iron may be present in two oxidation states: Fe++ (ferrous) and Fe+++ (ferric).
The two cations form compounds with the same anions but with very different
solubilities.
CO2 will react with the ferrous ion to form iron carbonate scale. This scale has similar
solubility behavior as calcium carbonate vs. pH, temperature, etc., except the solubility of
FeCO3 is approximately 100 times lower.16,17
Hydrogen sulfide readily causes iron sulfide to form as a corrosion product. This sulfide
typically is very insoluble and forms a thin, adherent scale. Suspended iron sulfide is the
cause of black water. This also may occur by mixing one stream containing dissolved
H2 S with another containing dissolved iron.
Oxygen can form a number of different compounds when it comes into contact with
water containing dissolved iron. Examples include ferrous hydroxide [Fe(OH)2 ], ferric
hydroxide [Fe(OH)3 ], and ferric oxide [Fe2 O3 ]. "red water is caused by suspended
particles of Fe2 O3 . Oxygen also initiates the formation of "black water when it comes
into contact with a water containing dissolved H2 S and iron.
H-0806.35
13-10
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
Table 13-2: Common Oil Well Scale Deposits Solubility Factors

MOST IMPORTANT FACTORS
AFFECTING SOLUBILITY
Deposit
Chemical
Formula
Mineral
Name
Partial
Pressure CO2
pH
Total
Pressure
Temperature
Total
Salinity
Corrosion
Calcium
Carbonate
CaCO3
Calcite
Calcium
Sulfate
CaSO 4 2H 2 O
CaSO 4
Gypsum
Anhydrite
Barium
Sulfate
BaSO4
Barite
Strontium
Sulfate
SrSO4
Celestite
Iron
Carbonate
FeCO3
Siderite
Iron Sulfide
FeS
Trolite
Iron Oxide
Fe2 O3
Fe3 O4
Hematite
Magnetite
X
X
X
X
Sodium
Chloride
NaCl
Halite
Magnesium
Hydroxide
Mg(OH)2
Brucite
Silicates
Variable
H-0806.35
X
X
13-11
H2 S
Oxygen
X
X
X
X
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
Table 13-3: Common Oil Well Scale Deposits Causes and Removal Chemicals
DEPOSIT
OCCURENCE
CHEMICAL
FORMULA
MINERAL NAME
MOST FREQUENT CAUSES

OF SCALE DEPOSIT
REMOVAL
CHEMICAL
Calcium Carbonate
Common
CaCO3
Calcite
Mixing Brines, Changes in Temperature and Pressure
15% HCL
Calcium Sulfate
Common
CaSO 4 2H2O CaSO 4
Gypsum Anhydrite
Same as Above
Converting
Solutions,
EDTA Type Dissolvers
Barium Sulfate
Common
BaSO4
Barite
Mixing of Brines
Strontium Sulfate
Not Common
SrSO4
Celestite
Mixing Brines, Changes in Temperature and Pressure
Iron Carbonate
Common
FeCO3
Siderite
Same as Above
Sequestered Acid
Iron Sulfide
Common
FeS
Trolite
Corrosion by Sour Crude or H2 S Gas
Same as Above
Iron Oxide
Common
Fe2 O3
Fe3 O4
Hamatite
Magnetite
Reaction of Oxygen with Dissolved Ferrous Ion
Same as Above
Sodium Chloride
Not Common
NaCl
Halite
Evaporation of Water & addition of MeOH for

Hydrate Control
Water or 13% HCL
Magnesium Hydroxide
Not Common
Mg(OH)2
Brucite
Excessive Amounts of Oxygen Enter the Well or

Alkaline Fluids in Well. High Temperature
15% HCL
Cooling of Hot Brine High in Dissolved Silica
HCL:HF Acid Mixtures
Silicates
Variable
H-0806.35
13-12
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
13.4
DEEPSTAR
Operational Problems Due to scales

Scale deposits are not restricted to any particular location in the production system,
although some locations are more important than others in terms of ease and cost of
remedial treatment. The following are areas or events where scale formation is possible
in production systems:
13.4.1 Drilling/completing wells

Scale can cause problems at this early stage if the drilling mud and/or completion brine is
intrinsically incompatible with the formation water. For example, allowing a sea-water
based mud to contact a formation water rich in barium and strontium ions would be
undesirable. Similarly allowing a high calcium brine to contact a formation water rich in
bicarbonate.
Clearly, drilling the first well in a new prospect is potentially very hazardous and a more
dense mud than actually required will probably be used, increasing the risk of invasion
and formation damage due to scale. Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing the
chemistry of the formation water that will be encountered, although some estimates based
upon the geological and geo-chemical correlations are feasible.
Obtaining representative water samples as soon as possible is obviously beneficial if the
consequences of drilling mud filtrate invasion is to be assessed and treated in future
wells.
13.4.2 Water Injection
Scale problems may be encountered when new water injection wells are commissioned if
the injection water is intrinsically incompatible with the formation water. For example,
sea water injection into an aquifer rich in strontium and/or barium ions could cause
problems.
Two potential problems could arise:
1. The act of lifting and treating injection water can cause problems as the injection
water itself can become unstable. This can be a rather serious problem because the
problem will be continuous.
2. Injecting a water which is itself stable (but intrinsically incompatible with the aquifer)
into a new injector can also cause scale formation. In this case, the potential problem
H-0806.35
13-13
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
will diminish once the well has been thoroughly flushed with injection water that is
compatible with the aquifer.
13.4.3 Water Production
As soon as a well begins to produce water, there is risk of carbonate scale formation
(assuming that the produced water has a tendency to precipitate carbonate scale). The
severity of the problem will depend upon the water chemistry, the rate of drawdown, and
other factors such as pressure and temperature. At high drawdown rates, carbonate scale
may be laid down in the actual formation. When injection water breakthrough occurs in
production wells, additional (and potentially much more serious) scale problems may
arise. Under certain conditions, formation water and injection (sea) water flow together
towards the wellbore, laying down scale where they mix. For example, sea water
injection into an aquifer rich in strontium and/or barium ions could cause problems.
Damage will be evident in the production tubing before it is evident in the formation.
However, remedial action in the formation is much more serious.
For high temperature/high pressure reservoirs, there are other less well known, potential
scale deposits.
13.4.4 High Pressure (HP) and High Temperature (HT) Reservoirs
HP/HT reservoirs have some potentially unique scaling problems due to the following
characteristics:
TDS (total dissolved solids) up to 300,000+ ppm.

Reservoir temperatures in excess of 350F (175C).
Reservoir pressures in excess of 15,000 psi.
Examples are the ETAP (Eastern Trough Area Project) and Elgin/Franklin reservoirs in
the North Sea.
The scale concerns for these reservoirs are:
High salinity brines will result in halite - NaCl(s) precipitation. ETAP is using desulfated wash water injected above the perforations to dilute the very high salinity
formation brines.
De-sulfated wash water will have 40 to 120 ppm SO42- which may still cause a relatively
severe sulfate-scaling problem in the production tubulars and topside equipment. This is
resolved by continuously injecting a scale inhibitor with the wash water. Thermal
stability is not considered a serious concern in this application.
H-0806.35
13-14
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
Witherite (BaCO3) was been predicted.

Calcium fluoride (CaF2) have been observed in the field.
Carbonate scales are predicted to form as the reservoir pressure drops. At this stage it
will be a HT/moderate pressure reservoir.
Another problem with HP/HT reservoirs (mostly HT) is that scale inhibitors may not be
thermally stable in this environment. Laboratory results indicate: 18
Up to 392F (200C), sulphonated inhibitors, in particular PVS (Poly vinyl sulphonate)

appear to be the most resistant to thermal degradation in both aqueous solutions and as a
dry solid inhibitor.
The phosphonate species (DETPMP and Hexa-P) (diethylenetriamine pentamethylene)

phosphate and Hexa-phosphonate scale inhibitor) either in solution or as solids are
significantly less stable at temperatures of 175C.
The PPCA (Polyphosphinocarboxylic acid) inhibitors are more thermally stable than the
phosphonates and exhibit relatively good thermal stability in the dry, solid form at
175C. At 200C there was some degradation, but not as severe as was observed for the
phosphonates.
In aqueous solutions, the PPCA species were relatively stable at a pH of 6 but

significantly degraded at a pH of 4. Although degradation occurred at a pH of 2, the
inhibitor was more stable than at a pH of 4.
Also, models for predicting scale formation may not be as accurate in HP/HT, high
salinity regions.
13.4.5 Reservoir Damage
While this aspect of scale precipitation appears not to have been seriously addressed, it
has been looked at and it was found that this issue does not appear to impact most
reservoirs.
13.4.6 Production Facilities
Once significant water production has occurred, process equipment such as heat
exchanges, valves, pumps, filters and all associated pipe work are at risk. Supersaturation may be caused by changing the temperature and pressure of a water or by
mixing incompatible waters. The first possibility may arise from a process operation
(sand-washing, desalting, etc.) or because waters from different wells are mixed in the
production system.
The second possibility is if a well which has suffered sea water breakthrough does not
suffer damage, the water which that well produces is unlikely to be compatible with
H-0806.35
13-15
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
"pure" formation water, and mixing such waters in the production system is bound to
cause problems sooner or later.
13.5
Prevention and Remediation

Scale production in subsea systems can become extremely costly and detrimental to the
development. The costs can include stimulating wells, cleaning or replacing damaged
equipment and lost production. For example, a typical workover for a North Sea well
may cost upwards of $450M for a platform well and up to$3MM for a subsea well. If a
well produces 10,000 bpd, the gross cost of 1 day's lost production is $200M (@
$20/bbl). Entire platform production shutdowns are much more expensive. A platform
processing 125,000 bpd generates $2.5MM of gross revenue daily. If scale precipitation
occurs in the reservoir and is proven to reduce the ultimate oil recovery, the costs
involved could be much greater.
The first step to preventing and managing scale deposition is to estimate when and where
they will deposit. Armed with that knowledge, potential solutions or remediation
methods can be evaluated to determine the most cost effective options.
13.5.1 Identifying Scale problems

This section outlines the strategy in determining whether scale depositional problems are
present or not for both new and existing fields.
New Field Developments
1. Sample exploration well formation waters and potential injection waters.
Samples from all potential water sources (both formation and injection waters) are
necessary to allow identification of scaling tendencies. Ideally, 1 liter samples of
each water is required. Some suggested procedures are:
a. Obtain water samples before any mixing of different waters or before any scale
precipitation occurs. This may require downhole samples.
b. Consider the reservoir implications in identifying where and what to sample.
Which waters will be mixing, where?
c. For separator samples, collect the samples in glass or plastic bottles filled to
overflowing, capped and sealed with tape.
H-0806.35
13-16
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
d. It is recommended that the pH, carbonate, bicarbonate and sulfide concentrations

be measured on-site, as these components will change over time.
e. Ideally two identical samples should be collected at the same time. One should be
sampled as described above. The other should be acidified to a pH <2 in a glass
or plastic bottle filled to the top and taped shut. This preserves samples against
solids forming so an accurate analysis of dissolved cations can be obtained at the
lab.
A source for additional water sampling guidelines is the ASTM standard D-3370.
2. Perform standard water analyses.
Water samples should be analyzed using the API Recommended Procedure 45 or similar
recommended procedures. The types of water analysis are discussed under Section
5, Laboratory Testing. It is also recommended that the water analysis include the
concentration of organic acids. Too often these get lumped with bicarbonate since
the analyst assumes all alkalinity measured is bicarbonate and assumes no organic
acids are present. If organic acids are in fact present then the actual bicarbonate
concentration is less. This would impact the calculation for the calcium carbonate
scaling tendency. For all further laboratory tests, it is typical to use synthetic brines
based upon formation water and/or injection water analyses.
3. Use a model to identify scale formation potentials
Scale formation in oilfield brines takes place in a complicated, multi-component, and
multi-phase environment. To predict the formation of scale in systems requires a
sophisticated computer model together with accurate laboratory data on the waters
that will be produced or injected. To prevent or manage scale deposition, it is
desirable to be able to predict the following:
Where will the scale form?
How much scale will form in a given scenario?
How costly and damaging will it be?
Sophisticated computer models are available to predict the conditions at which a

variety of scales will form based upon the thermodynamics of scale formation. These
predictions will need to be overlaid with the temperature and pressure profiles of the
production system as well as the points in the production system where incompatible
waters will be mixed. Contact your company's resource person to identify the
particular scale model that is recommended.
H-0806.35
13-17
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
Example scale prediction study:

1. Identify production scenarios & production rates over life of the field
2. Identify conditions and locations for potential scale formation. This may require
temperature and pressure profiles for the production system.
3. Examine design/operating options to prevent/remediate scale
Existing Field Developments
The first step in determining whether scale problems exist or not is to determine the
symptoms.
Typically the first sign of troub le is an increase in pressure drop or decrease in flowrate.
This may occur slowly or very rapidly. Scale deposition usually occurs over a longer
period of time. Typically, as soon as there is water breakthrough, there is a risk of scale
formation. Scale can form either when the formation water undergoes a change in
temperature or pressure (typically a carbonate scale) or when two incompatible waters
(such as formation water and sea water) are mixed form in the production system at a
point between the reservoir pressure and the bubble point.
13.5.2 Scale Management Options
Scale can be managed in several ways:
Treat to prevent deposition using scale inhibitors, etc.

Allow scale to form and periodically remove it.
Pre-treatment to remove dissolved and suspended solids.
Typically the capital cost for pre-treatment is uneconomic except in the most severe
cases. Prevention is very often preferable to removal. The typical way of preventing
scale deposition in oilfield production is through the use of scale inhibitors.
Scale Inhibitors
Scale inhibitors are chemicals that delay or prevent scale formation when added in small
concentrations in normally scaling water. Use of these chemicals is attractive (compared
with chelation agents) because a very low dosage (several ppm) can be sufficient to
prevent scale for extended periods of time for either surface or downhole treatments. The
precise mechanism for scale inhibitors is not completely understood but is thought to
include two possibilities19 :
H-0806.35
13-18
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
Scale inhibitors may adsorb onto the surface of the scale crystals just as they start to
form. The inhibitors are large molecules that can envelop these micro-crystals and
hinder further growth. This is considered to be the primary mechanism.
In some cases, the chemical may simply prevent the precipitate from adhering to the
solid surfaces.
There are several criteria that a good scale inhibitor must satisfy:
Efficiency - It must be able to inhibit the scale in question

Stability - It must be sufficiently stable for the particular application
Compatibility - It must not interfere with other oilfield chemicals nor be affected by
other chemicals. Many oilfield chemicals are designed to operate at oil/water, liquid/gas,
or solid/liquid interfaces. Since scale inhibitors ha ve to act at the interface between solid
scale and water, it is not surprising that their performance can be upset by the presence
of other surface active chemicals that compete for the same interface. Before
deployment, it is important to examine in laboratory tests the performance of a scale
inhibitor in the presence of other oilfield chemicals. Static precipitation tests are
conducted on candidate scale inhibitors but additional bottles are prepared with other
oilfield chemicals added at or above their recommended field dosage concentrations.
Scale inhibitor performance is compared in the presence and absence of the other
chemicals.
Oilfield compatibility is a two-way problem. The performance of corrosion inhibitors,
demulsifiers, etc. should also be examined in the presence of the scale inhibitor.
DeepStar has provided a chemical compatibility study based upon the most common
chemistries.
Because these chemicals function by delaying the growth of scale crystals, the inhibitor
must be present before the onset of precipitation. Suspended solids (non-adherent scales)
are not acceptable. This suggests two basic rules in applying scale inhibitors:
1. The inhibitor must be added upstream of the problem area.
2. The inhibitor must be present in the scaling water on a continuous basis to halt the
growth of each scale crystal as it precipitates.
Types of Scale Inhibitors
The common classes of scale inhibitors include:
Inorganic Polyphosphates.
Organic Phosphates Esters.
H-0806.35
13-19
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
Organic Phosphonates.
Organic Polymers.
Table 13-4 lists some general performance characteristics of these scale inhibitors.
Table 13-4: Scale Inhibitors
HYDROLYTIC
STABILITY
TEMPERATURE
STABILITY
DETECTABILITY
Inorganic
Polyphosphonates
Poor
Poor
Good
Organic Phosphate
Esters
Good
Fair
Good
Organic Phosphonates
Excellent
Good
Very Good
Organic Polymers
Excellent
Excellent
Difficult
TYPE
Organic-based inhibitors usually are conveniently packaged as a concentrated liquid and

are inherently more stable chemically. The phosphate esters can be very cost-effective
but are not recommended for temperatures above 175F where they may hydrolyze in a
few hours. The phosphonates are good to perhaps 300F. Polymers can be used up to
400F. An important factor for high-temperature applications is how long the inhibitor
must function. Cheaper, less stable inhibitors may be acceptable for short durations, but
not for squeeze treatments where the chemical must survive in the formation for months.
The inorganic polyphosphates are non-crystalline inorganic solids. They are available as
plain polyphosphates or as controlled-solubility polyphosphates. They are seldom used
in oilfield operations today and are not discussed further here. Their disadvantages are
that they are solids (inconvenient to handle) and are susceptible to degradation. They can
decompose (hydrolysis or reversion) rapidly, particularly at low pH or high temperature.
Another important consideration is whether a simple, accurate method is available to
determine the scale inhibitor concentration in oilfield brine. In surface treatments, we
must be able to verify that the appropriate amount of chemical is added. Determining the
scale- inhibitor concentration is vital in squeeze treatment s because this is the only means
of determining if enough chemical is being swept from the formation where it has been
squeezed and into the produced water
The phosphonates and phosphate ester inhibitor concentrations may be determined easily
and reasonably accurately by a wet chemical colorimetric method.27 Standard kits may be
purchased for this purpose. A newer technique under development relies on ion
H-0806.35
13-20
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
chromatography. 20 There are no widespread, accepted analytical methods for the

polymer-based inhibitors. Nalco claims to have a suitable squeeze method for polymeric
inhibitors, but they have not yet published details.
Scale Inhibitor Selection
Some factors in the selection of scale inhibitor candidates for consideration in
performance tests include:
Type of Scale. Knowing the scale composition, one can select the best scale-inhibitor
chemistry.
Severity of Scaling. Fewer products are effective at high scaling rates.

Cost. Considering inhibitors that encompass a range of costs and meet the other
requirements is a good idea. Sometimes the cheaper products prove to be the most cost
effective; sometimes the more expensive products do.
Temperature. The relative thermal stability of the different types of scale inhibitors was
discussed above. Higher temperatures and required longer life (e.g., squeeze treatments)
limit the types of chemistry that are suitable.
pH. Most conventional (phosphonate) scale inhibitors perform less effectively in a lowpH environment. This can be a problem for inhibiting sulfate scales in conjunction with
acid treatments or CO2 flooding for EOR.29
Weather. The pour point should be considered if it is a cold-climate operation.

Chemical Compatibility. The scale inhibitor must be compatible with other treatment
chemicals, such as oxygen scavengers, corrosion inhibitors, and biocides. Also, the
scale inhibitor must be compatible with the water itself. Some scale inhibitors may react
with high concentrations of calcium, magnesium, or barium to form a scale (a
pseudoscale).
Application Technique. This is most important if the inhibitor is to be squeezed into the
formation. This means that the scale inhibitor must survive for several months under
reservoir conditions. This also means that an accurate detection method is available. As
mentioned, there is a standard method for phosphate esters and phosphonates, but the
analytical methods for the polymeric scale inhibitors are uncertain.
Viscosity. This is important when considering long umbilical applications such as in

remote subsea fields.
Application of Scale Inhibitors
Inhibitor application for surface treatment is straightforward once the problem area is
found. Typically, the product is metered in continuously upstream of the scaling area
H-0806.35
13-21
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
(e.g., sudden pressure drop, turbulent zone, or the place where two incompatible brines
mix).
Designing a treatment program for downhole scale prevention is more difficult. We are
less certain where scale deposition begins (where the inhibitor must be placed to be
effective), and applying the chemical at the desired concentration on a continuous basis is
more difficult.
In production wells, scale deposition may start in the formation itself, in the perforations,
in the pump or other downhole equipment, on the tubing, or on the piping on the surface.
The best treatment is the most cost-effective one that gets the proper concentration of
scale inhibitor into the brine before deposition begins. There are three types of downhole
treatment: batch, continuous injection, and squeeze treatments.
Table 13-5 shows some general information on the different types of downhole
application methods.
Table 13-5: Methods to Apply Scale Inhibitors Downhole
TREATMENT OPTION
DEGREE OF
DIFFICULTY
COMMENTS
Simple
Poor Control
More Complex
Good Control
Complex
Protection Starts Inside the

Formation
Batch Treatment
Continuous Injection
Bypass Down Annulus
Downhole Coiled Tubing (SPE 11853)22

Downhole Chemical Injection Pump
(SPE 14403)23
Squeeze Treatments
Batch Treatments
Batch treating a producer by periodically pouring scale inhibitor down the annulus is
the simplest downhole application technique. This method has two major drawbacks.
1. It provides little control over the concentration of scale inhibitor entering the
produced brine. The chemical concentration usually is high initially and then
drops off rapidly. This means over treatment followed by under treatment.
2. The scale inhibitor reaches only partway down the tubing. If the scale begins to
form at the bottom of the tubing in the perforations or in the formation, the
chemical enters too late.
H-0806.35
13-22
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
Continuous Injection
An improved, but more complex, method is to pump the scale inhibitor downhole
continuously. Two of the more common continuous placement methods are annulus
flush and coiled tubing. A novel technology currently being field tested is the
downhole chemical injection pump (DHCIP). Table 13-6 below compares their
characteristics.
Table 13-6: Continuous Inhibitor Treatments
ANNULUS
FLUSH
COILED TUBING
DHCIP
Production Loss (Recycle)
Yes
Yes
Yes
Protect All Tubular Goods
No
Yes
Yes
Capital Cost
Low
High
High
Risk of Mechanical Failure When

Installed
Low
High
Medium
Should Monitor,
Poor Mixing,
Chemical Build -up
Plug Tubing, Need

Regular
Maintenance
Unproven
Technology,
Plugging
DHCIP Intake
CHARACTERISTIC
Special Problems
The main advantage of these methods is the increased control in injecting the
treatment chemical. The scale inhibitor can be injected into the produced water as far
down as the bottom of the tubing and at the optimum concentration on a continuous
basis. However, these methods do not prevent scale deposition in the perforations or
in the formation itself.
All techniques have the disadvantage of requiring extra equipment (capital and
operating costs) compared with batch treating. The increased complexity means that
such systems require attention (maintenance) to operate properly. Common problems
include pump failures and plugging of critical components. The annulus flush
method and coiled tubing are used frequently.
Scale Inhibitor Squeeze

Squeeze treatments are another common way to apply scale inhibitor downhole. The
major advantage of the squeeze technique is that the inhibitor is placed into the
reservoir, thereby providing protection starting inside the formation. Often the well is
treated first to remove existing scale (most often acidized). After the treatment fluid
(spent acid) is allowed to return, any preflush chemicals demulsifiers are injected.
This is followed by the scale inhibitor solution (often several percent concentration in
H-0806.35
13-23
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
field brine) and then an overflush (usually field brine) to push the inhibitor several
feet away from the wellbore. The well is shut in for several hours to allow the scale
inhibitor to be retained in the formation by adsorbing onto the rock surfaces or by
precipitating in the formation (usually from excess calcium). Finally, normal
production is resumed.
The produced water entering the treated zone near the wellbore picks up the chemical,
either by desorption or by dissolving a portion of the inhibitor precipitate. As long as
enough inhibitor enters the produced water, no scale should form in the formation,
perforations, downhole equip ment, or tubing. The entire well is protected.
Unfortunately, the chemical feedback concentration cannot be controlled easily (this
is the subject of significant development work). Initially, little chemical is seen as the
overflush returns. Next is a high concentration of inhibitor representing the material
that did not readily adsorb or precipitate. Finally, there is a long, gradual depletion of
the chemical, perhaps stretching out over thousands of barrels and several months of
production. When the inhibitor concentration finally falls below its minimum
effective concentration for that brine, the squeeze treatment must be repeated to
maintain protection. The number of barrels of produced water treated or the duration
of the treatment is called the squeeze life.
Squeeze Treatment Design

Besides the choice of an effective chemical, a number of factors must be considered
when designing a scale- inhibitor squeeze treatment. These factors are discussed
briefly in this section; Re ferences 21 and 24 through 25 provide greater detail.
Meyers and Skillmans40 paper and Meyers et al.s48 work provide good reviews of
the scale-inhibitor squeeze process.
Production rate. The higher the water production rate, the larger the squeeze job
required to treat the greater volume of brine.26 As a first approximation, each drum
of scale inhibitor should treat 10,000 to 100,000 bbl of produced water. One related
factor is the fluid velocity in the treated zone.27 Our data and the literature suggest
that the placement and desorption of the scale inhibitor can be kinetically controlled
and hence is sensitive to flow rate.28
Amount of scale inhibitor. The more chemical used, the longer the squeeze life.
However, increasing the inhibitor by itself usually gives a diminishing return on
squeeze life. For example, doubling the scale- inhibitor concentration alone typically
increases the squeeze life, but by less than a factor of two.
Overflush volume. The overflush volume needs to be large enough to drive the
scale inhibitor several feet into the reservoir. This spreads out the chemical, giving it
H-0806.35
13-24
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
an adequate chance to adsorb or precipitate, and decreases the high concentrations

that return initially. The overflush volume required to displace the pill a fixed radial
distance into the reservoir (5-10 feet) can be calculated if the reservoir rock
properties are known, though the volume could be estimated at approximately twice
the volume of the inhibitor slug.
Minimum effective concentration. The squeeze life can be improved considerably
if the inhibitor concentration can safely be allowed to fall to lower values. This
option may be available at production wells where the scaling tendency is low.
Repeated treatments. The squeeze life tends to improve with subsequent squeeze
treatments because they take advantage of the chemical left behind in the formation
by earlier squeezes.29
Retention/release characteristics. The way that the inhibitor is retained and
subsequently leached into the produced water can greatly affect squeeze life. As a
general rule, squeeze life is longer for treatments that rely on precipitation than those
that rely on strictly adsorption. 30 In these precipitation squeezes, calcium is
introduced either into the inhibitor slug itself or in a preflush or overflush. One
danger of the precipitation squeeze method is that the calcium/inhibitor salt may
form too quickly and cause formation damage.
Removal of Scales Using Chemicals
Scales may also be removed using chemicals. The below examples illustrate some of
these methods.
Carbonate Deposits
The carbonate scales may be most readily dissolved with mineral acids.
CaCO3 + 2HCl CaCl2 + CO2 + H2O
Sulfate Deposits
The sulfate scales (especially barium sulfate) are particularly hard to remove once they
are formed and may only be cleaned from surfaces using chelants and/or mechanical
removal such as high pressure water jetting. However, calcium sulfates may be removed
using gyp-converters (an ion exchange treatment) followed by an acid wash. In
addition, NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material) typically forms along with
barium sulfate deposits. Consequently, the deposit is not only difficult to remove, but
there is a hazardous waste disposal problem as well. This is where prevention of the
deposit will completely eliminate not only the scale problem, but the NORM problem as
well.
H-0806.35
13-25
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
It is not possible to readily dissolve sulfate scales. It is possible to use chelating agents to
enhance the dissolution rate of the scale.
Chelation (or sequestration) is the formation of soluble metal ion complexes in the
presence of substances which would normally give a precipitate. An example of
chelation is as follows:
Consider attempting to dissolve a barium sulfate scale. In a water or brine, barium
sulfate has very limited solubility in the range of 5 - 50 mg/l. The barium ions in solution
are complexed by the chelating agent (reaction 2) effectively removing them from the
solution. More barium sulfate dissolves to maintain the equilibrium in reaction 1.
BaSO4 Ba2+ +
SO4 2-
(1)
Ba2+ + L BaL
(2)
where L is a chelating agent.

Pre-Treatment
Pre-treating the water to remove dissolved and suspended solids can prevent scale
formation. Methods typically used are softening, io n exchange, filtration or coagulation.
Typically, the capital costs rule out these methods except in the most several cases. It is
not possible to use these methods for the wellbore or flowlines when the formation water
alone is responsible for the scaling. These methods can be used to treat injection water
prior to injection. One example of a pre-treatment is the Marathon/Dow Sulfate Removal
Process. This membrane filtration system is used for removal of divalent ions such as
barium, calcium, magnesium, strontium and sulfate. It does not remove monovalent ions
such as sodium or chloride. The process can reduce the sulfate content of seawater from
3,000 mg/liter to about 50 mg/liter. The process has been proven effective in offshore
platform service since 1988.
13.6
Laboratory Testing
Numerous techniques have been used to study scale deposition; however, there are still
no standard laboratory testing techniques within the oil industry.
The testing
methodologies and the interpretation of the results vary widely from company to
company. The methods listed here are examples of the types of measurements that may
be used. Please consult your company's resource person for recommendations.
H-0806.35
13-26
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
13.6.1 Water Analysis

Water samples should be analyzed using the API Recommended Procedure 45 or similar
recommended procedures. It is also recommended that the water analysis include the
concentration of organic acids. Too often these get lumped with bicarbonate since the
analyst assumes all alkalinity measured is bicarbonate and assumes no organic acids are
present. If organic acids are in fact present, then the actual bicarbonate concentration is
less. This would impact the calculation for the calcium carbonate scaling tendency. For
all further laboratory tests, it is typical to use synthetic brines based upon formation water
and/or injection water analyses.
13.6.2 Static Scale Precipitation Tests
Synthetic brines are prepared in the laboratory and mixed in defined ratios and pH values
with or without scale inhibitors. The tests are designed to represent the "worst case"
condition in terms of scale formation for the situation under investigation based upon
computer scale predictions. The mixed brines are stored at temperature for a defined
period of time (for example 16 hours). The solutions are then filtered and the liquid
phase is analyzed for scaling ions remaining in solution.
A scale inhibitor can be ranked for its effectiveness by comparing the concentration of
scaling ions remaining in solution to the concentration of scaling ions remaining in
solution when no scale inhibitor has been added. This test is quick, cheap and when used
in conjunction with microscopy and spectrometry techniques, it also provides valuable
information into the nature of the scale deposit and whether the inhibitor has any effect
on the crystal structure.
13.6.3 Dynamic Scale Precipitation Tests (Tube-blocking test)
The static test described above does not address how strongly the scale will adhere to a
surface. A dynamic tube blocking test can be used to he lp assess the tenacity of the scale
deposit.
Two incompatible brines are pumped separately at temperature and pressure into an oven
where they mix and flow through a capillary tube. Any build-up of scale in the coil is
detected by monitoring the pressure drop across the coil via a differential pressure
transducer. At some given differential pressure (for example 100 psi) the coil is
presumed to be blocked and the test is shut down.
The time taken for the coil to plug with and without inhibitor can be used to rank the
inhibitor effectiveness.
H-0806.35
13-27
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
13.6.4 Dynamic Porous Media Tests

In this type of test the scale is induced to form in a porous media. The apparatus can
range from simple core flooding at ambient conditions to full reservoir conditions that
can operate at temperatures and pressures up to 150C and 8000 psi respectively and in
the presence of live crudes.
Tests of this type are particularly useful in the design of scale inhibitor "squeeze"
treatments where the elution characteristics of the scale inhibitors flowing through the
porous media are of fundamental importance in order to gauge the timing between
successive squeeze treatments. The desorption characteristics of a chemical may be
determined by measuring the inhibitor concentration returning with the produced fluids.
13.6.5 Scale Inhibitor Compatibility Tests
In addition to showing good inhibiting performance against the scale in question, the
inhibitor must be stable and compatible with other oilfield chemicals. Several laboratory
tests can be conducted to test stability and compatibility.
In addition to showing good inhibiting performance against the scale in question, the
inhibitor must be stable and compatible with other oilfield chemicals. Several laboratory
tests can be conducted to test stability and compatibility.
Physical Stability in the Brine
Scale inhibitors are diluted either before deployment (often with seawater) or at the time
they are deployed when they mix with the produced water. The chemistry of the water
may be incompatible with the scale inhibitor, resulting in an unwanted and uncontrollable
precipitate. For instance, phosphonates are prone to precipitation in high calcium brines.
At best this reduces the effectiveness of the inhibitor. At worst the precipitate can
stabilize produced emulsions or block pore throats following squeeze treatments. (Note:
Some inhibitor squeeze treatments are designed to deliberately precipitate the inhibitor
within the rock matrix to increase the inhibitor retention and lengthen squeeze lifetimes.)
A basic test procedure for stability in brine is as follows: Add the scale inhibitor (as
received from the chemical supplier) to the appropriate water in a capped glass bottle.
The water may be the diluent for deployment of the chemical for the produced water.
Allow the bottle to stand at the test temperature for at least 24 hours and monitor any
change in appearance of the solution or evidence of a precipitate. In addition, fill a
second bottle with the appropriate water as a control.
H-0806.35
13-28
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
Chemical Stability Under Reservoir Conditions

Reservoir temperatures can be quite high, with some exceeding 150C (302F). For
squeeze chemicals designed to remain in the formation, there is a real danger that they
may chemically decompose. It is recommended that the temperature stability of the
proposed chemical be tested when application temperatures exceed 100C (212F). This
is accomplished by storing the chemical in a diluted state with the appropriate water for
several weeks and comparing the performance of the aged sample against a freshly
prepared one.
Scale inhibitors are prepared as approximately 10% solutions (based upon 100% active
concentration) in sea water or formation water. These solutions, after aging, are
subsequently used as the stock solutions for the static bottle tests. The solutions are
loaded into metal pressure tubes and stored without air at the test temperature (usually
reservoir temperature) for several weeks.
Compatibility with Other Oilfield Chemicals
Many oilfield chemicals are designed to operate at oil/water, liquid/gas, or solid/liquid
interfaces. Since scale inhibitors have to act at the interface between solid scale and
water, it is not surprising that their performance can be upset by the presence of other
surface active chemicals that compete for the same interface. Before deployment, it is
important to examine in laboratory tests the performance of a scale inhibitor in the
presence of other oilfield chemicals. A chemical compatibility matrix is given in Table
13-7.
Static precipitation tests are conducted on candidate scale inhibitors but additional bottles
are prepared with other oilfield chemicals added at or above their recommended field
dosage concentrations. Scale inhibitor performance is compared in the presence and
absence of the other chemicals.
Some general observations regarding chemical compatibility are:
Paraffin inhibitors and hydrates treating chemicals (methanol and ethylene glycol) can
give rise to serious problems upon mixing.
Some water soluble corrosion inhibitors (imidazolines and alkyl quaternary ammonium
compounds) and paraffin inhibitors can result in serious problems upon mixing.
Mixing methanol and scale inhibitors can cause serious problems upon mixing.
In general, it is recommended that chemical compatibility studies be conducted prior to
selecting production treating chemicals.
H-0806.35
13-29
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
Oilfield compatibility is a two-way problem. The performance of corrosion inhibitors,

demulsifiers, etc. should also be examined in the presence of the scale inhibitor.
DeepStar has provided a chemical compatibility study based upon the most common
chemistries. DeepStar developed a set of guidelines for operators to use in selecting
production treating chemicals that are compatible with other oil and water treating
chemicals. This issue was raised due to the major expenses incurred and the lost
production that can be caused by incompatible products plugging umbilicals and
becoming ineffective to treat produced fluids.
Performance Matrix: Mixing chemicals at their normal treating concentrations
The performance matrix for chemical mixtures is shown in Table 13-8. Some general
points regarding this matrix are as follows:
Most paraffin inhibitors exhibit no loss in performance when used in the presence of
hydrate, corrosion or scale inhibitors.
Most corrosion inhibitors are compatible with other production treating chemicals in that
they experience no noticeable loss in performance when used in the presence of other
treating chemicals. However, marginally effective corrosion inhibitors may suffer a
noticeable loss in performance when used in the presence of other treating chemicals.
Although testing is always recommended when choosing any chemicals, chemical

compatibility studies are particularly needed when selecting hydrate and scale inhib itors.
H-0806.35
13-30
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
Table 13-7: Chemical COMPATIBILITY matrix

H1
H1
H2
H3
H2
OK
H3
OK
OK
P1
??
NO
NO
P2
??
NO
NO
P2
??
OK
??
C1
??
??
??
C2
OK
OK
OK
C3
??
??
??
C4
OK
OK
OK
S1
??
NO
OK
S2
??
NO
OK
S3
??
NO
OK
B1
OK
OK
OK
B2
OK
OK
OK
B3
OK
OK
OK
D1
NO
??
??
D2
??
OK
??
D3
??
OK
??
??
OK
OK
??
??
??
NO
NO
NO
??
??
??
NO
NO
NO
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
OK
??
OK
OK
??
OK
OK
??
??
??
OK
??
??
??
OK
??
??
??
OK
??
??
??
OK
??
??
??
OK
??
??
??
OK
OK
??
OK
??
OK
??
OK
??
OK
??
OK
??
??
??
??
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
??
??
??
??
??
??
NO
NO
NO
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
P1
P2
P3
C1
C2
C3
C4
S1
S2
S3
B1
B2
B3
Ok = No loss in performance; ?? = UNCERTAIN; testing is needed; NO Avoid using these two chemicals together!
Hydrates: (nonionic)
H1 polyvinylcaprolactam
Scale Inhibitors: (all anionic; assume blending w/methanol)
H2 methanol
H3 ethylene glycol
Top of page
Corrosion inhibitors: (generally cationic)
C2 imidazolines (Water Soluble)

C3 imidazolines (Oil Soluble)
C4 alkyl quaternary ammonium compounds (Water Soluble)
S2 Phosphase esters pH 4-8

S3 Polyacrylates pH 4-8
B1 quaternary ammonium chlorides (cationic)

B2 gluteraldehyde (nonionic)
B3 dithiocarbamates (anionic)
Demulsifiers
P1 olefin/maleic esters (C18-C30 type molecules)

P2 ethylene vinyl acetate copolymers ("High" Molec. Wgt.)
H-0806.35
S1 Phosphonates pH 4-8
Biocides:
C1 amine fatty acid salts (Oil soluble)
Paraffin control: (all nonionic)
P3 xylene
13-31
D1 polyglycol resin esters (OIL SOLUBLE) (nonionic)

D2 sulfonates (anionic)
D3 oxyalkylated amines (nonionic)
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
Table 13-8: Performance Matrix

P1
P2
(a)
C1
C2
C3
C4
(b)
H1
OK
OK
OK
OK
??
NO
H2
H3
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
H1
H2
H3
P1
P2
OK
--
NO
--
OK
--
C1
C2
C3
C4
--??
OK
--NO
??
--NO
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
S1
S2
S3
OK
---
NO
---
??
---
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
??
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
S2
S2
S3
??
NO
NO
(c)
NO
--
NO
(c)
??
--
NO
(c)
??
--
NO
NO
??
??
OK
??
NO
??
NO
NO
NO
??
??
??
??
??
??
??
OK
??
NO
??
??
NO
??
NO
OK=No loss in performance; ?? = UNCERTAIN; testing is needed; NO = Avoid using these two chemicals together!
Interpret as follows: Column heading denotes the primary chemical whose performance is being tested in the presence of the "additive"
chemical whose type is denoted by the row heading. For example, the intersection of the S1 column and C1 row is labeled "NO". This means
that the performance of a phosphonate scale inhibitor (s1) will likely be adversely affected by the presence of an amine fatty acid type corrosion
inhibitor (C1).
NOTES:
a. The P2 paraffin inhibitor was not effective on the South Pelto crude used in these tests. The other chemicals actually increased its
performance slightly.
b. The C4 corrosion inhibitor was only moderately effective (55% and 62% in duplicate tests) when tested by itself in the test brine (no other
treating chemicals present).
c. Solutions of polyvinylcaprolactam will turn cloudy above a temperature of 90F, this chemical combination could be labeled as "??" to
indicate that further testing is needed before using a combination of any of these scale inhibitors (S1, S2, or S3) with polyvinylcaprolactam.
H-0806.35
13-32
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
13.7
DEEPSTAR
References
1. Patton, C. C.: Applied Water Technology, first edition, Campbell Petroleum Series,
Norman, OK (1986) Chap. 3.
2. Cowan, J. C. and Weintritt, D. J.: Water-Formed Scale Deposits, Gulf Publishing
Co., Houston (1976).
3. Ostroff, A. G.: Introduction to Oilfield Water Technology, National Association of
Corrosion Engineers, Ho uston (1979) Chap. 3.
4. Carlberg, B. L. and Matches, R. R.: "Solubility of Calcium Sulfate in Brine", paper
SPE 4353 presented at the 1973 SPE Oilfield Chemistry Symposium, Denver, May
24-25.
5. Vetter O. J. G. and Phillips, R. C.: "Prediction of Deposition of Calcium Sulfate
Scale Under Down-Hole Conditions", JPT (Oct. 1970) 1299.
6. Waldram, I. M.: "Natural Radioactive Scale: The Development of Safe Systems of
Work", JPT (Aug. 1988) 1057-1060.
7. Smith, A. L.: "Radioactive Scale Formation", JPT (June 1987) 697-706.
8. Blount, C. W.: "Barite Solubilities and Thermodynamic Quantities up to 300C and
1400 Bars", American Mineralogist (1977) 62, 942-57.
9. Templeton, C. C.: "Solubility of Barium Sulfate in Sodium Chloride Solutions from
25C to 95C", J. Chemical and Engineering Data (Oct. 1960) 5, 514.
10. Vetter, O. J. G., Vandenbroek, I., and Nayberg, J.: "SrSO4 : The Basic Solubility
Data", paper SPE 11803 presented at the 1983 SPE International Symposium on
Oilfield and Geothermal Chemistry, Denver, June 1-3.
11. Jaques, D. F. and Bourland, B. I.: "A Study of Solubility of Strontium Sulfate", JPT,
(April 1983) 292-300.
12. Jacques, D. F., Gollberg, J. B., and Whiteside, W. C.: Strontium Sulfate Solubility
and the Effects of Scale Inhibitors", paper presented at the NACE Middle East
Corrosion Conference/79, Bahrain, April 15-17.
H-0806.35
13-33
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
13. Davis, J. W. and Collins, A. G.: "Solubility of Barium and Strontium Sulfates in
Strong Electrolyte Solutions", Environmental Science and Technology (Oct. 1971), 5,
1039.
14. Essel, A. and Carlberg, B. L.: "Strontium Sulfate Scale Control by Inhibitor Squeeze
Treatment in the Fateh Field", JPT (June 1982) 1302-06.
15. Shen, J and Crosby, C. C.: "Insight Into Strontium and Calcium Sulfate Scaling
Mechanisms in a Wet Producer", JPT (July 1983) 1249-55.
16. Greenberg, J. L. and Tomson, M. B.: "Kinetics of Precipitation and Dissolution of
Ferrous Carbonate", paper presented at the 1986 International Symposium on Metal
Speciation, Separation, and Recovery, Chicago, IL, July 27 Aug 1.
17. Shuler, P. J.: "OLI System ProChem Simulator Calculation of Iron Sulfide and Iron
Carbonate Scaling Tendencies for Rangely Field, Colorado", COFRC Technical
memorandum TM88000876 (Aug. 1988).
18. SPE 37274 "The Implication of HP/HT Reservoir Conditions on the Selection and
Application of Conventional Scale Inhibitors: Thermal Stability Studies".
19. Weintritt, D. J. and Cowan, J. C.: "Unique Characteristics of Barium Sulfate Scale
Deposition", JPT (Oct. 1967) 1381-94.
20. Shuler, P. J.: "Scale Inhibitor Analysis by Ion Chromatography", COFRC Technical
memorandum TM8801175 (Oct. 1988).
21. Shuler, P. J., Freitas, E. A., And Bowker, K. A.: "Selection and Application of
Barium Sulfate Scale Inhibitors for a Carbon Dioxide Flood, Rangely Weber Sand
Unit, Rangely, Colorado", paper SPE 18973 presented at the 1989 SPE Rocky
Mountain Regional meeting/Low Permeability Reservoir Symposium, Denver, March
6-8.
22. Hughes, C. T. and Whittingham, K. P.: "The Selection of Scale Inhibitors for the
Forties Field", paper EUR 313 presented at the 1982 European Petroleum
Conference, London, Oct. 25-28.
23. Cruise, D. S., Davis, D. L., and Elliot, R. H.: "Use of Continuous Coil Tubing for
Subsurface Scale and Corrosion Treating Rangely Weber Sand Unit", paper SPE
11853 presented at the 1983 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Salt Lake City,
UT, May 23-25.
H-0806.35
13-34
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
24. Collins, P.,: "The Scaletreat ESL System, A New Approach to Scale Inhibitor
Squeeze Treatment", IDF Report (Aug. 1986).
25. Underdown, D. R. and Newhouse, D. P.: "Evaluation of Calcium Carbonate Scale
Inhibitors for Prudhoe Bay, Alaska", paper SPE 15658 presented at the 1986 SPE
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, Oct. 5-8.
26. Spriggs, D. M. and Hover, G. W.: "Field Performance of a Liquid Scale Inhibitor
squeeze Program", JPT (July 1972) 812-16.
27. Hong, S. A. and Shuler, P. J.: A Mathematical Model for the Scale Inhibitor Squeeze
Process", SPEPE (Nov. 1988) 597-607.
28. Vetter, O. J. G.: The Chemical Squeeze Process Some New Information on Some
Old Misconceptions", JPT (March 1973) 339-53.
29. Shuler, P. J.: A Mathematical Model for Successive Scale Inhibitor Squeeze
Treatments", COFRC Technical Memorandum TM87001338 (Nov. 1987).
30. Carlberg, B. L.: "Precipitation Squeeze Can Control Scale in High-Volume Wells",
Oil & Gas Journal (Dec. 2, 1983), 152-54.
H-0806.35
13-35
1-Dec-00
14
EROSION
14.1
Introduction
DEEPSTAR.
Velocity is an important parameter for any multiphase flow system. Excessive fluid
velocities caused by incorrect pipe sizing and/or process design can have a detrimental
effect on the pipeline and fittings and the effectiveness of any chemical inhibitors. The
phenomena involved are complex, involving aspects of the hydrodynamics of the
pipeline, the chemistry of the multiphase mixture within the pipeline, and the materials
used to manufacture the pipeline.
14.2
Erosion
The hydrodynamics of the multiphase mixture within the pipeline has a very important
influence on a number of physical phenomena, which determine the corrosion and
erosion performance of the system. In many pipeline applications, particularly those
involving gas fields and gas production systems, liquid droplets are present as the
dispersed phase. The impingement of these droplets on to surfaces can cause erosion.
Experimental evidence indicates that under a wide range of conditions, the material lost
by droplet erosion varies with time. Initially, the impacting droplets do not cause any
erosion due to the existence of protective layers on the surface. However, after a period
of time, rapid erosion sets in and the weight loss becomes significant and will increase
linearly with time.
The hydrodynamics of the multiphase mixture within the pipeline also affects the degree
of wetting of the pipe walls and the distribution of corrosion inhibitors injected into the
pipeline system. Above a certain velocity, the inhibitor film will be removed, leading to
increased rates of corrosion. At present, pipeline designers rely on empirical correlations
such as the API specification (API RP 14, 1991) to determine the critical line velocity.
The empirical correlation takes the form:
Verosion =
where:
Verosion = velocity of erosion (ft/s)
= mixture density (lb/ft3 )
C = constant defined by Table 14.2-1
H-0806.35
14-1
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
Table 14.2-1: Erosion Velocity for Gas-condensate Systems with Various CGRs
droplet
damage
Harwell
CGR
Mixture Density
API 14E
S&V
annular
flow
bubble
flow
(S&V)
kg m-3
lb ft -3
c=100
c=300
c=1370
c=5000
c=35000
kg m-3
lb ft -3
m/s
m/s
m/s
m/s
m/s
1.0
64.0
4.0
15.3
45.7
208.9
762.3
5336.1
10.0
68.5
4.3
14.7
44.2
201.9
736.7
5009.9
50.0
78.5
4.9
13.8
41.3
188.6
688.5
4819.1
100.0
90.5
5.7
12.8
38.5
175.7
641.4
4489.5
S&V = Salama & Venkatesh,

Table 14.2-1 shows different erosion velocities proposed by various workers. From the API
specification, the maximum gas velocity should not exceed 15 m/s (50 ft/s) in order to
prevent stripping of the film forming corrosion inhibitor from the inside surface of the
pipe. However, there is a suggestion that the API specification is overly conservative.
Table 14.2-2 shows the calculated superficial gas velocities for the preliminary design of a
pipeline of various diameters with gas flow rates and condensate/gas ratios (CGR's). For
diameters greater than 24-inch, the API erosion velocity specification is not attained for gas
flow rates up to 500 MMSCFD. For diameters less than 24-inch, the API erosion velocity
specification is reached at the higher gas flow rates.
shows these results for the case of CGR equal to10. This enables unacceptable
combinations of gas flow and pipe diameter to be eliminated.
H-0806.35
14-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
Table 14.2-2: Superficial Gas Velocity (m/s) with Gas Flow Rate and Pipe Diameter
Gas as Flow
MMSCFD
Pipe diameter (inches)

CGR=10
FLOW
8"
10"
16"
24"
30"
36"
10.0
1.3
0.8
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
20.0
2.5
1.6
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.1
50.0
6.3
4.0
2.0
0.7
0.5
0.3
100.0
13.0
8.1
3.1
1.4
0.9
0.6
200.0
32.0
16.8
6.3
2.8
1.8
1.2
500.0
60.0
24.0
16.1
7.0
4.5
3.1
Figure 14.2-1: API Erosion Criterion CGR = 10
H-0806.35
14-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
Figure 14.2-1 indicates the relationship between holdup, velocity, and the erosion
criterion (using the Eaton-Oliemans method). It highlights some of the potential
advantages of operating a multiphase pipeline with a gas of a CGR of 10 bbl/MMSCF at
high superficial gas velocities. Increasing the superficial gas velocity decreases the liquid
holdup in the pipeline. This could lead to a reduction in the pigging frequency or a
smaller slug catcher required at the receiving facility. Figure 14.2-2 also shows the
corresponding API erosion velocity specification for the gas condensate mixture and the
line of no-slip holdup. The graph shows that very high gas velocities are required to
attain the no-slip holdup criterion. Also, there is only a small variation in the
holdup/superficial gas velocity curve with increasing superficial gas velocity, above 6
m/s. The implication of Figure 14.2-2 is that it is not possible to operate under no-slip
conditions without exceeding the erosion criterion. Note that the low dependence of
holdup/superficial gas velocity curve on pipe diameter is a feature of the Eaton
Correlation.
Figure 14.2-3 shows the pressure drop penalty incurred by increasing superficial gas
velocity, for a 25 km multiphase pipeline with a gas of CGR 10 bbls/MMSCF, as
calculated using the Oliemans method. To reach the API erosion velocity specification, a
16-inch pipeline would have a pressure drop of over 30 bar (435 psi). Under normal
operating conditions a pressure drop of more than 0.5 bar (7.25 psi) / km is likely to be
unacceptable - this implies that in most cases pressure drop, not erosion will be limiting.
Finally, in a gas condensate system it is important to consider the possible operating
conditions that may occur during trans ient operations which may result in unacceptably
high velocities, as well as the normal steady state operation of the pipeline.
H-0806.35
14-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
Figure 14.2-2: Holdup vs. Erosion Criterion CGR = 10
Figure 14.2-3: Pressure Drop vs. Erosion Criterion CGR = 10

H-0806.35
14-5
1-Dec-00
14.3
DEEPSTAR.
References
1. API RP 14E, October 1991.
2. Salama, M.M. and Venkatesh, E.S., "Evaluation of API RP 14E erosional velocity limitation for
offshore gas wells, OTC Paper 4485, May 1983.
H-0806.35
14-6
1-Dec-00
15.0
CORROSION
15.1
Introduction
TEXACO INC.
DEEPSTAR FLOW ASSUR ANCE DESIGN GUIDE
Fundamental CO2 corrosion research is, at present, restricted to simple laboratory flow
experiments with idealized fluids.
In offshore multiphase production systems, understanding corrosion is a far greater
problem due to the wide range of uncertainties, i.e. basic flow parameters, gas and crude
property variations, effects of flowline geometry and the performance of corrosion
inhibitors. Multiphase flow design schemes and the use of carbon steel flowlines present
attractive capital cost options for field development. The flowline design team must
assess these advantages against high operating costs for inhibition, corrosion monitoring
and line repair during field life.
This chapter is not intended to provide detailed instructions with regard to corrosion
prevention in pipeline design. Rather, the objective is to explain the possible
implications for corrosion phenomena on multiphase flow conditions, and indeed vice
versa. Some basic explanation of corrosion prevention options as well as a design
philosophy (See Section 15.6) is presented.
The flow characteristics in a multiphase pipeline may determine the likelihood of
corrosion and can modify the corrosion rates. It may also have a profound effect on the
effectiveness of any anti-corrosion measures which are taken. Whether or not corrosion
is likely, and what action must be taken if it is may then influence any decisions
regarding the use of multiphase flow systems, and their design.
In a full design, an assessment of that risk is required to see whether corrosion may be
controlled through methods such as corrosion allowance and chemical inhibition. These
specialized tasks combine stress analysis and corrosion engineering specialists.
References 1 to 4 provide more details.
H-0806.35
15-1
Jan - 99
15.2
TEXACO INC.
Corrosivity
15.2.1 Corrosion in Sweet Gas Systems

In a given gas composition, if the hydrogen sulfide partial pressure is less than 0.05 psia
then the system can be thought of as sweet.
In a sweet system, corrosion is a process of metal dissolution in the presence of free
water, made acidic by the presence of carbon dioxide. CO2 corrosion is caused by a
combination of the CO2 content in the gas with produced free water. The corrosivity of
the fluid is affected by pH, partial pressure of the gas, temperature, H2 S content, etc.
Simple models are available to assess the corrosivity of a fluid under flowing conditions,
(Ref. 5). This is a specialist task for a corrosion engineer, as value judgements need to be
made based on experience. The carbon dioxide partial pressure will determine the
corrosion rate, but in a two, or indeed three phase system, the water content may be of
more importance. In single-phase flow, the water may exist as water vapor only, but in
multiphase flow, it is more likely to exist, possib ly in large quantities in the liquid phase,
either as an emulsion or as a separate phase. It is the latter condition, which is of interest
from the point of view of corrosion.
If the water content is such that the relative humidity is greater than 50%, then some form
of corrosion treatment will almost certainly be required. Even if the RH is less than 50%
problems may arise. If the pipeline has any dead areas where liquid is likely to collect,
then corrosion is possible even with water cuts below 5%. In wet systems, i.e. true
three phase systems where water and oil/condensate form immiscible layers in stratified
flow, water will tend to settle out in 'dips' in the pipeline and it can remain trapped and
essentially stagnant for long periods of time. It has been found that in pipelines where
the aqueous phase represents only about 10% of the condensible liquids in the fluid
stream, water can account for up to 50% of the liquid holdup in the pipeline. Under these
circumstances, the need for corrosion protection is likely.
15.2.2 Corrosion in Sour Gas Systems
If the partial pressure of the CO2 component exceeds 0.05 psia, the system should be
considered sour and corrosion treatment will most likely be required. Although the
formation of sulfide scales may reduce the corrosion due to attack by water with
dissolved carbon dioxide, the additional processes of hydrogen induced cracking and
sulfide stress corrosion may also occur.
H-0806.35
15-2
Jan - 99
15.3
TEXACO INC.
Multiphase Flow Factors Affecting Corrosion
15.3.1 Multiphase Flow Regimes

Multiphase flow regimes in flowline systems have been discussed in Chapters 5. If the
fluid phases are corrosive under flowing conditions, the resulting flow regimes can affect
the corrosion rate by varying the corrosion inhibitor efficiency (Ref. 6).
Generally, stratified flows in horizontal flowlines do not present a problem, if adequately
inhibited. However, at very low liquid velocities with little or very poor inhibition,
considerable damage can occur. Typical damage resembles tramlines, lines of
localized pitting at the liquid-gas interface, located at the bottom of the flowline. Sand or
solids may remain at the bottom of the flowline and promote under-deposit corrosion.
Due to geometrical or terrain changes, the stratified flow may change and alter its
characteristics radically.
The slug flow regime, in a horizontal flowline, may have a very large effect on inhibitor
performance. During the passage of the slug, gas is entrained into the highly turbulent
slug front, as flow visualization suggests, is projected downwards to the bottom of the
flowline in bursts of small bubbles (Ref. 7). High shear stress, the possibility of gas
bubble collapse and high turbulence are all possible contributors to both increasing
corrosion rates and reducing the performance of the corrosion inhibitor (discussed in
Section 15.4); current investigations will assist in determining governing mechanisms.
Rapid operational transients, e.g. compressor trips or the bringing on of high gas rate
wells, may produce very large slugs.
The annular flow regime has a high velocity gas core which entrains and deposits liquid
droplets from and to the surrounding liquid annulus. In a horizontal flowline case, the
liquid annulus is much thicker at bottom of the flowline due to the effects of gravity.
There is no evidence that the impact of liquid droplets on flowline walls alone causes
problems. However, combining sand transport within the high velocity gas core, and a
corrosive medium, can produce very rapid rates of erosion/corrosion, Ref. 8.
15.3.2 Localized Flow Effects
Flow regimes operating in straight, horizontal flowlines may give rise to corrosion
problems in the absence of other influences. However, it is much more likely that the
first signs of damage will occur at localized flowline features. These would be where
details in flow structure and geometry produce potential corrosion hot spots. Likely
areas would be at major geometrical changes, e.g. bends and flowline fittings, tees and
H-0806.35
15-3
Jan - 99
TEXACO INC.
wyes. However, minor changes, e.g. weld beads, gaps at flanges and previous
mechanical or corrosion/erosion damage, can also produce serious corrosion problems.
Major geometrical changes to the direction of a flowline increase turbulence production,
local wall shear stress and redistribute the gas and liquid (also solids, if present) phases.
The degree to which this occurs depends upon the acuteness of the direction change, the
change in flow area, especially a constriction, and the proximity of two or more changes.
Vertical bends, in nominally stratified flow, may create very high local turbulence
activity as the geometry change serves to collect the liquid phases, bridging the pipe
before being blown through by faster moving gas. Examples of this occurring in a 30inch OD flowline, in nominally stratified flow, and 40% watercut, created wall thickness
losses of 80% and corrosion rates in excess of 500 mpy (12.5 mm/yr). Hilly terrain with
long upward slopes may produce slugs, which are dissipated in the downhill sections.
Here, again, an analysis of the flowrates without taking pipeline angles into account may
predict a stratified flow regime, whereas slugs will have formed somewhere in the
system.
Minor changes and details to pipe wall sections may create local areas of increased
inhibitor breakdown due to the abruptness of the change and water retention. Abrupt
wall mismatches due to thick walled fittings or field welds of flowline stock
manufactured from rolled plate, and the metallurgical changes due to the heat affected
zone, are prime targets for water dropout, inhibitor breakdown and accelerated corrosion.
Gaps in flange seals for large diameter flowlines may also promote water dropout so that
a nominally low water cut of less than 10% could locally be subject to, say, 50% or more.
Particular care is required if sections of dissimilar materials are flanged together, e.g.
stainless and carbon steels, due to galvanic corrosion, again reference to a corrosion
engineering specialist should be sought.
15.3.3 Temperature profiles
Temperature has a profound effect on corrosion rates in sweet systems. It is generally the
case that at temperatures below 60C, corrosion rates will increase exponentially with
increasing temperature. Above 60C, the surface may be protected by the formation of
an iron carbonate scale. Thus, corrosion in multiphase lines is likely to be most
problematic in parts of the lines where the temperature is above the sea temperature, but
below 60C. It is important, therefore, to identify the likely temperature profile along the
pipeline at the design stage. It may then be desirable to use a section of special steel or
lined pipe near the inlet section of the pipe.
H-0806.35
15-4
Jan - 99
15.4
TEXACO INC.
Corrosion Prevention
Once it has been established whether corrosion is a potential problem, it is necessary to
consider what action should be taken and whether this will impinge on multiphase flow
considerations. Several options for corrosion prevention are highlighted below.
15.4.1 Materials selection

The choice of the appropriate pipe material will depend on cost and duty. For sweet
systems, carbon steels are usually adequate (coupled with the use of inhibitors). With
sour systems, it may be necessary to use higher grade (and therefore more expensive)
steels. This may be feasible in the case of infield flowlines but is probably ruled out for
cost reasons with regard to large diameter trunk lines. One interesting possibility is the
use of lined pipe. From the point of view of multiphase flow, particularly for long
transport lines, an important factor will be the surface roughness of the material, and the
pressure drop, which arises from it. There may be some knock-on effect on liquid
holdup, also. Lined pipe, for example, may exhibit a lower roughness, and hence a lower
pressure drop. In this case, the pipe can probably be considered to be smooth from the
point of view of pressure drop calculations.
15.4.2 Corrosion Treatment Using Chemicals
Three main methods of chemical corrosion control are used in wet gas pipelines. These
are to use corrosion inhibitors, methanol or glycol.
Corrosion inhibitors
These may be used in sweet or sour systems. They are high cost chemicals and generally
consist of long chain organic molecules, and sometimes organophosphates, mixed with
solvents (usually 60 70 wt%) and surfactants (0 10 wt%). They can be oil or watersoluble and may be added in a batch or continuous mode. They are usually injected as a
mist, but would be transported as a segregated liquid. Their effectiveness relies on
maintaining a coating of inhibitor around the whole circumference of the pipe. This
means that if the flow regime is stratified it is unlikely that much inhibitor will be
transported to the top of the pipe. Under these circumstances, good distribution of the
inhibitor relies on the action of pigs, either by a batch of inhibitor being carried between
two pigs, or by the liquid slug ahead of a sphere used to sweep excess liquid out of the
pipeline. Thus, if inhibitors are to be used, it is likely that regular pigging of the pipeline
will be required, irrespective of the need to control pipeline holdup. In highly turbulent
or annular flow regimes, pigging may not be necessary, although these regimes suggest a
high-pressure drop and may not be desirable from that point of view. It is also possible
H-0806.35
15-5
Jan - 99
TEXACO INC.
that the absolute quantity of inhibitor added could make a difference to the total holdup
of liquid in the pipeline, although this is more likely with methanol or glycol.
The physical processes governing the distribution of the inhibitor, and its adsorption onto
the metal surface, are not well understood, especially in multiphase flow. It is known that
the time required for successful inhibitor adsorption may be counted in minutes, whereas,
the time scale of turbulence activity near the pipe wall surface, e.g. in slug flow, is
measured in milliseconds. This time scale mismatch and the intermittent nature of slug
flow are considered to be important factors affecting the corrosion rate.
The design dosing rates are quoted in parts per million, typically in the range 10 - 50
ppm, which requires a known solvent liquid phase flowrate to calculate the inhibitor
injection rate. Inevitably the phase flowrates change so that, unless care is taken, widely
differing dosages are delivered than those required by the design. In addition, operational
problems such as lack of maintenance of the injection equipment can severely affect the
delivered dosages; episodes where the inhibitor supply tank has run dry are not
uncommon. Some success in reducing the corrosion rates to manageable rates, typically
0.05 mm/yr, in interfield multiphase lines in Prudhoe Bay, has been attained by
increasing the dosing rates to 100 - 200 PPM.
Methanol
In sweet service methanol in the aqueous phase can reduce the corrosion rate
considerably, e.g. a methanol content in excess of 30% of total liquid can lead to a
reduction of 90% in corrosion. In sour systems, this reduction may only be of the order
of 10-25%. Also, at pipeline temperatures above 60C, the effectiveness may be reduced
because not enough methanol remains in the liquid phase. Methanol works by promoting
the formation of a film on a corroding surface, which stifles the corrosion reactions. Like
inhibitors, it relies on good transport to all surfaces of the pipe. In stratified flow, this
may not be the case and, once again, regular pigging may be required. With methanol a
major consideration must be the absolute quantity of liquid added. If it constitutes more
than 30% of the aqueous phase then the effect on overall CGR should be considered. In a
typical North Sea gas/condensate, the CGR could be 10 bbls/MMscfd, plus a water cut
constituting 1 bbl/MMscfd. This could rise to 1.3 bbl/MMscfd or more when methanol is
added. Section 5 covers the effect of CGR on holdup and pressure drop. In true three
phase sys tems, where the flow regime is stratified and the water and hydrocarbon liquids
segregate, it has been shown that even though the aqueous CGR is as suggested above,
the aqueous phase could constitute 50 percent of the liquid hold-up in the pipe. The
H-0806.35
15-6
Jan - 99
TEXACO INC.
presence of methanol could increase this holdup, but perhaps more important is the
implication for inventory of methanol required. For example, in a 24- inch diameter, 25
km long pipeline at turndown to about 50 MMscfd, the total holdup is calculated to be
about 8000 bbls. If 50% of this holdup is aqueous and 30% of that is methanol, it implies
that approximately 1300 bbls of methanol will be contained within the pipeline.
Following a flow rate increase, this methanol will be swept out of the pipeline and, in the
case of an offshore installation where this methanol is recovered, a storage capacity of at
least 1300 bbls will be needed to accomodate it.
Glycol
Injection of glycol into wet gas systems reduces the vapor pressure of water. A target
relative humidity of less than 50% is recommended. Below this level, condensation and
hence corrosion should be adequately suppressed. Glycol can be added in the form of
Monoethylene Glycol (MEG), Diethylene Glycol (DEG) or Triethylene Glycol (TEG).
MEG is the preferable agent from the point of view of mobility within the pipeline. If
offshore dehydration is used, then free water should be removed but the gas may still be
saturated and cooling of the gas within the pipeline could lead to condensation and hence
corrosion. Glycol is usually introduced as a spray or mist, which is well distributed
through the gas phase. However, it will eventually drop out of the gas phase and form a
segregated liquid phase. Once this happens, exactly the same arguments apply to glycol
with regard to multiphase flow, as is the case with methanol, i.e. pigging may be required
to disperse the glycol if the pipeline operates in stratified flow and the glycol may
contribute to the overall holdup. The inventory of glycol within the system may also be
an issue. The quantity of glycol required will depend on the temperature, pressure, gas
flow and relative humidity of the gas at the pipeline inlet. This quantity can be calculated
using a vapor- liquid equilibrium (VLE) model such as those found in thermodynamic
flash calculation packages. Some sample data is presented here, assuming that 250
MMscfd of saturated gas (methane) is to be introduced to a pipeline at an average
temperature of 10C and 70 bara. Table 15-1 shows the relative humidity achieved at
different addition rates of 100 percent pure MEG.
H-0806.35
15-7
Jan - 99
TEXACO INC.
Table 15-1: Glycol Addition rates

MEG addition rate
(bbl/MMscfd)
1.3000
Relative humidity
(%)
8.0000
0.6500
12.5000
0.1300
42.0000
This indicates that the glycol addition rate is of the same order as the methanol rates
required for that type of treatment. The numbers in Table 15-1 are the equilibrium
conditions that can be reached, given a long enough contact time. If the glycol is
introduced as a spray then the relative humidity may be depressed to close to 50% almost
immediately, but if the glycol exists as a segregated layer it could take some distance
(calculations have shown that it could take from 1 - 2 km) to equilibrate. To avoid
corrosion this equilibration section may need to be lined, or made from a higher- grade
material. These calculations assume that the glycol is 100% pure. Even a small
reduction in purity, for example 90 wt%, will introduce a significant proportion of water
(90 wt% relates to 73 mol%) into the system. Under these conditions at a glycol dosing
rate of 0.13 bbls/MMscf the final relative humidity has been calculated to be 50% - the
rate of glycol would have to be doubled (i.e. 0.26 bbls/MMscf) to reduce the relative
humidity to its original value. If DEG rather than MEG is used then the situation is even
less favorable because on a molar basis 90 wt% DEG would contain 40 mol% water. At
the same addition rate DEG would give a relative humidity of 58%. Even doubling the
rate would only reduce this to 54%.
The situation is even worse if the system contains free water. At a water cut of 1
bbl/MMscf, a glycol dosing rate of 0.13 bbls/MMscf would lead to a relative humidity of
97% the glycol would be totally ineffective. The implications for a multiphase flow
system are clear: if there is a separate aqueous phase then glycol addition is probably
inappropriate as a means of corrosion control (but note that it may still be useful for
hydrate control). If it is a strictly a 2 phase system (gas and liquid hydrocarbons), then
the glycol could add to the overall holdup and the inventory of glycol required could be
large. In addition, in stratified flow the glycol would probably form a separate layer to
the hydrocarbons, with the hydrocarbons covering the glycol. This would prevent the
H-0806.35
15-8
Jan - 99
TEXACO INC.
glycol from coming into contact with the gas and it has been shown (Ref. 9) that almost
pure water could then condense onto the top of the pipe. Stratified flow is therefore
highly undesirable. Annular flow would be better, but requires higher pressure drops.
It is suggested that if methanol or glycol is to be used for corrosion control, the addition
rates should be evaluated and the holdup and pressure drop recalculated.
15.4.3 Effect of Multiphase Flow Regime on Corrosion Inhibitor Performance
The implications for multiphase flow have been coverd to some extent, but are worth
reiterating.
If corrosion inhibitors are to be used then slugging flows are undesirable. It has been
suggested that at slug translational velocities greater than 3 m/s, the pipe surface will be
scoured and the inhibitors removed (Ref. 10).
If the flow is stratified, then the upper surface of the pipe may not be treated properly
either because there is no mechanism for transferring the anti-corrosion agent (inhibitor
or methanol) to the surface or as in the case of glycol, it may be sealed off by liquid
hydrocarbons from the gas that it is meant to treat. Also in stratified flow if a separate
aqueous phase forms then a very large inventory of glycol or methanol could collect
within the pipeline. Separation of the flow can also lead to corrosion of the lower,
submerged part of the pipeline. Regular pigging would deal with both these potential
problems.
In annular flow, a good coating of all wall surfaces is guaranteed and pigging may not be
necessary (for corrosion inhibition). At very high Reynolds numbers (or velocities)
however, the fluid to wall shear stress can be sufficient to remove any protective films
and to increase the corrosion rate. In general there is a critical shear stress above which
films are thinned and erosion-corrosion occurs. Figure 15-1 (see Ref. 11 for test data)
indicates how corrosion rates can increase rapidly above this critical conditio n. This
suggests that at actual velocities above 5 m/s, with no inhibitor a serious corrosion
problem could arise. With inhibitors, the critical velocity appears to be in the range
10-15 m/s.
H-0806.35
15-9
Jan - 99
TEXACO INC.
Figure 15-1: Critical Velocities in Wet Gas Systems

15.4.4 Oil systems
Under certain flow conditions, it is claimed that oil will have a beneficial effect on
corrosion. At fluid velocities > 1m/s and with water cuts up to 30%, the water should be
wholly entrained in the oil and will not contribute to corrosion. Outside these conditions
account should be taken of corrosion. Thus in an oil/gas, rather than gas/condensate,
multiphase flow system even if some water is present there may be no corrosion problem.
15.5
Flow Modeling for Corrosion Design

There are no direct methods for predicting enhanced corrosion rates based on the action
of multiphase flows. A corrosion specialist can predict the corrosivity of the fluids.
Inhibitor integrity under flowing conditions, however, is based on field experience and,
mainly, laboratory trials. Pipeline simulation tools may be used to determine local flow
conditions, e.g. velocities, flow regimes and wall shear stresses but the corrosion
potential is a value judgement. For example, in modeling work, the shear stresses
generated by a slug are estimated by treating it as a piston of liquid travelling at about the
gas velocity. This is an oversimplification of the physical processes but allows a degree
of quantification and a reference for experienced corrosion specialists to base a
judgement.
The steady-state software described in Chapter 3 may be used to determine the local flow
conditions and fluid properties, taking into account simple geometrical changes, e.g. slug
characteristics in long upward and downward slopes. A quantitative assessment of the
damage potential of the slug cannot currently be determined.
H-0806.35
15-10
Jan - 99
TEXACO INC.
Where the geometrical changes are more complicated, such as flow through a tee, or at a
greater level of detail, flow in a corrosion pit, the three-dimensional nature of the flow
becomes important. In this instance, specialist computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
software has to be used to predict velocity, pressure, turbulence and temperature
distributions. However, again, the corrosion potential is a value judgement.
15.6
Decision Process for Corrosion Control

Figure 15-2 provides a flowchart, or decision tree, which should help the designer
determine if corrosion is a problem and the possible path to control. This is constructed
with wet gas and gas/condensate systems in mind.
15.7
Research into Corrosion in Multiphase Slug Flow

Research at Ohio University by Dr W.P. Jepson and co-workers has shown that the slug
film Froude number may be used to determine both the severity of the slug and its
corrosion potential in the presence of CO2 . This technique is still under investigation and
is yet to be applied fully on an operational problem. Froude number analysis of slugs has
been based purely on pipelines, i.e. smooth, constant diameter pipes in the absence of
localized areas of turbulence caused by intrusive fittings or junctions.
The most likely effect of an intrusion on the corrosion rate and its possible relationship to
the Froude number is shown in Figure 15-3; the shapes of the curves are only
approximate and are not based on highly detailed analyses.
The rate of corrosion is shown on the y-axis of the trend chart and demonstrates the two
extremes of corrosion. In diffusion controlled corrosion, the rate of diffusion controls the
rate of reaction, rdiff and corrosion occurs as CO2 attack on the metal surface. However,
the reaction is limited by the mass transfer to and from the surface, i.e. the rate of
diffusion through the stagnant and laminar boundary layers is slow, in comparison to the
reaction rate.
In reaction controlled corrosio n the rate of corrosion is the rate at which the reaction
takes place, rCO2. This corrosion occurs as if the metal were placed in a beaker and stirred
vigorously, i.e. the turbulence generated by the flow completely dominates the reaction
rate.
H-0806.35
15-11
Jan - 99
TEXACO INC.
Figure 15-2: Corrosion Decision Tree
H-0806.35
15-1
Jan - 99
TEXACO INC.
Figure 15-3: Variation of Corrosion Rate with Froude Number

15.8
References
1. A Corrosion Philosophy for the Transport of Wet Oil and Multiphase Fluids
Containing CO2 BP Report ESR.93.ER.013, March 1993.
2. A Corrosion Philosophy for the Transport of Wet Hydrocarbon Gas
CO2 BP Report ESR.94.ER.016, August 1994.
Containing
3. A Summary of Recent Work on Corrosion under Multiphase Flow BP Report

ESR.96.ER.010, January 1996.
4. The Effects of Low Levels of Hydrogen Sulfide on Carbon Dioxide Corrosion: A
review of Industry Practice and a Guide to Predicting Corrosion Rates BP Report
ESR.95.ER.073, June 1995.
5. Influence of Liquid-Flow Velocity on CO2 Corrosion: A Semi-Empirical Model
C.de Waard, U.Lotz Paper No128, Corrosion 95, Orlando, 1995.
6. Flow Related Damage in Large Diameter Multiphase Flowlines A.S.Green,
B.V.Johnson and H.J.Choi SPE Journal of Production & Facilities, p97, May 1993.
H-0806.35
15-1
Jan - 99
TEXACO INC.
7. High Speed Video demonstration - 9/9/91 VHS video kept by Multiphase Flow
Group, SPR, Sunbury.
8. Erosion Guidelines - Guidelines on Allowable Velocities for Avoiding Erosion and
on the Assessment of Erosion Risk in Oil and Gas Production Systems BP Report
ESR.94.ER.070, 1994
9. Lammers, J.N.J.J. Phase Behaviour of Glycol in Gas Pipeline Calculated Oil and
Gas Journal, Pg. 50, April 15th , 1991.
10. Jepson, W.P. Three Year Report (1990-1993) of National science Foundation
Industry/University cooperative Research Center for Corrosion in Multiphase
Systems, 1993.
11. Bardal, E. Effects of Flow Conditions on Corrosion in Construction Aspects in
Two-Phase Flow Equipment, 8th Lecture Series on Two-Phase Flow, Norwegian Inst.
Of Tech., Trondheim, Norway, 16-17th February 1984.
H-0806.35
15-2
Jan - 99
16.0
SOLIDS TRANSPORT
16.1
Introduction
DEEPSTAR
The hydrocarbons produced from a reservoir are sometimes accompanied by small

quantities of solids such as sand or fracturing materials (proppants). For example, the
Forties field produces in the region of 5 to 40 pounds of sand for every thousand barrels
of oil produced. This sand normally collects in the separators and is either removed by
manual intervention during maintenance periods or flushed out using a jetting system.
When the South East Forties development was considering using seabed templates
connected to the existing Forties Alpha platform by two 5 km pipelines, there was
concern that the sand produced might settle out in the pipeline causing pigs to become
stuck. The removal of sand may be relatively simple using pigging, provided that only
small amounts are deposited. The removal of larger quantities may be difficult and time
consuming. To design such systems required knowledge on how the sand is transported
and when it will accumulate. This prompted experimental work to be undertaken
(Reference 1). Again in 1990 the Forties Foxtrot development highlighted the need for a
better understanding of solids transport in multiphase pipeline systems.
The results of experimental work are presented here as a guide to predicting the critical
conditions required to prevent solids accumulating in multiphase oil and gas pipelines.
This is necessary to prevent pigs from becoming stuck and to prevent possible corrosion
under solid deposits in pipelines. Because of the possible stabilization of solid deposits
by heavy hydrocarbons, inhibitors, and the potential for accelerated corrosion under
deposits, it is recommended to operate multiphase flowlines above the settling velocity to
avoid solid deposition and below critical erosion velocities to limit material loss.
This work is limited to solids that are heavier than the carrying fluids (i.e., sand and
proppants) and may not be applicable to other solid substances formed by chemical
reaction such as hydrates, asphaltenes and waxes.
16.2
Solid Particulate Settling Characteristics and Flow Regimes

Flow regimes for solids transport in liquid/solid and liquid/gas/solid systems are
illustrated in Figure 16.2-1.
H-0806.35
16-1
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 16.2-1: Liquid/Solid and Liquid/Gas/Solid System Flow Regimes
H-0806.35
16-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
16.2.1 Liquid/Solid Systems:

Stationary bed
At very low liquid flowing velocities a stable solid bed is formed with particles at the
bottom and no grains move at all. With an increase in the velocity a stable bed height is
reached where the particles at the top are transported further downstream to increase the
length of the bed. The upper surface of the bed is flat at very low flowrates but becomes
wavy as the flowrate increases. At higher liquid flowrates the height of the stationary bed
decreases. An equilibrium bed is reached when the shear at the upper surface of the bed
transports solids downstream at a rate equal to the solid inflow rate.
Moving dunes
If the liquid flowrate is increased further the bed breaks up and the particles arrange
themselves into moving dunes in which the grains on the upper surface of the dune are
rolled along from back to front (downstream). The grains then fall into the sheltered
region at the front of the dune. The dune passes over these particles until they are once
again on the top surface. The motion of dunes is similar to sand dunes in the desert and
to snow drifts. Smaller dunes move faster than larger ones and a given length of
stationary deposit will break up into a number of dunes, each with a characteristic length
and velocity.
Scouring
As the flowrate is increased further the grains roll along the top of the dunes with
sufficient momentum that they escape from the sheltered downstream region and are
swept away as individual scouring grains. Dunes can still survive in this erosional
environment by replenishment from upstream particles.
Dispersed
At high liquid flowrates the dunes are dispersed. The solids particles now move in the
produced fluid in an erratic pattern. However, a strong concentration gradient is usually
observed.
16.2.2 Liquid/Gas/Solid Systems
Since the solids are heavier than the carrying fluids they are usually transported along the
bottom of the pipe when the concentration is low. For this reason the flow patterns
observed in single phase solid/liquid flow are similar to those seen in stratified
liquid/gas/solid flow since the liquid occupies the lower part of the pipe and the flowing
H-0806.35
16-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
velocity is steady. However this is not the case when the gas/liquid flow regime is plug
or slug flow, as the depth of the film and the velocities vary.
Plug flow
In plug flow, the gas bubbles move along the top of the pipe and have little effect on the
solids flow with the full range of regimes already mentioned possible (Section 16.2.1).
As the amount of gas is increased the bubble depth increases and the fluctuating
velocities affect the transport similar to that described in slug flow.
Slug flow
In slug flow the transport of solids is complicated as the solid may settle during the
passage of the film region and may be transported in the slug body. There can be a large
diameter effect as the depth of the film varies and shields the bottom of the pipe from the
turbulence of the slug. A bed can be formed if either the slug or film does not transport
the solid. In cases where the solid is transported in the slug, only the motion is
intermittent. The frequency between slugs may be a factor if bed compaction and
stabilization by other products is a possibility.
For slug flow in slightly uphill inclined pipes the solid may be transported backwards due
to the reverse flow in the film region. Therefore, the overall motion of the sand depends
on the efficiency of the forward transport by the slug and the reverse motion caused by
the film region.
Low holdup wavy flow
In wet gas pipelines the liquid can be transported as a thin film along the bottom of the
pipe, in which case the solid concentration in the film can be high, and in the extreme
may appear as a wet solid bed. In this case little is known about the conditions required to
remove the wet solids.
Annular flow
In annular flow the solids may be transported in the liquid film and the gas core. Since
the velocities are high in annular flow the usual concern is whether the erosion rate is
excessive rather than if the solids will be transported or not.
Several factors can significantly complicate the analysis of the conditions required to
prevent the accumulation of solids in multiphase pipelines. These include:
Three phase flow effects (gas, oil, and water flow)

H-0806.35
16-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Preferential wetting of the solids by another phase (i.e., water wet solids removal by
the oil phase)
Bed stabilization by other products (i.e., wax)

Effect of inhibitors or other chemicals
16.2.3 Predicting the Limit of a Stationary Deposit
The conditions required to prevent the formation of stationary deposits in multiphase
pipelines can be estimated using a method developed by XFE in 1993 (Reference 2). The
model is based upon a series of equations derived by Thomas (Reference 3) for
calculating the friction velocity at the limit of solid transport in a liquid/solid system.
The friction velocity is related to the pressure gradient and has been extended by XFE to
the case of transporting solids in multiphase systems. This is accomplished by estimating
the flowing conditions that give rise to the same pressure gradient that is required to
transport solids in the liquid/solid system. The model is hence called the minimum solids
transport pressure drop model. The Thomas equations are used to predict the flowing
pressure gradient associated with the minimum transport condition in liquid/solid flow
where enough energy is passed to a solid particle to enable it to remain in the bulk of the
fluid phase and to be transported downstream. Using this pressure gradient, a locus of
points can plotted on a two-phase flow pattern map for a constant pressure gradient equal
to the pressure gradient at the minimum transport condition.
In the XFE model the two phase pressure gradient is predicted using the method of Beggs
and Brill by guessing values for the gas superficial velocities for a given liquid superficial
velocity and calculating the two-phase pressure gradient. Iterations are performed until
the velocities produce a pressure gradient equal to that for the minimum transport
condition calculated by the Thomas equations for the same liquid flowing velocity. The
calculation is repeated for a range of liquid velocities to yield a locus of velocities above
which the pressure gradient should be sufficient to transport the solids along the pipeline.
16.2.4 Determination of Pressure Gradient at the Minimum Transport Condition
Thomas derived several equations for the minimum transport condition depending on the
solids concentration and whether the solids particle diameter is smaller or larger than the
laminar sublayer in the liquid. The first step in the analysis is to determine the solids
particle diameter and the thickness of the laminar sublayer, however, since the thickness
of the laminar sub-layer depends on the Reynolds number, some iteration is required.
The initial assumption is that the particle diameter is greater than the thickness of the
H-0806.35
16-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
laminar sublayer and check for this condition after the friction velocity has been
calculated.
16.2.5 Particle Diameter
It is important to use the correct particle size in the analysis as this affects the calculation
of the particle settling velocity and also determines which method is used, depending on
whether the particle is smaller or larger than the laminar sublayer. For single sized
particles this is no problem. However, the solids produced with oil and gas usually
contains a wide range of particle sizes. Figure 16.2-2 shows the particle size distributio n
for the Forties field sand and shows that the size varies from 45 microns to over 1 mm.
For most cases it is recommended to use the mean particle diameter or d50 value (in this
case 255 microns) for the determination of the minimum transport criteria. Though it is
also recommended to investigate the sensitivity of the results to the particle diameter
used.
Figure 16.2-2: Particle Size Distribution Forties Field
H-0806.35
16-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
16.2.6 Thickness of Laminar Sub- layer

The thickness of the laminar sublayer is related to the pipeline diameter and the
Reynolds number for the case of a smooth pipe with a Reynolds number <107 . The
relationship is as follows:
= 62D Re 7 / 8
where:
Re =
1488 DVsl
= thickness of laminar sublayer in ft

D = pipeline diamater in ft
Vsl = superficial liquid velocity of interest in ft/s
= density in lb/ft3
= dynamic viscosity in cP
16.2.7 Particle Settling Velocity

The particle settling velocity is the velocity at which particles will settle under gravity in
the stagnant fluid. This velocity is primarily determined by the relative magnitude of the
gravity and the viscous drag forces acting on the particle. Three settling laws are required
to cover the possible range of settling conditions from low Reynolds numbers (i.e. small
particle diameter/high viscosity fluid) to settling with high Reynolds numbers (large
particle diameter/low viscosity fluid).
The three relationships for the settling velocity are as follows:
(a) Stokes law
For Re < 2
ws = [1488 gd 2 ( s- l) / 18 ]
(b) The intermediate law
For 2 < Re < 500
ws = [3.54 g0.71d1.14 ( s- l)0.71 ] / [ l 0.29 0.43 ]
H-0806.35
16-7
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
(c) Newtons law:

For Re > 500
ws = 1.74 [gd ( s- l) / l]0.5
Where the particle Reynolds number is given by:
Re = (1488 d ws l) /
Since the Reynolds number depends on the particle settling velocity, the correct equation
to use is found by calculating the settling velocity and Reynolds number by each equation
and comparing the Reynolds number with the applicable limits for each method. For
particles of between 50 and 1000 microns in oil, the appropriate law is likely to be either
Stokes or the intermediate law.
The particle settling velocity can be used to estimate the flowing conditions required to
transport solids in vertical pipes. For liquid/gas/solid flow it is required to consider in
which phase the solid particles are transported.
16.2.8 Friction Velocity at Minimum Transport Condition
When the particle diameter is larger than the laminar sublayer then the friction velocity
at deposition for the limiting condition of infinite dilution is correlated by:
uo * = [0.204 ws ( /d) ( /D) -0.6 {( s- l) / l} -0.23 ]0.714
where:
ws = particle settling velocity (ft/s)
uo * = friction velocity at minimum transport condition for infinite dilution (ft/s)
d = solids particle diameter (ft)
= kinematic viscosity (ft2 /s)

When the solids concentration is high the friction velocity is modified by the following
relationship:
(uc*/uo *) = 1 + 2.8 (ws /uo *)0.33 0.5
Where uc* is the friction velocity at the minimum transport condition for a given
concentration and is the solids concentration volume fraction in ft3 /ft3 .
H-0806.35
16-8
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
For most cases of interest in oil and gas pipelines, the solids concentration is low and the
first equation is usually sufficient to determine the friction velocity for minimum
transport. However, if the liquid holdup is small, the concentration correction may be
required.
When the solids particle diameter is smaller than the laminar sublayer the expression for
the friction velocity at the minimum transport condition is:
u* = [100ws ( /d)2.71]0.269
Given the friction velocity and the Reynolds number, the thickness of the laminar sublayer can be calculated and the appropriate friction velocity expression checked.
16.2.9 Pressure Gradient at Minimum Transport Condition
Following the above procedure determines the friction velocity at the minimum transport
condition for the liquid phase. This is easily used to calculate the associated single phase
pressure gradient at this condition using the expression:
Pmtc = (4 l 2 ) / [144 gc D]
where:
gc = 32.174
A two-phase flow pressure drop calculation can now be used to determine the liquid and
gas velocity combinations, which result in the same two-phase flow pressure gradient. It
is useful to plot the locus of these points on a flow pattern map to indicate the conditions
under which solids may or may not be transported. Alternatively comparing the twophase pressure drop with the minimum transport condition for the conditions of interest
will indicate whether solids are deposited or not. Figure 16.2-3 shows a comparison of
the model predictions with some experimental data.
H-0806.35
16-9
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 16.2-3: Comparisons of the model with BHRA data
H-0806.35
16-10
1-Dec-00
16.3
DEEPSTAR
References
1. Fairhurst, CP, Sand Transport in the South East Forties Pipe Line, BHRA,1983.
2. Smith, M A Model for Predicting Solids Transport in Near Horizontal Multi-phase Oil
and Gas Pipe Lines, XFE report 8/2/1993.
3. Wasp, Kenny and Gandhi, Solid-Liquid Flow Slurry Pipe Line Transportation, Gulf
Publishing Company, Clausthal, Germany, 1979.
H-0806.35
16-11
1-Dec-00
17.0
SLUGGING
17.1
Slugging Flows
DEEPSTAR
17.1.1 Normal or Hydrodynamic Slugging

As discussed in Section 5, normal or hydrodynamic slug flow occurs at moderate gas and
liquid flow rates and hence is commonly encountered in multiphase pipelines. The
intermittent nature of this type of flow means that the separation plant at the downstream
end of a slugging multiphase line will experience variations in liquid and gas flow.
To be able to design reception facilities to accommodate slug flow, and to design pipe
supports to handle the forces associated with slug flow, it is necessary to predict both of
the following:
Slug volume (slug length and liquid content)
Slug velocity
Slug Volume (Slug Length and Hold-up)

A considerable amount of R&D work has been carried out worldwide to improve the
understanding of slug flow. It was apparent from early experimental work that slug
lengths observed in small- scale laboratory rigs could not be scaled up to field conditions.
In the late 1970s the operators of the Prudhoe Bay Field, Alaska, (PBU) were faced with
the problem of designing numerous large diameter multiphase flowlines (24- inch in
diameter) and the separators into which the fluids pass. They commissioned fluid flow
specialists at Tulsa University (Dr. J.P. Brill) to carry out a large program of work which
included the collection of slug flow data from existing lines at PBU. The largest of these
was a 16- inch 3- mile pipeline. From the data collected at PBU, together with some
information on smaller flowlines, and laboratory scale multiphase systems, a correlation
was developed to predict mean and maximum slug length. This correlation was
published by Brill et al in 1979:
ln(Lm) = -2.663 + 5.441 [ln(d)]0.5 + 0.059 [ln(Vm)]
where:
Lm = mean slug length (ft)
d = pipe diameter (in)
H-0806.35
17-1
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Vm = mixture velocity (ft/sec)

The PBU data suggested that slug lengths follow a log normal distribution, i.e. slugs
distributed about the mean length through the following relationship:
ln(Ls) = s* zp + ln(Lm)
where:
Ls = slug length observation
s = standard deviation (approximately 0.5)
zp = standard normal distribution function (3.08 for 0.1% probability)
Based on the 16- inch PBU data, Brill et al claimed that the longest slug likely to be
observed equates approximately to the 0.1 percent probability slug. The calculated 0.1
percent probability slug is approximately 4.7 times longer than the calculated mean slug.
The above slug length correlation has become the industry standard design method and
has been used extensively by oil companies and contractors since 1979.
In 1980/81 the Tulsa University workers returned to PBU to gather data on a new 24- inch
line that ran parallel to the 16-inch line that had been monitored previously. They found
that in general slugs were not as large as had been predicted using their original
correlation. BP revised the original slug length correlation to take account of the new 24inch data. It is referred to as the Brill method as the correlation was kept in the same
form as Brill's original equation:
ln(Lm) = -3.579 + 7.075 [ln(d)]0.5 + 0.059 [ln (Vm)] 0.7712 [ln(d)]
The above correlation is heavily biased by the PBU data. Most of this data was collected
on a 16-inch and 24-inch line which run parallel to one another and hence have the same
length and geometry. The correlation thus shows no dependence on line geometry or
fluid type, and only a very weak dependence on flowrate. It was widely felt that the
correlation could prove unreliable when applied to other types of systems. Consequently,
a program of work aimed at gathering slug flow data on a wide range of multiphase
systems.
Since 1985 BP has collected data from the following sites.
Wytch Farm
H-0806.35
(Sherwood)
17-2
6 and 10- inch

1-Dec-00
Wytch Farm
DEEPSTAR
(Bridport)
Magnus Satellite Well Flowlines
4-inch
6-inch
Forties Echo-Alpha infield lines
6-inch and 12- inch
Prudhoe Bay WOA
(1987)
24-inch
Prudhoe Bay WOA and EOA
(1989)
24-inch
Kuparuk
(1990)
1024-inch
Don-Thistle
8-inch
The data collected by BP covers a wide range of pipe sizes, lengths, geometries, fluid
properties, and water cuts. The data has been compiled into a database vastly greater
than anything previously available. This database has been used to develope a semimechanistic correlation for slug frequency. By applying one of the available slug flow
models, knowledge of slug frequency yields the mean slug length.
No data have yet been collected from slugging hilly terrain pipelines. A new slug model
has recently been developed to track slug sizes throughout a hilly terrain pipeline system.
It is intended to gather data from the Cusiana infield flowline system. The data collected
from this hilly terrain system will be used to validate and develop the new model.
In parallel with this data gathering exercise, an extensive program of work has been
carried out to determine how slug lengths are distributed about the mean. This work has
involved analysis of data collected on experimental rigs. Using the limited PBU data
Brill et al. had concluded that slug lengths follow a log-normal distribution. Hence the
Brill correlation always calculates the maximum slug length to be 4.7 times the mean.
BP have found that the distribution of slug lengths actually varies with the location of the
pipeline operating point on the flowmap. As a consequence the ratio of maximum to
mean slug length varies with flowing conditions. Near the stratified wavy boundary the
maximum slug length may be ca. 45 times the mean. However, near the elongated
bubble transition maximum slug lengths are only ca. 2 times the mean. Work on
quantifying slug length distribution is continuing.
The combination of a method for determining slug frequency, a slug flow model, and a
slug length distribution model provides a means of predicting mean and maximum slug
lengths.
Prediction of the liquid volume associated with slug flow requires knowledge of the
liquid content of the slugs (slug hold-up), as well as the slug length. The slug hold-up
method currently used within the RCS slugging model is that due to Gregory. The
H-0806.35
17-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Gregory model is based on laboratory scale experiments and predicts slug holdup as a
function of mixture velocity only. BP has found that in practice slug holdup is strongly
dependent on water cut as well as mixture velocity. Hence at Prudhoe Bay slug hold-ups
have increased from ca. 0.3 to 0.9 as water cuts have risen from 0 to 50 percent. Similar
significant increases in slug hold-up have been observed on the FE-FA 6-inch test line
when running wells of different water cuts. Further work is being conducted in this area
to develop a more reliable design method.
Slug Velocity and Forces due to Slugging
Horizontal Lines
When slug flow occurs in an essentially horizontal line the mean velocity of the liquid in
the body of the slug is equal to the mixture velocity, Vm, hence :
Vs = Vm = Vsg + Vsl
Vs = mean slug velocity
It is this velocity, Vs, which should be used when evaluating the forces imposed by a slug
as it travels through a bend.
Pipeline Risers
Although a slug will progress through a riser at the downstream end of a pipeline, it will
tend to decelerate as the line upstream of the slug packs up to provide the pressure to
overcome the increasing hydrostatic head in the riser.
As the slug leaves the riser the hydrostatic head loss in the riser reduces so that the
upstream gas bubble expands and accelerates the slug into the process plant. This
phenomenon is shown schematically in Figure 17.1-1.
H-0806.35
17-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 17.1-1: Normal slugging in flowline riser
To model the effect of slug flow in a pipeline-riser, BP developed a dynamic program to

determine the velocity of the slugs as they pass through the riser and into the topsides
pipework. To assess the effect of slugging on the topsides process plant the output file
from the software can be used as the input to a dynamic simulation model of the topsides
plant. It is possible for some pipeline simulation software to be directly linked to process
simulation software so that pressure changes in the process plant arising from the
production of slugs or gas bubbles are fed back directly into the pipeline-riser model.
This feedback effect becomes more significant as the height of the riser increases, i.e. for
deepwater developments.
17.1.2 Terrain/Geometry Dependent Slugging
Hilly Terrain Pipeline s
It was explained in Section 17.1.1 that when stratified flow occurs in a pipeline liquid
may accumulate at low points to form a temporary blockage. Gas pressure builds up
behind the blockage causing the liquid to be expelled as a slug. Such terrain ind uced
slugging is clearly dependent on the geometry of the pipeline as well as the flowing
conditions.
H-0806.35
17-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
As the available design methods for this phenomenon were inadequate and known to
significantly overpredict slug size, BP carried out physical and theoretical modeling
studies to gain a better understanding of the terrain slugging process. These studies have
led to the development of a mechanistic model for slug production from dips. The model
has been validated with data obtained from the experimental facilities.
The two most important aspects of the model with regard to pipeline design are:
Critical Gas Velocity
Slug Size and Frequency
The critical gas velocity above which no liquid accumulates in a dip is evaluated by
considering the gas velocity for total liquid removal by the co-current liquid film process.
At gas velocities below the critical value liquid can accumulate in a dip and eventually
this leads to the production of a slug. As a slug moves through the uphill section, liquid
is shed from its rear and runs back down the slope. If insufficient liquid is available in
the preceding film for the slug to scoop up and replace that lost by shedding, then the slug
will collapse before reaching the brow of the hill. For a system with a steady liquid
inflow, liquid will build up in the dip so that eventually slugs will emerge to pass into the
downstream pipework. The model evaluates the frequency of slug production for a
particular geometry. With knowledge of the slug frequency, the slug size is determined
by calculating the volume of liquid entering the system during the inter-slugging period.
Pipeline -Riser Systems
Theory
When a pipeline terminates in a riser a particular type of terrain slugging may occur
which has been variously termed riser and severe slugging. The conditions giving rise to
the occurrence of severe slugging have been outlined in Section 8.
A diagrammatic representation of severe slugging is given in Figure 17.1-2. A detailed
description of the severe slugging phenomenon plus details of the BP test rig studies is
given in Section 8. A brief description of severe slugging is given below:
When a stratified flow occurs in a pipeline and the ratio of gas to liquid flowrate is below
some critical value, a liquid blockage will form at the base of the riser. When such a
blockage occurs liquid accumulates at the base of the riser while gas is trapped within the
H-0806.35
17-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
flowline. The liquid slug now formed at the junction between the flowline and the riser
will continue to grow if the rate of hydrostatic head increase in the riser, corresponding to
the rate at which liquid arrives from the flowline, is greater than the rate of gas pressure
increase in the flowline. Liquid accumulation continues until the riser is full of liquid
(slug generation).
At this point the hydrostatic head loss over the riser reaches a maximum value and the
slug begins to be pushed slowly from the flowline (slug production).
Once the gas slug interface enters the riser the hydrostatic head decreases rapidly while
the expanding gas bubble accelerates the bulk of the liquid from the system (bubble
penetration).
This stage continues until the gas bubble enters the separator. Gas production rapidly
rises to a maximum value and then declines steadily as the line depressures (gas
blowdown).
As the gas flowrate reduces, any liquid held up in the riser falls back and accumulates
together with liquid arriving from the flowline, to form a blockage at the base of the riser.
The cycle is then repeated.
The occurrence of severe slugging is generally associated with flowlines which slope
downwards to the base of the riser. However, a similar surging cycle can be produced in
horizontal and slightly upwardly inclined pipelines.
Modeling
Extensive physical modeling has been carried out to investigate and confirm previous
descriptions of severe slugging and to investigate means of eliminating the phenomenon.
Much of this work was sponsored by the SE Forties project.
Of particular interest to the SE Forties Project was the use of riser gas injection to
eliminate severe slugging both at low throughputs and at start-up. Tests showed that gas
injection would reduce the severity of the severe slugging cycle and that in sufficient
quantity it would completely eliminate the phenomenon.
H-0806.35
17-7
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 17.1-2: Severe slugging in flowline riser
H-0806.35
17-8
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
A computer model of severe slugging was purchased from the Tulsa University Fluid
flow Projects (TUFFP). This program evaluates liquid and gas production rates
throughout the severe slugging cycle and so by feeding the results directly into a dynamic
model of the topsides plant, the effects of slugging on the process facilities can be
evaluated. The TUFFP model was modified to include topsides pipework. The program
could then be used to evaluate the forces exerted on the riser and topsides pipework. The
program was further modified to include the effect of riser gas injection. The predicted
quantities of gas required to eliminate severe slugging were found to be in good
agreement with the data collected from experimental facilities.
It was found that the Taitel-Dukler-Barnea criterion for the onset of annular flow
provided a good estimate of the quantity of gas required to eliminate severe slugging.
This method predicts that the transition to annular flow occurs at superficial gas
velocities in excess of a critical value given by:
Vsg >
3.1[ s * g ( l g )1 / 4
g 0 .5
where:
s = surface tension (N/m)
g = 9.81 (m/s2 )
l = liquid density (kg/m3 )
g = gas density (kg/m3 )
The modeling work showed that partial closure of a choke positioned near the top of the
riser would also eliminate severe slugging.
The choke adds sufficient frictional pressure drop so that the system pressure loss
becomes dominated by friction, rather than by hydrostatic head loss as is the case for the
unchoked pipeline-riser. To establish a stable, friction dominated system, the choke
needs to provide a pressure drop comparable to the hydrostatic head loss over the riser
when full of liquid.
Operational Experience
The SE Forties field is the principal BP-operated site where severe slugging was
considered in the design stage. A number of the Magnus satellite wells may also have
H-0806.35
17-9
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
exhibited severe slugging had their maximum production rates been reduced to low
values (their arrangement is different to SE Forties in that the chokes are at the top of the
riser - severe slugging would not occur unless the riser- top chokes were almost fully
open).
There is one 12- inch line and one 6-inch line between Forties Echo minimum facilities
platform and Forties Alpha. There are eleven wells on Forties Echo, now mainly assisted
by electric submersible pump. They have chokes on Forties Echo. Therefore once the
flows from the wells are co-mingled into the 12- inch line (or flowing individually or comingled through the 6- inch line), there is the possibility of severe slugging at low
flowrate.
Low flowrate considerations obviously may also include start-up, when one or more
severe slugging cycles may be experienced before a higher steady-state flowrate is
reached.
In April 1988 a major field test was undertaken on the Forties Alpha platform mainly to
investigate the behavior of the 6- inch line over a range of flowrates, and from different
wells that had a range of water cut. The aim was to keep reducing the flowrate from one
well at a time through the 6- inch line until the onset of severe slugging. However, due to
a fear that choking back the wells too far might kill them, it was not possible to reduce
the production rates sufficiently to reach genuine severe slugging during the tests.
Despite this limitation, there was a marked change in the character of the flow pattern,
from steady low liquid hold-up slugging to a regular surging, as the flowrates were
reduced.
Experience with the 12- inch line is limited to start-ups. Operators present at first oil
through the line reported heavy surging. During the 1988 tests three startups were
monitored, with several large surges during each. However, because of the steadily
increasing input flowrates it was not possible to assess the accuracy of the predictive
tools, either for the occurrence of severe slugging, or for the cycle time.
The Forties Echo-Forties Alpha line has two methods for ameliorating the effects of
severe slugging - riser-base gas injection, and riser-top choking. The design intention for
SE Forties was that riser gas injection would be the principal means of eliminating or
ameliorating severe slugging at low production rates and at start- up.
H-0806.35
17-10
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Gas is re-cycled after NGL extraction through a 3-inch line down to the base of the 12inch riser, and a 2- inch line for the 6- inch riser. The gas injection system capacity is
sufficient to put the risers into annular-mist flow at the highest gas rates.
As mentioned above it was not possible to undertake any `steady-state' severe slugging
tests during the 1988 field work. However, the use of gas injection to ameliorate the low
flowrate period of a line start- up was demonstrated on both diameter lines.
The full gas injection procedure was used during the third of the 1988 test sequence of
three start-ups of the 12- inch line, with the maximum recommended gas injection rate
(180,000 Sm3/day) into the 12-inch line flowing before the first production fluids were
introduced at the Echo platform. While there was still an initial surging the gas injection
did serve to reduce the duration of the main surge, and also the number of cycles.
This benefit of gas injection during start-up was also demonstrated while trying to bring
on a weak well through the 6- inch test line. The well began to flow, but as liquid reached
the base of the riser at Forties Alpha the additional back pressure due to the increasing
liquid head was sufficient to cause the well to stop flowing. To overcome this the gas
injection system was switched on in the 6- inch line (up to 60,000 Sm3 /day). The liquid
head build-up was greatly reduced, thereby minimizing any back pressure and allowing
the well to build up to its maximum production rate.
The Forties Echo risers at FA were also fitted with throttling valves, as a back-up to the
gas injection system. Use of the throttling valves was seen as having the disadvantage of
requiring a large pressure drop to be effective. However, installation of ESPs on Forties
Echo has meant that pressure is available to overcome the throttling valve pressure loss,
and this combined with the fact that gas is often not available when FE is started up has
meant that use of the throttling valve on the 12- inch riser has become the standard means
of avoiding severe slugging at start-up. As water cut has risen, surging at start-up has
become more pronounced such that even with the throttling valve shut- in to its minimum
stop (25 percent open) the system was regularly tripping out on high separator level at
start-up.
Forties have recently reduced the minimum stop position to 10 percent and this has
enabled operations to bring FE on line with minimal surging and without high level
separator trips. Data collected during the November 1993 field trials illustrated the
relatively steady nature of a start-up of the 12-inch line when shutting in the throttling
valve to its minimum stop condition.
H-0806.35
17-11
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
17.1.3 Slugging Produced by Transient Effects

In addition to the mechanisms already discussed, slugs may be produced as a result of
transient effects such as pressure or flowrate changes. For example, if a line operating in
stratified flow is subject to an increase in gas flowrate, or total production rate, one or
more slugs may be produced as the equilibrium liquid level drops towards a new steady
state condition.
17.1.4 The Effect of Slugging Flows on Process Plant
Control Philosophies
It has already been mentioned that the intermittent nature of slug flow results in the
separation plant experiencing variation in liquid and gas flow. A separator, or
slugcatcher subject to slugging conditions will thus experience variations in:
Liquid level
Gas pressure
Liquid and gas outflow.
The exact nature of these variations will depend on the way in which
separator/slugcatcher controls are set up.
In some cases the first stage separator is set up on level control. If the control system is
set to respond rapidly to changes in level, the liquid level may rise only slightly, but the
liquid outflow will increase sharply. Under these circumstances the liquid disposal
system (valves and pumps), and the downstream liquid handling plant will have to deal
with rapid variations in liquid flowrate. The problem with this type of system is that the
disposal pumps and downstream liquid processing plant need to be sized for flowrates
well in excess of nominal maximum production rate. In addition, the separator liquid
residence time is reduced during periods of slug production so that oil/water separation
efficiency may deteriorate.
The usual way in which slugs are catered for is through use of a large separator, or
slugcatcher, where the increase in liquid flowrate during slug production is handled by
allowing the liquid level to rise. Provided the liquid level remains within set limits the
liquid disposal rate may be kept constant. The vessel is then said to be on flow control.
Once the liquid level rises above a certain point the liquid flow controller has to be reset
to a higher value to avoid high level shutdowns. The advantage of this type of system is
H-0806.35
17-12
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
that the flowrate of liquid to the downstream plant is maintained near constant. The
disadvantage is the large size of vessel required to accommodate the slugs.
The two types of control philosophy discussed, level control and flow control, represent
the two extreme methods of operation. In practice some blend of the two may provide
the solution for any particular application. To optimize the liquid level and disposal
control systems a dynamic model of the plant should be developed during design.
Dynamic modeling is further discussed below.
In addition to handling the variations in liquid flowrate during slugging, the reception
facilities will have to be designed to cater for the large variation in gas flowrate during
slugging.
In fact generally, it is the gas plant which is more susceptible to operational upsets during
slugging than the liquid plant. As with control of the liquid level, there are two
philosophies for handling gas production from the separator or slugcatcher.
Fixed pressure control
In this system the excess gas flowrate occurring during production of the gas bubble
passes rapidly through the separator to the downstream gas plant.
Allow Pressure in Separator to Rise
Here at least some of the excess gas production is held back in the separator as the
pressure is allowed to rise. This type of system will impart a smaller perturbation on the
downstream gas plant than one with fixed pressure control.
In this case the separator is acting as a gas accumulator. Clearly this type of system
requires the normal operating pressure of the separator to be set at some level below the
design pressure.
Dynamic Simulation of Process Plant
To accurately assess the effect of slugging on the process plant it is necessary to take the
output from a slugging model and input this into a dynamic model of the process plant.
BP has used dynamic simulation on a number of recent development studies including
Bruce WAD, Cyrus-Andrew, and Cusiana. The dynamic process simulation software
should be able to model a wide range of items or process plant including pumps,
compressors, valves, and all their associated control systems.
H-0806.35
17-13
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
A slugging model produces output in terms of gas and liquid production rates with time.
To accurately assess the interaction between the process plant and the slugging pipeline,
the pipeline simulation can be interfaced with the process simulation. In this way any
pressure changes in the separator or slugcatcher, caused by slugging, are fed back directly
into the pipeline model where they may affect the production rate of subsequent slugs and
bubbles.
The dynamic model can be used to assess the ability of a preliminary design to handle
slugging conditions. If the model suggests that slugging flow will create unacceptable
plant conditions it may be possible to produce an operable system by modifying or
changing the control system. On other occasions new or larger vessels may be required.
The combined model can be used to assess the relative merits of various active slug
control schemes, such as the use of separator inlet throttling. The dynamic simulation
package can be employed to assist in optimizing platform topsides plant conditions and
assessing the effect on the process plant of changes in feed rate and operating conditions.
17.2
Slug Flow Design Method
17.2.1 Introduction
The pioneering field work on steady-state slug flow was carried out by Professor Jim
Brill (Tulsa University) at Prudhoe Bay in 1978 and 1980. The resulting correlation for
slug length was derived using statistical regression techniques on gas and liquid flowrate,
and diameter.
In the mid 1980s BP began their own program of field data collection on lines in slug
flow. The Field Data section of the bibliography of BP Research reports on multiphase
flow lists the relevant titles. It quickly became evident that the original Brill equation
(and the modification due to Norris) was very conservative in predicting both mean and
maximum slug lengths over a variety of flowrates and diameters. This provided the
incentive to develop an improved method that sought to take into account a greater
number of the relevant variables than the original Brill method, and to do so using a
mechanistically based approach.
BP Exploration have been involved in the development and implementation of this
method. In addition, a number of papers, covering test rig and field data collection and
the development of part of the slug flow method, have been published by BP in the open
literature.
H-0806.35
17-14
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
17.2.2 Key Variables in the Prediction of Slug Characteris tics

The key parameters required for the assessment of the performance of separation and
associated downstream facilities are the average slug volume and frequency, and the
greatest likely slug volume and its frequency of occurrence. To assess the design of
pipework supports the combination of slug velocity, frequency and liquid holdup is
important.
These parameters are all influenced, to a greater or lesser extent, by the following
variables:
Vsg = gas superficial velocity
Vsl = liquid superficial velocity
D = pipeline diameter
L = pipeline length
u = pipeline inclination
g = gas density
l = liquid density
g = gas viscosity
l = liquid viscosity
l = surface tension
The aim of the work described here has been to develop a mechanistically-based method
for slug characterization that reflects the contributions of many of these different
variables. This gives much greater confidence in the method output over that of a straight
correlation based on statistical regression of limited using only one or two variables.
17.2.3 Development of the Average Slug Frequency Method
The physical process causing normal slug flow in (near) horizontal pipe flow is the
formation and growth of a wave on the surface of a stratified liquid film. This wave
results from a flow of gas over the liquid film. The wave may grow until it reaches the
top of the pipe at which point the gas flow is sealed behind the incipient slug. As the gas
velocity was much greater than the wave, there is then an acceleration of the
wave/incipient slug up to a velocity approaching that of the bulk gas. This increased
wave/slug velocity results in liquid in the film ahead of the wave/slug being picked up
and incorporated into the slug body. Liquid is shed off the back of the newly formed
H-0806.35
17-15
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
slug, but at a slower rate than the pickup rate. The slug keeps growing in this way until it
reaches the end of the liquid film shed by the slug in front (with the film shed from a slug
being less deep than the equilibrium stratified liquid film). A stable length is then
maintained.
The fundamental parameters determining the average slug length are therefore the slug
formation frequency, the depth of the equilibrium stratified liquid film ahead of the slug,
the behavior of the liquid film shed from the rear of the slug, and the liquid holdup in the
slug body.
Of these four parameters the one with the least reliable prediction method, before the BP
R&D program, was the slug frequency. Correlations based on small diameter and/or a
limited range of fluid properties have been available for some time, but none performs
particularly well against the field data collected by BP since 1985.
What has now been developed is a relationship between a dimensionless slug frequency
and the equilibrium stratified liquid holdup (Hle) that would result from the prevailing gas
and liquid flowrates and physical properties if slugs were not being produced. The exact
nature of the relationship has not yet been derived mechanistically, and so a correlating
line is used while further work on the mathematics is being undertaken. However, this is
a big step further on than the simple regression techniques, which did not aim to describe
the physics behind the phenomena.
The dimensionless frequency has the form:
Fs D
Vm
where:
Fs = the actual slug frequency
Vg = in-situ gas velocity
Vl = in-situ liquid velocity
Hle, Vg and Vl are calculated from the equations (due to Taitel and Dukler) for
determining the depth of the equilibrium stratified liquid film given the gas and liquid
flowrates, pipeline geometry, and fluid properties.
Gas phase
H-0806.35
17-16
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
dP
Ag = wg S g t S i Ag g g sin
dx g
Liquid phase
dP
Al = wl S l t S i Al l g sin
dx l
where:
Al = A Hle
Ag = A (1 - Hle)
Sg = gas wall contact length
Sl = liquid wall contact length
t wg = gas shear stress to the pipe wall
t wl = liquid shear stress to the pipe wall
t i = interfacial shear stress between gas and liquid
At equilibrium
dP
dP
=
dx
dx
g
l
The two equations may then be solved for Hle.
The form of the slug frequency method that correlates the dimensionless frequency
against the equilibrium stratified liquid holdup, is given below.
l
Fs D
( 9. 91209* Hle' )
+ 24.721 e (0.20524*Hle')
= 24.729 + 0.00766 e
Vm
where:
D in m
Fs D
Fs D
(1 0.05 Vsg ) . D 0.3
=
Vm
Vm
H-0806.35
Vm' Vsg and Vsl in m/s
17-17
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
0.068
'
H le = Hle 1
Vsl
This relationship covers both published and in- house data from test rigs and
producing oilfields. The diameter range is from 1.5 to 24 inches, with fluids such as
air and water, nitrogen and diesel, and actual produced reservoir fluids involved in the
studies.
The interfacial friction factor, fi, used in the development of the correlation, was that due
to Andritsos and Hanratty i.e.
For Vsg 1.5 m/s
fi = fg
For Vsg 1.5 m/s
fi = fg [1 + (Vsg/1.5 - 1) 0.75]
Further work is underway to revise the slug frequency method by the inclusion of
additional test rig and field data, and by reviewing the selection of the interfacial friction
method.
17.2.4 Slug Holdup Method
Currently there is one widely recognized method for the prediction of liquid holdup in
slugs, due to Gregory (4). This is presented as a function of mixture velocity, shown
below:
1
(with Vm in ft/s)
H ls =
1 .39
1
+
(
V
/
28
.
4
)
This correlation gives reasonable performance with two-phase mixtures (e.g. air and
water, or dry crude and associated gas). However, when there is water in the crude the
slug liquid holdup tends to be much higher than predicted.
This does not affect the calculations of average slug volume (as the slug model is a mass
balance determined by the slug frequency, which is calculated independently of slug
holdup). However, calculations of slug length must always be considered in conjunction
with the predicted slug liquid holdup.
H-0806.35
17-18
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The slug holdup becomes an important parameter when considering pipework loads on
bends and supports (see relevant section of the Design Guidelines).
17.2.5 Use of the Creare Slug Model
Models of slug flow are essentially mass balances of gas and liquid flow through the
slug/bubble unit. The main difficulty is encountered in predicting the behavior of liquid
being shed from the back of the slug.
The principal workers in this area have been Dukler and Hubbard (5), who wrote a model
for slug flow in 1975. The model requires slug frequency and slug holdup as inputs. The
model was revised by Crowley of Creare Inc. during 1986 to improve the solution
algorithms.
The solution process involves first calculating the length of the ga s bubble/liquid film
section. Three variables are involved, and they are interdependent (therefore requiring
solution of two simultaneous equations) - the gas bubble length (Lb), the minimum film
velocity (Vc min ) and the minimum film holdup (Hf min ). The gas bubble length is
calculated as a function of the minimum film velocity. The detailed equations for all
inclinations are available from BP Research. For horizontal flow the solution sequence is
given below:
Vsf = velocity of slug front
Ls = mean length of slugs
Slug frequency (Fs ) and holdup (Hls) are obtained from the methods described in the
preceding sections.
Lb =
e
aVm
Vm
1 V
c min
Vsf = 1.3 Vm
(with Vm in m/s)
where:
D 2
e = l
(Vsf V m )
4
H-0806.35
17-19
1-Dec-00
DV
a = 0.046 l m
DEEPSTAR
0 .2
D l
H ls (Vsf Vm )
Vc min = Vsf
H f min
From the above equations Lb can be expressed as a function of Hf min . The second
independent equation also expresses the gas bubble length as a function of the minimum
liquid film fraction:
Vsl
Vsf
V
Lb = sf
H f min + 0.3( Hls H f min)
F
F
1
.
3
(
H
H
)
s s
ls
f min
Vm
The two equations are then solved for Lb.
Finally the mean slug length is obtained from:
Ls = s Lb
Fs
17.2.6 Development of the Slug Length Distribution Model

Since the work by Brill there has been an assumption that the distribution of slug lengths
usually follows a log-normal distribution. The large amount of test rig and field data
collected by BP indicates that this is not valid as a general assumption. The log-normal
case tends to be the extreme form of distribution applicable extreme in the sense that
the ratio of 0.001 probability slug length to mean slug length is higher than other
distributions that have since been considered for slug flow. The implication of this is the
possibility of over-sizing slugcatcher/separator vessels.
Other distributions that are applicable under varying circumstances are normal, lambda
and inverse Gaussian. Each distribution method requires the determination or assumption
of one or more parameters, in addition to the predicted mean value.
Currently the lambda distribution with a power of 0.8 is used. This gives a 0.001 to mean
ratio of 2.6, as opposed to the ratio of 4.12 for the log-normal distribution (with the
assumption of a standard deviation of 0.5).
H-0806.35
17-20
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Work is currently underway on the prediction of which distribution (and the values of
parameters required to apply that distribution) is best applied under any given set of
conditions.
17.2.7 Development of the Maximum Possible Slug Length Method
Under some conditions it may be possible to have only one slug in a line. This could
result from stratified flow that could easily be disturbed by, say, a slugging well to form a
flowline slug, or from very low frequency slug flow, or a relatively short pipeline.
Having only one slug in a line is a special case that requires some additional analysis.
The mean slug length prediction described above assumes that each slug grows until it
reaches the film shed from the slug ahead. If the time period between slug generation is
significantly longer than the residence time of a slug in the line then the slug may not
reach the film shed by the slug ahead of it. The slug length will the n be dependent on the
additional factor of pipeline length.
The procedure for calculating the maximum possible slug length begins with the
calculation of equilibrium stratified liquid holdup (Hle), as described earlier. The
equations below are then used to calculate the maximum length.
Vs = velocity of liquid in slug body
Vbf = velocity of slug rear
Vlf = velocity of liquid in equilibrium stratified liquid film
L = pipeline length
Lsmax = length of maximum possible slug
V sf =
V s H ls Vlf H le
H ls H e
Vbf = 1.2 Vs + 0.35 (g D)0.5

T = L / Vsf
Lsmax = (Vsf - Vbf) . T
This method is sensitive to the value of slug liquid holdup, but can be used as a good
estimate of the maximum possible slug length that could be obtained in a situation with
only one slug in a line.
H-0806.35
17-21
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
17.2.8 Anticipated Future Developments

Anticipated future developments include:
17.3
The formulation of an improved method for slug liquid holdup prediction that takes
into account water cut as well as gas and liquid superficial velocities and line
diameter.
The broadening of the slug frequency method to cover inclined lines, and high
viscosity liquids.
The completion of the slug length distribution model that will include the effect of
gas and liquid flowrate on the distributions.
Slug Generation Dips
17.3.1 Introduction
A significant effort has been made by BP, and by other oil companies and research
establishments, to understand and characterize steady-state slug flow. Such a flow occurs
with steady input gas and liquid flowrates and in pipelines that are normally assumed to
be horizontal. In these cases slugs are formed from hydrodynamic waves, caused by a
gas flow over a stratified liquid film, which rise to bridge the pipe.
Even for non-horizontal lines, or lines that change inclination, there is available to BP a
qualitative assessment of the difference in behavior from a straight horizontal pipe, at
flowrates that would produce slug flow in the horizontal pipe.
A second classification of slug formation is required for systems with a low liquid
loading and an uneven pipeline topography. If the pipeline were horizontal then the
liquid flowrate would not normally be sufficient for slug flow to occur. However, if there
is a dip at any point in the line it may be possible for liquid to accumulate until there is a
sufficient quantity to produce a slug out of the end of the upward sloping line leading
away from the dip.
This section addresses that possibility. It is based on work done largely for the Miller gas
export line. This line normally runs in dense phase flow. However, in a depressurization
situation liquid will drop out. A prediction of possible slug sizes arriving at the
downstream end of the line was required to enable an assessment of slugcatcher size to be
made.
H-0806.35
17-22
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
17.3.2 Description and Theory

At low liquid flowrates, liquid transport out of a dip will definitely occur at a gas rate
sufficient to produce annular- mist flow. This concentrates on the liquid removal that
occurs at much lower gas rates than the annular- mist transition when the dip angle is
relatively shallow. The liquid may be removed as slugs or as a film.
The study began with experimentation. A volume of liquid was put into a shallow angle
dip, with no further liquid inflow into the dip, and with no gas flow. As the gas flow was
increased the liquid in the dip was disturbed - initially to form waves, and subsequently to
form slugs if sufficient liquid was in the dip at the start. As the gas rate was increased
further the liquid was produced out of the upward sloping line leading out of the dip, in
the form of a film, slugs or drops, or a combination of these.
A number of quantities are defined in the analysis:
Critical gas velocity: the gas velocity above which all liquid is produced from the
dip.
Maximum stable liquid accumulation: the maximum volume of liquid that can be
retained in a pipeline dip at a given gas superficial velocity (i.e. no liquid production
out of the end of the upward sloping pipeline segment).
Maximum random slug size: the largest liquid slug volume likely to be produced
from a dip under steady-state operation.
Critical Gas Velocity

This variable is calculated from the momentum balance equations for an equilibrium
stratified film (due to Taitel and Dukler).
Gas Phase
dP
Ag
dx g
= wg S g l S l
dP
Ag
dx g
wg S i l S l
Ag g
Ai i
g sin( ) Liquid phase
g sin( )
At equilibrium
H-0806.35
17-23
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
dP
dP
dx = dx
g
l
The equations may be re-arranged to give:

1
wl Sl
1 wg S g
= i Si + +
( l g ) g sin( )
Al
Ag
Al Ag
For given fluid properties and pipe characteristics, the right hand side of the above
equation is dependent on only the gas velocity and film depth.
The solution requirement is a gas velocity (Vgs crit ) such that, at any liquid film depth in
the upward sloping line downstream of the dip, the film flow direction is co-current with
the gas. For the 2- inch air-water test rig the predicted value of Vgscrit corresponded
closely to the observations.
One of the key parameters required during the calculation procedure is the gas-liquid
interfacial friction factor. This variable has an element of uncertainty in its predic tion.
Numerous efforts at a better definition have been, and are being, made.
Maximum stable liquid accumulation
The magnitude of this quantity is dependent on the prevailing gas velocity, as well as the
geometry of the pipeline. The calculation procedure is based round the growth and decay
of slugs in the uphill section of line. The largest amount of liquid contained in a dip
occurs when the uphill section is in slug flow, but with the slugs decaying just before the
end of the section.
If the theoretical average slug decay rate over the uphill section length is equal to, or
greater than, the average slug growth rate over the same section, then any slugs formed
will decay by the section end. The total volume of liquid in the section will pass through
each slug in this limiting case. Therefore, assuming that the liquid holdup in the slug is
constant along the line, and that the slug rear velocity may be approximated by a steadystate correlation, the maximum liquid accumulation (Q eqm ) may be calculated as:
Qeqm =
H-0806.35
( 0.16Vm + 0.59)
A H ls L p
(1.16Vm + 0.59))
17-24
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Hls may be evaluated using a steady-state correlation based on gas and liquid superficial
velocities, A and Lp are the pipe section cross-sectional area and length of the uphill
section respectively. This equation is valid for gas superficial velocities less than Vgs crit .
A rapid increase in gas velocity or the passage of a pig through the dip has the potential
to sweep out the bulk of this maximum liquid accumulation.
Slug frequency
Unlike the case described above, real flowlines generally have a liquid inflow into the dip
from an upstream source. In this situation a balance will be set up in which liquid will be
produced from the end of the uphill section of pipeline at the same rate (on average) as
the liquid inflow into the dip. However, the liquid will not always be produced steadily.
Sometimes it will be produced intermittently in the form of slugs. If this is the case it is
necessary to calculate the slug formation frequency to be able to predict the volume of
the slugs leaving the uphill section.
Slugs are formed at or just after the point of minimum pipeline elevation from the liquid
film collected there as a result of both liquid inflow from the upstream source and the
return of liquid shed from preceding slugs. Calculation of the slug frequency is
dependent on these two liquid flowrates, the gas flowrate, and the depth of liquid at the
pipeline low point required before slugs will form.
The assumptions currently made are that the liquid inflow from upstream is constant, and
that the surface of the liquid accumulation in the dip is horizontal. However, it will be
possible to develop the method to take into account cases when these assumptions do not
hold.
The liquid flowrate draining back into the dip from a previously formed slug is calculated
from a mass and momentum balance on the liquid film shed from the back of a slug.
This flow rate is zero for a short period after slug formation, and then increases to a
steady value as the distance of the back of the slug from the dip increases.
Slug formation will, on average, occur when the depth of liquid in the low point of the
dip exceeds a certain critical value (dependent on the gas flowrate). This critical depth is
calculated using the procedure developed by Taitel and Dukler for predicting the onset of
slug flow from a stratified film.
H-0806.35
17-25
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Slug frequency is then determined by integrating the flowrate into the dip over time,
converting that volume to a liquid depth, and stopping the procedure when the critical
liquid depth is reached. The slug formation frequency is the inverse of the time required
to reach the critical depth.
Slug lengths leaving uphill section
The volume of slugs persisting to, and leaving the end of, the uphill section will, on
average, equal the volume of liquid entering the dip over the time period between the
formation of slugs.
It is, however, important to note that a real system has a degree of fluctuation about these
average values. The length of slugs leaving the dip will be distributed about the mean
value. A succession of short slugs would mean an increasing excess of liquid over the
maximum stable liquid accumulation. A slug much longer than the average could then
result, which decreases the liquid inventory in the system back down to the maximum
stable accumulation.
A factor of 10 times the average is recommended as the safety margin in estimating the
largest slug likely to be produced at the prevailing gas and liquid flowrates.
Complicated topographies
The above discussion has centered on a dip with a steady inflow of liquid. In a real line it
is possible that there will be several hills and dips, with unsteady liquid production from
one dip to the next. The methods described above may be used to track the liquid
movement through the system. However, the dependence of the output on the variation
in slug length must be emphasized.
17.4
Severe Slugging
17.4.1 Introduction
The possibility of significant surging occurring at low flowrates through a pipeline
ending in a riser was first identified in the early 1980s. Work at Tulsa University by
Schmidt, and in the field by Yocum, had shown that if the pipeline to the base of the riser
was inclined downwards, and if the flowrates were low enough, then there could be a
liquid accumulation at the base of the riser that would result in the severe slugging cycle
described in the main body of the text.
H-0806.35
17-26
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
At about the same time BP were planning the development of the SE Forties reservoir, by
running flowlines from above the reservoir (originally from subsea templates, and finally
from a minimum facilities platform) back to the existing Forties Alpha platform. These
schemes involved flowlines sloping downward (about 0.1) to the base of a 120 meter
high riser. Concern was expressed about the possibility of riser induced severe slugging,
which led to experimental and theoretical investigations by BP Engineering and BP
Research. The results of these investigations, and subsequent experience with the SE
Forties flowlines, provide the basis for this work on severe slugging. The detailed reports
covering the work are listed under `Severe Slugging in the bibliography of BP
multiphase flow reports.
17.4.2 Description of Severe Slugging
The four basic stages of severe slugging have already been described in the text. They
are:
Slug Generation
Slug Production
Bubble Penetration
Gas Blowdown
A 50- mm diameter pipeline-riser system was constructed to investigate severe slugging.

The pipeline section was 50 meters long and the riser 15 meters high.
Assuming that bridging (which occurs at the start of the slug generation stage of the cycle
when liquid completely blocks the bend to the pipeline-riser) has occurred it is relatively
straightforward to describe the stability of the bridge (and hence whether severe slugging
will occur at the given flowrates and pipeline inclination and length), and also the cycle
time of stages (1) to (3). Characterization of the fallback (during gas blowdown), and the
prediction of the volume of liquid left at the base of the riser immediately after fallback
and bridging, is more difficult, thus introducing a greater degree of uncertainty into the
calculations of overall cycle time. The calculation procedure to determine the occurrence
of severe slugging is described below.
The equation that describes whe ther or not severe slugging can occur at the given
combination of gas and liquid flowrates, pipeline diameter, inclination and length, is
derived as indicated below, and involves the following variables:
H-0806.35
17-27
1-Dec-00
L = pipeline length
DEEPSTAR
(m)
Ls = length of liquid back-up from riser base (m)

D = pipeline diameter (m)
A = pipe cross-sectional area (m2)
H = riser height (m)
= angle of riser to horizontal (degrees)
h = length of liquid column in riser (m)
g = gas density at separator pressure (kg/m3)
l = liquid density (kg/m3)
Vsg = superficial gas velocity at separator pressure (m/s)
Vsl = superficial liquid velocity (m/s)
g = acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)
M = gas molecular weight (kg/kg mol)
n = number of kg moles of gas in pipeline
R = universal gas constant (J/K/kg mol)
P = pipeline pressure (N/m2)
Psep = separator pressure (N/m2)
T = pipeline temperature (K)
HL = liquid hold-up in pipeline
Vg = gas volume in pipeline (m3)
The gas and liquid mass flowrates into the start of the flowline are assumed to be
constant. At the boundary of the severe slugging regime the liquid inflow to the start of
the line exactly balances the rate at which liquid fills the riser after bridging (i.e. Ls = 0).
The second condition for determinatio n of the boundary is that the rate of gas pressure
increase in the pipeline upstream of the bridge is produced exactly by the rate of gas
inflow. The rate of gas pressure increase is equal to the rate of liquid head increase in the
riser. The value of liquid holdup in the pipeline is calculated from open channel flow
equations, as the in-situ gas velocity is very low during this stage of the severe slugging
cycle.
H-0806.35
17-28
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
dP
= ( l g ) g sin
dt
(1)
dP d ( nM )
=
dt
dt
(2)
RT
M Vg
Vg = L (1-HL)A
(3)
d (nM )
= Vsg g A
dt
(4)
dh
= Vsl
dt
(5)
Substituting (3) and (4) into (2), and then (2) and (5) into (1), and rearranging, gives the
equation quoted in the text, given that:
Psep =
g RT
M
and sin = 1
Vsg L(1 H l )( l g ) g
=
Vsl
Psep
(6)
If this equation shows LHS RHS then severe slugging will occur if the pipeline slopes
downwards to the riser, and if the flow in the pipeline is predicted to be stratified at the
prevailing in-situ superficial gas and liquid velocities.
This compared well with the observed boundary on the test rig, and also gave good
predictions of cycle times (stages (1) to (2)) when equation (1) was integrated over the
height of the riser.
The bubble penetration stage may also be modeled simply. If LHS < RHS in equation (6)
then there will be liquid backed up the flowline (i.e. Ls > 0), as well as a full riser (h = H).
Once the liquid column in the riser has reached the top of the riser (maximum liquid
head at the base of the riser) the gas inflow at the start of the pipeline is no longer
required to boost the pipeline gas pressure. The gas flow therefore begins to push the
accumulated liquid along the flowline at a velocity that may be calculated from the inlet
gas mass flowrate, the maximum pipeline pressure, and the liquid film holdup.
Psep
dLs
= Vsg
dt
( Psep + l g H )
H-0806.35
1
(1 H L )
17-29
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The rate of liquid production from the top of the riser at this stage is simply:
= Vsl +
dLs
(1 H L )
dt
Once the bubble front reaches the base of the riser there begins a period in which the
liquid column in the riser is decreased in length, and is accelerated by the ever- increasing
imbalance between the upstream gas pressure (which remains relatively high) and the
decreasing liquid head. The acceleration of the liquid column in the riser is given by:
=
g ( H h)
h
which obviously approaches infinity as the bottom of the liquid column reaches the top of
the riser. Therefore there is a requirement to model downstream pipework and
restrictions, which determine the upper limit of the liquid production rate.
An empirical approach was used during the test rig studies to estimate the liquid left in
the riser, after bubble penetration and gas blowdown, at the time of bridging. This liquid
would then fall back to the bottom of the riser to produce a liquid column of a height that
is used as the starting point in the integration of:
dh
dt
to obtain a cycle time.

Obviously the field examples are more complicated - the gas may not obey the ideal gas
law, there may be gas transfer into and out of solution in the liquid with pressure change,
the pipeline might not be of a constant inclination, and the length of the line might be
such that there is a variation of pressure and liquid hold-up along the line.
The simulator used to make calc ulations for SE Forties, while being founded on the
physical principles described above, also seeks to take into account some of the
complications not present on the test rig. However, equation (6) still provides a rule of
thumb for part of the severe slugging boundary for more complex systems.
H-0806.35
17-30
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
17.4.3 Test Rig Studies

The test rig described above was used to develop a flow regime map for the pipelineriser, flowing air and water with the separator at atmospheric pressure. Good agreement
with the theoretical boundary, and with the theoretical cycle times was found.
Measurements were made of the liquid flowrate into the separator during the bubble
penetration stage. As described above, the mathematical models need to have some
pipework or restriction downstream of the riser-top to make the simulations realistic
otherwise there would be an infinite liquid production rate as the last portion of liquid
was produced from the riser.
The test rig was also used to investigate the flow behavior at low flowrates in systems
with a horizontal line and an upward sloping line upstream of the riser-base. Both of
these cases also produced significant surging, but not the classic severe slugging in which
liquid completely blocks the pipeline-riser bend. In these cases there was a liquid
accumulation, but with gas bubbling through at all times. This observation is significant,
however, especially for deep water systems (e.g. Gulf of Mexico) where there is the
possibility of a significant liquid head build-up in the riser at low flowrates even if the
pipeline slopes upward to the base of the riser.
17.4.4 Ways to Eliminate Severe Slugging
There are a number of ways to reduce the extent of, or completely eliminate, severe
slugging resulting from low flowrates in a pipeline-riser system.
Pipeline Orientation
The first is to ensure that the pipeline route slopes up to the base of the riser, at least over
a distance immediately upstream of the riser that is several times the riser height. This
may mean a slightly longer pipeline route than a direct line, but the extent of the surging
at low flowrates will be reduced, as full severe slugging cannot occur with an upward
sloping line to the riser base.
Gas Injection
The second technique is to have the facility to inject extra gas into the base of the riser.
Gas injection into the base of the riser continually lifts liquid out of the riser, preventing
the build- up of liquid and subsequent seal to the gas flow.
H-0806.35
17-31
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Test rig studies were carried out on riser-base gas injection after the work described
above on the severe slugging cycle. The principle was demonstrated successfully. Even
gas injection rates that are not sufficient to lift liquid continually out of the riser are of
benefit as the gas reduces the maximum head achievable in the riser, therefore reducing
the cycle time and severity of the severe slugging cycle. The amount of gas injection
needed to prevent severe slugging is such that the combined injected and produced gas
flowrate up the riser must put the riser into the churn flow regime at the given liquid
production rate.
Studies were also carried out to optimize the design of the gas injection tee, to minimize
erosion. The final design comprised a jacket around the riser into which the injection gas
was directed. The gas then flowed into the riser through eight holes spaced equally
around the riser. The holes were at the bottom of the jacketed length of riser.
Thirdly, gas injection into the start of the pipeline may be used to move the pipeline out
of the severe slugging regime, by increasing the ratio of Vsg to Vsl above the critical value
defined in equation (6). This either requires surplus gas at the pipeline start, or the
addition of a gas line out from the pipeline end.
Choking
A fourth method is to install a control valve on the top of the riser. On shutting this valve
a position is reached whereby the frictional pressure drop across the valve acts to stabilize
the gas- liquid flow up the riser. Any acceleration of liquid up the riser due to a decrease
in liquid head in the riser (caused, say, by a gas bubble entering the base of the riser), is
counteracted by the increase in frictional pressure drop across the valve as the liquid
accelerates. The penalty of this way of eliminating severe slugging is that the pressure
drop across the valve will be of the order of a riser height of liquid, thus imposing a
significant extra back-pressure on the system at all times.
A secondary effect of the valve- induced back-pressure, as well as stabilizing the riser,
may be that the flow regime in the pipeline section is moved out of stratified flow
towards bubble flow. This latter effect, if it was predicted to be sufficient to prevent
severe slugging, could also be achieved solely by raising the separator pressure.
H-0806.35
17-32
1-Dec-00
17.5
DEEPSTAR
Slug Flow in Hilly Terrain

Figure 17.5-1 shows a method for predicting slug characteristics in hilly terrain system.
The following comments relate to this method, pointing out the sources of information
and some of the areas in which further work is required:
1. Ls mean, Lb mean, Ls1000 and Lb1000 determined from a thermal- hydraulic
simulation software (in which the equilibrium holdup (Hle) method uses Blasias for
gas and liquid friction factors, Fi = Fg for interfacial friction factor, and (Vg - Vl) for
interfacial velocity).
2. The frequency correlation which results in the the above lengths was derived for near
horizontal only. Test rig studies, performed recently, show that above about 7 m/s
Vsg the inclination (up to 2 degrees) has little effect, so not conservative at these
velocities. However, for lower Vsg's, down to 5 m/s, but same GLR, the rig is
showing slug frequency not very dependent on Vsl, staying roughly at the 7 m/s Vsg
(and associated Vsl) value. For horizontal lines slug frequency is highly proportional
to Vsl. Application of the horizontal method to upwardly inclined lines will be
conservative .i.e. if slug frequencies in upward lines are higher than horizontal at the
same flowrates, which the test rig shows, then our horizontal slug lengths used in the
attached logic tree will be conservative. Improvements to the prediction of slug
frequency in inclined lines is a subject of our current R&D activity.
3. Hle and Fs for shedding calculations are calculated using Chen for gas and liquid
friction factors, Fi = Fg for interfacial friction factor, and (Vg-Vl) for interfacial
velocity. This results in slight differences between the thermal- hydraulic simulation
Fs and that used in the shedding spreadsheet.
4. Shedding model assumes that there is the equilibrium stratified flow in the downhill
section. This is conservative, unless the slugs are very close together (in which case
they wouldnt be 1:1000 length). This is because the liquid flowrate required to
sustain an equilibrium stratified film in the downward section cannot be supplied as a
steady from an upward sloping line. The upward line will produce the liquid in slugs,
which will decay to give a film. But it is very unlikely that the 1:1000 slug will arrive
H-0806.35
17-33
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
at the start of the downhill section immediately after other slugs. i.e. slugs will
probably shed more than we predict
5. In determining pigged slug volume, simulation software packages may have different
options. The BP in-house software uses Beggs and Brill for upward sections, and
Mechan 92 for horizontal and downward. The consistency of this has yet to be
verified.
6. Despite 5, we still recommend that the design slug volumes from the logic tree be
compared with the thermal-hydraulic simulation pigged slug volume.
7. Whenever slug volumes are quoted they require a slug length and a slug holdup.
These values are the thermal- hydraulic simulation predictions. Slug lengths should
be used in the assessment of each line section until the final delivery into a vessel,
when length should be converted to volume.
8. All slug vo lumes at line end are divided by 1.2 to take into account shedding from the
back of the slug as it enters the vessel.
H-0806.35
17-34
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Obtain detailed topography and split into principal

inclination section
Run simulation to get Vsg, Vsl at line start with

detailed topography
Is Vst > 50 ft/s?
Yes
No
Line not slugging
Run simulation to get Vst. Vsl, Hls, Hle Ls mean,

Lb mean, Ls 1000, pigged slug volume
End
Determine Ls mean / Lb mean

and La 1000 / Lb 1000
Is La mean / Lb mean
~Ls 1000 / Lb 1000 ?
No
Yes
Average Ls mean / Lb mean

and La 1000 / Lb 1000 to give Rsb
This shouldn't be!
Run simulation to predict flow map

(starting with steepest downhill angled section)
Are all sections in slug flow? (If steepest downhill

section is in slug flow then all others will be also)
No
Yes
Is length of each section not in slug flow of the same

order as of less than Ls 1000 (or of Ls of max slug
bubble pair, if La 1000 + Lb 1000 is greater than
length of pipe to start of section under consideration)?
Figure 17.5-1: Hilly Terrain Slug Sizing Procedure
H-0806.35
17-35
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
No
Yes
Consider non-slugging
section s starting from the
upstream
Ignore inclined section
Determine Ls 1000 (or Ls of

max slug bubble pair, if Ls
1000 + Lb 1000 is greater
than length of pipe to start of
section under consideration)
Is Ls 1000 + Lb of the same order

or greater than whole pipeline
length?
Yes
No
*** Shed the slug
Design slug is Lg 1000 / 1.2
Does it decay completely?
Fit (Lad + Lbd to ppeline

length such that Lad/
Lbd=Rsb
Design slug is Lad/1.2

(check against pigged
slug)
No
Yes
Record residual slug voume

at end of section
Is this the last section ?

Is end of section the end of
the line?
Yes
No
Yes
No slugs in
vessel
No
Assume line starts at end of
this section and move
downstream to analyze next
section
Are there any sections

further downstream that are
not predicted to e in slug
flow?
Design slug is residual slug

volume/1.2
No
Yes
Determine Ls 1000 (or Ls +

Lb if length of pipe from end
of section to end of line is
less than Ls 1000 + Lb 1000)
Continue from ***


Add residual slug to this next

section slug
Add residual slug to this next

section slug
Continue from *** taking this

slug length/bolume as the
feed to the next downhill
section
Design slug is this summed

slub volume/1.2
Figure 17.5-2: Hilly Terrain Slug Sizing Procedure (continued)
H-0806.35
17-36
1-Dec-00
17.6
DEEPSTAR
Other Types of Slugging
17.6.1 Pigging slugs

Pigs are run through pipelines for a variety of reasons, including:
Liquid inventory control
Maintenance and data logging
Pipeline cleaning and dewaxing
Inhibitor application
The classic analysis of pigging was developed by Baker and McDonald in 1959. They
identified five zones in a pipeline undergoing pigging:
Undisturbed equilibrium flow
Liquid slug ahead of the pig
Pig itself
Dry gas region behind the pig
Reestablished equilibrium flow
Figure 17.6-1 graphically illustrates the zones in a pigged pipeline.

Baker and McDonald developed a quasi-transient model of pigging in which the lengths
and pressure drops for the various zones were estimated and tracked with time. Although
some of the methods used in the Baker-McDonald model are antiquated, the model is
conceptually a very good representation of pigging.
Several investigators have modified the Baker-McDonald model to improve its
predictions. The model developed by Barua of Tulsa University has been included in
Pipephase.
The commercial transient simulators model the physics of pigging more rigorously than
the models of Baker & McDona ld or Barua, and are more accurate. The simpler models,
however, give pretty good predictions. It is also possible to get a good estimate of the pig
volume and transit time by simple hand calculations.
H-0806.35
17-37
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 17.6-1: Pigging Slug
To estimate the slug volume and transit time by hand, the designer can use the following
method. The pig and the slug in front of it move at a velocity that is equal to the gas
velocity behind the pig. For a first approximation, this velocity can be assumed to be
equal to the mixture velocity. The transit time of the pig would therefore be:
ttrans = Lf / Vm avg
where ttrans = Transit time for the pig, s
Lf = Pipeline length, ft
Vm avg = Average mixture velocity, ft/s
When the slug exits the line, the volume of liquid ahead of the pig is equal to the liquid
holdup in the line minus the amount of leakage past the pig minus the amount of liquid
produced while the pig is traversing the pipeline or:
Qslug= (Hl Ap Lf) (1 - fleak) - Vsl Ap ttrans
where Qslug = Volume of liquid ahead of the pig, ft3
Hl = Average liquid holdup in the pipe
H-0806.35
17-38
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Ap = Cross-sectional area of the pipe, ft2

fleak = Fraction of the liquid that leaks past the pig
The value for fleak is dependent on the type of pig and the pig velocity. In lieu of better
data, use fleak = 0.02.
The amount of time during which the liquid slug enters the slug catcher is:
t slug =
Qslug
A p Vm avg
where t slug = Time during which the slug enters the slug catcher, s
The liquid rate while the slug enters the slug catcher is:
Qslug = Vm avg Ap
where Qslug = Liquid rate into slug catcher when slug is exiting, ft3 /s
The simplified analysis shown above doesnt account for many effects that occur during
pigging, such as pig acceleration and deceleration, aeration of the liquid slug, etc., but it
gives a ball-park estimate of the flows and volumes needed for the slug catcher design.
17.6.2 Startup and Blowdown Slugs
When a pipeline is shut down, the liquid will drain to the low points in the line. When
the line is restarted, this liquid may exit the line in the form of slugs. To determine
whether slugging will occur, and to estimate the magnitude of the slugs, a transient
simulator must be used.
If the pipeline is depressured at shutdown, slugs may also form, due to high gas velocities
during the blowdown period. Transient simulation is needed to model these slugs.
17.6.3 Rate Change Slugs
When the flowrate is increased, the liquid holdup in the line decreases. This change in
holdup can either exit the line as a steady flow with increased liquid production, or it can
come out in the form of a slug, depending on the flowrate change.
Please note that the rate change slugs can occur in gas/condensate lines when the rates are
increased. The line may be in a steady flow pattern, such as stratified flow, at both the
H-0806.35
17-39
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
initial and final flowrates but will slug during the transition period until the line reequilibrates at the higher rate.
As with startup slugs, it is impossible to predict whether slugs will occur when rates are
changed using steady state or hand methods. The line must be dynamically simulated
using a transient flow program.
17.6.4 Downstream Equipment Design for Slug Flow
The design of slug-catchers, separators, and control systems downstream of pipelines
must comprehend the presence and severity of slug flow. Estimates of parameters such
as slug volumes, liquid and gas rates exiting the pipeline as a function of time, etc. must
be factored into the design of this equipment. These variables should be calculated for
the design operation and for a series of off-design cases: turndown rates, pigging,
shutdown and startup, rate changes, etc.
As mentioned, transient modeling gives the best estimates of slug flow behavior. Some
of the transient simulators also allow the user to simulate separators and control systems
as part of the run, allowing the user to fine tune the design.
Off-design cases should be estimated as well as the design point. In general, the size of
slug catching equipment for gas-condensate pipelines will be governed by pigging
considerations. For oil dominated systems, the size of the slug catcher is usually
governed by the maximum slug length due to either hydrodynamic or terrain slugs.
Because slug catching equipment can be a substantial cost item, it is possible to minimize
the cost of the equipment by considering alternative operating scenarios. Some of these
include:
a) Does the line need to be pigged routinely or is pigging only needed for maintenance?
If pigging is a maintenance item done once per year, it is possible to run the pig at a
rate low enough to keep a small slug catcher from overflowing. It is also possible to
send the liquid from the slug catcher to low pressure separation at high rates for short
periods, if the occurrence of pigging is infrequent. This, too, minimizes the high
pressure slug catcher sizing.
b) Pigging of the line after steady state conditions are reached may result in a very large
slug catcher. If a high pigging frequency is chosen, so that the line never achieves
steady state operation, the slug catcher size can be minimized.
H-0806.35
17-40
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
c) It is possible to design the line for frequent pigging at low rates and steady state
operation at higher rates, thereby minimizing slug catcher size while eliminating the
need for frequent pigging when the rate is high.
d) If pigging isnt necessary for a gas-condensate line, the sizing of the slug catcher
usually becomes dependent on rate changes. Limiting the turndown on the line and
limiting the amount that the rate is cha nged at one time can be beneficial in
minimizing slug catcher sizes.
e) The use of parallel pipelines should be considered as a way of limiting the turndown
for a line. When rates are low, all the production can be fed to one of the lines,
thereby keeping ve locities high, minimizing liquid holdup.
f) If terrain slugging is shown to be a problem, there are several remedial steps which
have been employed to decrease the severity of the slugging or eliminate it
completely. One approach would be to reroute the pipeline to reduce or eliminate
dips in the pipeline profile. Two other methods are: choking of the flow at the tope of
the riser; and gas lifting the riser.
g) Because the slug length for hydrodynamic slug flow is a function of the diameter of
the line, the use of parallel pipelines instead of one pipeline can decrease the slug
length and volume going to the slug catcher/separator.
h) The use of multiphase pumps or subsea separators at well clusters can decrease slug
catcher sizes significantly.
i) Pigs have been developed with a variety of proprietary internals that limit the velocity
at which the pig moves through the pipeline. It may be possible to limit the slug
catcher size by restricting the pig velocity, which, in turn, limits the rate of liquid
exiting the line during the pigging operation.
17.7
Slugging Summary
The formation of slugs of liquid can be caused by a variety of mechanisms:

1. Hydrodynamic Slugging
2. Terrain Slugging
3. Pigging
4. Startup
5. Rate Changes
H-0806.35
The Brill method is very inaccurate. It gives poor predictions for almost every data
set that was not included in the original correlation.
17-41
1-Dec-00
17.8
DEEPSTAR
Rule of thumb (based on limited amount of data available): the maximum slug length
is approximately 6 times the mean slug.
If a correlation based model is used for slug length prediction, the Hill & Wood
model is probably the best available method.
Pipelines, which are in the terrain slugging regime, will usually be identified by the
steady state simulator as being in stratified flow. If no further analysis is done, the
line may be designed in the belief that it is in a steady flow regime. On startup, the
line may experience slugs that may be thousands of feet long..
In general, the size of slugcatching equipment for gas-condensate pipelines will be

governed by pigging considerations. For oil dominated systems, the size of the
slugcatcher is usually governed by maximum slug length due to either hydrodynamic
or terrain slugs.
There are alternative operating scenarios which can be considered to minimize slug
catcher size
References
"Two-Phase Flow in Pipes" Course Notes by J.P. Brill and H.D. Beggs
The Multiphase flow Database "Comparison of Multiphase Correlations with Pipeline
Data" Harwell (23-3-91).
Analysis of Two-Phase Tests in Large Diameter Flow Lines in Prudhoe Bay Field, Brill,
J P et al, SPEJ June 1981, 363-378
A Model for Predicting Flow Regime Transitions in Horizontal and Near-Horizontal GasLiquid Flow, Taitel, Y, and Dukler, A E, AIChEJ, 22, 47-55, 1976.
Correlation of the Liquid Volume Fraction in the Slug for Horizontal Gas-Liquid Slug
Flow, Gregory, G A, et al, Int J Multiphase Flow, 4, 33-39, 1978.
A Model for Gas-Liquid Slug Flow in Horizontal and Near Horizontal Tubes, Dukler, A
E, and Hubbard, M G, Ind Eng Chem Fundam, 14, 4, 337-346, 1975.
State of the Art Report on Multiphase Methods for Oil and Gas Pipelines, Crowley, C J,
Creare Report TN-409 to AGA, 1986.
Slug Flow - Occurrence, Consequences and Prediction, Hill, T J, and Wood, D G, SPE
27960, 1994.
H-0806.35
17-42
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Norris, L., Correlation of Prudhoe Bay Liquid Slug Lengths and Hold- up including 1981
large diameter Flowline Tests, Exxon Production Research Co., 1982
Scott, S.L., Shoham, O., Brill, J.P., Prediction of slug length in horizontal, large diameter
pipes. SPE Production Engineering, August, 1989, P.335.
McNulty, J.G. and Fairhurst, C.P., Transporting Multi-phase flow requires modeling
procedure. Offshore, August 1988, P.26.
Gregory, G.A., and Scott, D.S., Correlation of Liquid Slug Velocity and Frequency in
Horizontal Concurrent Gas-Liquid Slug Flow, AIChE J., 15(6), 933-935, (1969)
Marcano, R., Slug Characteristics for two-phase horizontal flow. University of Tulsa,
TUFFP ADVISORY BOARD MEETING, Tulsa, May 1996.
Gregory, G.A., et al, Correlation of Liquid Volume Fraction in the Slufg for Horizontal
Gas-Liquid Slug Flow, Int. J. Multiphase Flow, 4,33-39, (1978)
Yang, J., Investigation of Downward Intermittent Flow in Inclined Pipes, University of
Tulsa, TUFFP Advisory Board Meeting, Tulsa, November, 1995.
Nicklin, D.J. et al, Two-phase Flow in Vertical Tubes, Trans. Inst. Chem. Eng.,
40,61,(1962)
Wood, D., The Effect of Inclination on Flow Regime Boundaries and Slug Flow
Characteristics, Trans. ASME, J. Energy Resources Technology, 111, 181, (1989)
Molyneux, P.D., The Measurement of Multiphase Flow in a Pipe Dip and Comparisons
of the Results with PLAC Predictions, GRC report R1360, April 1996,
Boe, A., Severe Slugging Characteristics, NTH, Trondheim, Norway, 1981
Pots, B.F.M, et al, Severe Slug Flow in Offshore Flowline/Riser Systems, SPE
Production Engineering, Nove mber 1987.
Taitel, Y., et al, Modelling Flow Pattern Transitions for steady upward Gas-Liquid Flow
in Vertical Tubes, AIChE J. 26(3), 345-354,(1980)
Hollenberg, J.F., et al, A Method to Suppress Severe Slugging in Flow Line Riser
Systems, 7th International Conference on Multi-phase Production, Cannes, June 1995.
H-0806.35
17-43
1-Dec-00
18.0
SLUGCATCHER DESIGN
18.1
Introduction
DEEPSTAR
18.1.1 Objective and Scope

The objective of the Slug Catcher Design Guide is to provide an overview of slug
catcher design practices so that engineers can determine preliminary slug catcher
sizes. The guide is intended to be used for scoping and feasibility studies only.
Detailed mechanical design procedures (such as ASME code calculations and
internals design) and dynamic simulation analysis (such as hydrodynamic
simulation and control optimization) are beyond the scope of this guide.
Appropriate vendors and contractors should be consulted for final detailed design.
18.1.2 Resources
Reference documents are listed in Section 18.10.
18.1.3 Examples
Examples illustrating applications of the design methodologies discussed in this
guide are included in Section 18.9. Most examples were compiled using Excel
spreadsheets or other commercial software.
18.2
Slug Catcher Overview
18.2.1 Slug Catcher Description

A slug catcher is a piece of process equipment (typically a pressure vessel or set
of pipes) located at the outlet of production flow lines or pipelines, prior to the
remaining production facilities. It is usually located directly upstream of the
primary production separator (see Figure 18.2-1); in some cases the primary
separator also serves as the slug catcher (see Figure 18.2-2). Slug catchers are
used in both oil/gas multiphase production systems and in gas/condensate systems
to mitigate the effects of slugs, which are formed due to terrain, pipeline operation
in the slug-flow regime, or pigging. A slug catcher is generally not needed for
single phase liquid lines such as treated oil or produced water since slug flow is
not encountered in single phase operation; however, the need for slug catchers
should be evaluated if pigging is expected.
H-0806.35
18-1
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
18.2.2 Slug Catcher Design Process

The goal of slug catcher design is to properly size the slug catcher for the
appropriate conditions. The process consists of the following steps:
Determine slug catcher functions

Determine slug catcher location
Select preliminary slug catcher configuration
Compile design data
Establish design criteria
Estimate slug catcher size and dimensions
Review for feasibility; repeat as necessary
Each of these topics is discussed in this guide.
18.2.3 Slug Catcher Functions
The slug catcher can serve one or more functions. Since each function may result
in different design criteria, it is important to establish the slug catcher's
function(s) as a basis for the design.
18.2.3.1 Process Stabilization
Process stabilization is the primary purpose of the slug catcher. In a typical
steady state operation, multiphase production fluids from the flow lines or
pipeline enter the production facilities at constant temperature, pressure, velocity,
and flow rate. Process control devices such as pressure control valves and level
control valves are used to maintain steady operating conditions throughout the
process facilities. During non-steady state conditions (such as start-up, shutdown,
turndown, and pigging), or when slugging during normal operation is expected,
the process controllers alone may not be able to sufficiently compensate for the
wide variations in fluid flow rates, vessel liquid levels, fluid velocities, and
system pressures caused by the slugs. A slug catcher provides sufficient volume
to dampen the effects of flow rate surges in order to minimize mechanical damage
H-0806.35
18-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
and deliver an even supply of gas and liquid to the rest of the production facilities,
minimizing process and operation upsets.
18.2.3.2 Phase Separation
Another main function of the slug catcher is to provide a means for separating
multiphase production fluids into separate gas and liquid streams in order to
reduce liquid carryover in the gas stream and gas re-entrainment in the liquid
stream. When a slug catcher is provided upstream of a production separator, the
slug catcher is designed primarily for process stabilization. Gas/liquid separation
also occurs, but the efficiency of separation is usually not sufficient to meet oil
and gas product specifications. The gas stream may need additional treating to
remove entrained liquids prior to treating, compression, or flaring. The liquid
may need additional treating for gas/oil/water separation and crude stabilization.
In some cases, the gas and liquid streams from the slug catcher are recombined
prior to further processing.
When a separate slug catcher is not provided, the production separator is designed
for both process stabilization and efficient gas/liquid (two-phase) separation.
Production separators, which also function as slug catchers, are generally not
designed for gas/oil/water (three-phase) separation. This is because the level
surges due to slugging make it difficult to control the oil/water interface. Sizing
slug catchers for oil/water separation is beyond the scope of this guide.
18.2.3.3 Storage
Slugs due to pigging can often be significantly larger than terrain-induced slugs or
slugs formed while operating in the slug-flow regime, particularly for
gas/condensate systems with long flow lines or pipelines. In these situations, the
condensate processing and handling systems may not be sized to quickly process
the large slug volume that results from pigging. The slug catcher then acts as a
storage vessel to hold the condensate until it can gradually be metered into the
process or transported to another location.
18.2.4 Slug Catcher Locations
Slug catchers are located on both offshore and onshore facilities. The slug catcher
location influences the type of slug catcher selected.
H-0806.35
18-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
18.2.4.1 Offshore
Slug catchers are located on offshore production facilities to handle slugs from
subsea well flow lines or pipelines from satellite production facilities. Slug
catchers have typically been located on the deck with the topsides facilities.
Other configurations may be evaluated in order to reduce topsides weight and
space. For example, a slug catcher may be installed in a spare conductor slot or
subsea at the base of the platform. If located subsea, the external pressure due to
water depth must be considered in the slug catcher design. Alternative methods
for dealing with slugging in offshore production systems such as compact slug
catchers and slug mitigation devices are currently being researched in an effort to
reduce weight, space, and costs.
18.2.4.2 Onshore
Onshore slug catchers handle slugs from subsea or land flow lines and pipelines.
Typically, onshore slug catchers have fewer weight and space restrictions than
those located offshore.
Separate Slug Catcher and Production Separator
FIGURE 18.2-1: SIMPLIFIED PRODUCTION FACILITIES FLOW DIAGRAM:
H-0806.35
18-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Combined Slug Catcher/Production Separator
FIGURE 18.2-2: SIMPLIFIED PRODUCTION FACILITIES FLOW DIAGRAM:
18.3
SLUG CATCHER TYPES

There are several different types of slug catcher configurations. The most
appropriate type for a given situation generally depends on the type of fluids
handled, the slug catcher function, and the slug catcher location.
18.3.1 Horizontal Pressure Vessel

A typical horizontal pressure vessel slug catcher is shown in Figure 18.3-1.
Incoming production fluids strike some type of impingement device, which is
designed to reduce the momentum of the fluid. The liquid drops to the lower
portion of the vessel; gas bubbles entrained in the liquid evolve out as the liquid
moves towards the vessel liquid outlet. A vortex breaker at the outlet prevents
evolved gas from re-entraining into the liquid. The velocity of the gas stream
entering the vessel is reduced due to the larger cross-sectional area compared to
the inlet piping. Liquid droplets settle out of the gas stream due to gravitational
forces. A mist eliminator is typically installed to aid in removing liquid droplets
from the gas.
H-0806.35
18-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The operating pressure of the vessel is typically controlled with a pressure control
valve located on the gas outlet line. The liquid level is typically controlled with a
level control valve on the liquid outlet line. Sometimes an emergency liquid
dump valve or pump is provided to rapidly dispose of the accumulated liquid
when it cannot be processed in the downstream liquid handling facilities.
A horizontal pressure vessel is often used when efficient phase separation is a
functional requirement of the slug catcher. A horizontal vessel usually has a
smaller diameter than a vertical vessel for a given gas capacity, but takes up more
space. A horizontal vessel is usually more economical when a large liquid storage
capacity is required.
18.3.2 Vertical Pressure Vessel
A typical vertical pressure vessel slug catcher is shown in Figure 18.3-2. The
design and operation are similar to that of a horizontal pressure vessel. Compared
to a horizontal vessel, a vertical vessel has less tendency to re-vaporize the liquid
into the gas phase because of a smaller gas/liquid surface area and a greater
vertical distance between the liquid level and the gas outlet. Level control is often
easier since there is more vertical height per liquid volume unit, allowing more
response time for the level instrumentation.
18.3.3 Double or Multiple Horizontal Pressure Vessel
The double horizontal pressure vessel configuration consists of one horizontal
vessel mounted on top of a second horizontal vessel. Multiple configurations may
include three or more stacked horizontal vessels. Gas/liquid separation occurs in
the upper vessel; the lower vessel provides volume for liquid residence time and
storage. Piping can be used in place of pressure vessels for appropriate diameters.
Figure 18.3-3 illustrates a multiple horizontal slug catcher installed by Texaco in
a subsea application. The slug catcher is located at the base of the Tartan
Platform, where it handles multiphase production fluid from the Highlander field.
The liquid from the slug catcher is routed to a dummy well from which it is
pumped to the Tartan production separator facilities. The gas is transported to the
topsides through the outer annulus of the dummy well.
18.3.4 Finger
The finger slug catcher (also known as a harp or multi-pipe) is a manifold of
parallel pipes (also called bottles) installed at an incline. A few typical
H-0806.35
18-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
configurations are discussed in this guide; many variations are in operation. The
slug catcher illustrated in Figure 18.3-4 contains an inlet section for gas/liquid
separation and a set of parallel pipes for liquid storage. The slug flows through a
flow splitter into an inlet header, then proceeds through downcomers into the
sloping pipe segments. The slug displaces gas in the pipes up into the risers and
out through the gas outlet header. The liquids are typically routed through a
liquid header to a production separator. In the slug catcher illustrated in Figure
18.3-5, a specialized tee is used for inlet gas/liquid separation; the liquid
continues through the tee straight run and the gas flows through the branch. The
slug catcher shown in Figure 18.3-6 employs different slopes for the separation
section and storage section, as well as multiple gas headers.
Even fluid flow distribution into the pipe segments is a concern for this type of
slug catcher. Excessive liquid carryover in the gas may occur if some of the pipe
segments are overloaded with liquid. In addition, high gas velocity may make the
liquid/gas interface unstable, again resulting in excessive liquid carryover. This
tendency is influenced by the inclination angle of the pipe segments.
A typical application for finger slug catchers is handling slugs from subsea
pipelines or flow lines routed to shore. It is often used when large slugs (such as
those from pigging operations) are expected, particularly in gas/condensate
systems for both onshore and offshore pipelines. In this situation it may not be
feasible to fabricate, transport, and install a pressure vessel large enough to handle
the expected slug volume. The thickness of the walls for a pressure vessel may be
excessive, making a finger-type slug catcher the only feasible alternative. Piping
segments are simpler to fabricate, transport, and install, and can be expanded
more easily if additional slug capacity is needed.
Because the finger slug catcher takes up a lot of plot area, it generally is not
suitable for offshore platforms. Compact versions of the finger slug catcher may
be installed subsea, upstream of the platform riser. Finger slug catchers installed
onshore are typically buried, with the headers above grade and the bottles below
grade.
18.3.5 Pipe Loop
A pipe loop slug catcher consists of a length of pipe either in parallel with the
main pipeline (Figure 18.3-7) or as an extension of the pipeline, which then loops
H-0806.35
18-7
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
back (Figure 18.3-8). The pipe loop slug catcher is typically the same diameter as
the pipeline.
The pipe loop slug catcher is used for slugs due to pigging in gas/condensate
pipelines. Valves are used to divert the pigged slug into the pipe loop, which
stores the slug until it is disposed of at a controlled rate. It is typical to also install
some sort of secondary vessel-type slug catcher to handle slugs that may occur
during non-pigging operations, when the pipe loop slug catcher is bypassed.
The amount of pipe volumetric capacity for a pipe loop slug catcher is typically
greater than that for a finger slug catcher. The finger slug catcher also acts as a
separator, so gas coming in with the slug is continuously leaving the slug catcher.
The pipe loop slug catcher stores both the liquid slug and the gas trapped with the
slug, so additional volume for the accumulated gas is required.
18.3.6 Vertical Caisson
Vertical caisson slug catchers are located in spare conductor slots on an offshore
platform (see Figure 18.3-9). The fluid enters the slug catcher at the inlet section,
located at seabed level. Phase separation occurs in the annulus. The liquid drops
to the base of the slug catcher, located below the seabed. An electric submersible
pump is used to transport the fluid up the central tubing to the platform facilities.
The gas flows up the annulus to the platform facilities.
The fluid capacity of the vertical caisson slug catcher is limited by the diameter of
the caisson and the depth to which it can be installed. Phase separation is a key
function of the vertical caisson separator, since gas entrainment in the liquid
stream can negatively affect the performance of the electric submersible pump.
18.3.7 Combinations
The different types of slug catchers can be combined in other configurations. For
example, Chevrons Gaviota Gas Plant in California uses both vertical and
horizontal pressure vessels for slug handling (Figure 18.3-10). Gas/condensate
from a subsea pipeline first enters a large vertical intake separator, which
separates the gas and liquid phases. The liquid drains from the intake separator
into two large horizontal condensate storage vessels that hold the condensate as it
is metered to the condensate stabilizer system.
H-0806.35
18-8
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation installed a combination of a

pressure vessel and a pipe loop at a Gulf Coast location to handle slugging in a
gas/condensate system (Figure 18.3-11). Gas/liquid separation occurs in the
pressure vessel. Gas exiting the vessel is compressed to the gas pipeline system;
liquid drains from the vessel into the pipe loop. Once the loop is filled with
liquid, compressed gas is used to displace the liquid into the gas pipeline system.
18.3.8 Slug Flow Mitigation
If slug formation can be reduced, it may be possible to reduce the size of the slug
catcher or even eliminate it if pigging is not required. Several devices have been
proposed for slug flow mitigation; the general concept is to provide some sort of
device in the flow line or pipeline which changes the flow pattern from slug-flow
to bubble or stratified flow. Although sizing of slug flow mitigation devices is
beyond the scope of this guide, these devices could be considered for potential
application. Note that most of the devices described below have not been
commercially applied.
An inline slug catcher/separator has been proposed by Jepson (Jepson, 1993)

which reduces or eliminates slug flow by gradually decelerating the fluid and
separating the gas and liquid phases. This device, which can be installed
subsea or on an offshore facility, is smaller than a conventionally sized
separator since in effect it is acting as a wide spot in the line with specialized
internals in order to achieve stratified flow.
The ISOS system (Kaasa, 1990) consists of a vertical tee segment in a subsea
pipeline, which acts as both a separator and a gas riser, delivering the gas
phase to the platform separately from the liquid, which flows through the
conventional riser in a bubble flow regime.
This device is intended to
mitigate slugs that form in the platform riser and is only suitable when the
pipeline operates in the stratified flow regime, to allow for easier separation of
gas in the tee. Experimental investigations of two-phase slug flow splitting
using tees have also been conducted at the University of Tulsa (Arirachakaran,
1990).
H-0806.35
18-9
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Choking or controlling the flow at the top of the riser pipe (Schmidt, 1979;
van Blylandtlaan, 1990) has been shown to eliminate slugging over a limited
range of conditions in experimental tests, by changing the flow regime of the
fluid to bubble flow.
The slug trap (Carstensen, 1989) consists of a vortex separating device in the
flow line, and a buffer tank, which holds the separated liquid until it flows
back into the flow line.
The system mitigates the effects of slugs by
smoothing out the flow.
A downward inclined pipe before the inlet to the production facility can be
used to achieve stratified flow.
18.3.9 Comparison of Slug Catcher Types
All of the slug catcher types shown in the previous sections have application
areas, but none of them is the best selection for all systems. The best selection
depends on several factors, primarily the slug catcher capacity and the slug
catcher location.
If the slug catcher were to be installed on the platform topsides for offshore
applications, a horizontal or vertical separator type slug catcher would be the
appropriate choice. The other slug catcher types would require too much space.
For offshore installations, however, it may be more advantageous to install a slug
catcher that does not have the bulk of the storage capacity on the platform
topsides. Slug catchers such as the Highlander multiple separator, a pipe loop, or
a Texas Eastern separator/pipe loop may be attractive options.
For onshore applications, separators, finger slug catchers, pipe loops and the
Texas Eastern separator/pipe loop merit consideration.
Some factors to consider when selecting the proper type of slug catcher are:
Separator limitations - Separators have a practical maximum capacity. If the

vessel is larger than about 14 feet in diameter, it cannot be shipped by roads.
For high pressure vessels, the wall thickness can be very large, limiting the
H-0806.35
18-10
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
number of suppliers and raising the cost of the vessel. For a vertical vessel on
offshore platforms, the height of the vessel may be a problem. The wet
weight of the separator may be excessive for offshore slug catchers. When
these factors are considered, the maximum practical slug catcher capacity for
a separator type slug catcher is about 1,000 barrels.
Finger slug catcher limitations - The major limitation on the capacity of a

finger slug catcher is the plot area available. Plot area limitations make the
use of a finger unit impractical for offshore installations. If there is unlimited
plot area, there is no limit on the capacity of a finger slug catcher. Units have
been installed with slug catcher capacities in excess of 20,000 barrels.
Vertical caisson slug catcher - Although there is no theoretical limit on the

capacity of a caisson unit, a practical upper limit for this type of slug catcher
is a slug catcher capacity of approximately 250 barrels.
Pipe loop and Texas Eastern design - Both of these units usually run their
storage pipeline alongside the incoming gathering line. As a result, the plot
area requirements are much less than the finger slug catcher. There is no
limitation on the capacity of the slug catcher for either of these designs. The
Texas Eastern design has several sequenced valves, and is a much more
elaborate design than the other slug catcher types. As a result, it would
probably require more maintenance and have more operating problems than
the simpler designs.
Separation efficiency - Some of the designs have relatively poor separation

efficiencies for the removal of liquid from the gas stream. In order to operate
properly, the finger, caisson, and pipe loop slug catchers would require a
separator downstream of the slug catcher to recover liquid from the gas stream
exiting the slug catcher.
Tradeoffs among process control, surge capacity and process stability - In

general, as the control of slug catcher variables such as pressure and level is
tightened, the surge capacity required is decreased.
H-0806.35
18-11
The flow to the
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
downstream equipment, however, will be more erratic and will be subjected to

wider swings.
The tradeoff between surge capacity and stability of the
downstream equipment needs to be considered in the slug catcher design.
Slug catcher sizing optimization - Frequently, the initial design of the pipeline
and the slug catcher will result in a slug catcher size that is inordinately large.
As a result, the slug catcher size and cost may make a development option
look infeasible. There are alternative operations that can be considered to
reduce the slug catcher size. Some of these methods are frequent pigging,
limited operating ranges, use of parallel lines, etc.
FIGURE 18.3-1: TYPICAL HORIZONTAL PRESSURE VESSEL SLUG

CATCHER
H-0806.35
18-12
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.3-2: TYPICAL VERTICAL PRESSURE VESSEL SLUG CATCHER
H-0806.35
18-13
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Highlander Field (Texaco)
FIGURE 18.3-3: MULTIPLE HORIZONTAL PRESSURE VESSEL SLUG

CATCHER-
H-0806.35
18-14
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.3-4: TYPICAL FINGER SLUG CATCHER
H-0806.35
18-15
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.3-5: FINGER SLUG CATCHER WITH SPECIAL GAS/LIQUID

SEPARATION TEE
H-0806.35
18-16
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.3-6: FINGER SLUG CATCHER WITH MULTIPLE SLOPES AND

GAS HEADERS
H-0806.35
18-17
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.3-7: PIPE LOOP SLUG CATCHER PARALLEL PIPE
H-0806.35
18-18
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.3-8: PIPE LOOP SLUG CATCHER EXTENDED LOOP
H-0806.35
18-19
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.3-9: VERTICAL CAISSON SLUG CATCHER
H-0806.35
18-20
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.3-10: GAVIOTA GAS PLANT SLUG CATCHER CONFIGURATION
H-0806.35
18-21
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.3-11: TEXAS EASTERN SLUG CATCHER CONFIGURATION
H-0806.35
18-22
1-Dec-00
18.4
DEEPSTAR
SLUG CATCHER INTERNALS

Effective use of internal devices can enhance the efficiency of gas/liquid
separation, which could result in smaller slug catcher sizes, particularly when the
efficiency of gas/liquid separation is important. However, internals can add
significant weight to the slug catcher. Typical internal devices are discussed in
this section to provide insights as to their benefits. Detailed design of internals is
beyond the scope of this guide. Many vendors have developed proprietary
internals designs, and should be consulted for detailed design.
18.4.1 Inertia Control

The inertia of the production fluids entering the slug catcher must be reduced to
permit gravity settling. Inertia can be reduced with various impingement devices
such as deflection plates and baffles, which are located in the inlet section of the
slug catcher. These devices change the velocity of the inlet fluid stream as it
strikes the device. The vessel wall itself can be used as an impingement device by
installing an internal inlet elbow, which directs the fluid stream against the vessel
wall.
Inertia can also be reduced through centrifugal force, which causes the heavier
liquid droplets to fall from the lighter gas. Centrifugal forces can be generated in
the inlet section of the slug catcher by installing tangential inlet nozzles in vertical
vessels so that the fluid entering the vessel spirals around the internal diameter of
the vessel. In horizontal vessels, cylindrical plates are used to achieve centrifugal
forces.
It should be pointed out that the inertia control internals could be easily damaged
by the forces associated with slug flow if the design did not consider the
occurrence of slug flow in the inlet piping.
Typical internals used for inertia control are illustrated in Figure 18.4-1.
18.4.2 Turbulence Control
Excessive turbulence inhibits the settling out of liquid droplets from the gas
phase. Turbulent flow can be reduced by installation of several plates or tubes
parallel to the direction of flow. By channeling the flow through these smaller
passages, the Reynolds number is reduced, thereby reducing turbulence. These
H-0806.35
18-23
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
devices also help to reduce foaming, a frothy mixture of liquid drops and gas
bubbles. Typical internals used for turbulence flow are shown in Figure 18.4-2.
18.4.3 Settling Aids
Liquid droplets must settle out of the gas stream into the liquid pool before
reaching the vessel exit. Plates installed in the flow path provide a surface such
that falling liquid droplets will impinge on the device, and then flow downward
along the surface into the liquid pool. The same devices can often be used for
both turbulence control and settling aids.
Wire mesh pads and vane packs are other devices used to separate liquid droplets
from gas. In addition to providing an impingement surface, they also promote
coalescence of smaller drops into larger ones, which are more likely to drop into
the liquid pool. They are usually installed before the gas exit nozzle. Alternatives
to mesh pads such as plates or tubes should be used to minimize the likelihood of
plugging if the crude is viscous or has the tendency to form paraffins.
Typical internals used for settling aids are shown in Figure 18.4-3.
18.4.4 Vortex Breaking
Vortex breakers are used to prevent vortexing of liquids as they exit the separator.
During vortexing, gas previously separated from the liquid gets pulled back into
the liquid due to the localized low pressure formed in the center of the vortex.
Slotted pipes or plates installed over the liquid outlet nozzle can minimize the
formation of vortexes. Typical vortex breakers are illustrated in Figure 18.4-4.
H-0806.35
18-24
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.4-1: INERTIA CONTROL INTERNALS
H-0806.35
18-25
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.4-2: TURBULENCE CONTROL INTERNALS
H-0806.35
18-26
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.4-3: SETTLING AIDS
H-0806.35
18-27
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.4-4: VORTEX BREAKERS
H-0806.35
18-28
1-Dec-00
18.5
DEEPSTAR
SLUG CATCHER DESIGN DATA

Design data specific to the system should be established as a basis for the slug
catcher design.
18.5.1 Production Flow Rate Profile

The production flow rate profile is the expected production flow rate for each
fluid phase (oil or condensate, produced water, and gas) as a function of time for
the expected operating life of the facility. The production flow rate often provides
the basis for determining slug characteristics.
18.5.2 Slug Characteristics
Slug characteristics such as slug volume, velocity, frequency, duration, length,
and liquid holdup are the most important design variables for estimating slug
catcher size. The procedures for estimating slug characteristics are described in
Section 17 of this design guide. These procedures evaluate all the situations that
can cause slugs (hydrodynamic slugs, terrain-induced slugs, pigging, startup, and
rate changes) to determine the governing surge volume required in the slug
catcher.
18.5.3 Fluid Composition
Fluid composition is determined from chemical analyses of hydrocarbon
components and/or boiling curve distillation tests. Fluid composition is an input
for fluid flow simulation models, which include vapor/liquid equilibrium
calculations. If fluid composition is unavailable, then the fluid is characterized by
physical properties using Black Oil models.
18.5.4 Fluid Physical Properties
Physical properties of both the gas and liquid streams at expected operating
temperature and pressure are needed for most of the slug catcher sizing
correlations. Key gas properties include the gas molecular weight or specific
gravity; viscosity; and compressibility. Key liquid properties include specific or
API gravity, and viscosity. The potential for forming foams, emulsions, and wax
should also be established.
18.5.5 Operating Temperature and Pressure
It is important to determine the range of operating pressures and temperatures that
the slug catcher will experience during its operating life. Many design parameters
H-0806.35
18-29
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
such as maximum allowable gas velocity and liquid retention time are strongly
influenced by operating pressure and/or temperature.
18.6
SLUG CATCHER DESIGN CRITERIA

Design criteria set limiting conditions on the design and operation of the slug
catcher. These criteria provide the design basis for sizing the slug catcher.
Establishing design criteria is one of the more challenging aspects of slug catcher
design, because universally accepted practices have not been established and
agreed upon. The criteria discussed in this guide originate from various sources,
and are provided as suggested guidelines. The engineer designing or evaluating a
slug catcher must use judgment in selecting criteria appropriate for the situation
18.6.1 Physical Limitations

If the slug catcher is installed on an offshore platform, there may be restrictions
on the length, height, orientation (vertical or horizontal vessel), or weight. These
restrictions should be defined so that the resulting slug catcher is designed to meet
these limits.
Pressure vessel-type slug catchers may also be restricted in size due to fabrication,
transportation, or installation limitations. A general guide for preliminary sizing
purposes is to assume that pressure vessel diameters should not exceed 14 feet
and the length should not exceed 100 feet for horizontal vessels or 50 feet for
vertical vessels unless the feasibility of larger dimensions and the transportation
and installation logistics are verified with the fabricator.
18.6.2 Surge Volume
The surge volume is the capacity in the slug catcher needed to contain the
expected slug volume. Actual slug characteristics such as volume, length,
frequency, duration, and velocity should be used to determine the surge volume
required. Procedures for estimating slug characteristics and surge volumes are
described in Section 17 of this guide.
If slug characteristics data is not available, slug length can be estimated by the
following formula:
Slug length = 500 x Inlet Pipe Diameter
H-0806.35
18-30
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
18.6.3 Liquid Retention Time

For two phase (gas/liquid) separation, the liquid needs to remain in the slug
catcher long enough so that the gas bubbles in the liquid have sufficient time to
rise out of the liquid and join the bulk gas phase. Retention time depends on the
fluid physical properties, operating conditions, and type of slug catcher.
Additional liquid retention time must be provided if foaming is expected.
Foaming is a frothy mixture of gas bubbles and liquid droplets layered between
the gas and liquid interface.
Ideally, required liquid retention time should be based on laboratory tests and
field operating experience for the fluids in question. If this data is unavailable,
the following retention times (Table 18.6-1) at normal liquid level can be used for
preliminary two-phase separation sizing purposes:
TABLE 18.6-1: LIQUID RETENTION TIMES
Liquid Retention Time, minutes
Minimum for process stabilization
1-2
API gravity > 32o
API gravity < 32o
2-5
In general, warm fluids (greater than 100 F) require less retention time than cold
fluids. Viscous crudes and foamy crudes may require a longer retention time than
the times listed above.
18.6.4 Controllable Volume
Some slug catchers are operated empty; that is, no liquid is contained in the slug
catcher during steady state operations. Slug catchers may also be operated such
that a liquid level is always present in the slug catcher. In this case, the slug
catcher needs to provide a liquid level sufficient for level control. In either case,
some system of level control, alarms, and shutdowns is typically provided.
If the function of the slug catcher is primarily process stabilization, the normal
liquid level is usually set low to provide maximum available capacity for the slug
surge volume. (However, the liquid level should be high enough to prevent gas
from exiting the vessel through the liquid outlet for the case where some liquid
H-0806.35
18-31
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
level is maintained in the slug catcher). The liquid retention time only needs to be
sufficient to provide enough time for level instrumentation response during
normal flow rate operation. Additional retention time for gas/liquid separation is
provided in downstream production separator systems.
If the function of the slug catcher is to provide gas/liquid separation in addition to
process stabilization, the normal liquid level is usually set higher to provide the
liquid retention time required for separation. Since surge volume for slugs also
must be provided, the vessel needs to be larger if phase separation is required.
In general, the following liquid levels should be established:
Normal liquid level during non-slugging conditions: This is the normal

operating level maintained by the level controller and control valve.
High liquid level during slugging conditions: This is the operating level
reached when a slug enters the vessel, before the control system has a chance
to react to reduce the level back down to the normal liquid level. Since
slugging is an expected part of the operation of a slug catcher, this liquid level
should be taken into account when sizing the gas handling portion of the slug
catcher. That is, there still should be sufficient space for removing entrained
liquids from the gas and sufficient clearance between the liquid level and
internals such as demister pads in the gas outlet section.
High level alarm: The high level alarm should be located at a position which
allows the operator sufficient time to take appropriate action prior to a high
level shutdown. Retention time between the high level alarm and high level
shutdown is typically 1 to 2 minutes based on maximum design flow rate.
High level shutdown: High liquid level shutdown switches should be located a
sufficient distance below outlet mist eliminators to minimize liquid carryover
in the gas system.
Low level alarm: The low level alarm should be located at a position which
allows the operator sufficient time to take appropriate action prior to a low
H-0806.35
18-32
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
level shutdown. Retention time between the low level alarm and low level
shutdown is typically 1 to 2 minutes based on maximum design flow rate.
Low level shutdown: Low liquid level shutdown switches should be located at
a sufficient height (6" minimum) above the liquid vortex breaker to prevent
gas entrainment with the exiting liquid. This does not apply when the slug
catcher normally operates empty.
The actual level alarm and shutdown switch locations will be a function of the
slug catcher configuration (i.e., vertical pressure vessel, horizontal pressure
vessel), geometry (diameter and length or height), and operation mode (empty or
not). Guides for setting liquid levels are shown in Figures 18.6-1 and 18.6-2.
18.6.5 Entrainment
All slug catchers provide some degree of separation of liquid droplets from the
gas stream. Entrainment criteria establish the limit on liquid carryover in the gas
stream exiting pressure vessel-type slug catchers and are used in sizing these
types of slug catchers for the required gas capacity. The velocity of the gas in the
slug catcher must be low enough such that the liquid droplets will settle out of the
gas. The internal diameter of the slug catcher must therefore be sized to achieve
the required settling velocity. In addition, sufficient vertical distance must be
maintained between the liquid level and the gas exit to prevent re-entraining
liquid in the gas due to liquid turbulence.
An entrainment criterion for pressure vessel-type slug catchers based on droplet
size is often used, such that droplets greater than or equal to the specified droplet
size are removed through settling. The specified droplet size is set based on the
additional processing requirements for the gas:
Flare: If the gas goes directly to a flare, API RP 521 recommends sizing the
vessel to separate droplets in the 300 to 600 micron range. The flare vendor
should also be consulted to determine the allowable droplet size for a
particular flare.
Vent: If the gas is vented directly to the atmosphere, the droplet criterion
should be set such that droplets not removed in the slug catcher become
H-0806.35
18-33
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
dispersed in the atmosphere and do not settle out on the facilities, which could
cause a safety problem for personnel or environmental problems. The slug
catcher should be sized to separate droplets in the 400 to 500 micron range
when venting directly to atmosphere.
Additional Processing: If the gas will be further processed, the slug catcher
will typically have some sort of mist elimination device in the gas outlet
section. In order for that device to operate properly, the vessel is sized to
remove droplets in the 140 to 200 micron range before the mist eliminator.
18.6.6 Length/Diameter Ratio
A typical horizontal or vertical production separator vessel may have a
length/diameter (L/D) ratio in the range of 2 to 5. Horizontal vessel slug catchers
may have L/D ratios as high as 15 to 20. This is because of the large surge
volumes required and the fabrication limitations on vessel diameters. Increased
L/D also reduces the wall thickness of the vessel.
Finger and pipe loop slug catchers may have much larger L/D ratios, since they
are fabricated from standard piping lengths.
H-0806.35
18-34
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.6-1: LEVEL GUIDELINES - HORIZONTAL VESSEL
H-0806.35
18-35
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.6-2: LEVEL GUIDELINES - VERTICAL VESSEL
H-0806.35
18-36
1-Dec-00
18.7
DEEPSTAR
SLUG CATCHER DESIGN PARAMETERS

Slug catcher design methodologies may require calculation of appropriate design
parameters and may include several different calculation steps in various
combinations. This section illustrates calculation methods for all of the major
parameters needed to size slug catchers, most of which apply only to vessel-type
slug catchers. It assumes that the slug characteristics have already been
determined as described in Section 17 of this guide. The next section incorporates
these parameters into design methodologies.
18.7.1 Slug Volume

Slug volume is the total liquid volume of the slug. The slug volume can be
calculated if the slug length, liquid holdup in the slug, and pipeline or flow line
internal diameter are known:
Slug Volume =
( Liquid Holdup in the Slug )( Slug Length)( p )( Pipe Internal Diameter )

4
Liquid holdup in the slug can be estimated using the methods described in Section
17 of this guide. If the slug is due to pigging, the liquid holdup is typically
assumed to be between 0.8 and 1.0.
18.7.2 Slug Duration
Slug duration is the total time it takes the entire slug volume to enter the slug
catcher. The slug duration can be calculated if the slug velocity and the slug
length are known:
Slug Length
Slug Duration =
Slug Velocity
18.7.3 Slug Flow Rate

Slug flow rate is the average flow rate of the liquid slug as it enters the slug
catcher. The slug flow rate can be calculated if the slug volume and the slug
duration are known:
Slug Flow Rate =
H-0806.35
Slug Volume
Slug Duration
18-37
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
18.7.4 Slug Surge Volume

Slug surge volume is the volume required in the slug catcher to accommodate the
rising liquid level due to the slug. The slug surge volume can be calculated if the
slug flow rate, slug duration, and the liquid flow rate from the slug catcher is
known:
Slug Surge Volume = (Slug Flow Rate - Flow Rate from Slug Catcher) x (Slug
Duration)
The liquid flow rate from the slug catcher is assumed to be the minimum steady
state process flow rate. (Note: Dynamic simulation models assume variable
liquid flow rate from the slug catcher based on the controller dynamics. Dynamic
simulation is beyond the scope of this guide). If the flow rate from the slug
catcher is unknown, it may be assumed to be zero for a conservative slug surge
volume estimate.
It is assumed that during normal steady-state operation, liquid may already be
present in the slug catcher, as controllable volume or as liquid capacity required
for phase separation retention time. The slug surge volume is additional volume
not included in controllable volume or phase separation retention time volume.
18.7.5 Liquid Capacity
The liquid capacity is the minimum liquid volume required to allow sufficient
time for gas bubble separation from the bulk liquid stream (two-phase separation)
and level control requirements. Liquid capacity can be calculated from the design
liquid flow rate, the desired retention time for gas/liquid separation, and the time
for level response:
Liquid Capacity = (Design Liquid Flow Rate) x (Retention Time + Level
Response Time)
It is assumed in this guide that the minimum liquid volume (the volume between
the bottom of the vessel and the low level shutdown) is also available for
gas/liquid separation retention time. Therefore, the level response time in the
above formula is the time between the high level alarm and the high level
shutdown; additional liquid capacity for minimum liquid level is not provided. It
is possible that due to the location of the liquid outlet nozzle and/or non-ideal
mixing, some of the liquid in the bottom of the vessel may not turn over, resulting
H-0806.35
18-38
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
in less retention time available. This is compensated for by not taking credit for
the liquid volume available in the vessel heads. This simplification is acceptable
for the preliminary sizing methods illustrated in this guide; however, final detailed
design practices should evaluate the amount of liquid dead zone and the liquid
volume available in the heads.
18.7.6 Terminal Settling Velocity
As a droplet falls due to gravity, its velocity will accelerate until drag forces
acting on the droplet balance gravitational forces. At this point, the droplet falls
at a constant velocity known as the terminal settling velocity. The following
equation for terminal settling velocity is for spherical liquid droplets settling out
of a gas stream:
rl - rg d m

vt = 0.0119
rg C
0.5
where:
vt
Terminal settling velocity, ft/sec
rl
Liquid density at operating temperature and pressure, lb/ft3
rg
Gas density at operating temperature and pressure, lb/ft3
dm
Liquid droplet diameter, microns
Drag Coefficient (see Section 18.7.7)
18.7.7 Drag Coefficient

The drag coefficient is a dimensionless parameter that accounts for the drag force
resisting the motion of a particle during turbulent flow, and is dependent on the
particle shape. Since liquid droplets in the gas phase are not uniformly shaped,
the drag coefficient can only be approximated based on experimental data.
Several correlations and graphs for estimating drag coefficient are described in
the literature. This guide presents the following methods:
API Recommended Practice 521
H-0806.35
18-39
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
API RP 521 - Guide for Pressure Relieving and Depressuring Systems includes a
graph of drag coefficient for spherical particles as a function of a modified
Reynolds number parameter:
[(0.95 10 ) (r )(d )(r - r )]

=
3
C ( Re)
mg
where:
C(Re)2
Drag coefficient function
rl
rg
Liquid droplet diameter, feet
mg
centipoise
Gas viscosity at operating temperature and pressure,
The graph included in API 521 is illustrated in Figure 18.7-1. The drag coefficient
C may be read from the graph after calculating the drag coefficient function
C(Re)2.
In this method, drag coefficient is independent of terminal settling velocity;
therefore, the drag coefficient can be estimated directly from physical properties.
This method is illustrated in several examples.
Reynolds Number Correlation
Several correlations for estimating drag coefficient as a function of Reynolds
number are available in the literature. One such method is a correlation
referenced in the IHRDC Two-Phase Separators Manual based on Reynolds
Number:
C=
24
3
+
+ 0 .34
Re ( Re) 0 .5
where:
H-0806.35
Drag Coefficient
Re
Reynolds Number (see Section 18.7.8)

18-40
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
In this method, drag coefficient is a function of Reynolds number. However,

since Reynolds Number is a function of terminal settling velocity, and terminal
settling velocity is a function of drag coefficient, terminal settling velocity and
drag coefficient must be calculated through an iterative procedure. This
procedure is not illustrated directly in the examples; it is, however, incorporated
in the IHRDC program examples.
Note that for large Reynolds Numbers, the drag coefficient approaches 0.44 based
on the API 521 graph and 0.34 based on the IHRDC correlation. This difference
is due to assumptions and experimental data used in developing these correlations.
18.7.8 Reynolds Number
The Reynolds number is a dimensionless group used in calculating drag
coefficient. The equation for Reynolds number is:
r g d m vt
Re = 0.0049
mg
where:
Re
Reynolds Number
rg
dm
vt
mg
centipoise
18.7.9 Maximum Allowable Gas Velocity
In order to allow settling of liquid droplets from the gas phase and to minimize reentrainment of separated liquid, the gas must be limited to a maximum velocity;
that is, the maximum gas velocity is calculated such that liquid droplets will settle
out of the bulk gas phase and into the bulk liquid phase. Maximum allowable gas
velocity can be estimated by using droplet settling theory or empirical
correlations.
If droplet settling theory is used to establish entrainment criteria, then the
maximum allowable gas velocity for vertical vessels is assumed to be equal to the
H-0806.35
18-41
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
terminal settling velocity (see Figure 18.7-2). The smaller the diameter of liquid
droplets to be removed, the lower the terminal settling velocity, and therefore the
lower the maximum allowable gas velocity. For horizontal vessels, the terminal
settling velocity is used to determine the time it takes for droplets to reach the
bulk liquid (see Figure 18.7-3). Droplet settling time is described in Section
18.7.13.
Empirical correlations may also be used to estimate maximum gas velocity for
both vertical and horizontal vessels. The maximum gas velocity using empirical
methods can be calculated using the following equation:
vm = K
rl - r
r
0.5
where:
vm
Maximum gas velocity, ft/sec
Empirical constant, ft/sec
rl
rg
The empirical constant K depends on the fluid physical properties, operating

conditions, slug catcher type, foaming tendency, and fluid dynamics. Ideally, K
should be based on operating experience with similar fluids at comparable
conditions. If this data is unavailable, the following K values may be used for
preliminary sizing purposes:
TABLE 18.7-1: EMPIRICAL CONSTANT K VALUES
K, ft/sec
H-0806.35
Horizontal Vessels
Without Demister
With Demister
0.15 - 0.20
0.35 - 0.45
Vertical Vessels
Without Demister
With Demister
0.10 - 0.15
0.25 - 0.30
18-42
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
In general, K increases with increasing vessel length and increasing L/D ratios.
Proprietary vendor internals may result in K values as high as 0.7 for horizontal
pressure vessels. K values in Table 18.7-1 are for non-foamy fluids. K values for
foamy fluids are lower.
18.7.10Minimum Gas Cross-sectional Area
The minimum gas cross-sectional area is the minimum area in the gas section of
the slug catcher required to ensure that the gas velocity does not exceed the
maximum allowable gas velocity:
Minimum Gas Cross - sectional Area =
Gas Flow Rate

Maximum Allowable Gas Velocity
The gas flow rate is the design volumetric flow rate at actual operating pressure
and temperature. For a pipeline in slug flow, the design gas flow rate corresponds
to the gas velocity when the gas bubble following the slug exits the pipeline.
Flow rates at standard temperature and pressure conditions (e.g. MMSCFD) must
be converted to flow rates at actual conditions in order to be used in the above
formula:
Actual Gas Flow Rate =

14.7 psia Actual Temperature, R
( Standard Gas Flow Rate)

( Z )
520 R
Actual psia
where Z is the gas compressibility factor.
The actual gas cross-sectional area provided by the slug catcher should equal or
exceed the minimum gas cross-sectional area. The geometry of the gas crosssectional area depends on the type of slug catcher. For vertical pressure vessels,
the direction of gas flow is upward through the vessel towards the outlet (see
Figure 18.7-4). The cross-sectional area through which the gas flows is the total
cross-sectional area of the vessel based on the vessel inside diameter. For
horizontal pressure vessels and pipe, the direction of flow is generally horizontal
from the inlet end of the vessel to the outlet end (see Figure 18.7-5). The crosssectional area through which the gas flows is the fraction of the total crosssectional area of vessel or pipe not occupied by liquid. The horizontal slug
catcher should be designed such that the minimum cross-sectional area is
H-0806.35
18-43
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
available when the vessel is at its highest liquid level (usually the high level
shutdown level).
18.7.11Minimum Vertical Vessel Internal Diameter
The minimum internal diameter for a vertical vessel can be calculated directly
from the minimum gas cross-sectional area, since the entire area is available for
gas flow (refer to Figure 18.7-4):
4 (Minimum Gas Cross - sectional Area)
Minimum Internal Diameter =
0 .5
18.7.12Minimum Horizontal Vessel Internal Diameter

The method described for vertical vessels cannot be used for horizontal vessels,
since only a fraction of the cross-sectional area in a horizontal vessel is available
for gas flow (refer to Figure 18.7-5). An iterative procedure is used in which an
initial vessel diameter and length are assumed and the vessel is evaluated to see if
it can satisfy the capacity requirements. This procedure is described in Section
18.8. However, a rough approximation for a horizontal vessel internal diameter
(Souders 1934) which can be used as the starting point in the iterative procedure
is:
4 ( Minimum Gas Cross - sectional Area)
Fp
0 .5
where F is the fraction of cross-sectional area (same as fraction of slug catcher

volume) occupied by the vapor space. A typical starting point is to assume that
the minimum gas cross-sectional area takes up 25% to 30% of the total crosssectional area.
18.7.13Droplet Settling Time
The droplet settling time is the time it takes a droplet of liquid in the bulk gas
phase to fall to the bulk liquid phase in a horizontal vessel. The droplet settling
time depends on the vertical height of the gas space and the terminal settling
velocity:
Droplet Settling Time =
H-0806.35
Vertical Gas Space Height

Terminal Settling Velocity
18-44
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
18.7.14Minimum Effective Horizontal Length

In order to separate a liquid droplet from a gas by gravity in a horizontal vessel or
pipe, sufficient horizontal length must be provided so that the droplet can follow a
downward trajectory through the slug catcher and fall into the bulk liquid (see
Figure 18.7-6). If the liquid droplet reaches the slug catcher exit before dropping
to the bulk liquid, it will be entrained in the gas. The required horizontal distance
is a function of the gas velocity, liquid droplet size, degree of turbulence, density
difference between the gas and the droplet, and the vertical height the droplet
must fall. The minimum effective length is calculated from the droplet settling
time and the gas velocity:
Minimum Effective Horizontal Length = (Gas Velocity) x (Droplet Settling
Time)
The gas velocity is the actual gas flow rate divided by the cross-sectional area
available for gas flow.
18.7.15Vertical Liquid Height - Vertical Vessel
In a constant diameter vertical vessel, the volume of liquid per unit height of
vessel is constant (except for the liquid in the bottom head.) The vertical liquid
height required for a given liquid capacity can be calculated as follows:
Vertical Liquid Height =
Total Liquid Capacity

Cross - sectional Area
18.7.16Vertical Liquid Height - Horizontal Vessel

In a constant diameter horizontal vessel, the volume of liquid per unit height
varies. The vertical liquid height for a given liquid volume must be calculated
iteratively. Figure 18.7-7 illustrates the variables used in the procedure. The
methodology is to guess a value for the angle a between 0 and 180 degrees until
the volume calculated by the geometric formula equals the desired liquid volume.
Then the vertical liquid height can be calculated. The following formulas are
used:
Vc =
H-0806.35
L D2
[( ) - sin a cos a ]
a
57 .3
18-45
1-Dec-00
H=D
DEEPSTAR
(1 - cos a )
2
where:
Vc
Calculated Liquid Volume
Vertical Liquid Height
Vessel Diameter
Vessel Length
Angle in degrees defined in Figure 18.7-7
18.7.17Cylindrical Vessel Volume

The general equation for cylindrical vessel volume (ignoring heads) is:
Volume =
p ( Diameter)2 ( Length)
4
The volume can also be expressed in terms of Length/Diameter (L/D) ratio:

Volume =
p ( Diameter)3
4
( DL )
18.7.18Cylindrical Vessel Diameter

The general equation for cylindrical vessel diameter (ignoring heads) is:
4 ( Volume)
Diameter =
( p )( Length)
0 .5
The diameter can also be expressed in terms of Length/Diameter (L/D) ratio:

1
4 (Volume) 3
Diameter =
( p ) ( DL )
18.7.19Cylindrical Vessel Length
The general equation for cylindrical vessel length (ignoring heads) is:
Length =
H-0806.35
4 (Volume)
p ( Diameter)2
18-46
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.7-1: DRAG COEFFICIENT
H-0806.35
18-47
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.7-2: TERMINAL SETTLING VELOCITY VERTICAL VESSEL
H-0806.35
18-48
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.7-3: TERMINAL SETTLING VELOCITY HORIZONTAL VESSEL
H-0806.35
18-49
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.7-4: GAS CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA VERTICAL VESSEL
H-0806.35
18-50
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.7-5: GAS CROSS-SECTIONAL AREA HORIZONTAL VESSEL
H-0806.35
18-51
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.7-6: MINIMUM EFFECTIVE HORIZONTAL LENGTH
H-0806.35
18-52
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 18.7-7: VERTICAL LIQUID HEIGHT HORIZONTAL VESSEL
H-0806.35
18-53
1-Dec-00
18.8
DEEPSTAR
SLUG CATCHER DESIGN METHODOLOGIES
18.8.1 Design Methodologies Description

This section discusses several slug catcher design methodologies, ranging from
simple to more rigorous. Some methods are general, and may be used for several
slug catcher types and/or functions; other methods are specifically suited for a
particular slug catcher type. It should be noted that many of the methods share
common steps and that many of the steps may be done in more than one way.
Since most of these steps represent calculations of slug catcher parameters
described in the previous section, those calculation equations are not repeated in
this section, but are fully illustrated in each example.
The design methods discussed in this guide may consider one or more of the
following principles, depending on the specified functions for the slug catcher and
the quality and quantity of design information:
Slug surge capacity - sufficient liquid volume capacity to handle the design
slug size
Liquid capacity - sufficient liquid volume capacity for level control and to
permit gas bubble separation from the bulk liquid stream
Gas capacity - sufficient cross-sectional area to permit liquid droplet

separation from the bulk gas stream
As a minimum, the slug catcher needs to have sufficient surge capacity to handle
the design slug size. Slug catcher size is typically governed by the slug surge
volume criteria, particularly if the slug is due to pigging. Primary separators that
also function as slug catchers may be governed by the liquid capacity criteria,
surge capacity criteria, or the gas capacity criteria. In cases where the gas flow
rate governs the design, more liquid residence and surge capacity may be
achievable. If the liquid or surge capacity governs, then the slug catcher may be
capable of handling a larger gas flow rate. All of the methods assume that the
liquid in the slug catcher is disposed of prior to the arrival of the next slug.
These methods assume that the following steps of the slug catcher design process
have already been performed:
H-0806.35
18-54
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Determine slug catcher functions

Determine slug catcher location
Select preliminary slug catcher configuration
Compile design data
Establish design criteria
Each of these items has already been discussed in this guide. The remaining
sections address these steps:
Estimate slug catcher size and dimensions

Review for feasibility; repeat as necessary
18.8.2 Surge Volume Method
The surge volume method is the simplest method, which should be used for very
preliminary slug catcher sizing. This method, which can be used for all types of
slug catchers, assumes that the primary function of the slug catcher is surge
capacity or storage, so the slug catcher is sized to contain the expected slug
volume, plus an allowance (typically 25% - 50%) for vapor space and other
liquid requirements such as controllable volume or liquid capacity. The
allowance for a pressure vessel-type slug catcher is typically greater than that for
a pipe-type slug catcher since the vessel usually has greater control volume
requirements. This method includes the following steps:
Step 1 - Calculate the slug surge volume.
The slug surge volume may be estimated using the procedures described in
Section 17 of this guide. A simplified method for estimating slug surge volume is
illustrated in Section 18.7.4.
Step 2 - Calculate the slug catcher volume.
The slug catcher volume is based only on knowing the slug surge volume. The
slug surge volume is increased by an appropriate allowance to account for other
gas and liquid capacity requirements.
H-0806.35
18-55
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Step 3 - Calculate the slug catcher dimensions.

The slug catcher dimensions are calculated based on the slug catcher volume,
using the geometric formulas appropriate for the selected configuration.
Step 4 - Review results for feasibility
The results should be evaluated to ensure that any design criteria are satisfied.
Example 18.9-1 illustrates application of this method in sizing vertical pressure
vessel, horizontal pressure vessel, finger, and pipe loop slug catchers.
18.8.3 Vertical Two-Phase Separator Method
This general method, which is appropriate for vertical pressure vessels and
vertical caissons, illustrates sizing the slug catcher for slug surge capacity, liquid
capacity, and gas capacity criteria. Derivatives of this method can be used for any
one of these criteria. This method includes the following steps:
presented in Section 18.7.4.
Step 2 - Calculate the liquid capacity volume.
The amount of liquid volume required is based on the selection of desired
retention times for gas/liquid separation and the desired amount of response time
between the high liquid level and high level shutdown. This procedure is
Step 3 - Calculate the total required liquid volume.
The minimum total amount of required liquid volume is the sum of the slug surge
capacity volume and the liquid capacity volume.
Step 4 - Calculate the maximum allowable gas velocity.
The maximum allowable gas velocity can be based on either the terminal settling
velocity equations described in Sections 18.7.6 through 18.7.8, or the empirical
H-0806.35
18-56
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
correlations described in Section 18.7.9. Both methods are illustrated in the

examples.
Step 5 - Calculate the minimum gas cross-sectional area.
The minimum gas cross-sectional area is calculated using the formula described
in Section 18.7.10.
Step 6 - Calculate the minimum vessel internal diameter
The minimum vessel internal diameter is calculated using the formula in Section
18.7.11. The internal diameter may be rounded up to the nearest half-foot.
Step 7 - Calculate the vertical liquid height
The vertical liquid height is calculated using the formula in Section 18.7.15.
Step 8 - Calculate the overall vessel height
The overall vessel height can be calculated using the guidelines presented in
Sections 18.6.4 and 18.6.6
Step 9 - Compare vessel height with height limitations
If the calculated overall vessel height exceeds the maximum height available,
increase the diameter and recalculate Steps 7 and 8 until the vessel height
becomes acceptable.
Step10 - Review design feasibility
The following examples illustrate use of this method to size slug catchers:
Example 18.9-2: Vertical Two-Phase Separator using Empirical Correlations
Example 18.9-3: Vertical Two-Phase Separator using Droplet Settling Equations
H-0806.35
18-57
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
18.8.4 Horizontal Two-Phase Separator Method using Empirical Correlations

The procedures for sizing horizontal two-phase separator vessels are more
complicated than the procedure for sizing vertical two-phase separators. As noted
in Section 18.8.3, the procedure for vertical vessels is essentially the same when
using either the empirical correlations or the droplet settling equations to
determine gas capacity. For horizontal vessels, the procedures are different. This
section describes the procedure for horizontal vessels using empirical
correlations; Section 18.8.5 describes the procedure using droplet settling
equations. For both procedures, the internal vessel diameter cannot be calculated
directly; an iterative procedure is used in which an initial vessel diameter and
length are assumed and the vessel is evaluated to see if it can satisfy the capacity
requirements.
The method for sizing horizontal separators using empirical correlations includes
the following steps:
Step 4 - Calculate the maximum allowable gas velocity.
The maximum allowable gas velocity is based on the empirical correlations
described in Section 18.7.9.
H-0806.35
18-58
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Step 5 - Calculate the minimum gas cross-sectional area.

The minimum gas cross-sectional area is calculated using the formula described
in Section 18.7.10.
Step 6 - Estimate the minimum vessel internal diameter based on gas capacity
The minimum vessel internal diameter based on gas capacity is estimated using
the formula in Section 18.7.12. A value for F, where F is the fraction of crosssectional area occupied by the vapor space, is typically assumed to be between
0.25 and 0.3.
Step 7 - Estimate the minimum vessel internal diameter based on liquid capacity
The minimum vessel internal diameter based on liquid capacity can be estimated
using a modified version of the formula listed in Section 18.7.18:
1
4( Volume
3
1- F )
Diameter =
L
p( D )
where:
Volume
Total Liquid Volume Calculated in Step 3
Vapor Space Cross-sectional Area Fraction assumed in Step 6
Note that the vapor space cross-sectional area fraction is equal to the vapor space
volume fraction. Therefore, the liquid volume fraction equals 1-F.
An initial L/D ratio in the range of L/D = 4 to L/D = 8 should be assumed.
Step 8 - Determine minimum vessel internal diameter that satisfies both gas and
liquid capacity criteria.
For each L/D ratio considered, Steps 6 and 7 are repeated in an iterative procedure
in which the value of F is adjusted until the internal diameters calculated in Steps
6 and 7 are equal. This estimated initial internal diameter represents a starting
point; the diameter estimated using this procedure can be adjusted upward and
downward in 6 increments so that a range of vessels may be evaluated.
H-0806.35
18-59
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Step 9 - Estimate vessel length

For each L/D ratio considered, the diameter estimated in Step 8 is multiplied by
the corresponding L/D ratio to get vessel length.
The vertical liquid height is calculated using the iterative formulas in Section
18.7.16.
Step 11 - Review design feasibility
The results should be evaluated using the guidelines presented in Sections 18.6.4
and 18.6.6. Adjustments in diameter and/or length should be made in order to
ensure that gas and liquid capacity design criteria, as well as other design
requirements, are satisfied.
Example 18.9-4 illustrates application of this method in sizing horizontal twophase separators using empirical correlations.
18.8.5 Horizontal Two-Phase Separator Method using Droplet Settling Equations
As noted in Section 18.8.4, the internal vessel diameter cannot be calculated
directly. In this method, an iterative procedure is used in which several vessel
diameter and length combinations are assumed. Each vessel is evaluated to see if
it can satisfy the capacity requirements.
The method for sizing horizontal separators using droplet settling equations
includes the following steps:
Step 2 - Calculate the liquid capacity.
H-0806.35
18-60
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
between the high level alarm and high level shutdown.

This procedure is

Step 4 - Estimate an initial vessel internal diameter based on liquid capacity.
An initial vessel internal diameter is estimated as a starting point. The minimum
vessel internal diameter based on liquid capacity can be estimated using a
modified version of the formula listed in Section 18.7.18:
1
4( Volume
3
1- F )
Diameter =
p ( DL )
where:
Volume
= Total Liquid Volume Calculated in Step 3
= Assumed Vapor Space Cross-sectional Area Fraction
F is typically assumed to be between 0.25 and 0.30.

Note that the vapor space cross-sectional area fraction is equal to the vapor space
volume fraction. Therefore, the liquid volume fraction equals 1-F.
An initial L/D ratio in the range of L/D = 4 to L/D = 8 should be assumed.
The initial internal diameter estimated using this procedure can be adjusted
upward and downward in 6 increments in so that a range of vessels may be
evaluated. In general, more than one vessel geometric configuration may be able
to satisfy all the design criteria.
For each diameter and L/D ratio considered in Step 4, the diameter is multiplied
by the L/D ratio to get vessel length.
H-0806.35
18-61
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Step 6 - Estimate cross-sectional area available for gas flow

The amount of cross-sectional area available for vapor flow is calculated for each
vessel diameter/length combination being considered, and is equal to the total
vessel cross-sectional area minus the cross-sectional area occupied by the liquid:
p D2 Total Required Liquid Volume
Gas Cross - sectional Area =
L
4
where:
D
Vessel Inside Diameter
Vessel Length
The total required liquid volume, estimated in Step 3, is identical for all
diameter/length combinations.
The vertical liquid height is calculated for each diameter/length combination
using the iterative formulas in Section 18.7.16.
Step 8 - Calculate the vertical gas height
The vertical gas height for each diameter/length combination is equal to the vessel
diameter minus the vertical liquid height.
Step 9 - Calculate the terminal settling velocity
The terminal settling velocity is calculated using the equations described in
Sections 18.7.6 through 18.7.8.
Step 10 - Calculate Droplet Settling Time
The droplet settling time is calculated using the formula in Section 18.7.13.
H-0806.35
18-62
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Step 11 - Calculate the minimum effective horizontal length

The minimum effective horizontal length is calculated using the procedure
described in Section 18.7.14.
The minimum effective horizontal length calculated in Step 11 must be less than
or equal to the assumed vessel length. In addition, the results should be evaluated
using the guidelines presented in Sections 18.6.4 and 18.6.6. Adjustments in
diameter and/or length should be made in order to ensure that all design criteria
are satisfied.
Note that the droplet settling method for horizontal vessels does not impose a
maximum allowable gas velocity. This is one of the weaknesses of this method,
since the resulting gas velocity may be high enough to form waves on the liquid
surface, resulting in unstable operation.
Example 18.9-5 illustrates application of this method in sizing horizontal twophase separators using droplet settling equations.
18.8.6 IHRDC Method for Vertical and Horizontal Two-Phase Separators
The IHRDC Production Facility Bookware Series is a set of computer software
and design guides published by Paragon Engineering Services, Inc. The module
on two-phase separators, with appropriate modifications, may be used to estimate
slug catcher sizes. The procedure described in this section assumes the reader is
already familiar with the IHRDC two-phase separator module.
The IHRDC two-phase separator module uses the droplet settling theory to
establish liquid entrainment criteria for the gas phase. Liquid capacity is based on
production flow rate and corresponding retention time. As part of the input, the
user must specify the size of liquid droplet to be removed from the gas, the design
liquid flow rate, the desired retention time, and, for horizontal vessels, the liquid
operating level as a function of the vessel dimensions.
The program does not directly account for the volume required to accommodate
the slug. However, the input variables can be manipulated to allow the program
to include the slug surge volume in determining vessel size. IHRDC also limits
H-0806.35
18-63
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
the range of L/D ratios that can be considered.

illustrates this method:
The following procedure
Step 1 - Calculate the slug surge volume

Step 2 - Calculate the liquid capacity volume
Step 3 - Calculate the total required liquid volume
Step 4 - Calculate the effective liquid rate
The effective liquid rate can be calculated by dividing the total required liquid
volume calculated in Step 3 by the total retention time. The effective liquid rate
and corresponding retention time become the inputs to the IHRDC program. The
resulting liquid volume will be used by the program to determine vessel volume
required for liquid capacity including the slug surge volume.
Step 5 - Run the IHRDC program
The IHRDC program is run using the effective liquid rate calculated in Step 4.
For horizontal vessels, the desired liquid operating level input into the program
should be the high liquid level reached when a slug enters the vessel.
The following examples illustrate use of the IHRDC two-phase program to
estimate slug catcher size:
Example 18.9-6: Vertical Two-Phase Separator using IHRDC
H-0806.35
18-64
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Example 18.9-7: Horizontal Two-Phase Separator using IHRDC

18.8.7 Finger Slug Catcher Method
This method assumes the primary functions of the slug catcher are process
stabilization and storage. Efficient gas/liquid separation is not a requirement,
although excessive liquid carryover into the gas should be avoided. The general
approach for a finger slug catcher is to provide a sufficient number of pipe
segments of a certain diameter and inclined at a certain angle such that reduced
fluid velocity and stratified fluid flow are achieved in the pipe segments and
sufficient slug storage volume is provided. For a given flow rate, increasing the
pipe diameter and/or increasing the inclination angle will promote the transition
from slug flow to stratified flow.
Rigorous design of finger slug catchers includes development of experimental or
mathematical fluid flow models for various geometric configurations (number of
pipe segments, pipe diameters, and inclination angles) to determine which
configurations result in stratified flow. (Ideally, the models should also take into
account gas/liquid flow distribution through the pipe segments of each
configuration.) The methods for mathematical multiphase flow modeling and flow
mapping discussed in other sections of this guide can be used to identify which
configurations result in stratified flow, and the resulting liquid holdup in the slug
catcher. Once the appropriate configurations are identified, the segment length
needed to accommodate the slug can be calculated based on slug surge volume
and liquid holdup.
When it is not possible to develop fluid flow and flow map models, simplifying
assumptions may be used for preliminary slug catcher sizing studies. The
following are suggested guidelines for initial sizing:
Diameter of each pipe segment is equal to the pipeline diameter

Liquid holdup in the slug catcher is 70 to 80%
Pipe segment length is 1000 feet
Inclination angle is between 0 and 0.5 degree
Pipe segments are installed on 10 foot centers
H-0806.35
18-65
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
These guidelines will result in a preliminary slug catcher configuration. If the

resulting configuration is not feasible due to plot area limits or other constraints,
the pipe diameter, number of pipe segments, and pipe lengths can be adjusted to
fit the constraints.
Rigorous design of finger slug catchers is beyond the scope of this guide. A
simplified method for estimating finger slug catcher design is illustrated in
Example 18.9-1.
18.9
EXAMPLES
The examples in this section illustrate application of the design methodologies to

the different slug catcher types. The details of each calculation step are illustrated
in the solution portion of each example.
18.9.1 Surge Volume Method - Example 18.9-1
Problem
A slug catcher for a new onshore gas processing facility is to be sized. Gas from
an offshore platform will be transported to the onshore facility in a 36 pipe.
Pressure vessel, finger, and pipe loop type slug catchers are being considered.
Not much data is available; however, a preliminary analysis estimated the slug
size due to pigging to be approximately 1,000 barrels.
Goal:
Develop preliminary slug catcher sizes and dimensions.
Solution
The general equation for slug surge volume is:
Duration)
For this problem, only the slug volume is known. A conservative assumption for
preliminary sizing is to assume that the flow rate from the slug catcher equals
zero. Also recall that the general equation for slug flow rate is:
Slug Flow Rate = Slug Volume/Slug Duration

H-0806.35
18-66
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The general equation for slug surge volume can then be written as:
Slug Surge Volume
= (Slug Volume/Slug Duration - 0) x (Duration)

= Slug Volume
The slug surge volume is therefore equal to the estimated slug volume of 1,000
barrels.
Step 2 - Calculate the slug catcher volume
The slug catcher volume is calculated directly from the slug surge volume by
applying an allowance factor to account for gas and liquid capacity requirements.
An allowance of 25% was selected for the finger and pipe loop slug catchers and
50% for the pressure vessel slug catchers.
Slug Catcher Volume
= Slug Surge Volume x Allowance
For finger and pipe loop
= 1,000 bbls x 1.25

= 1,250 bbls
For vessels
= 1,000 bbls x 1.50

= 1,500 bbls
The slug catcher will be sized assuming the total volume is 1,250 barrels for the
finger and pipe loop and 1,500 barrels for the vessels.
Step 3 - Calculate the slug catcher dimensions
Many combinations of diameters and lengths can satisfy the volumetric
requirement. For pressure vessels, the general approach is to estimate diameter
and length for a range of L/D ratios. For finger slug catchers, the general
approach is to set an initial pipe segment length, assume that each pipe segment is
the same diameter as the pipeline, and calculate the number of segments needed.
For pipe loop slug catchers, the general approach is to assume the loop diameter is
the same as the pipeline diameter and calculate the length required.
The desired units for the slug catcher diameter and length are feet. The slug
catcher volume is converted from barrels to cubic feet:
H-0806.35
18-67
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Slug Catcher Volume, ft3 = Slug Catcher Volume, Bbls x 42 gal/bbl x 1 ft3/
7.481 gal
For finger and pipe loop = 1, 250 x 42 / 7.481
= 7,018 ft3
For vessels
= 1, 500 x 42 / 7.481
= 8,421 ft3
Pressure Vessel Dimensions

A range of L/D ratios from 2 to 20 will be evaluated. An example calculation is
illustrated below.
The general equation for diameter of a cylindrical vessel or pipe based on L/D
ratio is:
1
4 xVolume 3
Diameter =
p ( DL )
For an L/D ratio of 2:
Diameter,
= {4 x 8,421 ft3/[p x (2)]}1/3

= 17.50 ft
Length
= Diameter x (L/D)
= 17.50 ft x 2
= 35 ft
Finger Dimensions
The pipe segment internal diameter is assumed to be equal to the pipeline internal
diameter of 35. A range of segment lengths from 250 feet to 1000 feet will be
evaluated. An example calculation is illustrated below.
The general equation for cylindrical vessel volume (ignoring heads) is:
p ( Diameter )2 ( Length )
Volume =
4
For a segment length of 250 feet:

H-0806.35
18-68
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
= [p x (35in/12in/ft)2 x 250 ft]/4
Volume
= 1,670 ft3
The number of pipe segments is equal to:
Number of Segments
= Slug Catcher Volume/Segment Volume

= 7,018 ft3/1,670 ft3
= 4.2
Pipe Loop Dimensions

The pipe loop is assumed to be the same diameter as the pipeline. The total
length is calculated; the configuration may be either in parallel to the pipeline
(straight segment) or extending past and looping back (U-shaped segment).
The general equation for cylindrical vessel length is:
Length =
4 (Volume )
p ( Diameter )2
= 4 x 7,018 ft3 /[p x (35 in/12 in/ft)2]

= 1,050 ft
For a parallel loop, 1,050 feet of slug catcher is installed in parallel to the
pipeline. For an extended loop, the slug catcher extends 525 feet past the end of
the pipeline and loops back 525 feet.
Step 4 - Review for feasibility
The calculations described above are illustrated in the spreadsheet included at the
end of this example.
A horizontal pressure vessel in the L/D range of 4 to 10 is feasible for preliminary
sizing purposes. The other vessel sizes, due to the large diameters or long
lengths, may pose fabrication, transportation, or erection problems. A vertical
pressure vessel may be questionable in this service due to the large diameters
and/or heights.
H-0806.35
18-69
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Both the finger slug catcher and pipe loop slug catcher are feasible for
preliminary sizing purposes. The actual configuration (number and length of
finger segments, parallel or extended loop) depends on available plot space and
economic analysis.
EXAMPLE 18.9-1: SURGE VOLUME METHOD
Data
Slug Surge Volume, Bbls
1,000
Allowance Factor for Finger and Pipe Loop
1.25
Allowance Factor for Vessels
1.50
Pipeline Inside Diameter, in
.35
Finger Segment Inside Diameter, in
.35
Results
Slug Catcher Volume, Bbls
3
Slug Catcher Volume, Ft
Pressure Vessel
Finger/Loop
Vessels
1,250
1,500
7,018
8,421
Finger
Pipe Loop
L/D Ratio
Vessel
Vessel
Diameter, Length,
Ft
Ft
Pipe
Segment
Segment Volume,
3
Length, Ft Ft
Number
Pipe
of
Segment
Segments Length, Ft
17.5
35
250
1,670
4.2
15.3
45.9
500
3,341
2.1
13.9
55.6
1,000
6,681
1.1
12.9
64.5
10
10.2
102.4
15
8.9
134.1
20
8.1
162.5
1,050
Notes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Slug Surge Volume, Ft = Slug Surge Volume, Bbls x 42 gal/bbl x 1 ft3/7.481 gal
Vessel Diameter = [(4 x Volume/(Pi x (L/D)]^(1/3)
Vessel Length - Vessel Diameter x (L/D)
Segment Volume = Pi x (Segment Diameter)^2 x Segment Length/4
Number of Segments = Slug Catcher Volume/Segment Volume
H-0806.35
18-70
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
18.9.2 Vertical Two-Phase Separator using Empirical Correlations - Example 18.9-2

Problem
A slug catcher for a new offshore gas processing facility is to be sized. Gas from
a subsea well cluster will be transported to the platform in a common flow line.
No pigging facilities will be required for the flow line. In order to save platform
space, a vertical pressure vessel will be used as both the slug catcher and the
primary separator. The gas from the separator will go to a gas dehydration
system. The following information is based on preliminary well tests:
Gas Flow Rate

Condensate Flow Rate
Gas Specific Gravity
Condensate API Gravity
Slug Catcher Operating Pressure
Slug Catcher Operating Temperature
Gas Viscosity
Gas Compressibility (Z)
150 MMSCFD
2000 Bbl/day
0.65
46
800 psig
115 F
0.011 centipoise
1.0
A preliminary pipeline simulation model yielded the following results:
Slug Volume
Slug Duration
Goal:
50 Bbl
1 minute
Develop preliminary slug catcher size and dimensions.
Solution

Slug Surge Volume = (Slug Flow Rate - Flow Rate from Slug Catcher) x Slug
Duration
The slug flow rate is calculated based on the pipeline simulation results:
H-0806.35
18-71
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Slug Flow Rate =
Slug Volume/Slug Duration
(50 bbl/1 min) x 60 min/hr x 24 hr/day
72,000 bbl/day
The flow rate from the slug catcher is assumed to be equal to the normal
condensate flow rate of 2,000 bbl/day. Therefore,
Slug Surge Volume = [(72000 bbl/day-2000 bbl/day) x 1 min]x 1 hr/60 min x
1 day/24 hr
= 48.6 bbl
Since this is so close to the expected slug volume, it was decided to use 50 bbls as
the slug surge volume.
Step 2 - Calculate the liquid capacity
Three minute retention time was thought to be adequate for gas/liquid separation.
An additional two minutes of retention time will be allowed for high level
response time. Therefore,
Liquid Capacity
Response Time)
= Design Liquid Flow Rate x (Retention Time + Level

= 2,000 bbl/day x (3 min + 2 min) x 1 hr/60 min x 1 day/24
hr
= 6.9 bbl
capacity volume and the liquid capacity volume:
Total Liquid Volume
= Slug Surge Volume + Liquid Capacity Volume

= 50 bbl + 6.9 bbl
= 56.9 bbl
Note that most of the liquid volume requirement is due to the slug.
H-0806.35
18-72
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The desired units for the slug catcher diameter and length are feet. The total
liquid volume is converted from barrels to cubic feet:
Total Liquid Volume, ft3 = Total Liquid Volume, Bbls x 42 gal/bbl x 1

ft3/7.481 gal
= 56.9 x 42 / 7.481
= 319 ft3
Step 4 - Calculate the maximum allowable gas velocity
The maximum allowable gas velocity will be based on empirical correlations,
using the following equation:
rl - rg
v m = K
rg
0.5
where:
vm
rl
rg
Based on the guidelines presented in Section 7.9, a K value of 0.25 is selected

The liquid and gas densities must be converted to the appropriate units:
Liquid Density, lb/ft3 = 62.4 lb/ft3 x 141.5/(API + 131.5)

= 62.4 x 141.5/(46 + 131.5)
= 49.7 lb/ft3
Gas Density , lb/ ft 3 =
(Gas Molecular Weight ) (Operating Psia )

10 .73 ( Operating R ) Z
= (28.964 x 0.65) x (800 + 14.7)/[10.73 x (115 + 460) x 1]

= 2.48 lb/ft3
H-0806.35
18-73
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The maximum allowable gas velocity can now be calculated:

rl - rg
v m = K
rg
0.5
0.25[(49.7-2.48)/2.48]0.5
1.09 ft/sec
Step 5 - Calculate the minimum gas cross-sectional area

The minimum gas cross-sectional area is calculated from the maximum allowable
gas velocity calculated in Step 4 and the gas flow rate. The gas flow rate is the
design volumetric flow rate at actual operating pressure and temperature:
Actual Gas Flow Rate= Standard Gas Flow Rate x (14.7 psia/Actual Psia) x
(Actual R/520 R) x Z
= 150 MMSCFD x (14.7/814.7) x (575/520) x 1 x 1
day/24 hr x 1 hr/3600 sec
= 34.6 ft3/sec
The minimum gas cross-sectional area can now be calculated:
Minimum Gas Cross-sectional Area= Gas Flow Rate/Maximum Allowable

Gas Velocity
= 34.6 ft3/sec / 1.09 ft/sec
= 32 ft2
The minimum internal diameter for a vertical vessel is calculated from the
minimum gas cross-sectional area:
Minimum Internal Diameter
= (4 x Minimum Gas Cross-sectional

Area/p)0.5
= (4 x 32 ft2/p)0.5
= 6.4 ft
H-0806.35
18-74
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Therefore, in order to meet the entrainment criteria, the slug catcher internal
diameter must not be less than 6.4 feet. The minimum internal diameter may be
rounded up to the nearest half-foot, such as 6.5 feet for this case. If the diameter
is adjusted, the revised cross-sectional area should be used in determining vertical
liquid height requirements. In this example, the remaining calculations are based
on the minimum diameter of 6.4 feet.
The vertical liquid height required for a given liquid capacity can be calculated
from the total liquid capacity calculated in Step 3 and the cross-sectional area
calculated in Step 5:
Total Liquid Capacity/Cross-sectional Area
319 ft3/32 ft2
10 ft
This height as calculated is based on the minimum cross-sectional area. If

adjustments are made to the vessel diameter for rounding purposes or to achieve a
desired L/D ratio, then the vertical liquid height required can be adjusted
accordingly.
Sections 18.6.4 and 18.6.6. A sketch such as the one illustrated in Figure 18.6-2
is typically prepared to assist in determining height requirements. Several
combinations of diameter and height are usually feasible, as long as minimum
dimensions for diameter and height are satisfied.
In this example, the seam-to-seam length of the pressure vessel is about 20 feet.
Support legs or skirt would add an additional 3 to 5 feet. This size vessel should
not pose any transportation problems. Other limits such as deck clearance for an
offshore vessel should be evaluated.
H-0806.35
18-75
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR

The calculations are summarized on the following pages.
EXAMPLE 18.9-2: VERTICAL TWO-PHASE SEPARATOR USING
EMPIRICAL CORRELATIONS
Step 1. Input the following Data:

Description
Qg
Gas Flow Rae, MMSCFD
150
QI
Liquid Flow rate, BBL/DAY
2000
SGg
0.65
API
Liquid API Gravity
46
Operating Pressure, PSIG
800
Operating Temperature, F
115
Cp
Gas Viscosity, cp
0.011
Gas Compressibility
Empirical Coefficient
0.25
Vslug
Slug Surge Volume, Bbl
50
tret
thi
High Level Response Time, minutes
Step 2. The minimum diameter and liquid height are calculated.

The total liquid height is based on the required capacity and minimum diameter.
Dmin
Minimum Drum Diameter, ft
6.36
H-0806.35
Lslug
Liquid Slug Surge Height, ft
8.83
Lhi
High Level Control Height, ft
0.49
Lret
Liquid Retention Height, ft
0.74
Lreq
Total Liquid Height Required, ft
10.06
18-76
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
EXAMPLE 18.9-2 CALCULATED VARIABLES

Pa
MW
pL
pG
GL
GV
G
Vsluggal
Rv
vm
Vslugft
Vhi
Vret
Vreq
Amin
Dmin
Lslug
Lhi
Lret
Lreq
H-0806.35
Pressure, PSIA
Gas Molecular Weight
3
Liquid Density, lb/ft
3
Gas Density, lb/ft
Liquid Flow Rate, lb/hr
Gas Flow Rate, lb/hr
Mass Flow Rate, lb/hr
Slug Surge Volume, gal
3
Actual Vapor Rate, ft /sec
Maximum Allowable Gas Velocity, ft/sec
Slug Surge Volume, ft^3
High Level Control Volume, ft^3
Liquid Retention Volume, ft^3
Required Liquid Volume, ft^3
Minimum Cross-sectional Area, ft^2
Liquid Slug Control Height, ft
Liquid Height Required, ft
18-77
814.70
18.83
49.74
2.49
23272.93
310064.17
333337.09
2100.00
34.64
1.09
280.71
15.60
23.39
319.70
31.78
6.36
8.83
0.49
0.74
10.06
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
EXAMPLE 18.9-2:
H-0806.35
18-78
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
18.9.3 Vertical Two-Phase Separator Using Droplet Settling Equations - Example 18.9-3
Problem
system. To minimize liquid carryover to the dehydration system filter, the
separator will have a mist eliminator, and will be sized to remove droplets greater
than or equal to 200 microns ahead of the mist eliminator. The following
information is based on preliminary well tests:
Gas Flow Rate

Gas Viscosity
150 MMSCFD
2000 Bbl/day
0.65
46
800 psig
115 F
0.011 centipoise
1.0

Slug Volume
Slug Duration
Goal:
50 Bbl
1 minute
NOTE: This example is identical to the one presented in Example 18.9-2, except
that a criterion based on the size of droplet entrained in the gas is specified. This
is reflected in the method used in Step 4 to calculate the maximum allowable gas
velocity.
Solution
H-0806.35
18-79
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Duration)
Slug Flow Rate
72,000 bbl/day
Slug Surge Volume
min x 1 day/24 hr
= [(72000 bbl/day-2000 bbl/day) x 1 min]x 1 hr/60

= 48.6 bbl
Liquid Capacity
Level Response Time)
= Design Liquid Flow Rate x (Retention Time +

= 2,000 bbl/day x (3 min + 2 min) x 1 hr/60 min x 1
day/24 hr
= 6.9 bbl

H-0806.35
18-80
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Total Liquid Volume= Slug Surge Volume + Liquid Capacity Volume

= 50 bbl + 6.9 bbl
= 56.9 bbl
Total Liquid Volume, ft3 = Total Liquid Volume, Bbls x 42 gal/bbl x 1

ft3/7.481 gal
= 56.9 x 42 / 7.481
= 319 ft3
The maximum allowable gas velocity will be based on the terminal settling
velocity equations. The API 521 Figure 9 graph (included in this guide as Figure
18.7-1) will be used to estimate drag coefficient from the drag coefficient
function:
C(Re) =
(0 .95 x10 8 )(r g )(d 3 )(rl - r g )

m g2
where:
C(Re)2
rl
rg
mg

centipoises
The liquid and gas densities and the droplet size must be converted to the
appropriate units:
H-0806.35
18-81
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR

= 62.4 x 141.5/(46 + 131.5)
= 49.7 lb/ft3
Gas Density, lb/ft3
= Gas Molecular Weight x Operating Psia/(10.73 x
Operating R x Z)
= (28.964 x 0.65) x (800 + 14.7)/[10.73 x (115 + 460) x
1]
= 2.48 lb/ft3
Droplet diameter, ft
= Droplet Diameter, micron x 0.0000032808 ft/micron

= 200 x 0.0000032808 ft/micron
= 0.000656 ft
Note that the units for droplet diameter are feet for the drag coefficient
calculation and microns for the terminal settling velocity equation.
The Drag coefficient function can now be calculated:
2
C(Re) =
(0 .95 x10 8 )(r g )(d 3 )(rl - r g )

m 2g
[(0.95 x 108)(2.48)(0.0006563)(49.7-2.48)]/.0112
26,000
From Figure 18.7-1, the drag coefficient C is approximately 0.78.

The terminal settling velocity can now be calculated:
r l - r g d
m
Vt = 0.0119 x
r
C
0.5
where:
H-0806.35
vt
rl
rg
dm
18-82
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Drag Coefficient
vt
0.0119{[(49.7-2.48)/2.48][200/0.78]}0.5
0.83 ft/sec
Therefore, the maximum allowable gas velocity is 0.83 ft/sec.

Actual Gas Flow Rate

Psia) x
= Standard Gas Flow Rate x (14.7 psia/Actual
= 150 MMSCFD x (14.7/814.7) x (575/520) x 1 x 1 day/24 hr x 1
hr/3600 sec
= 34.6 ft3/sec
Minimum Gas Cross-sectional Area
Gas
Flow
Rate/Maximum
Allowable Gas Velocity
= 34.6 ft3/sec / 0.83 ft/sec

= 42 ft2
The minimum internal diameter for a vertical vessel is calculated from the
minimum gas cross-sectional area:
4 ( Minimum Gas Cross - sectional Area
0 .5
= (4 x 42 ft2/p)0.5
= 7.3 ft
H-0806.35
18-83
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Therefore, in order to meet the entrainment criteria, the slug catcher internal
diameter must not be less than 7.3 feet. The minimum internal diameter may be
rounded up to the nearest half-foot, such as 7.5 feet for this case. If the diameter
is adjusted, the revised cross-sectional area should be used in determining vertical
liquid height requirements. In this example, the remaining calculations are based
on the minimum diameter of 7.3 feet.
The vertical liquid height required for a given liquid capacity can be calculated
from the total liquid capacity calculated in Step 3 and the cross-sectional area
calculated in Step 5:
Vertical Liquid Height =
Total Liquid Capacity/Cross-sectional Area
319 ft3/42 ft2
7.6 ft
This height as calculated is based on the minimum cross-sectional area. If

adjustments are made to the vessel diameter for rounding purposes or to achieve a
desired L/D ratio, then the vertical liquid height required can be adjusted
accordingly.
Sections 18.6.4 and 18.6.6. A sketch such as the one illustrated in Figure 18.6-2
is typically prepared to assist in determining height requirements.
Additional height for legs or skirt should be added to obtain overall vessel height,
which should be evaluated for limitations such as deck clearances.
The results should be evaluated to ensure that any design criteria are satisfied. The
calculations are summarized on the following pages.
H-0806.35
18-84
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Note that the results in Example 18.9-3 are different from those of Example 18.92, even though the problem is identical. This illustrates some of the difficulty in
trying to determine the correct vessel size. The maximum allowable gas
velocity, which determines the vessel minimum internal diameter, is based on the
selection of K in the empirical correlations method and the droplet size in the
droplet settling equations method. In reality, the actual performance of the vessel
may be different from that predicted by either of the two methods.
EXAMPLE 18.9-2: VERTICAL TWO-PHASE SEPARATOR USING DROPLET
SETTLING EQUATIONS

Description
Qg
150
QI
Liquid Flow rate, BBL/DAY
2000
SGg
0.65
API
Liquid API Gravity
46
800
115
Cp
Gas Viscosity, cp
0.011
Gas Compressibility
dd
Droplet Diameter, microns
200
Vslug
50
tret
thi
Step 2. Input the Drag Coefficient from API 521 Fig 9 based on the Drag Function.
C(Re)
C
H-0806.35
Drag Function
26039.2912
Drag Coefficient from API 521 Fig 9
0.78
18-85
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Step 3. The minimum diameter and liquid height are calculated.

The total liquid height is based on the required capacity and minimum diameter.
Dmin
7.32
Lslug
Liquid Slug Surge Height, ft
6.67
Lhi
0.37
Lret
0.56
Lreq
Total Liquid Height Required, ft
7.59
Example 18.9-2 Calculated Variables

Pa
MW
pL
pG
GL
GV
G
Vslug
Dd
2
c(Re)
Rv
ud
Vslug
Vhi
Vret
Vreq
Amin
Dmin
Lslug
Lhi
Lret
Lreq
H-0806.35
Pressure, PSIA
3
3
Gas Density, lb/ft
Minimum Drum Liquid Volume, gal
Droplet Diameter, ft
Drag Function
3
Dropout Velocity, ft/sec
3
Slug Surge Volume, ft
3
High Level Control Volume, ft
3
Liquid Retention Volume, ft
3
Required Liquid Volume, ft
2
Minimum Cross-sectional Area, ft
Liquid Slug Control Height, ft
Liquid Height Required, ft
814.70
18.83
49.74
2.49
23272.93
310064.17
333337.09
2100.00
0.000656
26039.29
34.64
0.82
280.71
15.60
23.39
319.70
42.11
7.32
6.67
0.37
0.56
7.59
18-86
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
EXAMPLE 18.9-3
18.9.4 Horizontal Two-Phase Separator Using Empirical Correlations - Example 18.9-4

Problem
No pigging facilities will be required for the flow line. A horizontal pressure
vessel will be used as both the slug catcher and the primary separator. The gas
from the separator will go to a gas dehydration system. The following information
is based on preliminary well tests:
H-0806.35
18-87
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Gas Flow Rate

Gas Viscosity
150 MMSCFD
2000 Bbl/day
0.65
46
800 psig
115 F
0.011 centipoise
1.0
Slug Volume
Slug Duration
Goal:
50 Bbl
1 minute
that the vessel is horizontal instead of vertical.
Solution

Duration)
Slug Flow Rate
= Slug Volume/Slug Duration

= (50 bbl/1 min) x 60 min/hr x 24 hr/day
= 72,000 bbl/day
H-0806.35
18-88
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR

1 day/24 hr
= 48.6 bbl
Liquid Capacity
= Design Liquid Flow Rate x (Retention Time + Level

Response Time)
day/24 hr
= 6.9 bbl

Total Liquid Volume

= 50 bbl + 6.9 bbl
= 56.9 bbl
Total Liquid Volume, ft3
= Total Liquid Volume, Bbls x 42 gal/bbl x 1

ft3/7.481 gal
= 56.9 x 42 / 7.481
= 319 ft3
H-0806.35
18-89
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR

The maximum allowable gas velocity will be based on empirical correlations,
using the following equation:
rl - rg
v m = K
rg
0. 5
where:
vm
rl
rg
Based on the guidelines presented in Section 18.7.9, a K value of 0.35 is selected

The liquid and gas densities must be converted to the appropriate units:
= 62.4 x 141.5/(46 + 131.5)
= 49.7 lb/ft3
Gas Density, lb/ft3 = Gas Molecular Weight x Operating Psia/(10.73 x

Operating R x Z)
= (28.964 x 0.65) x (800 + 14.7)/[10.73 x (115 + 460) x 1]
= 2.48 lb/ft3
The maximum allowable gas velocity can now be calculated:
rl - rg
v m = K
rg
0. 5
=0.35[(49.7-2.48)/2.48]0.5
=1.53 ft/sec
H-0806.35
18-90
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Actual Gas Flow Rate
= Standard Gas Flow Rate x (14.7 psia/Actual

Psia) x
= 150 MMSCFD x (14.7/814.7) x (575/520) x
1 x 1 day/24 hr x 1 hr/3600 sec
= 34.6 ft3/sec
Minimum Gas Cross-sectional Area= Gas Flow Rate/Maximum Allowable

Gas Velocity
= 34.6 ft3/sec / 1.53 ft/sec
= 23 ft2
Step 6 - Estimate the minimum vessel internal diameter based on gas capacity
The minimum internal diameter based on gas capacity is calculated from the
minimum gas cross-sectional area calculated in Step 5:
4 x Minimum Gas Cross - sectional Area
Fxp
0.5
where F is the assumed fraction of cross-sectional area occupied by the vapor

space. An initial F value of 0.30 is assumed:
= [4 x 23/(0.30 x p)] 0.5
= 4.9 ft
Step 7 - Estimate the minimum vessel internal diameter based on liquid capacity
The minimum internal diameter based on liquid capacity is calculated from the
total required liquid volume calculated in Step 3 and the vapor space crosssectional area fraction assumed in Step 6:
H-0806.35
18-91
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
1
Volume 3
4
1- F
L
p
An initial L/D ratio of 5 was assumed:

= {4 x [319/(1-0.3)]/[p x (5)]} 1/3

= 4.9 ft
Step 8 - Determine minimum vessel internal diameter that satisfies both gas and
liquid capacity criteria
For each L/D ratio considered, Steps 6 and 7 are repeated in an iterative procedure
in which the value of F is adjusted until the internal diameters are equal. For this
example, it has been determined that an F of approximately 0.7 results in a
diameter that satisfies both the gas and liquid capacity criteria:
Gas:
4 x ( Minimum Gas Cross - sectional Area)
Fp
0 .5
= [4 x 23/(0.7 x p)] 0.5

= 6.5 ft
Liquid:
1
Volume 3
4
1- F
L
p
= {4 x [319/(1-0.7)]/[p x
(5)]}1/3
= 6.5 ft
H-0806.35
18-92
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR

The vessel length is calculated from the internal diameter estimated in Step 8 and
the corresponding L/D ratio:
Length = Diameter x (L/D)

= 6.5 ft x 5
= 32.5 ft
The vertical liquid height can be calculated from the vessel diameter calculated in
Step 8, the vessel length calculated in Step 9, and the total liquid volume
calculated in Step 3. In this iterative procedure, the methodology is to guess a
value for the angle a between 0 and 180 degrees until the volume calculated by
the geometric formula equals the required liquid volume. Then the vertical liquid
height can be calculated. The following formulas are used:
Vc = LD
H=
[( ) - sina cosa]
a
57 .3
D(1- cosa )
2
where:
Vc
Vessel Diameter
Vessel Length
Angle in degrees defined in Figure 11:7-7
For this example, different values of a are guessed until the calculated volume Vc
equals the total liquid volume of 319 ft3 from Step 3. It has been determined that
an angle of 71.8 degrees will result in the required liquid volume:
H-0806.35
18-93
1-Dec-00
Vc = LD
DEEPSTAR
[( ) - sin acosa ] =
a
57 .3
32.5
ft
(6.5)2[(71.8/57.3
sin(71.8)cos(71.8)]/4
=
328 ft3
The vertical liquid height can now be calculated:

H=
D(1- cosa )
2
=
6.5 x (1-cos71.8)/2
2.2 feet

The guidelines presented in Sections 18.6.4 and 18.6.6 can be used to establish
appropriate liquid levels and dimensions. A sketch such as the one illustrated in
Figure 18.6-1 is typically prepared to assist in determining vessel dimensions.
Other L/D ratios should be tried. Adjustments in diameter and length should be
made as appropriate. The calculations are summarized on the following pages.
H-0806.35
18-94
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
EXAMPLE 18.9-4: HORIZONTAL TWO-PHASE SEPARATOR USING

EMPIRICAL CORRELATIONS

Description
Qg
150
QI
Liquid Flow Rate, BBL/DAY
2000
SGg
0.65
API
Liquid API Gravity
46
800
115
Cp
Gas Viscosity, cp
0.011
Gas Compressibility
Empirical Coefficient
0.35
Vslug
50
thi
Step 2. Input an assumed vapor space cross-sectional area fraction and L/D ratio
Vapor Space Cross-sectional Area Fraction
0.70
LD
Length/Diameter Ratio
5.00
Example 18.9-4
Step 3. Click Goal Seek in the Tools Menu..
Input the following into the Goal Seek Menu:
Set Cell: =Acalc
To Value: Type in the number shown for Amin
By Changing Cell: =F
Click the OK Button to run the iteration routine
F is calculated such that the calculated gas cross-sectional area equals the
minimum gas cross-sectional area. F should be between 0 and 1.
H-0806.35
18-95
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Click the OK Button to accept the F value

F
Assumed gas cross-sectional area fraction
2
Acalc
Calculated gas cross-sectional area, ft
Amin
0.70
22.70
Minimum gas cross-sectional area, ft2
22.70

Set Cell: =Vcalc
To Value: Type in the number shown for Vreq
By Changing Cell: =Ang
The angle is calculated such that the calculated volume equals are desired liquid
volume based on holdup time and actual vessel dimensions. The angle should be
between 0 and 180 degrees.
Click the OK Button to accept the angle
Ang
Vcalc
Vreq
Assumed Angle, degrees

Calc Volume, ft^3
Required Liquid Volume, ft^3
71.77
319.70
319.70
Step 5. The minimum diameter and length are calculated.

The initial vessel dimensions are based on the initial L/D ratio.
The liquid height fraction based on the initial vessel diameter and length should be
reviewed based on the guidelines in Sections 6.4 and 6.6.
Di
Li
HI/D
Initial Drum Diameter, ft

Initial Drum Length, ft
Liquid Height Fraction based on Initial Drum
Length
6.4
32.2
0.34

P
MW
pL
pG
GL
GV
H-0806.35
Pressure, PSIA
3
3
Gas Density, lb/ft
814.70
18.83
49.74
2.49
23272.93
310064.17
18-96
1-Dec-00
G
Vslug
Rv
ud
Vslug
Vhi
Vret
Vreq
Amin
Dg
Dl
Acalc
Li
Ai
Al
Av
Ang
Vcalc
Hl
Hv
hv
Hl/D
Uv
H-0806.35
DEEPSTAR

3
Slug Surge Volume ft
3
Maximum Allowable Gas Velocity, ft/sec
3
3
3
3
2
Minimum Cross-sectional Area, ft
Initial Inside Diameter based on Gas Capacity, ft
Initial Inside Diameter based on Liquid Capacity, f
Gas Cross-sectional Area based on Liquid Capac
Initial Vessel Length
2
Initial Cross-sectional Area, ft
2
Initial Liquid Area, ft
2
Initial Vapor Area, ft
Assumed Angle, radian
Calc Volume
Height of Liquid, ft
Height Available for Vapor, ft
Height Available for Vapor, in
Liquid Height Fraction
Vapor Velocity, ft/sec
18-97
333337.09
2100.00
34.64
1.53
280.71
15.60
23.39
319.70
22.70
6.44
6.45
22.70
32.23
32.62
9.92
22.70
1.25
319.70
2.21
4.23
50.77
0.34
1.53
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
EXAMPLE 18.9-4
H-0806.35
18-98
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
18.9.4 Horizontal Two-Phase Separator using Droplet Settling Equations Example 18.95
Problem
from the separator will go to a gas dehydration system. To minimize liquid
carryover to the dehydration system filter, the separator will have a mist
eliminator, and will be sized to remove droplets greater than or equal to 200
microns ahead of the mist eliminator. The following information is based on
preliminary well tests:
Gas Flow Rate

Gas Viscosity
150 MMSCFD
2000 Bbl/day
0.65
46
800 psig
115 F
0.011 centipoise
1.0

Slug Volume
Slug Duration
Goal:
50 Bbl
1 minute
that a criterion based on the size of droplet entrained in the gas is specified.
Solution
H-0806.35
18-99
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Duration
Slug Flow Rate
72,000 bbl/day
1 day/24 hr
= 48.6 bbl
Step 2 - Calculate the liquid capacity.
Liquid Capacity = Design Liquid Flow Rate x (Retention Time + Level

Response Time)
day/24 hr
= 6.9 bbl
H-0806.35
18-100
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Total Liquid Volume

= 50 bbl + 6.9 bbl
= 56.9 bbl
Total Liquid Volume, ft3
= Total Liquid Volume, Bbls x 42 gal/bbl x 1

ft3/7.481 gal
= 56.9 x 42 / 7.481
= 319 ft3
Step 4 - Estimate an initial vessel internal diameter based on liquid capacity

An initial vessel internal diameter is estimated as a starting point:
1
4( Volume
3
1- F )
Diameter =
p ( DL )
where:
Volume
Total Liquid Volume Calculated in Step 3
Assumed Gas Space Cross-sectional Area Fraction
A gas space cross-sectional area fraction of 0.3 was used, based on the guidelines
in Section 18.7.12. An initial L/D ratio of 5 was selected.
The initial diameter can now be calculated:
1
4( Volume ) 3
Diameter = 1-LF
p (D)
= {4 x [319/(1-0.3)]/[p x (5)]}1/3
= 4.9 ft
H-0806.35
18-101
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR

The vessel length is calculated from the L/D ratio and vessel diameter from Step
4:
Length
=Diameter x (L/D)
= 4.9 x (5)
=24.5 ft
Step 6 - Estimate cross-sectional area available for gas flow.

The cross-sectional area available for gas flow is calculated from the vessel crosssectional area based on the total required liquid volume calculated in Step 3, the
vessel diameter calculated in Step 4, and the vessel length calculated in Step 5:
p D 2 Total Required Liquid Volume
Gas Cross - sectional Area =
4
L
where:
D
Vessel Inside Diameter
Vessel Length
Therefore,
Gas Cross-sectional Area
= p(4.9 ft)2/4 - (319 ft3/24.5 ft)

= 5.8 ft2
Step 7 - Calculate the vertical liquid height.

The vertical liquid height can be calculated from the initial vessel diameter and
length, and the total liquid volume. In this iterative procedure, the methodology is
to guess a value for the angle a between 0 and 180 degrees until the volume
calculated by the geometric formula equals the required liquid volume. Then the
vertical liquid height can be calculated. The following formulas are used:
Vc = LD
H-0806.35
[( ) - sina cosa ]
a
57 .3
18-102
1-Dec-00
H=
DEEPSTAR
D(1 - cosa )
where:
2
Vc
Vessel Diameter
Vessel Length
Angle in degrees defined in Figure 18.77-7
For this example, different values of a are guessed until the calculated volume Vc
equals the total liquid volume of 319 ft3 from Step 3. It has been determined that
an angle of 108.6 degrees will result in the required liquid volume:
Vc = LD
[( ) - sina cosa ]
a
57 .3
= 24.5 ft x (4.9)2[(108.6/57.3) - sin(108.6)cos(108.6)]/4

= 323 ft3
The vertical liquid height can now be calculated:
H=
D(1 - cosa )
2
=
4.9 x (1-cos108.6)/2
3.2 feet
Step 8 - Calculate the vertical gas height.

The vertical gas height is calculated as follows:
Vertical Gas Height = Vessel Diameter - Vertical Liquid Height

= 4.9 ft - 3.2 ft
= 1.7 ft
This represents the vertical distance the droplet must fall in order to reach the bulk
liquid phase.
H-0806.35
18-103
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Step 9 - Calculate the terminal velocity.

The API 521 Figure 9 graph (included in this guide as Figure 18.7-1) will be used
to estimate drag coefficient from the drag coefficient function:
C(Re) =
(0.95x10 8 )( rg )(d 3 )( rl - rg )
mg 2
where:
C(Re)2
rl
rg
mg
Gas viscosity, centipoise
The liquid and gas densities and the droplet size must be converted to the
appropriate units:

= 62.4 x 141.5/(46 + 131.5)
= 49.7 lb/ft3
Gas Density, lb/ft3 = Gas Molecular Weight x Operating Psia/(10.73 x

Operating R x Z)
= (28.964 x 0.65) x (800 + 14.7)/[10.73 x (115 + 460) x
1]
= 2.48 lb/ft3
Droplet diameter, ft = Droplet Diameter, micron x 0.0000032808 ft/micron

= 200 x 0.0000032808 ft/micron
= 0.000656 ft
Note that the units for droplet diameter are feet for the drag coefficient calculation
and microns for the terminal settling velocity equation.
H-0806.35
18-104
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The Drag coefficient function can now be calculated:
C(Re) =
(0 .95 x10 8 )( rg )(d 3 )( rl - rg )

mg 2
= [(0.95 x 108)(2.48)(0.0006563)(49.7-2.48)]/.0112
= 26,000
From Figure 18.7-1, the drag coefficient C is approximately 0.78.
The terminal settling velocity can now be calculated:
0 .5
rl - rg d
m
vt = 0 .0119
r
C
g
where:
vt
rl
rg
dm
Drag Coefficient
vt
0.0119{[(49.7-2.48)/2.48][200/0.78]}0.5
0.83 ft/sec
Step 10 - Calculate the droplet settling time.

The droplet settling time is the time it takes the droplet to fall the vertical gas
height distance when traveling at the terminal settling velocity:
Droplet Settling Time =
H-0806.35
Vertical Gas Space Height/Terminal Settling

Velocity
1.7 ft/0.83 ft/sec
2 seconds
18-105
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Note that the terminal settling velocity is the vertical component of the droplet
velocity.
Step 11 - Calculate the minimum effective horizontal length
The vessel length must be long enough so that the droplet can reach the bulk
liquid phase in the time it takes to fall the vertical height distance:
Minimum Effective Horizontal Length = Gas Velocity x Droplet Settling Time

Note that the gas velocity is the horizontal component of the droplet velocity. As
the droplet moves horizontally through the gas space at the gas velocity, it is also
falling vertically at the terminal velocity. The time required for the droplet to fall
the vertical gas height has already been determined in Step 10. Therefore, the
horizontal distance the droplet can theoretically travel during the droplet settling
time can be calculated. If the vessel length is shorter than this distance, the
droplet will exit the vessel with the gas before reaching the liquid phase.
The gas velocity is calculated from the gas flow rate and the cross-sectional area
available for gas flow. The gas flow rate is the design volumetric flow rate at
actual operating pressure and temperature:
Actual Gas Flow Rate = Standard Gas Flow Rate x (14.7 psia/Actual Psia) x
= 150 MMSCFD x (14.7 /814.7) x (575 /520) x 1 x 1
day/24 hr x 1 hr/3600 sec
= 34.6 ft3/sec
The gas cross-sectional area calculated in Step 6 is 5.8 ft2. Therefore, the gas
velocity can be calculated:
Gas Velocity
Gas Flow Rate/Gas Cross-sectional Area
34.6 ft3/sec / 5.8 ft2
6.2 ft/sec
Now the minimum effective horizontal length can be calculated:
Minimum Effective Horizontal Length = Gas Velocity x Droplet Settling Time

H-0806.35
18-106
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
= 6.2 ft/sec x 2 seconds

= 12.4 ft
Since the initial vessel length is 24.5 feet, the vessel length is adequate for the gas
capacity criterion.
The guidelines presented in Sections 18.6.4 and 18.6.6 can be used to establish
appropriate liquid levels and dimensions. A sketch such as the one illustrated in
Figure 18.6-1 is typically prepared to assist in determining vessel dimensions.
Other L/D ratios and gas space cross-sectional area fractions in Step 4 can be
tried. Adjustments in diameter and length should be made as appropriate. The
calculations are summarized on the following pages.
Note that the results of Example 18.9-5 are different from those of Example 18.94, even though the problem is identical. In the empirical method, the gas velocity
is limited based on the selected K value. In the droplet settling theory method, the
gas velocity is not limited to a particular value; rather, a geometry is selected such
that the droplet has sufficient horizontal length in which to fall to the liquid phase.
The resulting gas velocity may be excessively high, which could cause waves to
form on the liquid surface. This is one of the weaknesses of the droplet settling
method.
H-0806.35
18-107
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
EXAMPLE 18.9-5: HORIZONTAL TWO-PHASE SEPARATOR USING

DROPLET SETTLING EQUATIONS

Description
Qg
150
QI
Liquid Flow Rate, BBL/DAY
2000
SGg
0.65
API
Liquid API Gravity
46
800
115
Cp
Gas Viscosity, cp
0.011
Gas Compressibility
dd
Droplet Diameter, microns
200
Vslug
50
thi
Step 2a. Input the Drag Coefficient from API 521 Fig 9 based on the Drag Function.
C(Re)
C
Drag Function
26039.291
2
Drag Coefficient from API 521 Fig 9
0.78
Step 2b. Input an assumed vapor space cross-sectional area fraction and L/D ratio.
H-0806.35
Vapor Space Cross-sectional Area Fraction
0.30
LD
Length/Diameter Ratio
5.00
18-108
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Example 18.9-5 (continued)

Set Cell: =Vcalc
To Value: Type in the number shown for Vreq
By Changing Cell: =Ang
The angle is calculated such that the calculated volume equalts the desired liquid
volume based on holdup time and actual vessel dimensions. The angle should be
between 0 and 180 degress.
Click the OK Button to accept theangle
Ang
Assumed Angle, degrees
3
Vcalc
Calc Volume, ft
3
Vreq
108.64
319.67
319.70
Example 18.9-5 (continued)

Step 4. The required minimum length is calculated based on the initial
vessel dimensions
The initial vessel dimensions are based on the assumed input cross-sectional
vapor space area and L/D ratio
If the actual drum length is greater than the calculated minimum length, the drum
size is adequate for gas capacity.
If the actual drum length is less than the calculated minimum length, the drum
cannot meet the desired input requirements for gas capacity.
The liquid height fraction based on the initial vessel diameter and length should be
reviewed based on the guidelines in Sections 6.4 and 6.6.
Di
Li
Lmin
HI/D
H-0806.35
Initial Drum Diameter, ft

Initial Drum Length, ft
Minimum Drum Length Required for Gas Capacity, ft
Liquid Height Fraction based on Initial Drum Length
18-109
4.88
24.41
12.46
0.66
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR

P
MW
pL
pG
GL
Pressure, PSIA
3
3
Gas Density, lb/ft
814.70
18.83
49.74
2.49
23272.93
GV
G
Vslug
Dd
2
C(Re)
Rv
ud
Vslug
Vhi
Vret
Vreq
Dl
Li
Ai
Al
Av
Ang
Vcalc
Hl
Hv
hv
Hl/D
td
Uv
Lmin

Slug Surge Volume, gal
Droplet Diameter, ft
Drag Function
3
Dropout Velocity, ft/sec
3
3
3
3
Initial Vessel Inside Diameter, f
Initial Vessel Length
2
Initial Cross-sectional Area, ft
2
Initial Liquid Area, ft
2
Initial Vapor Area, ft
Assumed Angle, radian
Calc Volume
Height of Liquid, ft
Height Available for Vapor, ft
Height Available for Vapor, in
Liquid Height Fraction
Dropout Time, sec
Vapor Velocity, ft/sec
Minimum Drum Length, ft
310064.17
333337.09
2100.00
0.000656
26039.29
34.64
0.82
280.71
15.60
23.39
319.70
4.88
24.41
18.71
13.10
5.61
1.90
319.67
3.22
1.66
19.93
0.66
2.02
6.17
12.46
H-0806.35
18-110
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
EXAMPLE 18.9-5
H-0806.35
18-111
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
18.9.5 Vertical Two-Phase Separator using IHRDC - Example 18.9-6

Problem
system. To minimize liquid carryover to the dehydration system filter, the
separator will have a mist eliminator, and will be sized to remove droplets greater
than or equal to 200 microns ahead of the mist eliminator. The following
information is based on preliminary well tests:
Gas Flow Rate

Gas Viscosity
150 MMSCFD
2000 Bbl/day
0.65
46
800 psig
115 F
0.011 centipoise
1.0
Slug Volume
Slug Duration
Goal:
50 Bbl
1 minute
that the IHRDC Two-Phase Separator program is used.
Solution
H-0806.35
18-112
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Duration
Slug Flow Rate

= 72,000 bbl/day
1 day/24 hr
= 48.6 bbl

Response Time)
hr
= 6.9 bbl
H-0806.35
18-113
1-Dec-00
Total Liquid Volume
DEEPSTAR

= 50 bbl + 6.9 bbl
= 56.9 bbl
Step 4 - Calculate the effective liquid rate.
The effective liquid rate is calculated as follows:
Effective Liquid Rate
= Total Liquid Volume/Total Retention Time

= (56.9 bbl/ 5 min) x 60 min/hr x 24 hr/day
= 16,387 bbl/day

The IHRDC Two-Phase Separator program is run with the appropriate input data.
The results are illustrated on the next page. All of the listed sizes will satisfy the
design criteria.
H-0806.35
18-114
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
VERTICAL 2 PHASE SEPARATOR DESIGN PROGRAM

by PARAGON ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. of HOUSTON, TX.
VESSEL TAG NO. = Vertical Slug Catcher
PROJECT ID = Example 18.9-6
DATE =
USERS INITIALS =
LIQUID FLOW RATE
GAS FLOW RATE
MW
= 16387. BPD LIQUID SPECIFIC GRAVITY

= 0.797 46.0 API
= 150.0 MMSCFD
GAS SPECIFIC GRAVITY
= 0.650 18.8
OPERATING PRESSURE
= 800. PSIG
OPERATING TEMPERATURE = 115.
DEG F.
DESIGN PRESSURE
= 900. PSIG
GAS VISCOSITY
= 0.0110 CP
PARTICLE DIAMETER = 200. MICRONS
COEFFICIENT OF DRAG
= 0.660
MOL FRAC OF H2S GAS
= 0.000
MOL FRAC OF CO2 GAS
= 0.000
UPPER L/D RATIO
= 5.000
LOWER L/D RATIO
= 2.000
GAS COMPRESSIBILITY
= 0.8942
GAS DENSITY = 2.780 LB/FT3
JOINT EFFICIENCY
= 1.000
ALLOW. MATERIAL STRESS = 17500. PSI
CORROSION ALLOWANCE
= 0.125 INCHES
REQUIRED LIQUID RETENTION TIME = 5.0 MINUTE(S)
GAS CAPACITY EQUATION : MINIMUM INTERNAL DIAMETER = 81.66 INCHES
STD
O.D.
(IN)
ACT
LIQ
HT.
(IN)
ACTUAL
LIQUID
RETENTION
TIME
(MIN)
90.0
20.0
2.67 18.0
94.5
WALL THICKNESS = 2.500 IN.
118.3
6.3
20519.
162.5
66300.
96.0
18.0
2.25 17.0
82.9
94.3
5.7
18646.
185.2
70200.
102.0 18.0
2.12 16.2
73.3
94.3
6.4
21083.
209.5
79600.
H-0806.35
STD
S-S
LEN
(FT)
L/D
REQD
S-S
LEN
(FT)
REQD
LIQ
HT.
(IN)
----CAPACITY---LIQUID GAS
(BPD)
(MMSC
FD)
18-115
1-Dec-00
BARE
VESSEL
WT
(LBS)
DEEPSTAR
18.9.6 Horizontal Two-Phase Separator using IHRDC - Example 18.9-7

Problem
from the separator will go to a gas dehydration system. To minimize liquid
carryover to the dehydration system filter, the separator will have a mist
eliminator, and will be sized to remove droplets greater than or equal to 200
microns ahead of the mist eliminator. The following information is based on
preliminary well tests:
Gas Flow Rate

Gas Viscosity
150 MMSCFD
2000 Bbl/day
0.65
46
800 psig
115 F
0.011 centipoise
1.0

Slug Volume
Slug Duration
Goal:
50 Bbl
1 minute
that the IHRDC program is used.
Solution

H-0806.35
18-116
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Duration
Slug Flow Rate

= 72,000 bbl/day
1 day/24 hr
= 48.6 bbl

Response Time)
hr
= 6.9 bbl
Total Liquid Volume

= 50 bbl + 6.9 bbl
H-0806.35
18-117
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
= 56.9 bbl
Step 4 - Calculate the effective liquid rate.
The effective liquid rate is calculated as follows:
Effective Liquid Rate
= Total Liquid Volume/Total Retention Time

= (56.9 bbl/ 5 min) x 60 min/hr x 24 hr/day
= 16,387 bbl/day

The IHRDC Two-Phase Separator program is run with the appropriate input data.
The results are illustrated on the next page. All of the listed sizes will satisfy the
design criteria. As noted in Example 18.9-5, use of the droplet settling method
for horizontal vessels may result in excessive gas velocities.
H-0806.35
18-118
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
f
HORIZONTAL 2 PHASE SEPARATOR DESIGN PROGRAM
by PARAGON ENGINEERING SERVICES INC. of HOUSTON, TX.
VESSEL TAG NO. = Horizontal Slug Catcher
PROJECT ID = Example 18.9-7
DATE =
USERS INITIALS =
LIQUID FLOW RATE
GAS FLOW RATE
MW
= 16387. BPD LIQUID SPECIFIC GRAVITY

= 0.797 46.0 API
= 150.0 MMSCFD
GAS SPECIFIC GRAVITY
= 0.650 18.8
OPERATING PRESSURE
= 800. PSIG
OPERATING TEMPERATURE = 115.
DEG F.
DESIGN PRESSURE
= 900. PSIG
GAS VISCOSITY
= 0.0110 CP
PARTICLE DIAMETER = 200. MICRONS
COEFFICIENT OF DRAG
= 0.660
MOL FRAC OF H2S GAS
= 0.000
MOL FRAC OF CO2 GAS
= 0.000
UPPER L/D RATIO
= 6.000
LOWER L/D RATIO
= 2.000
FRACTIONAL LIQ AREA
= 0.7477
FRACTIONAL LIQUID HT.
= 0.7000
3
GAS COMPRESSIBILITY
= 0.8942
GAS DENSITY = 2.780 LB/FT
JOINT EFFICIENCY
= 1.000
ALLOW. MATERIAL STRESS = 17500. PSI
CORROSION ALLOWANCE
= 0.125 INCHES
REQUIRED LIQUID RETENTION TIME = 5.0 MINUTE(S)
RETENTION TIME EQUATION : (I.D.) ^2 x L(EFF) = 78275.00 IN2-FT
GAS CAPACITY EQUATION
: (I.D.) X L(EFF)
= 660.78 IN-FT
STD
O.D.
(IN)
STD
S-S
LEN
(FT)
L/D
60.0
30.0
6.00
WALL THICKNESS =
66.0
26.0
4.73
WALL THICKNESS =
72.0
22.0
3.67
WALL THICKNESS =
78.0
18.0
2.77
WALL THICKNESS =
84.0
15.0
2.14
WALL THICKNESS =
90.0
15.0
2.00
WALL THICKNESS =
H-0806.35
REQD
EFF
LEN
GAS
(FT)
11.7
1.750
10.6
1.875
9.7
2.000
9.0
2.125
8.3
2.250
7.8
2.500
REQD
EFF
LEN
LIQ
(FT)
24.5
REQD
S-S
LEN
(FT)
----CAPACITY---LIQUID GAS
(BPD)
(MMSCFD)
BARE
VESSEL
WT
(LBS)
29.4
ACTUAL
LIQUID
RETENTION
TIME
(MIN)
5.1
16708
288.6
39400
20.2
24.2
5.4
17577
275.6
41800
16.9
20.3
5.4
17747
252.1
42300
14.4
17.3
5.2
17080
198.5
43500
12.4
14.9
5.0
16539
151.1
44500
10.8
14.9
5.8
18907
152.8
54200
18-119
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
18.10 REFERENCES
Industry
API Recommended Practice 521 - Guide for Pressure Relieving and Depressuring
Systems.
Arirachakaran, S. Two-phase Slug Flow Splitting Phenomenon at a Regular
Horizontal Side-arm Tee (Dissertation), University of Tulsa, 1990.
Bos, A. et al. Simulation of Gas/Liquid Flow in Slug Catchers, Society of
Petroleum Engineers Proceedings, SPE 13724, March 1985.
Carstensen, C. Suppression of Slug Flow with the Aid of New Equipment,
Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 6100, May 1989
Conner, T. Pipeline Two-Phase Flow Analysis, 1983.
Cowie, D. Vertical Caisson Slugcatcher Performance, Institution of Chemical
Engineers, January 1992.
Highlander Gets First Subsea Slug Catcher for Marginal Field Development,
Oil and Gas Journal, November 1985.
Jepson, W. Slug Flow Eliminator and Separator, United States Patent Number
5,232,475. August 1993.
Kaasa, O. A Subsea Slug Catcher to Prevent Severe Slugging, 6th Underwater
Technology Foundation International Conference (Bergen, Norway), 1990.
Lingelem, M.N. TOGI: Multiphase Flow from Troll to Oseberg, Offshore
Technology Conference, OTC 6670, May 1991.
Martin, R.E. Handling Liquids in Offshore Gas Lines Gets New Approach, Oil
and Gas Journal, April 1981.
Miyoshi, M. et al. Slug-Catcher Design for Dynamic Slugging in an Offshore
Production Facility, SPE Production Engineering, November 1988.
H-0806.35
18-120
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Oranje, L. Handling Two-Phase Gas Condensate Flow in offshore Pipeline

Systems, Oil & Gas Journal, April 1983.
Oranje, L. Terminal Slugcatchers for Two-Phase Flow and Dense-Phase Flow
Gas Pipelines, Journal of Energy Resources Technology, December 1988.
Paragon Engineering Services, Inc. IHRDC Two-Phase Separators.
Sarica, C. et al. A New Approach for Finger Storage Slug Catcher Design,
Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 6414, May 1990.
Schmidt, et at. Choking Can Eliminate Severe Pipeline Slugging, Oil and Gas
Journal, November 1979.
Souders, M. et al. Design of Fractionating Columns, 1, Entrainment and
Capacity, Industrial Engineering Chemistry, 1934.
United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority et al.
Multiphase Flow, 1993.
Subsea Separation and
van Bylandtlaan, C. Method and Apparatus for Preventing Slug Growth in a

Pipeline, European Patent Application Number 90201975.1, July 199
H-0806.35
18-121
1-Dec-00
19.0
PIGGING
19.1
Introduction
DEEPSTAR
This section of the design guide serves to provide guidance in the design and operation of
pigging systems that assure hydrocarbon deliverability in an economical manner. This
section covers industry status, flow assurance pigging requirements, typical system
configurations and operating modes, pig types and selection, basic system components
and design considerations, and system operating requirements.
19.2
Industry Status
During this decade there has been a rapid expansion in exploration and field development
in ever-deeper water. With this approach, the flow assurance issues that relate to pipeline
hydraulics, hydrate formation and paraffin deposition have been magnified because of the
longer tiebacks and colder subsea environment.
There is plenty of pigging experience available with land pipelines and shallow water
developments, especially when pigging from platform to platform. However, pigging
experience in deepwater is limited and has been confined mainly to the Gulf of Mexico
and Brazil. A summary of some deepwater pigging experience is found in Table 19.1.
Because of the potential show stoppers associated with deepwater production, greater
interest has been given to considering the deployment of pigs as an integral part of the
flow assurance and pipeline maintenance program. Several operators have recently
performed field specific studies to determine the feasibility of pigging as the principal
means to control wax. Other studies have focused on performing trade offs between
dual flowline pigging and single flowline pigging using subsea pig launcher or receiver.
As more fields are developed, it is envisaged that greater emphasis will be given to the
subject of pigging with the result of producing more cost effective flow assurance
systems.
19.3
Pigging Requirements
From the perspective of flow assurance, pigging is required to maintain the original
design integrity and flow performance of pipelines, flowlines and risers for the duration
of their intended operational life. Specific requirements are as follows:
H-0806.35
19-1
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Table 19-1: Deepwater Pigging Experience

Operator/
Field
Mariner/Pluto
Location
GOM
MC 674
Exxon/Mica
GOM
MC 211
Texaco/Gemini
GOM
MC 292
Conoco/Joliet
GOM
GC 184
Shell/Tahoe II
GOM
VK 783
Shell/Popeye
GOM
GC 116
H-0806.35
Pigging
Configuration
Line Size & Length
Field
Status
One way from subsea pig

launcher (2690 feet) to
South Pass 89B fixed
platform (326 feet)
8-inch single, 32
miles
Planned
Round trip from Pompano

fixed platform (1,290 feet)
to subsea manifold (4350
feet)
8-inch dual, 2 x 28
miles
Planned
Round trip from VK-900

fixed platform (340 feet) to
subsea manifold (3,393
feet).
12-inch dual, 2 x 27.5

miles
Producing
One way from TLP (1760

feet) to central production
platform (616 feet)
10-inch (flexible)/14inch (rigid) dual

diameter oil line & 8inch (flexible)/10inch (rigid) dual
diameter gas line.
Flexible lines 6 miles
and rigid lines 6.2
miles
Producing
Round trip from Budlite

daisy chained wells (1500
feet)
6-inch dual oil line,

4-inch dual gas line,
2 x 12 miles
Producing
Round trip from South

Timbalier A fixed
platform (337 feet) to
subsea manifold (2,040 feet)
6-inch dual lines, 2 x

25 miles
Producing
19-1
Pigging
Operations
Wax deposition expected during early life. If required, intend to run
foam disc pigs that are driven using well production.
Wax deposition is expected and will vary depending upon the type of
wells produced. During early production, the intention is to adopt a
conservative pigging approach where bi-directional disc pigs are run
on a frequent basis using oil produced from platform wells. When
pigging frequency is established, a decision will be made whether to
use gas instead of oil as drive medium.
No wax deposition is expected. If any pig is run, it is for liquid
displacement. Intend to use foam pig propelled by buyback gas.
Existing host compressor will be used.
Oil line pigged twice per month using foam and dual diameter pigs to
remove wax deposition.
Gas line is pigged every two months.
The gas producing flowlines were pigged once using foam pig. No
other pigging operations performed.
Foam pig with gauging plate was run shortly after start-up. Both pig
and plate were damaged during transit. Suspect pigging isolation valve
on manifold is partially closed. Wax deposition is expected.
1-Dec-00
BP/Pompano
GOM
MC 28
BP/Troika
GOM
GC 244
Exxon/Zinc
GOM
MC 355
Petrobras/
Albacora,
Marlim,
Barracuda
H-0806.35
Campos
Basin
Region
DEEPSTAR
Round trip from VK-989

to subsea manifold (1,850
feet)
3-inch TFL service

and test lines, 8-inch
dual production lines,
2 x 4.5 miles
Producing
8-inch flowlines are pigged every six months to remove wax deposits
using solid-cast bi-directional disc pigs (K-Disc). Drive medium used
is dead oil from storage tank (900 barrels) supplemented by production
from platform wells. Negligible wax returns have been observed.
Round trip from Bullwinkle

to subsea manifold (2,670
feet)
10-inch dual
flowline, 2 x 14 miles
Producing
Regular wax removal being performed using solid cast bi-directional disc pigs.
from flowline operating conditions. Adopted progressive pigging program when
pigged.
Round trip from Alabaster

subsea manifold template
(1,460 feet)
8-inch production, 8inch test/service line

and 4-inch highpressure production.
All lines 6 miles.
Producing
Flowlines are pigged on a monthly basis to remove condensate and

sand. Batching pigs are run to apply corrosion inhibitor. No pigs have
been run to specifically remove wax.
Round trip from floating

production facility or fixed
platform (370-2,658 feet) to
manifold or individual wells
(370- 3,640 feet)
Flexible lines range

from 2.5-inch x 4inch, dual 4-inch, 6inch x 4-inch, and 8inch x 10-inch.
Tieback distances
range from 0.8 to 6.5
miles
Producing
19-2
Foam, dual diameter mandrel and cup/disc mandrel pigs are run on a
regular basis to remove wax and liquid.
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
To prevent excessive build- up of solids (wax, scale, sand, etc.) by scraping the
pipe interior and removing solids from the line.
To displace accumulations of water or other fluids (corrosive) from low points

in the line.
Apply corrosion inhibitor or biocides through batching.
The most common requirement in deepwater hydrocarbon applications is to

control wax deposition. Because of the colder environment associated with
deepwater, the productions fluids have greater probability of falling below their
cloud point resulting in wax formation and deposition. This is especially the case
during system turndown when restricted flow rates imply lower fluid
temperatures. The nature of the wax deposition can be exacerbated by the
inclusion of other components such as sand, scale corrosion and asphaltenes. The
mixture can become easily hard and difficult to remove.
In gas lines, conditions can occur where liquids condense and collect on the
bottom of the pipeline. Large liquid accumulations will limit throughput by
increasing pressure loss, increase local pipeline corrosion and increase the
potential for hydrate formation. They are also liable to be swept up by the gas,
resulting in the production of hydrodynamic or terrain slugs that can exceed the
capacity of the process receiving facility. Managing liquid accumulation through
regular line displacement, will maintain pipeline integrity, optimize flow
conditions, and enable the receiving facility (slug catcher/separator) to be
economically designed.
Inhibitors and biocides are used to protect the pipeline from being attacked and
corroded. Although chemicals can be added to the product flow to provide
pipeline protection, they are not completely effective because of their inability to
reach all the inside surface of the pipeline. Through running regular slugs of
corrosion inhibitor or biocide between two batching pigs, the majority of the
inside surface of the pipe can be coated and thus protected. It should be noted
that only the top center section of the inside pipe may not be coated.
Although, pipeline and flowline inspection is not considered an integral part of
flow assurance pigging requirements, it is considered worthy of brief discussion
because of its potential impact on system design and operation. In the Gulf of
H-0806.35
19-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Mexico, current regulations (embodied in Volume 49 of the Code of Federal

Regulations, Parts 192.150-Transportation of Natural and Other Gas by Pipeline,
and 195.120 Transportation of Hazardous Liquids by Pipeline) do not require
the periodic internal inspection of subsea production flowlines unless the lines are
10-inch nominal or greater and transporting liquids or gas back to onshore
facilities. However, it is possible that regulations may change in the future that
require intelligent pigs to be run. Therefore, consideration should be given to
design (i.e. constant ID, 5D bends, etc.) and operation (i.e., aggressive pig
cleaning, etc.) of the pipeline system to facilitate the smooth passage of intelligent
pigs.
19.4
System Configurations & Operating Modes

There are several offshore pigging configurations available.
classified into three basic categories:
They can be
Surface One Way Pigging

This configuration is the simplest and is similar to that of land based systems.
Refer to Figure 19-1. The launcher and receiver are located at the surface, and all
pigging operations are conducted in the direction of normal flow using the onstream fluid and flowrate to propel the pig through the continuous line. The lines
that are usually pigged are either oil or gas export pipelines.
The general configuration is the connection of a shallow water fixed platform to a
deepwater host that could be a fixed platform, tension leg platform (TLP), deep
draft caisson vessel (DDCV) or semi-submersible vessel. The most common
arrangement worldwide is fixed platform-to- fixed platform. Pigging is easily
accomplished since the pigging path between fixed platforms tends to be rigid
with uniform inside diameter. In deeper waters the pigging path can become
more complex since rigid pipe is combined with flexible pipe and risers. This has
been the case for some developments that have employed TLPs and semisubmersible as deepwater hosts. An example of TLP-to-fixed platform is
Conocos Joliet development in the Gulf of Mexico. Because the flexible and
rigid steel pipe sections were of different diameter this has limited the type of pigs
run.
H-0806.35
19-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 19-1
H-0806.35
19-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Subsea Loop Pigging

This configuration involves a launcher and receiver located at some host, and two
piping runs that are connected together to form a continuous loop. The piping
runs tieback a remote subsea facility (i.e. single well, manifold etc) to a deepwater
or shallow water host. Refer to Figure 19.2. Each leg can be dedicated as a return
line for production or may serve as a different function (i.e. test line). As a
minimum, the host must have a pressure source that is capable of driving the pig
around the loop and into the inward bound flowline. The fluid used to launch and
drive the pig must be compatible with the produced fluid.
Operating modes for loop or round trip (RT) pigging depend upon the
configuration of the remote subsea facility. Assuming the remote subsea facility
comprises a dual manifold header with single pigging isolation valve, the possible
operating modes are as follows:
Round Trip Using Pump/Compressor

Well production is shut in and the pigging isolation valve is opened. With the
host pump or compressor, launch pig down the outward-bound flowline and
drive pig back to the host via the other flowline. Close the pigging isolation
valve and resume production.
This operating mode is the simplest and most common arrangement for round
trip pigging. However, it represents the greatest downtime in production. It is
suited to systems that have production fluids that are considered too hot for
the pig, or production flowrates that are too high or low to effectively pig
with. It also mitigates the risk of losing the flowline to a wax plug since the
progress of the pig is directly controlled with either the pump or compressor
for the duration of the trip.
Round Trip Using Well Production

Shut- in well production and open the pigging isolation valve at the manifold.
Using a pump or compressor, propel the pig down the outward-bound flowline
around the subsea pigging loop into the return flowline. Close the pigging
isolation valve and restart well production to drive the pig back to the host.
This operating mode enables downtime to be reduced since production can be
restarted once the pig traverses the loop. Since the return of the pig is
dependent upon well production, the well must have sufficient pressure to
H-0806.35
19-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 19-2
H-0806.35
19-7
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASAE DESIGN GUIDELINE
overcome the static and fluid friction losses. This may not be the case in late
field life, when reservoir pressure has declined. Also, there is no direct
method for controlling the progress of the return pig except for manipulating
the surface choke and possibly the subsea choke.
Round Trip and Drive Against Well Production

Open the pigging isolation valve at the manifold and drive the pig against well
production using a compressor or pump. When the pig traverses the loop and
into the other flowline, close the pigging isolation valve. The pig will then be
driven back to the host with well production.
This operating mode involves less production downtime since the well is not
shut in during pig delivery. However, this comes at the expense of requiring
greater pump/compressor capacity to drive against manifold pressure.
Although production is maintained during pig delivery, it is at a reduced rate.
Comparing the above operating modes, it is apparent that production downtime

can be reduced by employing a three- line arrangement with piggable wye. Refer
to Figure 19-3. With this arrangement, well production can be maintained in one
leg while the other legs remain dedicated to pig transit. Because residual fluids
and solids are displaced from the lines during pigging, the process capacity of the
host must be sufficient to handle the simultaneous arrival of production and
displaced fluids. If this is not the case, then either production rates or pigging
operation will have to be compromised.
A good exa mple of a looped configuration that employs three lines, and with
different line sizes, is Exxons Zinc development in the Gulf of Mexico. Three
steel flowlines approximately 6 miles long connect the Zinc manifold template to
the Alabaster fixed platform. The lines are a single 8- inch low-pressure bulk
production, single 8- inch test/service line and 4-inch high-pressure line for testing
individual wells. Refer to Figure 19-4. Bi-directional cup pigs have been
launched regularly to remove sand and condensate from the 8- inch lines. In
pigging the 4-inch line, foam and sphere pigs have been launched and driven into
the 8-inch line via the pigging valve assembly on the manifold. The 4-inch pigs
were recovered when the 8- inch lines were pigged.
H-0806.35
19-8
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 19-3
H-0806.35
19-9
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Subsea One-Way Pigging

This configuration applies to those developments that do not provide convenient
or viable surface entry and/or exit point for pigging. The development may be the
single flowline tieback of a subsea facility to shallow water host or system that
has an incompatible pigging path (i.e. riser and pipeline are of different diameter,
there is a restrictive bend, material limitations, etc.) The latter case is typical of
branch/trunkline tie- ins. In these cases, a subsea pig launcher (SPL) or subsea pig
receiver (SPR) is necessary.
The SPL and SPR provide the ability to get pigs into or out of lines that do not
have a surface access point. Refer to Figure 19-5. They provide the same
functions as of the conventional land-based launcher and receiver except they are
engineered specifically for subsea deployment and rely upon surface vessel
support. Pigs can be launched subsea using a SPL and propelled towards the host
receiver or SPR. The pressure source for launching and propelling the pigs can be
either well production and/or fluid supplied from surface vessel. The SPR plays
the opposite role to the SPL and is responsible for catching the pigs launched
from the host launcher or SPL. The SPR requires a connection that conveys
displaced flowline contents to a surface vessel or into another flowline.
A good example of an operational SPL is the one used by BP Amoco in their
Eastern Trough Area Project (ETAP) development in the North Sea. The SPL is
located on a subsea production manifold that is tied back 22 miles to the Central
Processing Facility (CPF) by a 16-inch flowline. Since deployment, the SPL has
successfully launched several bi-directional mandrel pigs that have removed wax
from one of the longest subsea tiebacks in the North Sea.
19.5
Pig Types & Selection

There are four main types of pigs that can be used for flow assurance purposes:
sphere, foam, solid-cast and mandrel.
19.5.1 Mandrel
These pigs are assembled from a number of component parts (plastic and metal),
which are mounted on a shaft so that they can be replaced or reconfigured as
required. The conventional mandrel pig will comprise sealing elements that are
H-0806.35
19-11
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 19-5
H-0806.35
19-13
1-Dec-00
Conical Sealing Cups

with Blades
DEEPSTAR
Piston Type Sealing

Cups
Conical Sealing Cup
Figure 19-6: Typical Mandrel Pigs
H-0806.35
19-14
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 19-7: Mandrel Pig Sealing Elements
H-0806.35
19-15
1-Dec-00
DEEPS TAR
used to drive the pig and also cleaning elements, if the intended application is to
clean the line. Refer to Figure 19-6.
The sealing elements are normally made from polyurethane and can be divided
into piston-type cup, conical cup and flat disc. Refer to Figure 19-7. The pistontype cups have a pressure-energized shape that provides a good seal and some
compensation for wear. They are normally mounted on large diameter flanges,
which increase the risk of metal-to- metal contact in the line. Because of the mall
amount of contact material, this limits their ability to conform to ovality.
Therefore, they are susceptible to losing their seal when traveling through lines
that have significant out-of-roundness.
Conical cups are more accommodating in sealing within pipes of irregular
circularity or roundness. Also, the geometry of the cup enables a greater radial
load and hence tighter seal to be produced when differential pressure is applied.
This results in swabbing operations being more efficient. Although a higher wear
rate might be expected because of the tighter seal, this is compensated for by the
exceptionally wide wear surface that the conical cup provides. Also, because of
the tighter seal, conical cups have been known to smear soft deposits against the
inside wall. This process makes the cleaning operation ineffective.
Solid discs have been used where bi-directional pigging has been required.
Usually four discs sized to be an interference fit are mounted on the pig body.
Since they have little or no capability to compensate for wear, they need frequent
replacement.
The cleaning elements are components designed to remove solid or semi-solid
deposits and can either be wire brushes, blades, discs or a combination. The wire
brushes are generally mounted on springs to force them into contact with the pipe
wall and compensate for wear. For smaller diameter pigs, the wire brush
element(s) are usually a continuous wire wheel. Wire brushes tend to be suitable
for removing only hard deposits. Based upon BP Amocos experience in pigging
various main oil lines (Beatrice, Ninian, Wytch Farm) they recommend that wire
brushes be avoided in soft waxy lines since they quickly become clogged up.
Blades are suitable for removing both hard and soft deposits. The blades can be
made from steel for extreme situations, but normally they are molded from
polyurethane that is of slightly harder grade than the sealing elements. Various
H-0806.35
19-16
1-Dec-00
DEEPS TAR
shapes are available with the most common being the 3-Rib blade. Apart from
its basic simplicity that keeps tooling costs low, it has the added advantage of
imparting a slow rotation to the pig that contributes to reducing effective wear
rates.
Cleaning discs are similar to the sealing discs except that they are sized below the
nominal pipe ID and are made harder. Independent studies performed by Shell
and Petrobras, verified that discs were the most effective cleaning element in
removing solids of various hardness. Bi-directional disc pigs have been
successfully used in a number of recent deepwater cleaning applications (i.e. BPAmoco Troika, BP-Amoco Pompano, etc.). There is also intention to use the
same pigs on other upcoming field developments (i.e. Shell Macaroni, Exxon
Mica, etc.). Lastly, disc pigs have also performed well in removing condensate
when combined with solid drive discs.
19.5.2 Solid Cast
Solid cast pigs are similar to mandrel pigs except they are molded in one piece,
generally from polyurethane, whereby the body, sealing and scraping elements are
an integral unit. Refer to Figure 19-8. They are as effective as the mandrel type
pigs in removing liquids and soft to medium deposits. Solid cast pigs are
normally only available in the smaller sizes (12 inch and below). Their
development was a result of labor costs for assembling and replacing parts on
small pigs being significantly higher than the cost of a new pig.
The lighter and more flexible design mitigates the risk of damaging the flowline
and helps to negotiate tight bends and other irregularities. However, field repairs
are not possible and complete replacement is usually necessary in the event of one
part becoming damaged.
19.5.3 Foam
Foam pigs are widely used in the pipeline industry. Petrobras has extensively
used them to remove soft to medium wax deposits. They are particularly suitable
when developing a pigging program for a line that has not been regularly pigged
and which may contain unexpected restrictions. Foam pigs are manufactured in
many designs and sizes. They are manufactured from polyurethane foam of
various densities ranging from low (2-4 lb/ft3 ), medium (5-7 lb/ft3 ), and high (810 lb/ft 3 ). Each of the density ranges offers a different flexibility and wear
resistance, the lower density being more flexible and subject to wear than the
H-0806.35
19-17
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 19-8: Solid Cast Pigs (Knapp)
H-0806.35
19-18
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
higher density. Although normally found in bullet shape form, they can have
concave, flat, or bullet noses on each end. An elastomeric coating is normally
H-0806.35
19-19
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
applied to the base to provide for maximum seal against the propelling force.
Some eve n have coating on the surface to enhance the sealing and wiping
capability of the pig, and to increase its wear resistance. Normally, the overall
length of the pig is 1.75-2 times the pipe diameter, with the base to shoulder (the
point where the surface bearing area begins to taper towards the nose) dimension
measuring 1.5 times the diameter. Foam pigs are currently manufactured in
diameters from 0.25- inch to 108-inch, with increments of 0.125- inch available in
diameters under 12-inch.
There are numerous designs of foam pigs available, but the most frequently used
are swabs, bare squeegees, crisscross, silicon carbide and wire-brush. Refer to
Figure 19-9. The swabs are a low-density design with base coated for a seal and
are used for the removal of soft materials, drying and absorption of liquids (a
swab can absorb up to 75 percent of its volume in liquids). The bare squeegees
range from medium to high-density foam with coated base and are used for liquid
removal and light cleaning. Crisscross foam pigs are made from either medium or
high-density foam with coating on the surface bearing area. They are used for
dewatering, batching, cleaning and removal of solids (soft to medium hardness).
Silicon carbide is similar in make-up to the crisscross, except the bearing area is
covered with silicon carbide/aluminum oxide grit or straps. Mostly employed for
scraping or cracking hard deposits such as oxides or carbonates (normally for
short runs). Finally, the wire brush is made from medium to high-density foam
where bristle straps (steel, brass or plastic) cover the total bearing area or are
incorporated into a crisscross pattern. This wire brush pig is used for maximum
scraping of hard deposits such as mill scale.
19.5.4 Sphere
Spheres have been mostly used for sweeping liquids from lines and have some
limited success in solids removal. Conventional spheres are simply hollow balls,
fitted with flush or recessed valves to enable them to be filled and inflated with
glycol-water mixture to achieve the desired diameter. For small pipe diameters,
spheres are normally made solid. They are generally molded from polyurethane
in either one piece (requires rotational mold technique) or from two halves, which
are subsequently bonded together. The latter method is usually the least
expensive and is understood to have been developed to the point where
homogeneity can be guaranteed.
H-0806.35
19-20
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 19-9: Typical Foam Pigs (Knapp)
H-0806.35
19-21
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Because differential pressure requirements for propelling spheres are relatively

low, this results in minimum wear other than cuts and abrasions from the internal
surfaces such as weld penetrations. If spheres do not have constant wall thickness
then inflation will expand the thin wall section more tha n the other surfaces and
distort the sphere. This will cause irregular wear and premature failure
19.5.5 Pros and Cons
The pros and cons of the mandrel, solid-cast, foam and sphere pigs are
summarized in Table 19.2.
19.5.6 Special Pig Types
Whilst the majority of flow assurance pigging requirements can be satisfied with
standard pigs, there are occasions where special type pigs must be applied. The
following discusses the most relevant of the specialized pigs available:
Multi Diameter Pig
This type of pig has been used by several operators where the pigging path has
comprised of several different diameters. Pig construction usually comprises a
disc for the smaller diameter and overlapping slotted discs (flaps or petal discs)
for the larger diameter. The slotted discs will fold in the small pipeline and
resume their original shape (to effect a seal) when they enter the larger pipeline.
Petrobras for fields in the Campos Basin region have attempted to use dual
diameter disc pigs instead of foam pigs to remove hard wax deposits. Initial runs
through 2.5 inch and 4- inch pigging path, proved that the dual diameter could
traverse successfully but did not remove wax effectively. Based upon field
experience the dual diameter pig was re-developed to be more effective in
removing harder deposits.
By-Pass Pig
This pig is fitted with what is effectively a relief valve that is set to open at a prechosen differential pressure. If during a cleaning operation, the pig builds up a
large accumulation or slug of debris ahead of it, the pressure differential across
the pig will rise as the pig works harder. If a standard cleaning pig was used, the
accumulation may increase until the pig became stuck or substantially damaged.
This situation is mitigated with a pressure by-pass pig, since once the pre-set
differential pressure is reached, the by-pass valve opens, thereby allowing a
H-0806.35
19-22
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
substantial volume of fluid or gas to flow through the pig body. This results in
the debris being jetted or blown away from the front of the pig, after which time
the differential required to run the pig will drop, the by-pass valve will close, and
the pig will move on.
A more sophisticated version of this pig type has been developed for the purpose
of controlling the velocity and hence the performance of the pig. The variable
speed pig was originally developed by Apache Industries of Edmonton, Canada,
and was designed to run independent of the normal product flow and speed within
a pipeline where high velocities were present (i.e. gas transmission and export
lines). By regulating the amount of by-pass through the body, the speed of the pig
can be controlled within a pre-set range. The variable speed pig senses its
velocity, compares this to a pre-set value, then controls the volume of by-pass to
maintain the required speed. Although, this pig would be ideal for removing
solids and liquids (i.e. limit slug rate) when gas driven, it would be difficult to
justify because of its relative high cost.
Shunting Pig
This three-section pig has been specifically developed to recover stuck or lost pigs
from pipelines. It is generally accepted that running a second pig of similar or
identical design to the one that is stuck or lost is futile, since there is a high
probability that it will succumb to the same misfortune as the original. The
second pig normally becomes damaged as a result of too much load being applied
to push a stuck or lost pig. Using a three section shunting pig, it has been
recognized that the leading section will probably be damaged as it pushes the
debris ahead of it, but drive can be maintained because of the second and third
sections not coming into contact with the debris being pushed. Additionally, to
further assist the recovery of a stuck or lost pig, the shunting pig can be
deliberately made heavy to increase momentum.
Gel Pig
Gel pigs have been successfully used in a number of applications involving solids
removal, liquid displacement, recovery of stuck pigs, product separation, and
application of in-situ coatings (i.e. inhibitor, biocides, solvents etc.). They are
based upon combining a base fluid (water, diesel, crude, solvent etc.) with a
H-0806.35
19-23
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Table 19-2: Pros and Cons of Pigs Types

Pig Type
Pros
Cons
Mandrel
Readily reconfigured with different sealing and scraping

elements to suit the application.
For sizes larger than 12-inch, significant cost savings can be
Construction makes them heavier than equivalent sized pigs. This

tends to increase risk to damaging pipeline especially when gas
driven. Also, the heavier mandrel requires greater differential drive
made in replacing worn components instead of entire pig.
pressure.
The most aggressive in removing soft to hard deposits. Disc

configurations have successfully removed sand and a wide
range of wax types.
Mandrel pigs have sealing and scraping elements generally sized close
to the line bore. To avoid the pig from becoming stuck or damaged, a
constant bore and minimum bend radius of 3-5D is required.
Efficient in liquid removal especially when cup seals are

employed.
Mandrels configured with flat discs are not good at negotiating

difficult geometrical features.
Depending on sealing element, drive fluid, line contents, etc.

the mandrel pig is good for trip distances of between 100 to
500 miles.
SolidCast
Sphere
Similar effectiveness as the mandrel type pigs for liquid and

soft to medium deposits removal.
Field repairs are not possible and complete replacement is usually

necessary.
Generally lighter than mandrel and contains no metal parts.

There is less risk in damaging the flowline or process
equipment.
Most solid-cast pigs have a hollow body that is susceptible to damage

if pig is subjected to high differential pressure when stuck. The
hollow body can expand and blow out the nose of the pig.
Although more flexible than equivalent mandrel pig, the solid-cast

relies upon constant bore and minimum bend radius of 3-5D.
Spheres are easy to handle and can be re-gauged (diameter

reset) by inflation to allow for wear.
Ineffective in solids removal. Tend to smear (soft) or squeeze past

(hard) deposits.
Since they roll freely, they can be automatically launched at

predetermined intervals.
They can be propelled along
horizontal sections of oversized lines and pass through slightly
undersized lines. Pigging systems with a wide range of line
sizes can be performed using large spheres to push small
spheres from gathering lines into trunk lines.
Can drop into branches off main lines unless they are fitted with
barred tees or oversized tees with a downward slope.
Not efficient in liquids removal because of by-pass.
H-0806.35
Minimum pressure differential is required to propel spheres.
19-24
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
This minimizes wear and enables pigging to be performed at

normal production flowrates.
Foam
Can negotiate short radius bends and irregular turns.
Improves safety by reducing the possibility of damaging line.
Considered a one-time use product.
Foam pigs are compressible, lightweight, and flexible. They

can travel through multiple-diameter lines, short radius bends,
reducing valves, dented pipe, and other restrictions. Most
medium density pigs can travel through openings with as little
as 65% opening.
Tend to be more expensive than the replacement parts of a mandrel

pig.
Pigs that contain iron sulfide in the foam must be cleaned

immediately after receiving to avoid spontaneous combustion.
Difficult to clean and hence store safely if used to pig hydrocarbons.
Simple manufacturing method enables custom designs to be

readily made.
Inherent flexibility makes medium to hard deposit removal

ineffective. Also, foam pigs tend to travel down lines that were not
If foam pigs become stuck they can be disintegrated with

pressure and/or dissolved with chemicals.
Easier to fit into a pipeline without pig traps
H-0806.35
19-25
intended for them. This has produced process shut downs.
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
crosslinked gum-based polymer to form a thick visco-elastic substance. They can

be made to any density and range from pre- formed pigs that are usually shipped to
site within their metal mould, to a light foam that is sprayed into the line. For
optimum performance, gel pigs are used in conjunction with conventional pigs.
Gel pigging is invariably expensive as the gel is usually required in large
quantities and therefore must be manufactured in-situ. It is also usually
biodegradable and this makes product life very limited.
19.5.7 Pig Selection
The success of a pigging operation depends very much on the correct pig
selection. The decision should focus on the following:
Select a pig suitable for the application

Select a pig which travels through the line with minimum risk
Select a pig that provides optimum performance and therefore minimizes the
number of runs and production downtime.
There are many factors that influence final pig selection.

consider are:
The main ones to
Line contents - liquid or solids, volumes, solid consistency (i.e. soft, medium
or hard), thickness, location, chemical compatibility, etc.
System design - pigging path profile (i.e. line diameters, length, elevation, size
and position of valves, tees, bends, wyes, etc.), capacity of receiving facilities,
propulsion media (gas or liquid), available drive pressure, etc.
As a rough guide to pig selection for solids removal, a simple decision tree has
been developed. Refer to Figure 19-10. From the decision tree, it is evident that
pig types fall into the general categories of disc (mandrel or solid-cast) or foam
discs. For liquid removal and batching, the most suitable pig types are either cup
disc (mandrel or solid-cast), foam pigs or spheres. Cup disc pigs would provide
the greatest efficiency if the pigging path was deemed compatible, otherwise soft
to medium density foam pigs would be used instead. Spheres as discussed
previously, would be applicable if some form of pigging automation was required
(i.e. high pigging frequency).
19.6
Basic System Components and Design Considerations

The section deals with basic system components and design considerations.
H-0806.35
19-26
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
19.6.1 Flowline System

To avoid compromising pig selection and operation, the flowline system must
meet the following basic design specification:
H-0806.35
Line Pipe To ensure smooth passage of pig during transit, a constant bore is
recommended. Maximum deviation of internal diameter from the nominal
should be kept to below the figures given in Table 19.3. Any internal
diameter change should be made within a transition piece of 1:5 slope.
19-27
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
SOLIDS REMOVAL-INPUT PARAMETERS
H-0806.35
19-28
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Table 19-3: Inside Diameter Maximum Deviation
Nominal Diameter (inches)
Maximum Deviation (mm)
8-12
10
14-20
20-36
14
16
36 and above
20
Valves All valves should be full bore, have concentric inlet and outlet bores,
no internal producing features and be specified by internal diameter. Valves
should guarantee 100% opening and have limited or zero by-pass.
Tees/Offtakes Branch connections with outlets above 50% of nominal line
size should be barred. At least three diameters of straight pipe should be
installed between any two tees. To prevent solids from being pushed into
manifold branches, the branches should be positioned above the pipe
centerline. Also, branch isolation valves should be located as close to the
manifold header as practically possible to minimize the amount of solids that
could compact into the branch/valve gap
Bends The minimum radius for bends is detailed in Table 19.4 below.
Besides the minimum radius, the ovality (out-of-roundness) of any bend
should be limited to 3%. For 30 and 45 bends, there should be a minimum
straight length of 6 feet for pipe diameters to 24- inch, and 3D for diameters of
24-inch and above.
Table 19-4: Minimum Bend Radius
Nominal Diameter (inches)
Minimum Bend Radius
4 and below
10D
6 - 12
14 and above
5D
3D
Wyes The angle between the branches of a wye should be set at 30. The
bore in the section where the branches merge should be enlarged to 105-110%
of the pipeline diameter. This enables pigs to contact surfaces and expand out
to their unrestrained diameter, hence reducing the friction experienced as it
passes through the wye. The web between the incoming branches should be
made as long as possible to maintain the separation between the bores.
19.6.2 Surface Launcher/Receiver

Surface pig launchers and receivers can be divided into three basic categories:
horizontal, inclined/declined, and vertical installations. Refer to Figures 19-11 for
basic layout.
H-0806.35
19-29
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 19-10: Pig Launcher and Receiver Basic Layout
H-0806.35
19-30
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Horizontal configurations tend to be preferred over vertical designs even although

they consume more deck space. The horizontal designs tend to accommodate
more standard pig types and facilitate easier handling and cleaning operations.
Vertical configurations require certain pig types to be modified to achieve
positive location. For example, when loading a disc pig into a vertical launcher,
the nose of the disc pig must be tapered to ensure that the disc pig aligns itself
vertically and effect a seal within the launch tube. There have been numerous
cases where standard pigs have failed to launch because they adopted an askew
position - launch fluid bypassed the seals and therefore did not create sufficient
differential pressure to drive the pig. Also, vertical receivers usually require the
use of internal perforated baskets to capture the returned pigs. Failure to capture
the pig could result in the pig falling back into the line and possibly
compromising the closure of the isolation valve.
Inclined/declined traps tend to be used specifically for launching and receiving
spheres. For launching purposes, the trap is inclined approximately 5 degrees,
with the closure made higher than the neck. This permits gravity to assist the
sphere to freely roll into the launch position. A sphere pin (specially designed
launch valve) or pneumatically operated flap is used to release the spheres
individually into the neck of the trap for launching. Inclined/declined traps tend
to be suited to the remote operation of multiple spheres.
Both the surface launcher and receiver should be configured to be multifunctional. This will allow for the handling of different types of pigs and
accommodate the possibility that any pigs may have to be sent or recovered in the
direction of normal flow.
The typical barrel length on a launcher trap should be 1 times the length of the
pig from the bypass line to the reducer weld and on receiver traps 1 times the
length of the pig from the bypass line to the closure weld. If a cleaning pig is to
be run with foam pig in tow (accommodates locating device) or an intelligent pig
is to be run, then the length of the barrel needs to be increased accordingly.
The use of an eccentric (taper at top) rather than concentric reducer at the end of
the barrel is the preferred arrangement. The eccentric reducer better assists in
locating the first drive seal in the launch tube and provides the pig a smooth
transition from line pipe to oversized barrel when receiving.
H-0806.35
19-31
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The pressure rating of the launcher and receiver should match the pressure rating
of the incoming pip ing and valves and therefore should meet the design code of
ASME B31.4 for liquid pipelines or ASME B31.8 for gas pipelines or other
applicable code.
The kicker line on the launcher and the bypass line on the receiver should be sized
generously. This ensures that pigs can be launched even when they are not
effecting a good seal within the reducer. Also, a generously sized bypass
connection will ensure the smooth arrival of pigs into the receiver under various
flow conditions.
To prevent inadvertent movement of pig within launcher (forward movement into
isolating valve or backward movement resulting in seal loss) and dangerous
pressure traps between pig and valve, a pressure balance line should be run
between the two extreme ends of all pig traps.
To verify the launch and receipt of a pig, all traps require to be fitted with some
type of pig passage indicator. The indicator can either be a mechanical or
electrical (magnetic field) type providing that it satisfies the criteria of being bidirectional, flush with the internal pipe wall and can be safely replaced under
pressure using standard methods
To avoid the potential problems as a result of too much wax arriving at the
receiver (i.e. failure to open/close isolation valves, etc.), arrangements should be
made to heat trace or provide a means to inject solvent into the receiver or
surrounding pipework. The internals should be designed so that they are as free
draining as possible to minimize wax deposition. The injection point should also
provide the means to introduce chemicals or gels during batching operations.
To ensure safety, the launcher and receiver should have vent and drain ports,
reliable pressure gages and seals, and appropriate interlocks to prevent the pig
trap from being opened while pressure remains inside.
19.6.3 Subsea Launcher/Receiver
Subsea pig launchers and receivers (SPL/SPR) have similar functions to
conventional surface launchers and receivers except they are engineered
specifically for subsea deployment and therefore rely upon surface vessel support.
They are normally installed onto a flowline hub profile that incorporates an
H-0806.35
19-32
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
isolation valve along with guidance/support structure to accommodate the SPL or

SPR.
The SPL/SPR can either be an active (remotely operated) or passive (ROV
operated) design. The decision between active and passive will have a significant
impact on design and operation of the SPL/SPR and production system. If
configured to be active, valves on the SPL/SPR and flowline (hub isolation)
require to be hydraulically actuated by the subsea controls system. This represents
higher system cost and operational risk. This explains why the majority of
SPL/SPR designs adopt a passive approach.
To launch a pig, a communication path for the kicker fluid is required from either
the subsea production system (i.e. well production, methanol injection, etc.) or
surface support vessel. If the source of kicker fluid is from the subsea production
system then another single hub connection with isolation valve, in parallel with
the main hub connection (pigging path) is required. Alternatively, an integral
multi- hub connection could be used that employs parallel or concentric bores. If
kicker fluid is supplied from a surface support vessel, then the number of subsea
interfaces and valves can be minimized. However, a service umbilical is required
to connect the surface pressure source to the SPL kicker line. In the event the
surface vessel requires to suddenly drive off location (i.e. loss of dynamic
positioning), then the service umbilical should be capable of emergency
disconnect. The emergency quick connect/disconnect system will terminate and
isolate the service umbilical at the surface or subsea
For receiving a pig, similar connections to the above would be required for the
bypass path.
Specific features of a deepwater SPL/SPR are addressed below:
The SPL/SPR should accommodate several utility pigs that can be

individually launched or captured. To cover the possibility of intelligent
pigging, the barrel section should be capable of being replaced or extended.
A positive pig release and retaining mechanism is required that can be reliably
operated by ROV. The preferred system should prevent the possibility of pig
hang up and slipping.
H-0806.35
19-33
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Employ an ROV operated flowline connector that is capable of multiple make

and break. Guidance will be integral to the connector via a large swallow area
that captures the hub and aligns the seal bore prior to make-up. The connector
will also provide the means to pressure test after make-up.
Rough alignment systems are required for initial location on the flowline hub
profile. Depending on depth, this could be a minimum of two API guideposts
that have guidewires connected back to the surface or guide funnels that are
incorporated on SPL/SPR or flowline hub.
A simple soft landing system is required that minimizes the likelihood of
damaging sealing mechanisms during installation.
To eliminate the requirement of handling the SPL/SPR under pressure or full

of launch fluids, a method of relieving pressure and purging prior to SPL/SPR
retrieval should be provided.
For SPL/SPR that employ dual connections that permit the flow of kicker or
bypass fluid, a fine alignment system will be required to orient the seal
mechanisms of each connector prior to engagement.
A pressure cap sho uld be provided that blanks off the flowline hubs when the
SPL/SPR is not installed. This will be in line with dual barrier philosophy.
Identical arrangements as used by the SPL/SPR for installation and alignment
on the flowline hub(s) will be used by the pressure cap. To ensure safe
operation, the pressure cap should have a ROV operated vent arrangement that
enables pressure to be bled down prior to its removal.
A test and transportation stump should be provided to serve both the pressure
cap and SPL/SPR. The test and transportation skid must allow function and
pressure testing and facilitate the transferring from the horizontal to vertical
and vice versa.
The SPL/SPR and pressure-retaining cap, requires structural framing that is

designed in accordance with good practice for offshore handling,
transportation and installation. The structural frame should act as a mount for
the SPL/SPR barrel and support the installation mechanisms including the
guidecones, guide sleeves and connectors.
H-0806.35
19-34
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The SPL/SPR should be configured for simple installation and retrieval. If

deployed from dynamically positioned diver support vessel, then crane hook
should be sufficient, providing the hook enables ROV to easily make and
break the connection.
19.6.4 Propulsion
Liquid or Gas
Most configurations require some pressure source to launch and propel pigs
through the pipeline system. Since the effectiveness of a pigging operation is
dependent upon controlling the speed of the pig, selection of the correct method
of propulsion is critical.
The arrangements for pigging multi-phase production flowlines are different than
those for gas and oil export lines. In oil export or water injection lines, propulsion
and speed control is relatively straightforward since it involves controlling the
output of the final separator stage or the booster pumps. For gas export lines,
although speed control can be more involved because of potential liquid hold-up
and steep riser sections, the speed of the pig again is essentially determined by the
on-stream flow conditions set by the separator or compressor.
When an operator requires pigging of multi-phase production flowlines, a
decision must be made whether to use liquid or gas propulsion. The decision will
depend upon many factors (i.e. flowline conditions, configuration, operating
strategy, fluid availability, process capacity, etc.).
H-0806.35
19-35
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
60000
Liquid Propulsion Volume (barrels)
50000
40000
6 Inch ID
8 Inch ID
30000
10 Inch ID
12 Inch ID
20000
10000
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Tie-Back Distance (miles)
Figure 19-11: Liquid Volume Requirements for Round Trip Pigging

If the flowline is expected to contain deposited solids of unknown volume and
composition, then liquid propulsion is strongly recommended. Liquid propulsion
would provide the ability to directly control pig progress, enhance pig-cleaning
performance, and produce the necessary feedback for establishing a database used
in optimizing pigging frequency. Also, another major benefit of liquid
propulsions is the ability to determine the approximate location of the pig if it
should become inadvertently stuck (i.e. assuming the seals had not failed). The
major drawback of liquid propulsion, especially if dealing with a gas production
system where liquid production is not available for pigging, is the logistics
associated with the storage, handling and disposal of the liquid. Figure 19-12,
depicts the liquid volume requirements for round trip systems of different
flowline sizes and tieback lengths. If the liquid recovered during the pigging
operation can be reused as pig propellant, then the initial liquid volumes can be
reduced accordingly.
H-0806.35
19-36
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
If conditions within multi-phase flowlines are considered relatively benign, then

providing the necessary preparations and precautions are taken, then gas
propulsion should be suffice. Because of the gas compressibility, speed control is
more difficult but can be achieved to some degree using a number of methods.
These are discussed in Section 19.7.2.
Types of Fluid
Liquid propellants could be water, lease crude, produced crude or diesel. Water is
inexpensive and is readily available offshore. However, uninhibited water would
represent a high risk of forming hydrates or in the case of waxy lines, the water
could harden the wax deposits making subsequent removal more difficult. The
use of hot water is not considered viable because of the cooling effect associated
with deepwater ambient temperatures. Lease and produced crudes are relatively
inexpensive and their availability will depend upon the host infrastructure. Diesel
is an excellent propelling fluid, especially if pigging operation involves wax
removal. Since diesel is a solvent, it will tend to soften the removed wax and
layers of wax on the pipe wall. However, this effect diminishes with lower
ambient temperatures. For significant volumes, diesel would prove to be an
expensive option.
Gas propellants could be buy-back gas or nitrogen. The use of air in hydrocarbon
lines would not be acceptable because of the associated safety risk. Buy-back gas
is readily available and inexpensive whereas nitrogen is the opposite. A typical
2,000-gallon storage tank provides 150 MSCF of useable nitrogen. For a 30- mile
round trip pigging operation through 6- inch ID flowlines, approximately 8,580
MSCF of nitrogen would be required based on a pigging pressure of 2,000 psi.
This volume would be equivalent to approximately 57 tanks of nitrogen. The
logistics associated with procuring and operating this arrangement would prove
overwhelming. The alternative is to use a nitrogen generator. However, this
option is expensive to rent or purchase and represents significant equipment
spread. Therefore, nitrogen is deemed only suitable for short tieback distances
where volumetric requirements are not significant.
Pump Rating
The pressure rating of a pump for solids removal (i.e. wax) can simply be
calculated by combining separator pressure, fluid friction, wax friction and pig
H-0806.35
19-37
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
drive pressure. For the majority of configurations, no static head requires to be

considered since flowline is balanced.
Fluid friction can be estimated using Darcy-Weisbachs equation. The drive
pressure for the pig can be estimated from a rule of thumb method as used by
pig vendors. Refer to Figure 19-13. The wax friction component depends upon
many variables (thickness, volume, strength, consistency etc) and this makes
prediction extremely difficult. However, to take some account of the wax friction
component, a pressure drop of 25 to-50 percent of the calculated fluid friction is
proposed.
Pd = Pf + Pp + Pw+ Ps
where:
Pd = pump discharge pressure, psia
Pf = fluid friction pressure, psia
Pp = pig drive pressure, psia
Pw = wax friction pressure, psia
Ps = separator pressure, psia
H-0806.35
19-38
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 19-12: Typical DP Required to Drive Different Types of Pigs
H-0806.35
19-39
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The minimum flowrate capacity of the pump should be rated to ensure that the pig
travels at above 3 ft/s. If the pig is used in a cleaning application, then pig bypass
(refer to section 19.7.3) requires to be considered. For wax cleaning a bypass of 5
percent is proposed.
Qd = 1.05 x Vp x Af
where:
Qd = pump discharge flowrate, ft3 /s
Vp = pig velocity, ft/s
Af = flow area, ft2
Assuming the pump has an efficiency of 70 percent, the pumping power
requirements can be calculated as follows:
Wp = Qd x Pd x .262
where:
Wp = pump power, hp
= pump efficiency
To enable the possible remediation of a stuck pig or wax blockage through
pressurization, it would be prudent to consider rating the pigging pump to match
the maximum allowable operating pressure of the flowline.
Compressor Rating
The rating of a compressor for multi-phase flowlines is best determined from
transient modeling. The drive pressure and flow is mainly dependent on the
liquid holdup within the flowlines and back pressures that may exist for a
particular pig operating mode (i.e. driving against well production or separator).
As an alternative to transient modeling, a simple approach to approximating
compressor rating is outlined below. This approach considers a round trip
pigging configuration for wax removal, where the host is located in shallow water
H-0806.35
19-40
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
and the subsea facility (i.e. subsea manifold and trees) is located in deepwater.
Although well production may be used to return pig once it has traversed the
manifold pigging loop, it is considered prudent to size the compressor based upon
propelling the pig completely around the circuit. Production during this operation
is shut in and flowlines are set at separator pressure. Assuming production
involves wet gas, the flowlines will contain X barrels of liquid hold-up that
accumulates at the lowest point in the system (i.e. subsea manifold).
Approximate values for liquid holdup can be taken from steady state or transient
calculations.
Because of the gas, liquid, wax and pig drive pressure components, and the
configuration of the system, the compressor load will vary during the pigging
cycle. A typical pressure profile against round trip pigging distance is shown in
Figure 19-14.
The liquid friction component can be estimated using Darcy-Weisbachs equation.
The length component is equivalent to the length of line that the liquid hold-up
represents and the flowrate is equivalent to a pig speed of 3 ft/s. The gas friction
component can be estimated from general equations found in the Engineering
Data Book compiled by the Gas Processors Supplier Associatio n (GPSA). The
pig drive pressure can similarly be estimated as outlined previously. If wax is
present, it is proposed that the wax friction component be equivalent to 25-75
percent of the liquid friction component. Without calculating the total pressure
profile per pigging distance, a conservative approach to determining compressor
rating is proposed, that combines the maximum value of all components.
Pd = Pfl + Pfg + Psl + Pp + P w+ Ps
where:
Pd = compressor discharge pressure, psia
Pfl = liquid friction pressure, psia
Pfg = gas friction pressure, psia
Psl = static liquid pressure, psia
Pp = pig drive pressure, psia
Pw = wax friction pressure, psia
H-0806.35
19-41
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Ps = separator pressure, psia

The flowrate of the compressor should be rated to ensure that the pig travels
above 3 ft/s at rated discharge pressure.
Qd = Pd Ta Vp Af Za 0.0864
Pa Td Zd
where:
Qd = compressor discharge flowrate at standard conditions, mmscfd
Vp = pig velocity, ft/s
Af = flow area, ft2
Pd = compressor discharge pressure, psia
Pa = ambient standard pressure = 14.73 psia
Ta = ambient standard temperature = 520 R
Td = compressor discharge temperature, R
Za =compressibility factor at standard conditions
Zd =compressibility factor at discharge conditions
The power rating of the compressor can be determined from the following
formula.
Wc = 0.0857
[Z av ]
k 1
Q
T
k
d k
s
E k 1 P 1
s
Where:
Wc = Compressor brake horsepower, bhp
Q = Compressor flowrate, mmscf
Ts = Suction Temperature, R
Zd = Discharge Compressibility factor
H-0806.35
19-42
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
E = Efficiency
High-speed reciprocating units use 0.82
Low-speed reciprocating units use 0.85
Centrifugal units use 0.72
= Polytropic efficiency
k = Ratio of gas specific heats, Cp /Cv

Ps = Compressor suction pressure, psia
Pd = Compressor discharge pressure, psia
Zav = (Zs + Zd )/2
2000
1800
Typical Round Trip Pressure Profile (psi)
1600
1400
Pig Drive
1200
Liquid Friction
Gas Friction
1000
Wax Friction
Liquid Static
Separator
800
Total Pressure
600
400
200
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Typical Round Trip Pigging Distance (miles)
Figure 19-13: Typical Pressure Profile for Round Trip Pigging Multiphase
Flowlines
H-0806.35
19-43
1-Dec-00
19.7
DEEPSTAR
System Operating Requirements
19.7.1 Monitoring & Assessment

To assist in optimizing pigging frequency and assessing pig performance,
arrangements should be made to monitor the pipeline system before, during, and
after each pigging operation. As a minimum, the inlet and outlet pressures,
flowrates and temperatures should be measured and recorded.
If a supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) system is installed and
combined with a computer model of the pipeline, then the pigging operation can
be monitored and assessed on a real time basis. The system will continually
compare the readings from reliable pressure transducers, flowmeters, and
temperature sensors against those calculated by the computer model. Any
significant deviation from established limits between the measured and calculated
parameters would result in an alarm or warning signal. The operator would then
be in a position to implement remedial action to prevent a stuck pig or if a pig
should stick there would be enough data available to estimate the location of the
pig. The SCADA and computer model could also be used to assess the hydraulic
performance of the flowline before and after any pigging operation. This would
assist the operator in deciding whether or not changes were required to operating
procedures, chemical treatment program, pigging strategy etc.
In addition to monitoring the pigging operation, relevant information should be
collated to produce a comprehensive record of each pigging run. Typical
information that should be collated is as follows:
Launch and receive dates and times
Numbers and types of pigs launched and received
Drawings of the pigs with overall dimensions and seal/cup spacings
Line conditions during each pig run, including problems and unusual pressure
fluctuations
Conditions at the receiver after the pig run, such as the quantity and type of
debris, conditions of the pig, and resulting pressure drop
H-0806.35
Launcher and receiver trap dimensions and connections
19-44
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
A map and schematic of the pipeline showing its route along with key features
such as valves, bends, branch connections, and diameter changes
19.7.2 Speed Control

Pigs are most effective when running within an optimum speed range. For solids
and liquid removal this range is 3 to 7 ft/s. At speeds below 3 ft/s, the pig may run
in a series of start and stop motions, especially if gas driven. Also, at low speeds,
the turbulent effect ahead of the pig will diminish resulting in removed solids
falling from suspension. As the solids settle, they will accumulate in front of the
pig and eventually lead to line blockage.
At higher speeds, there will be greater wear of sealing and scraping elements. If
speed is too high, the pig will tend to ride over the deposits or if there is
substantial volumes of liquid present, hydroplaning may occur. When high
speeds are experienced in a gas-pig-gas arrangement, then frictional heating and
consequent breakdown of the polyurethane components is possible. Research has
shown that as speed increases, the differential pressure increases.
Speed control of pigs propelled by liquid is relatively straightforward since it is
directly proportional to the volumetric output of the separator or pump. For pigs
propelled by gas, speed control is more complicated since it is affected by several
variables (i.e. gas compressibility, line conditions, operating mode etc.).
For gas export lines, where pig speed is essentially determined by on-stream flow
conditions set by the separator or compressor, the speed if excessive, can be
reduced using pig by-pass. This involves creating a passage through the pig for
the gas propellant to flow. This method not only improves pig performance but
reduces the peak liquid slug rate that arrives ahead of the pig. This enables the
operator to use smaller and more economical separators or slug catchers. Field
tests performed on a 20- inch two-phase line, demonstrated that a 10% bypass
produced a reduction of 70 percent in liquid arrival rate. As well as slipping the
pig within the drive medium, by-pass also enhances cleaning performance. This
is discussed in the next section 19.7.3.
In multi-phase lines of reasonable liquid content, speed control under gas
propulsion may be achieved by regulating the delivery rate of the liquid column
ahead of the pig. This assumes that operating conditions permit the pig to
produce a homogeneous liquid column ahead of itself. If the multi-phase line is
H-0806.35
19-45
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
predominantly of the gas phase with minimum liquid hold-up, the operator could
still implement the latter speed control method by introducing a slug of liquid into
the flowline prior to the launch of the pig. Another method for controlling speed
under gas propulsion is to operate at higher pressures and maintain a reasonable
level of backpressure on the pig. If the pig should stick during operation, then
instead of packing the flowline and increasing the pressure via the compressor,
the backpressure could steadily be reduced to initiate controlled pig movement.
This procedure should help mitigate the high-speed pig excursions that are
normally associated with gas propulsion. Also, higher backpressures would be
advantageous when pigs are launched from deepwater hosts. The greater
backpressure would limit the differential across the pig and hence the speed
during transit down and up the steep risers.
19.7.3 Bypass
To improve the performance of cleaning pigs some form of pig bypass is
recommended. Bypass involves using the differential pressure across the pig to
create fluid flow from rear to the front of the pig. The stream of fluid that flows
through the pig not only washes the cleaning elements but creates a region of
turbulence ahead of the pig. This region of turbulence is conducive in maintaining
removed solids in suspension. If the removed solid is not held in suspension then
it can settle and accumulate as a plug in front of the pig. Bypass provides
lubrication and enables the pig to slip in the fluid drive stream so that the deposits
removed can float away in the faster flowing stream in front of the pig.
Mandrel cleaning pigs have the bypass designed such that flow enters the pig
from rear via ports, flows past the cleaning elements, and then exits the front via
other ports. For foam pigs and mandrel pigs without ports, bypass is between the
surface bearing area and the pipe wall.
The amount of bypass is specified as a percentage of actual bypass area to the
equivalent area of the flowline internal diameter. Pig vendors have recommended
a range of 3 to 5 percent. If bypass exceeds 5 percent then there is a risk the pig
may install, especially if gas propelled
19.7.4 Solids Handling
Providing removed solids remain in suspension in front of the pig, then the solids
when it arrives at the host should travel through the process equipment trouble
free. However, there may be occasion where the solids could compact within
H-0806.35
19-46
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
reduced bore sections (i.e. shell and tube line heaters). If this blockage is not
timely alleviated then it could possibly extend upstream beyond the host
shutdown valve, and therefore affect the operation of this valve and compromise
system safety.
To mitigate this condition, the contents of the pigged flowline could be diverted
into a dedicated test separator. This would leave the host separator (solids free) to
handle well production. The test separator would also provide the means of
directly assessing the type and quantity of solids being removed per pigging
operation. This would provide valuable information for optimizing the pigging
strategy. To minimize cost, the test separator should only be employed when there
is high uncertainty associated with the contents of the line (i.e. early or infrequent
pig runs, change of production conditions, etc.). Another possible method to
handle solids and avoid blockages would be to incorporate injection points for
introducing chemicals or compressed air at strategic locations on the host
receiving facility.
19.7.5 Operator Training and Manual
An essential part of successful pigging is the training of operator personnel.
Without the correct training, there is a high risk that inappropriate action may be
taken that not only compromises the pigging operation but system production and
the safety of personnel. Simple but detailed operating procedures that cover every
aspect of the pigging operation are required.
19.7.6 Tracking & Location
To ensure pigging operations are conducted in a safe and effective manner, some
method of tracking pig passage is required. In its simplest form, this comprises
mechanical indicators permanently installed on the launcher and receiver.
Verification that a pig has left the launcher or arrived at the receiver will enable
for the loading or removal operations to be safely performed.
When pigging lines for the first time or lines that have been pigged infrequently,
there is a high risk that pigs may become stuck. Therefore, pig tracking in these
situations becomes more critical, especially in deepwater lines, if the time and
expense associated with locating a stuck pig is to be minimized. More
sophisticated tracking methods other than mechanical indicators are required.
The following briefly outlines some of the offshore methods available:
H-0806.35
19-47
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Magnetic
This involves inserting a permanent magnet inside a stainless steel or
polyurethane pig. A sensor mounted on the flowline detects a change in magnetic
field as the pig traverses past. To track a pig the method relies on several sensors
to be located sub sea permanently or positioned temporarily by ROV. When the
sensor is activated it can be communicated to surface via an umbilical, strobe light
monitored by ROV or diver, or acoustic pinger/transponder on sensor. The
accuracy of pig location will depend upon the distance between monitoring
points. Either way, the practicalities and cost associated with deploying
numerous sensors will probably prove to be prohibitively high.
Petrobras use this method to detect the passage of pigs through the pigging loop.
A magnetic sensor mounted on the pigging loop transmits a signal to surface via
the subsea control pod.
Electromagnetic
The electromagnetic method is currently the most widely used in surface gas
pipelines. The pig is installed with an electromagnetic transmitter. The
transmitter when energized radiates an alternating field that penetrates the
flowline and surroundings and is detected by a receiver. Depending on the size of
the flowline, the transmitter may have to be mounted inside a foam pig and be
towed behind the cleaning pig. The same method of tracking the pig as outlined
above for the permanent magnet would apply.
Because of the electrical conductivity of the seawater, the signal is rapidly
attenuated. To detect the signal and precisely locate the pig, an ROV would have
to fly with a receiver and remain relatively close to the flowline. Based on
feedback from vendor, the approximate signal range is affected by the size, wall
thickness and medium within the line. Through simple tests the actual
transmission range can be determined.
BP Troika recently used the electromagnetic method successfully during the
recent repair of a leaking flowline. An electromagnetic transmitter was fitted
inside an extra long foam pig. The pig driven by seawater was used to displace
production from the leaking flowline. An ROV located at the subsea pigging loop
verified the pigs arrival followed by sending signal to stop driving the pig. Once
the line was repaired, the pig was returned by pumping dead crude from the
platform.
H-0806.35
19-48
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Radioactive
This method is similar to the electromagnetic method except that a radioactive
source is used to label the pig. The gamma radiation emitted through the pipe
wall can be used to track and detect the location of the pig. This type of method
requires special personnel trained in handling, transporting, and deploying the
radioactive source. Since this method suffers from significant signal attenuation
because of the seawater, it requires that the ROV remain in close proximity to the
flowline to locate the pigs exact position.
Acoustic Vibration
This system is designed to respond to low energy pulses on the pipe wall and to
amplify the signal to produce a usable audio or visual output. The acoustic
vibrational pulses are generated when the discs or cups of the moving pig make
contact with the weld beads on the flowline. The method is only suitable for gas
lines.
The method relies on the continuous tracking of the pig using several sensors.
Using information from acoustic detectors and correlating this against flowline
information (distance to valves, weld joints, bends, etc.), the distance that the pig
has traveled and its location can be estimated.
Acoustic
The method is based on emitting a low frequency acoustic signal. The signa l can
be transmitted from either a pinger or transponder incorporated into the cleaning
pig or a foam pig towed behind it. Both systems operate more effectively in a line
containing liquid rather than gas. Liquid is a better acoustic conductor than gas.
The pinger emits an acoustic signal at regular intervals and can be tracked by a
surface vessel with hydrophone and directional antenna. To locate a stuck pig,
the same surface vessel and method is used to determine general location,
followed by deploying an ROV equipped with a ping pointer for precise
location. Because the pinger is battery powered and therefore has a finite life,
tracking and locating operations must be performed in a timely manner.
The transponder system is a receiver-transmitter beacon that transmits an acoustic
pulse (reply) on a preset frequency only after receiving a recognized interrogation
pulse from a surface vessel. The transponder will only emit a reply when an
interrogation pulse from the surface vessel is received, thus conserving power and
H-0806.35
19-49
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
prolonging battery life. Typical battery life of mini-transponders is in the range of

30-60 days. By timing the arrival of the reply signal the slant range to the
transponder can be calculated. The accuracy of range is good and is usually
repeatable to within 2-3 ft. Hence a pigs exact position can readily be
determined.
Both pingers and transponders have been extensively used in the North Sea during
commissioning of standard (i.e. single wall) pipelines.
Radio
A pig transponder is being developed based on the principle of using extremely
low radio frequencies similar to submarine communication systems. The method
intends to increase the transmission range to 20-25 ft. This will make the location
of a stuck pig more feasible when relying on an ROV- mounted receiver.
Pressure and Flow Monitoring
This method has been discussed in Section 19.7.1 (Monitoring & Assessment)
and involves monitoring and recording flowline pressure variations and
volumetric rates during a pig run and correlating this information against the time
of the run to determine an approximate location for the pig. Using a supervisory
control and data acquisition (SCADA) system combined with a computer model
of the line, the pigging operation could be monitored on a real time basis.
Although this method is not envisaged as an accurate means of tracking and
locating pigs, it would assist and complement the other direct methods.
Table 19.5 attempts to summarize in general, the applicability of each of the
tracking and location methods for typical deepwater pipeline configurations, by
considering their relevant strengths and weaknesses as well as practical
experience.
H-0806.35
19-50
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Table 19-5: General Applicability of Tracking & Location Methods

Deepwater Pipeline Configuration
Tracking & Locating Method
Single Wall
Pipe-in-Pipe
Gas
Liquid
Multi-Phase
Gas
Liquid
Multi-Phase
**
**
**
**
**
**
****
**
****
Radioactive
**
Acoustic Vibration
***
****
**
Radio
**
**
Pressure & Flow
**
**
**
**
Magnetic
Electromagnetic
Acoustic (Pinger/Transponder)
Key Very Good ****, Good ***, Fair **, Poor *
In addition to verifying the launch and receipt of pigs and their location if they
become stuck, pig tracking provides the operator with other benefits as described
below:
Speed Assessment - Accurate cognizance of a pigs speed will enable the

operator to vary volumetric input or output until the optimum speed is
achieved.
Valve Operation Positive indication of pig location is required prior to

operating system valves (i.e. pigging loop isolation, diverter etc.).
Arrival Time Accurate knowledge of pig arrival time enables receiving

operations to be optimized. This is particularly important when receiving a
train of pigs, where knowledge of the pig arrival times will determine the
nature of the removal and disposal operations.
19.7.7 Stuck Pig

In the event a pig (does not incorporate locating signal) becomes stuck because it
has encountered an impassable obstruction (partially opened valve, wax plug etc.)
or loses its seal, then the operator should proceed with caution by following preestablished procedures. The procedures should identify the actions to be
performed to correct the situation and prevent any additional problems from
occurring. The basis for the procedures is sequentially described below.
H-0806.35
19-51
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Verify that the pig has left the launcher. Isolate and depressurize the launcher
before performing visual inspection.
If verified as being in the pipeline, check that all pigging path valves are in the
open position. Partially closed valves can stick or damage pigs.
Examine the pig pressure chart or SCADA system for clues where the pig
may have stopped.
A sudden rise in pressure could attribute to the pig
becoming stuck. The time of this occurrence can be compared against the pig
launch time and flowrates to determine approximate position. Because of
possible pig by-pass and slippage this could produce large discrepancies.
If return flow is evident the n this suggests that the pig seals could be
damaged. Increase flow rate in the attempt that the higher momentum will
recover the pig. If this fails, consider launching a foam pig or gel train to
effect a seal behind the pig.
In the event the foam pig or gel train are
unsuccessful they should be capable of being dissolved.
If return flow is not evident then this suggests that the pigs seals are still
intact. Increase or rapidly vary the drive pressure to overcome the retaining
force. If this is unsuccessful, then pressure can be reversed providing the
stuck pig had bi-directional sealing capability.
If the above methods fail to locate or recover the stuck pig, then a second pig
complete with tracking device should be run. In this situation the use of the
shunting pig (described previously in section 19.5.6) should be considered
over running a pig that is identical or similar to the one that is stuck. When
the stuck pig can still not be fully recovered, then it is imperative that all
attempts be made to push the stuck pig into a section of line that is in
shallower water. This will significantly reduce the time and cost if the line is
to be cut and repaired.
19.8
References
1. Azevodo, L.F.A, Braga, A.M.B., Naccache, M.F. and Gomes, M.G.F.M.,
Petrobras S.A. (1996), Simple Hydrodynamic Models of the Prediction of Pig
H-0806.35
19-52
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Motions in Pipelines, (OTC 8232).

Houston, (May).
Offshore Technology Conference,
2. Cordell, J. L., Mainline Management Services (1986), Design of Pigs for

Subsea Systems. Pipes and Pipelines International, (Sept).
3. Cordell, J. and Vanzant, H. (1977), All About Pigging.
4. Formigli, J., SPE and Porciuncula, S. Petrosbras (1997), Campos Basin: 20
Years of Subsea and Marine Hardware Evolution, (OTC 8489). Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, (May).
5. Gomes, M.G.F.M.; Pereira; F. B.; Lino, and A. C. F.; Petrobras S. A. (1996),
Solutions and Procedures to Assure Flow in Deepwater Conditions (OTC
8229), Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas (May).
6. Kozel, A., H. O. Mohr Research and Engineering (1996), Subsea Pigging
Considerations. Pipes and Pipelines International, Houston, Texas (Feb).
7. Lima, P.C.R. and Alves, S. J., Petrobras S.A. (1995). Application of Low
Density Foam Pigs Offshore Brazil, (OTC 007864), Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas (May).
8. Lino, A. C. F.; Mastrangelo, C.; Pereira; F. B.; Gomes, M.G.F.M., Petrobras
S.A. (1997), The Engineering Pigging Equipment for Subsea Systems in
Campos Basin, (OTC 8540). Offshore Technology Conference, Houston,
Texas (May).
9. Lochte, G. E. and Konzel, A., H. O. Mohr Research and Engineering, (1995),
How Pigging Operations Impact Deepwater Production Economics. Offshore
Magazine, 58:4 (May).
10. Marshall, G. R. (1988), Cleaning of the Valhall Offshore Oil Pipeline, (OTC
5743). Offshore Technology Conference, Houston (May).
11. McNulty, J. G. and Short, G. C. (1992), Predicting the Performance of
Conventional Pigs. Pipeline Pigging and Inspection Technology Conference,
Houston (Feb).
12. ODonoghue, A., Caltec Ltd, UK (1993), Characteristics and Performance of
Conventional Cleaning Pigs. Pipes and Pipelines International, (Sept-Oct).
13. Pipes and Pipeline International (1995). An Introduction to Pipeline Pigging.
14. Schaefer, E. F., (1991), Pigging of Subsea Pipelines, (OTC 6769). Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston (May).
H-0806.35
19-53
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
15. Slater, J. Petrocorp Exploration Ltd. (New Zealand), (1990), Handling New
Zealand Waxy Crude Oil, (OSEA 90138). Offshore Southeast Asia
Conference, Singapore (Dec).
16. Smith, G. L., Knapp Polly Pig Inc., (1996), Pigging Velocities and The
Variable-Speed Pig. Pipes and Pipelines International, Houston, Texas (Feb).
17. Stewart, M and Arnold, K. (1993), Surface Production Operations Volume
2, Design of Gas-Handling Systems and Facilities.
18. Tiratsoo, J. N. H. (1992), Pipeline Pigging Technology.
H-0806.35
19-54
1-Dec-00
20.0
OTHER OPERATIONS
20.1
Flow Monitoring
DEEPSTAR
This section of the guideline will first describe the requirements for instrumentation of
multiphase flowlines. The context of this is of data acquisition above and beyond the
normal measurements of pressures, temperatures, and single phase flow rates after
gas/oil/water separation.
In the later half of this section brief descriptions of available techniques are given. Some
are non- intrusive, and may be fitted temporarily to systems. Other measurement
techniques will require a spoolpiece or tapping in the line.
For monitoring of phase flow rates in multiphase flow, please refer to Section 20.2.
20.1.1 Instrumentation Requirements
Flow Regime Identification
The original requirement for flow regime identification in oilfield multiphase flowlines
arose from the R&D activities set up to develop and verify flow regime prediction
techniques. The design of processing facilities is affected by flow regime, in that slug
flow may cause unacceptable gas and liquid flowrate variations in the plant. Therefore,
reliable prediction of flow regime over a wide range of gas and liquid flow rates,
pressures, temperatures, fluid compositions, and line topographies are very important.
Refer to Section 20.3.2 for information on the different measurement techniques
available for this activity.
Line Holdup Estimation
The next step beyond identification of flow regime is to be able to determine the hold-up
of liquid in the pipeline. This is required in the assessment of pigged liquid volumes, and
in the prediction of slug volumes generated by flowrate or topography changes. Some
pressure loss prediction methods also rely on predictions of liquid holdup.
As with flow regime identification this activity is largely R&D based, to verify holdup
prediction methods for future design requirements, rather than for a current or future
oilfield operation. For this activity the techniques described in Section 20.3.2 may be
appropriate.
H-0806.35
20-1
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Slug Flow Characterization

This activity has two main areas: The provision of data and subsequent verification of
slug flow design methods and the provision of information for feed-forward control of
slug reception facilities (slug catchers, separators).
Slug Flow Design Methods
The instrumentation requirements are threefold: To measure the frequency of slugging,
the velocity of slugs, and the phase volumes (gas, oil, and water) contained within the
slugs and subsequently delivered to the process. Data acquired is used to validate the
predictive tools for these parameters.
For the development of slug flow design techniques it has been important to gather data
over a wide variety of conditions of gas and liquid flowrate, line diameter and
topography, and fluid properties. Continuing data acquisition on lines with new
combinations of conditions will be carried out as appropriate.
A pair of measurement positions is required for the determination of slug velocity.
Techniques suitable for slug flow characterization are described in Sections 20.3.2.
Feed-Forward Slug Flow Control
The requirements for this application are twofold: To measure the velocity of slugs and to
determine phase volumes contained within the slugs. This allows determination of the
arrival time of slugs into the reception facilities, the liquid inflow rate value to an
assessment of the likely effect of the slug on oil and water levels, and of the effect of any
gas surge following the slug on the gas plant.
Location of the measurement position has to be carefully selected in order to give
sufficient time for any feed forward activity (e.g. increasing pump-out rates) to take
place. The biggest benefit will be obtained from such feed forward control in systems
where the slug frequency is quite low, where a slug arrival will cause a significant change
in separator vessel conditions. This will be the case in larger diameter lines, and lines
operating close to the slug-stratified boundary.
H-0806.35
20-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Reservoir Management
Knowledge of the volumes of fluids produced from different wells in a field is generally
required in order to be able to manage depletion of the reservoir. Water breakthrough
needs to be identified, as does gas coning. The current industry standard is to flow wells
one at a time to a test separator via a dedicated test line. The flowrates of gas, oil, and
water are measured after separation. Wells are tested typically once a month. Desired
accuracy is of the order of +/-5 to 10 percent on each phase (though 10 to 15 percent is
more typical).
In an increasing number of satellite tiebacks to existing installations, the requirement to
have a local test separator, or a second pipeline back to a test separator at the host
facilities, can add an appreciable cost to the basic development. Using a multiphase
metering system that is more compact and cheaper than the test separator system could
reduce the cost of metering for reservoir management. Details of possible systems are
contained in Section 20.2, Multiphase Meter Systems.
Production Allocation
In some developments with multiple fields the cost of installation of separate processing
trains for each field may be prohibitively expensive. Subject to the agreement of all
partners and regulatory authorities, it may be acceptable to allocate production back to
the individual fields (to determine royalties and taxes) using methods that do not require
full processing trains with fiscal metering.
In some cases a remote test separator will be used with adjustments made to ensure that
the sum of well allocations from all contributing fields equals the fiscally metered export
rates from the central processing facility.
In other cases a further cost saving may be obtained by using multiphase metering
systems either remotely or just upstream of where the production from one field is comingled with that from other fields (e.g. under consideration for ETAP). The multiphase
metering methods currently available for this activity are described in Section 20.2,
Multiphase Meter Systems.
H-0806.35
20-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Fiscal Measurement
A further, even more difficult requirement is to measure the phase flowrates in a pipeline
sufficiently accurately to allow for custody transfer to the same level of accuracy as
current single phase standards.
As yet no multiphase measurement technique or product is sufficiently accurate to
achieve this to single phase flow standards. Such accuracy requirements can be less than
+/-1 percent.
In parallel to developments aimed at improving the accuracy of multiphase metering
systems will be negotiations as to what is an acceptable accuracy for partners and
governments associated with an oilfield development. These two aspects (technology
advancement and relaxation of accuracy) will probably both have to progress for fiscal
metering of multiphase flow to become a reality. Some precedent is already found on the
North Slope of Alaska, where small fields have their production allocated on the basis of
well tests.
20.1.2 Techniques Available
Pressure
The analysis of a pressure measurement made by a relatively fast pressure transducer
may yield some information. Differential pressure across two transducers has even more
value.
It is possible to obtain an indication of flow regime from a pressure measurement.
Simple observation shows the passage of slugs past a measurement location as a
significant and potentially prolonged rise in pressure. Pattern recognition can be used to
analyze the signal further to differentiate between stratified smooth, stratified wavy and
annular flow. Such an analysis may be supplemented by flowrate or pressure loss
information, which will significantly reduce the uncertainty in the deduction. However,
it is not possible to get information on liquid content in a cross-section from pressure
only.
H-0806.35
20-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 20.1-1: Pressure Fluctuations in Forties Echo-Alpha Flowline .

Some extension of the use of pressure measurement for flow metering has been proposed.
The variation of pressure drop across a choke can give an indication of flowrate changes.
This information can be used during the periods between well tests to give approximate
flowrates for choke settings different from those under which well tests were conducted.
Pressure loss down a long length of flowline also gives an indication of flowrate.
Also, some development of neural network systems to analyze data and train a
computer to interpret pressure signals as a flowrate measurement has gone through
preliminary stages. The ability to make calibration (training) runs is required here.
Acoustic Monitoring
There are two basics approaches to acoustic monitoring, passive and active. In a passive
system the measurement device listens to the noise generated by the flow. An active
system puts sound energy into the fluid; the sound is then picked up at a receiver after
passage into or through the fluid.
Passive Systems
Stemming from the requirements to have more easily portable and non-radiation based
techniques; the idea of listening to the flow was pursued. The result is a hardware and
software package that has been used successfully for flow regime identification and slug
flow characterization in a number of fields. Transducers pick up flow generated noise
around the 70 kHz frequency. After filtering the signals can be analyzed to give wave
and slug frequencies, velocities, and slug lengths.
H-0806.35
20-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 20.1-2: Actual Flow Regime vs. Passive Monitoring System

Active Systems
These have been used for two different aims, flowrate measurement and gas fraction
determination. Doppler frequency shift techniques are used for single-phase liquid
flowrate measurement. The principle has been tried in multiphase flow but with little
success because the gas/liquid interfaces break up the acoustic signal. However, by
directing an acoustic signal into the flow and measuring how much of the signal is
scattered back, an estimate of gas fraction can be made (after calibration).
Gamma Ray Densitometry
This is the most widely used instrumentation technique for studying multiphase flow
characteristics. The principle is to direct a beam of gamma rays from a sealed source
(usually Cesium 137, although some dual energy systems have also been tried e.g.
Cesium and Americium) across a pipe and to measure the intensity of radiation
transmitted through the pipe wall, any insulation, and the fluids within the pipe. The
absorption by the pipe wall and insulation can be calibrated out to give as output a
measurement of the density of the fluids within the pipe.
The technique will give a plot of density vs. time at the measurement location. From a
trace taken from a gauge mounted with the gamma beam vertically through the pipe, the
flow regime can be identified as slug, bubble, stratified smooth or wavy/annular. To
resolve between annular and stratified wavy the gauge is then turned through 90 to
H-0806.35
20-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
transmit through the pipe horizontally. The existence of liquid at the mid pipe location
will define whether the flow is wavy or annular.
Setting two gauges on the pipe separated by a distance allows cross-correlation of the
signals to determine the velocity of the slugs and waves between the measurement
locations. Coupled with the measured time taken for a slug to pass a gauge will yield a
slug length.
Figure 20.1-3: 0-15 Minute Period and Slug Flow, 15-30 Minute Period and Wavy Flow.
X-ray
The expense and size of X-ray systems has prevented their widespread use in the oilfield
environment. However, there have been isolated tests in which an X-ray system has been
used to identify flow pattern. Real-time displays are possible of the fluids in a pipe.
The principle of operation is the same as the gamma ray densitometer in that the fluids in
the pipe (gas, oil, and water) absorb X-rays to different degrees. By directing an X-ray
beam across the pipe and mounting a detector on the opposite side of the pipe to the
source, it is possible to see the flow behavior in the pipe.
H-0806.35
20-7
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Neutron Back Scatter

This technique depends on the concentration of hydrogen in the vicinity of the probe. A
source is used to send neutrons into the process pipe/vessel. The intensity of emitted
gamma rays from the interaction between neutron and proton in the hydrogen gives the
hydrogen concentration, which in turn indicates the presence of gas or liquid. This
technique can give an indication of flow regime and also of liquid film depth in a pipe.
Capacitance/Gamma
The principle behind this technique is the determination of dielectric constant between
electrodes by measuring capacitance, coupled with a gamma ray transmission
measurement to determine density. The measurement of capacitance requires great care
in shielding and design of the electronics. The make up of the overall dielectric constant
is determined by modeling the contributions of gas, oil, and water in the three-phase
flow.
The output should give a fast response indication of the gas/oil/water phase fractions in
the cross section of a pipe. This will allow flow regime determination and slug flow
characterization if two devices are used with a suitable distance between measurement
sites. Further details may be seen in Section 20.2, Multiphase Meter Systems.
Microwave Absorption
The principle behind this technique is also the determination of dielectric constant
between electrodes, this time by measuring microwave absorption.
A gamma ray
transmission measurement to determine density is generally included. The measurement
of microwave absorption requires great care in design of the intrusive probes. To resolve
the individual phase fractions, the measured dielectric constant is compared with the
value predicted from modeling the contributions of gas, oil, and water in the three-phase
flow. The calculation is iterated around the phase fractions until the calculation matches
the measured data.
The output should give a fast response indication of the gas/oil/water phase fractions in
the cross-section of a pipe. This will allow flow regime determination and also of slug
flow characteristics if two devices are used with a suitable distance between measurement
sites. Further details may be seen in Section 20.2, Multiphase Meter Systems.
H-0806.35
20-8
1-Dec-00
20.2
DEEPSTAR
Multiphase Metering Systems
20.2.1 Introduction
In general, oil industry effort to develop multiphase flow metering techniques has been in
progress since the mid 1980s with one or two exceptions, such as various approaches by
Texaco, which commenced a few years earlier. As a result of this industry-wide effort,
key physical measurement techniques investigated are now emerging as commercially
available field test hardware.
By comparison, relatively little attention has been paid to the problem of calibrating
multiphase flow meters. Some of the development projects have resulted in the
construction of oil/water/gas flow loop facilities for test purposes but little thought seems
to have been given to the problem of calibration of multiphase flow meters for field
service.
This section of the MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE presents a review of
multiphase metering systems. This encompasses what are believed to be the most
advanced and soundly based technologies, though some discrepancies may exist due to
old information and evolving technology. The review is structured to give a background
perspective to the preceding statements concerning calibration. This section also includes
information on current capabilities and costs as well as describing the different
measurement concepts.
The following section of the manual, Section 20.3, concerns calibration philosophy of
multiphase flow meters. The purpose of this is to highlight the key aspects and challenges
faced in establishing a calibration methodology for multiphase flow meters. Thoughts on
the problem are presented with reference to calibration for single-phase flow.
20.2.2 Multiphase Meter Development Review
Standard terms are used in quoting accuracy or error percentages. Specifically, relative
error means error or deviation expressed as a percentage of actual flow rate. Absolute
error refers to an error or deviation expressed as a percentage of full scale.
All of the metering approaches described below is targeted with accuracy for well test
duty and the possibility of allocation of production between wells. The high accuracy
levels associated with custody transfer and the term fiscal metering in single phase
flow metering have not been addressed. On the basis of research and development
experience to date, this level of accuracy is not likely to be realized by multiphase
metering techniques in the foreseeable future.
H-0806.35
20-9
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
BP-Patented Positive Displacement Screw Meter

Being licensed to ISA Controls Ltd. in 1994, this flow meter is believed to be the most
advanced in terms of flow loop and field test experience. Two prototypes built to ANSI
class 1500 pressure rating and to NACE specifications in 1987 have been used for the test
program. A full range of flow conditions (of up to 95 percent gas void fraction (GVF)
during trials at Prudhoe Bay) has been covered and several thousand run- hours
experience gained. The meter measures total volumetric and total mass throughput of the
multiphase fluid stream and uses a water cut reading by some other means to measure the
flow rates of oil water and gas.
Cost to supply a BP flow meter can only be estimated at present but is expected to be of
order $150,000 for worst case service specifications. Cost of a complete ISA multiphase
measurement skid will be application dependent (i.e. land or subsea packaging, number
of meters to give turn-down, additional instrumentation required - see below). The two
field prototypes were designed for a nominal pipe size of 3- inch or 4- inch and are
approximately one meter in length and three quarters of a ton in weight. The opportunity
to build the first commercial meter will permit the incorporation of many design
improvements realized through the course of the prototype testing since 1987. This could
have significant implications for manufacture, ease of maintenance, size and cost.
Some limited study has been conducted addressing the costs of packaging and installing a
multiphase metering system for subsea duty using the BP positive displacement meter.
The costs are highly dependent on the application but demonstrate how the cost of the
multiphase metering system is not necessarily the only significant contributor to the
overall costs associated with its implementation. Further development is required in
order to package the sensors and signal processing and data transmission for remote
service subsea, but this is not expected to be a problem.
The BP meter requires an additional device to supply a reading of water cut in order to
yield the flow rates of oil, water, and gas. Currently, any one of three to four
composition measurement techniques under development could give the water cut
measurement. The test work to date indicates that these techniques can measure water
cut by dynamically tracking the phase fractions in the pipe cross section.
The test work has shown that the total volume positive displacement measurement can
achieve the target of +/-5 percent of reading (relative error). Currently, the corresponding
turndown varies from a minimum of 5:1 to 15:1, dependent on flow regime behavior.
H-0806.35
20-10
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The K-factor curve to enable this in multiphase flow can be determined on the basis of a
calibration in a single-phase water flow loop.
The flow driven elements of the screw meter generate a pressure drop that depends on
flow rate, gas volume fraction, and flow regime. For high liquid loading, pressure drops
of up to 2.2 bar (32 psi) have been observed during tests when the meter has been run at
the top of its range.
The meter incorporates a commercially available gamma densitometer to measure
mixture density. This may be factory calibrated on fluids of known density (such as air
and tap water). A densitometer of this type has been in use subsea, in order to monitor
multiphase flow behavior at the foot of the Forties Echo-Alpha 12-inch riser, since May
1988. This densitometer has required no subsequent intervention and is still functioning.
The principle behind the screw meter concept is that the positive displacement elements
constrain the phases to move at a single velocity. The densitometer beam passes through
a cavity between the screws mid-way along the meter axis. In principle, if slip between
the phases were fully eliminated between the screws, the densitometer reading would
equate to the true mixture density relating to the overall proportions of oil, water, and gas
flowing in the pipeline. Coupled with the water cut reading from a second instrument,
the mixture density and total swept volume readings can then be used to solve out the
flow rates of oil, water and gas at line conditions. (This assumes that the individual phase
densities are known as a function of pressure and temperature, which are also measured
at the multiphase metering section).
All the test data to date have shown a tendency for the mixture density (or total mass flow
measurement of the stream) to exhibit a bias error which is a function of gas void
fraction, GVF. Above 40 percent GVF, this bias depends on the installation site i.e. it is
specific to the site. Currently, in order to achieve relative errors in actual flow rate of
each phase of 5 to 10 percent, this bias in mixture density or total mass flow rate must be
calibrated out by reference to a measurement of total mass throughput at the site
installation. This is not a regular calibration requirement but would be necessary initially
and subsequently following any change of operations that significantly influenced the
nature (GVF) of the flow stream. Future development and design improvements are
expected to reduce this requirement for a site calibration on total mass.
Test data to date indicate that relative error uncertainty increases with GVF. With the
bias correction, the scatter of relative error in phase flow rate increases from 5 to 10
H-0806.35
20-11
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
percent at a maximum GVF of 95 percent. If the mixture density or mass bias error is not
site calibrated then the meter exhibits a general uncertainty in total mass flow rate
increasing with GVF to +/-15 percent at 80 percent GVF. Without a total mass bias
correction, the phase flow rate measurement errors can become large at high gas void
fractions. The meter has not been field tested at the highest GVFs above 95 percent.
Further experience would be required to confirm the GVF range of the meter at the
highest levels.
The above uncertainty levels relate to relative errors in total flow rate and individual
phase flow rates. They have been determined on the basis of the scatter of measurement
errors observed from all the test data (different sites and wells). It is possible that site
specific calibration on total mass flow rate on an individual well basis could exhibit a
superior repeatability, thus reducing the uncertainty from the above levels.
The bias error in mixture density is believed (on the basis of analysis of all the test data)
to be attributable to flow pattern regime effects between the screws which do not fully
homogenize the flow and eliminate slip in the idealized manner. Further design
modifications could be investigated to address this, which might eliminate the current
need for a site-specific calibration.
The BP meter based system, including any of the separate devices being developed which
will measure water cut, essentially, can be factory calibrated using single phase fluids in
relatively straightforward factory test cells.
Framo Multiphase Metering System
The Framo system comprises a mixer or flow conditioner which can be designed to mix
slugs and gas pockets and produce a steady exit stream from intermittent regimes (phases
segregated axially along the pipe can be mixed). The flow conditioner vessel is compact
relative to a separator and its functioning is entirely passive (no moving parts, valves, or
level controls).
Total flow
A venturi is being tested, however information indicates questionable accuracy. It is
currently unclear to what extent this is attributable to the challenge of measuring pressure
differential accurately over a wide turndown (the measurement data are particularly
erroneous at high gas fraction). It may also be that, in spite of the mixing of the flow
stream, localized phase slip effects still persist through the measurement section.
H-0806.35
20-12
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Phase fractions
Dual energy gamma ray attenuation measurements are used to determine the ratios of oil,
water and gas. As for the total flow measurement, accuracy is currently subject to an
unacceptable degree of uncertainty. Again, the extent to which phase slip is responsible
is unknown. Certainly, the current basic dual energy gamma ray detection system is
subject to fundamental limitations. However, new techno logy and steps within the JIP to
improve the system could yet move the system forward.
The most recent test results show relative measurement errors in phase flow rates and
total flow of 20 to 30 percent.
The mixing unit could ultimately be used with other measurement devices. Dielectric
composition measurement techniques being developed elsewhere might do better than the
dual energy gamma system. It is possible that the mixer could assist cross-correlation
velocity methods to achieve a degree of consistent and reproducible measurement.
The current JIP is developing this multiphase metering package as an offshore module.
Framo Engineerings expertise lies principally in this area. The cost to supply a Framo
mixer based system, either as an offshore package or in terms of the off- shelf elements of
the multiphase metering system, is unknown. The field prototype designed for a nominal
3-inch or 4- inch line, is in a barrel approximately 4 m long by 0.5 m diameter. Its
component parts, engineering and manufacture resulted in a total cost of approximately
$900,000. Total weight is 2.5 tons. This unit is built for topsides use only, but some of
the key subsea design of component parts (such as subsea housing of sensors and
electronics processing and data trans mission, barrier fluid system, electric coupler etc.)
have been accommodated in the prototype.
The complete prototype system has exhibited pressure drops reaching 2.6 bar during the
flow loop test program. This was realized at flow rates comparable to the top of the range
of the prototype BP multiphase flow meter.
Calibration of the Framo system would rest with the type of measurement used. For the
venturi meter, it is primarily a matter of subjecting the pressure sensors to accurately
known fluid pressure. This does assume that a universal or repeatable and predictable
venturi discharge coefficient can be established for well mixed multiphase flow.
The dual energy gamma system requires calibration on fluids of known density and
attenuation coefficient. Once installed, some checking should be possible using a barrier
H-0806.35
20-13
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
fluid (pumped via umbilical) system which Framo have incorporated into the test
prototype design for various functions such as sealing and pressure leg flushing.
However, variations in phase properties, such as water salinity or attenuation coefficients
of the phases with any change in phase composition, would result in the need for some
means of re-calibration in-situ. This could result in a need to take fluid samples unless
some means of separating and isolating individual phases in the measurement section can
be developed.
The question then remains as to how calibration will change with any service degradation
of, for example, the critical venturi throat and gamma beam path cross-stream
dimensions. Here, as for the BP meter, the desirability for regular re-calibration, possibly
inline using some means of proving, must be addressed.
A further question arises as to whether the Framo mixer can be designed in any
application to accommodate the full range of flow regimes, flow rates and phase fractions
expected over the life of the well pad. (The same question applies to the venturi). Framo
have developed a design basis for the mixer. For example, it can be sized and
dimensioned to suit a certain range of slug and bubble lengths. Framo claim, but have yet
to prove, that it can be designed to cover the full range of regimes including annular.
Whilst this may in principle be correct, it remains to be seen in practice whether
universality can be achieved without excessive bulk and multistage configuration of the
mixer.
CMR (Christian Michelsen Research)/Fluenta Capacitance Cell
This full-bore non-intrusive phase fraction sensor has been developed alongside the BP
multiphase flow meter. It measures in-situ phase fractions within a pipe cross-section
where the phases are uniformly distributed. The test program for gas void fractions
(GVFs) of up to 50 percent has demonstrated absolute errors of +/- 2 percent phase
fraction.
The existing cell will operate on oil-continuous liquid phase only. Water continuous
liquid (or a water film around the sensor lining wall) results in a short circuit and
meaningless reading. CMR (formerly CMI) are developing an additional sensor for the
system which uses an inductance principle to measure phase fractions with watercontinuous emulsions. Both types of sensor rely on a simultaneous gamma ray
attenuation measurement of cross-section mixture density in order to resolve the three
phase fractions.
H-0806.35
20-14
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The water cut may be derived from the phase fraction measurements. A class 1500
version of this device was tested downstream of the BP multiphase meter at Prudhoe Bay
in 1992. These tests indicated that, by dynamically tracking the varying cross-sectional
phase fractions in the multiphase stream, the cell could give accurate readings of water
cut (within 1 percent absolute) for GVFs close to 90 percent. The limitation on achieving
this in all cases was imposed by annular flowing well streams and flows where slugs of
significant duration and liquid hold-up (instantaneous GVF well below the stream overall
average level) were not in evidence.
Calibration of the phase fraction cell for the field trial was completed at the CMR
laboratory. Samples of dead crude and formation water were shipped from Prudhoe Bay
to enable calibration in a laboratory dielectric measurement cell. This is used to
pressurize the sample oil and force into solution methane gas under varying pressures.
As well as requiring as input constants the dielectric properties of the individual
production fluid phases, the CMR/Fluenta system also relies on knowledge of the
densities of the phases as a function of line pressure and temperature.
CMR and Fluenta have adapted the capacitance sensing section into a multi-electrode
axial array in order to yield velocity measurements by cross-correlation processing of the
electrode signals. The continuing project is now attempting the measurement of dual
velocities by using combinations of different length electrodes in order to make some
allowance for slip between the gas and liquid phases. All the drawbacks highlighted in
the earlier comments, concerning the uncertainties associated with cross-correlation flow
velocity measurement, apply. An accuracy figure for phase flow rates measured using
the combined phase fraction and cross-correlation measurements cannot, at present, be
quoted with any meaning.
The 1992 test program, including the BP field trial and quite separate test programs by
two other operators, exposed a hitherto not experienced fundamental flaw with the use of
the ceramic insulating liner material (development of a ceramic liner was pushed hard by
CMR during earlier development of the cell and was a significant part of it). It has been
discovered that the ceramic has a surface affinity to water under certain flowing
conditions, which results in a completely erroneous sensor response signal. Fluenta is
investigating alternative liner materials. Further extended field testing will be required to
establish the suitability of any new candidate insulating materials.
H-0806.35
20-15
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Typically, Fluenta has quoted on the order of $300,000 for one of their multiphase
metering systems in the past. The sensor is a compact spool, approximately 0.5 m in
length and weighing one ton in the case of the cell tested at Prudhoe Bay.
Roxar (formerly MFI) Microwave System
A competitor of the CMR/Fluenta system, this microwave instrument also measures
mixture dielectric constant and gamma ray attenuation (mixture density) to resolve the insitu cross-sectional phase fractions of oil, water and gas.
In one configuration, the instruments microwave transmission and sensing section
(which measures the phase shift of the microwave energy caused by the multiphase
mixture, related to the phase proportions) functions in water continuous as well as oil
continuous emulsions. This version of the Roxar instrument, known as the full range
meter is still undergoing laboratory level development of a field prototype.
A lower price version (so called LP versio n, not to be confused with low pressure) lent
itself to faster track development and was offshore on Statoils Gullfaks B platform in
late 1992. This configuration of the microwave sensing spool permits measurement with
oil continuous emulsions only, but is more sensitive (and expected, therefore, to be more
accurate) than the full range variant.
Roxar quotes the low price oil-continuous instrument at an estimated price of $200,000.
This includes a twin sensor arrangement which permits a single velocity measurement by
cross-correlation. A price for the more expensive full range device has not yet been
quoted.
The sensors are intrusive, using antennae probes that protrude into the flow. The LP
sensor comprises a resonant cavity, bounded by a grid of metal strips across the flow
stream at each end of the sensing spool section.
The sensor spools of the prototypes built to date are 3- inch bore. The two parts of the
meter incorporating cross-correlation measurement of velocity result in a measurement
spool approximately 1 m in length. One flow composition measurement spool accounts
for half this length. A further spool housing pressure and temperature transmitters is
necessary (this also applies to the Fluenta/CMR system).
The Gullfaks B trials of the LP meter have resulted in only a few tens of hours exposure
to production fluids so far. The phase fraction data agreed well with test separator
H-0806.35
20-16
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
measurements for the limited number of test cases. The GVF at the Gullfaks B test site is
below 40 percent and the evidence suggests that the multiphase stream is well mixed and
steady in nature.
Thus, these tests represent the easy end of the multiphase spectrum. Phase fraction
results were within the +/-2 percent absolute errors seen in laboratory flow loop tests.
The few cross-correlation measurement data, in terms of both mixture velocity and phase
flow rates, were more erratic. Relative errors of +/-10 to 20 percent were reported.
The steady and relatively uniform nature of the low GVF multiphase stream of these field
trials should have provided a flow structure and velocity profile of minimal complexity
and least removed from that of the flow loop testing by Roxar. This should have favored
the cross-correlation technique. However, such a flow stream also exhibits relatively
weak perturbations in mixture dielectric properties on which to cross-correlate. This
would tend to give a broad and relatively ill-defined correlation peak from which to
deduce time of flight (to calculate velocity).
As for the CMR/Fluenta cell, calibration of the Roxar phase fraction system, in principle,
should rely primarily on factory or laboratory set-up prior to installation. Both systems
use commercially available Cs137 gamma ray densitometers, as used for the BP
multiphase meter, which can be calibrated on fluids such as air and tap water. The
microwave unit requires data including density of the dead crude, produced water density
and conductivity. The Roxar system then relies on application specific prediction
equations of the variation of these quantities and gas density as a function of line pressure
and temperature.
Roxar can configure their flow composition software to derive the flow stream as a split
of total mass proportion of hydrocarbons and water, as opposed to volume fractions of
oil, water and gas. These output readings are far less sensitive to uncertainties in the
individual phase densities than the outputs of the phase fractions.
This split of output data would, of course, need to be related to total flow throughput to
derive the total hydrocarbon and water mass flow rates. This could only be achieved if it
could always be ensured that the phases are well mixed and flowing all at one velocity
through the measurement spool (zero slip).
The question needs to be answered as to whether output of total hydrocarbon mass and
water throughput is a more useful operating measure than in-situ volume flow rates of oil,
water and gas. The latter usually require the application of correlations to account for
H-0806.35
20-17
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
shrinkage and solution gas factors in order to convert to flow rate units expressed at
standard pressure and temperature.
Like the phase fraction cell developed by CMR, the fraction part of the Roxar microwave
technique could be used to supply a water cut reading to the BP multiphase meter system.
It would be used to dynamically track the phase fractions and should yield water cut in
high GVF flows as well as covering the lower part of the GVF range. Such an off-shelf
option should presumably cost less than the estimate given above for the Roxar LP flow
meter, which includes an extra sensor and software to allow cross-correlation
measurement of velocity.
It should be noted that Roxar have already successfully commercialized a water cut
sensor using the same microwave hardware configuration as the LP meter. This
instrument is for gas- free emulsions and should not be confused with the multiphase flow
meter technology described above, which incorporates a gamma densitometer and
additional sophistication in order to measure oil- water-gas flows.
Neural Networks by EDS-Scicon and CALtec Ltd (JIP)
The aim of the project is to develop a multiphase metering technique which uses
advanced parallel processing (neural networks) to apply pattern recognition to the
dynamic signals from relatively simple, low cost instrumentation such as gamma ray
densitometers and pressure transmitters.
Neural networks have the capability to train themselves to recognize features from
complex phenomena. The idea is to train the neural network to relate recognized features
to the flow rates of oil, water, and gas.
Activity, so far, has involved training different structures of neural network on flow loop
multiphase flow data and some gamma ray densitometer field data supplied by BP. The
object was to give EDS-Scicon the opportunity to work the networks on multiphase flow
and demonstrate the technique. Typically, this has involved using a data set of 40 flow
rates and predicting each data point (oil, water, and gas flow rates) by training on the
other 39.
Flow rate relative error data produced by this exercise exhibit uncertainties broadly in the
range of 10 to 30 percent. However, the work is at an early stage. One of the difficulties
facing the approach is the general lack of abundant, reliable and accurate field data
H-0806.35
20-18
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
containing oil, water and gas flow rates and corresponding signals from sensors such as
pressure transmitters.
The program will need to address which types of sensor are most suitable in detecting
characteristic features, and where on the pipeline they should be installed to pick these
out.
The method requires expertise to adapt and set- up the neural network software to the
application. The cost of this and of the computing capability has not yet determined.
The system works best where there is an abundance of data on which to train the neural
network and when interpolating between these data but not extrapolating. Given the
general non-reproducibility of multiphase flow this may make calibration of the system
as a universal or stand-alone metering solution impossible in practice.
If the neural network approach can be provided at low cost, it could lend itself to
applications where the system would be trained against other expensive equipment (other
multiphase meters or test separator systems) where this has limited availability and
therefore impedes the well testing and reservoir management capability.
Texaco Starcut Meter
This meter (now licensed and manufactured by Jiskoot Autocontrol) uses measurements
of the phase shift and attenuation of 10 GHz microwaves caused by the flow stream to
determine water cut. The instrument will measure water cut of emulsions containing
little or no free gas. It works with oil-continuous and water-continuous emulsions, i.e.
water cut from 0 to 100 percent. Jiskoot Autocontrol can quote a number of oil industry
site applications and states that gas volume fractions of up to 25 percent can be handled.
The instrument is already developing a field track record ahead of the other phase
fraction/water cut devices described above, although these instruments have, of course,
already demonstrated a measurement capability on gas fractions significantly higher than
25 percent.
Texacos development effort has concentrated on accumulating a vast database of
mixing curves fo r a wide range of oils and water chemistries. This is stored in the
systems microprocessor, packaged with the sensor in a compact unit. The unit can
continuously perform an auto-calibration in field service to ensure the correct mixing
curve (the curve traces oil/water ratios from the microwave phase shift and attenuation
measurements).
H-0806.35
20-19
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The detection speed of the device is quoted as >300 samples/second. It is claimed that it
can cope with variations in fluid properties such as salinity. This could give it a
significant advantage over the CMR/Fluenta and Roxar systems, which rely on operator
input of salinity and equations to allow for its variation with temperature.
The Starcut meter determines phase properties such as crude oil SG or density and water
salinity and provides output signals which track these properties. The ability to track
salinity is an attractive option for reservoir management. It could provide an indication
of water flood progress or potential problems with premature breakthrough of injection
fluids, for example.
Texaco claims the Starcut device can tolerate up to 25 percent GVF in the flow stream
though no data have been published to substantiate this. They state that development
work continues in order to increase the free gas content acceptable and the capability to
measure the gas fraction.
The sensing flow path is of rectangular cross-section of approximately 10 mm by 5 mm
normal to the flow path. This limits the device to rely on a slip stream sample
arrangement in the majority of applications since it clearly imposes a throughput
limitation (quoted at 200 bpd liquid).
The present Jiskoot pricing for the off- shelf unit, of approximately $70,000, would also
make the Starcut unit a preferable option for the BP meter relative to the Roxar and
Fluenta measurement systems.
The throughput limitation of the Starcut monitor and its consequent limitation as a slip
stream device could be viewed as disadvantageous relative to the Fluenta and Roxar full
bore measurement cells. Once the factory has calibrated the meter, no further
adjustments are required as the meter performs its own auto-calibration once in service.
Kongsberg Offshore AS Capacitor Cross-Correlation Multiphase Flow Meter
In 1992, Kongsberg Offshore commercialized a multi-capacitor multiphase meter
developed by the Shell Exploration and Production laboratory (KSEPL) in the
Netherlands.
The measurement spool comprises two closely spaced (10 mm apart) parallel plates
mounted across the center of the pipe. The spool is mounted in horizontal pipeline with
the plates vertical and in the plane of minimum resistance to the flow stream (i.e. aligned
H-0806.35
20-20
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
in the direction of flow). The plates support a column of small rectangular electrode pairs
which spans the diameter of the pipe. Two more electrodes are positioned further
downstream on the plate, one near the top and one close to the bottom of the pipe.
The meter has been designed to measure flow rate of oil, water, and gas in slug flow.
Electrodes can sense the gas- liquid interface. The flow perturbations sensed at the upper
and lower downstream electrodes are cross-correlated with the corresponding signals of
the upstream electrodes.
Simultaneously, the capacitor outputs are used to determine the cross-sectional area
occupied by ga s and liquid in the pipe by measuring the liquid holdup. This information
is combined with the cross-correlation velocity measurements to determine gas and liquid
flow rate. The technique processes the electrode signals in such a way as to make some
allowance for the proportion of gas entrained in the main body of the liquid.
The modeling assumes a slug velocity equal to the gas pocket bulk velocity. Water cut is
determined from capacitance sensed by the lower electrodes immersed in the liquid film
of the slug flow. Currently, the unit only works for oil-continuous emulsions.
Shell states that units have been undergoing field trials in Oman and Gabon with
consistent results compared to test separator equipment although exhibiting some bias
error. They intend to continue funding development to extend the capability of the
system to operate in non-intermittent flows and water-continuous emulsions. Low
pressure flow loop results published show gross errors in flow rate measurement outside
of a cluster of points lying within the intermittent region of the flow regime map.
Shells intention has been to target this type of meter at remote land-based sites with
significant pipeline between wellhead and manifold where well defined slug flow occurs.
They cla im to have a number of such applications and state that, in these cases, the level
of accuracy achievable with the unit (quoted at between 10 percent to 20 percent of flow
rate) is acceptable.
In sacrificing accuracy by the nature of the technique, Shell has attempted to evolve a
relatively low cost unit, which could allow one meter per well. (Less than $100,000 per
unit has been quoted with a target for Kongsberg to reduce this to $50,000). Also, Shell
wished to avoid deployment of nucleonic sources (common to most of the other
techniques) at remote locations on land.
H-0806.35
20-21
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Currently, the units are available in 3- inch and 4 line sizes to ANSI class 600 rating. The
4 sensor spool weighs 90 kg and is 556 mm in length. The Kongsberg data sheets do
not include a sour service specification at present.
In principle, the cross-correlation measurements to measure velocity should not rely on
flow calibration. However, as noted above, Shell have reported some systematic errors
during field testing. The compositional calibration of the capacitors relies on readings
with the separate phases present. In this respect, the method has similar setup
requirements to the Fluenta/CMR system, which also, in effect, relies on knowledge of
the capacitance reading on single phase fluid.
20.2.3 Summary
The main techniques for multiphase metering which have emerged can be broadly
classified into two categories. One type of approach employs flow control or conditioning
in order to establish reproducible conditions at the measurement section. Other
techniques have adopted the principle of cross-correlation velocity measurement in
combination with phase fraction measurements to establish the phase flow rates. This
latter approach is highly susceptible to the complex and generally non-reproducible
nature of multiphase flows.
The general recommendation of the philosophy is that the multiphase metering
techniques employing flow pattern- independent principles will most readily facilitate a
calibration methodology. For certain types of these technologies, such as the BP screw
meter based system, test experience is demonstrating a way forward using relatively
straightforward and low cost factory calibration methods utilizing single phase fluids. All
measurement techniques are likely to require wide test experience to evaluate and evolve
standards. The level of accuracy and its qualification required within the oil industry will
dictate the extent of the testing effort. See Section 20.3 for further discussion of the
calibration of multiphase metering systems.
20.3
Meter Calibration
20.3.1 Introduction
In this section, the basic aspects associated with calibration of multiphase flow meters are
listed. The special challenges posed by multiphase flow (such as the difficulty of ensuring
reproducibility, without which a calibration cannot exist) are then highlighted. In the face
of these challenges, some theories based on test experience of metering multiphase flows
to date are presented as to how multiphase flow meter calibration philosophy might
develop in practice.
H-0806.35
20-22
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
20.3.2 Aspects of Flow Calibration

Reasons for measurement
The multiphase metering systems currently under development have been targeted at well
flow measurement for reservoir management and allocation. The significantly more
stringent accuracy usually associated with custody transfer or fiscal flow metering has
not been addressed.
Clearly, any means of calibration of a multiphase flow meter should be appropriate to the
level of accuracy required. As a general rule, the reference system should be prone to
significantly smaller uncertainty levels then the meter under calibration. A factor of 10
might typically be desirable in some conventional single phase calibration scenarios.
Traceability
The measurement uncertainties of the reference metering should be qua lified by primary
calibration against a recognized standard. This will take place at regular intervals
dependent on the circumstances.
Proving
The specific case of a reference calibration or master meter checking system installed in
bypass pipework at the metering station, which can periodically be switched to measure
flow and check or calibrate the flow metering system in-situ. The proving system can be
a fixed installation or can be a portable servicing system.
Repeatability
Repeatability is a pre-requisite to flow meter accuracy and is determined by means of a
specified number of repeat comparisons against a reference measurement. This procedure
relies on repeatability of flow conditions and of the reference measurement.
A calibration based on a flow loop test, such as by the manufacturer of the flow meter,
relies on the concept of a repeatable or predictable and reproducible flow condition. For
example, the requirement for specified pipe straight lengths and flow straighteners in
turbine meter installations ensures known calibration flow conditions are re-produced in
single phase flows. Single phase pipe flow is well enough understood and its behavior
sufficiently predictable that an orifice plate can be manufactured to controlled tolerances
H-0806.35
20-23
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
such that flow calibration is not needed. The accuracy of the orifice plate can then be
traceable by metrology.
20.3.3 Multiphase Flow and Calibration
Multiphase flows are more complex and less well understood than single phase flows.
They are generally not predictable in the same way as single phase pipe flows. For
example, multiphase flow behavior cannot be guaranteed in terms of a steady and defined
velocity profile even if certain rules regarding pipe length are obeyed. In general, the
multiphase flow behavior depends on the entire history of the flow path from the source
and influences from a significant distance downstream. Experience has shown that the
nature of the multiphase flow patterns is unique and therefore not necessarily repeatable
or reproducible between one installation and another. Therefore, a multiphase flow loop
calibration would not necessarily represent the field installation. Even for the case of a
proving system, the change in flow path in bringing on line the prover could alter the
multiphase flow behavior at the flow meter and, therefore, its response characteristic.
In addition to the installation dependency of the multiphase flow behavior, the nature of
flow pattern can drastically change through the service life of the flowline. For example,
a multiphase flow meter might be subjected to a stream of oil flow containing dispersed
gas bubbles in the initial stages of service. As gas content increases with the depletion of
the reservoir, the meter could be subjected to intermittent flow behavior, such as plug or
slug flow. Finally, in the extreme case, the meter could have to cope with annular flows
of high gas content and significantly higher total fluid volume throughput than in earlier
service life. Additionally, the latter stages of reservoir depletion and any associated
secondary and tertiary recovery schemes could result in an increasing portion of water in
the flow stream.
The above discusses calibration for multiphase flow meters by relating to the case of
single phase flow. It has highlighted the difficulty in realizing reproducibility in
multiphase flows to determine measurement response. Measurement response in
multiphase flow relates to more than one signal, which must be related to oil, water, and
gas flow rates. Therefore, the calibration process in multiphase flow can be even more
involved than for existing single phase methods.
The multiphase meter measurement can involve several simultaneous sensor responses.
The combined influence of the errors in all these signals will determine the overall
accuracy of the multiphase meter in measuring the phase flow rates and this must be
determined by the calibration procedure.
H-0806.35
20-24
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Further, most of the multiphase metering techniques under development rely on

knowledge of the individual phase properties, such as oil, water and gas densities, in
order to derive the phase flow rates from the sensor inputs. The calibration and overall
specification of accuracy and repeatability for any multiphase metering installation must
include an account of the uncertainties associated with the measurement or prediction of
these properties.
The greatest cost benefits attributable to multiphase metering are expected to be realized
where this technology is installed in remote subsea wells. The requirement for
remoteness subsea poses another significant challenge in terms of calibration.
How will it be ensured that a meter remains on calibration specification? The possibility
for major changes in the nature and throughput of the flow stream, as discussed above,
could conceivably dictate a requirement for calibration checking or proving online.
20.3.4 Multiphase Measurement Standards in Practice
From the above, it can be concluded that, just as conventional single phase meters cannot
be applied to multiphase flow measurement, calibration methods based on single phase
flow understanding cannot be relied upon. Given the general non-reproducibility of flow
behavior in multiphase installations, measurement techniques exhibiting minimal
sensitivity to multiphase flow pattern behavior will not only lend themselves to
calibration, but may also provide the means to defining calibration techniques and
reference standards.
This would be achieved on the basis of proof by experience and physical argument. The
degree of rigor involved in this will depend on the acceptable flow measurement
uncertainty levels and the extent of qualification required by the oil companies and
government agencies. These parties will need to take an involved and informed view of
what the technology developers and manufacturers are able to provide.
Some multiphase metering systems under development such as the BP patented screw
meter and Framo static mixer based system (see Section 20.2) involve techniques which
attempt to minimize flow pattern dependency of measurement by controlling the flow
behavior. Only experience of tests in several installations of widely varying flow
conditions, involving comparison against accurate single phase references downstream of
separators, will develop and confirm the uncertainty levels achievable and the
universality of the calibration of these approaches. The alternative to protracted testing is
for all concerned (oil producers, government agencies, manufacturers, and technologists)
H-0806.35
20-25
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
to accept argument based on sound theoretical principles with only limited flow loop and
field test evidence of proof of theory. Given its physical complexity and comparative
youth as a branch of fluid dynamics tackled by engineering science, multiphase flow will
not readily lend itself to the latter approach.
Other multiphase metering approaches have addressed measurement using sensors which
primarily respond to the composition of the fluid stream. These development programs
have concentrated on ways of measuring the phase fractions or ratios but some have
adapted the sensing elements to yield additional cross-correlation measurements of fluid
velocity.
The calibration of such sensors to measure mixture composition is a relatively
straightforward proposition where it can be ensured that the phases will be well mixed or
uniformly distributed within the sensing volume in service. Typically, the techniques for
measuring phase fractions, described in Section 20.2, apply mixing models relating
sensor response to mixture composition. The calibration curves by these models are
fixed by measuring the response signal on the single phase fluids.
The tendency of multiphase flow to form segregated patterns of the phases in the pipe can
invalidate calibrations by this approach. Where the sensors have a fast response, it is
possible for these devices to track fluctuating flow stream composition provided the
phases are distributed uniformly in the cross-sectional plane. This can be achieved by
mounting the composition sensor in a vertical spool, although some form of flow
conditioner may still be required to break up annular flow (or intermittent annular flow
pattern) upstream of the sensor.
Some highly sophisticated types of multi-sensor compositional devices are being
investigated. These systems are being developed to have a rapid response, which
accounts for phase distribution within the sensing zone. The complexity of these
approaches may make them difficult to prove in practice.
If composition can be accurately dynamically tracked, it must be combined with
simultaneous total flow rate or velocity measurement to provide phase flow rates. Even
in dispersed or uniformly distributed flow patterns, slip (the difference in velocity
between the phases) can be significant. Thus, either some form of flow conditioning to
eliminate (or minimize) slip is required or else the individual in-situ phase velocities must
be measured.
H-0806.35
20-26
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Cross-correlation measurement of velocity has the potential in principle to be absolute.

That is, flow calibration is not necessary. Accurate measurement of sensor spacing and
time of flight will give accurate measurement of velocity. However, the accuracy of
the time of flight measurement as derived from a cross-correlation function, or more
specifically, what it actually represents, is greatly influenced by the flow velocity profile,
turbulence and signal noise. In multiphase flow, as discussed already, the velocity profile
is generally highly complex and non-repeatable in nature and slip generally occurs
between the phases. Accurate cross-correlation measurement would rely on a flat crosssectional velocity profile or multi- velocity measurement of sufficient detail to allow for
profile shape.
Additionally, mixture property cross-correlation devices tend to sense particular features
of the fluctuating flow pattern. Some techniques now being developed are sensitive to
the interface between bulk continuous liquid and large gas pockets. Others use sensing
fields that are most sensitive to certain regions of the pipe cross-section such as the nearwall. Therefore, it does not follow that these cross-correlation techniques measure bulk
(average) flow velocity which can be multiplied by cross-sectional area (adding further
uncertainty) to give flow rate.
The BP screw meter and Framo mixer approaches of flow pattern independence by flow
control combine a total flow measurement method with a mixture phase ratio
measurement. This can allow total flow throughput measurement and phase fraction
measurements to be combined to yield phase flow rates. If such flow pattern-independent
techniques can be developed to an acceptable degree (i.e. repeatable signal responses for
given flow rates in all applications) then flow calibration on a manufacturers or
standards institution multiphase flow loop (oil, water, gas) will be meaningful. Also, if
such metering techniques are successful then certain types of flow rate meters could be
calibrated on single phase fluids, such as water. This is possible since flow pattern
independent response in multiphase flow is not sensitive to the density and viscosity of
the fluids being measured.
Given the general necessity of only needing to calibrate mixture phase fraction
instruments on the basis of single phase fluid properties, the combined metering system
could then be calibrated at the factory or laboratory site using relatively simple and
established procedures and single phase fluids.
This type of approach will result in lower cost multiphase metering solutions than
calibration requiring the use of relatively complex and expensive oil, water, gas flow
H-0806.35
20-27
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
loops. For example, one particular multiphase flow meter test loop built in Europe cost
on the order of $1.6 million to build in the mid 1980s. It is a low pressure 4 nominal
bore loop using gas-oil, tap water, and air which are metered to traceable standards. This
requires regular primary calibration of the multi- spool reference metering and monthly
checking of the proving system by the national standards authority. Additionally, fulltime maintenance backup is employed. This degree of rigor is necessary in order to
qualify multiphase metering to +/-5 percent relative errors (a target usually quoted for
multiphase flow meters).
After initial set-up, calibration, and installation, there remains the question of subsequent
calibration or proving in service. Further thought on this is prompted in the review of
multiphase metering techniques in Section 20.2.2. Ultimately, the proving requirement
of the flow pattern- independent techniques could evolve to a basic requirement where
simple static, dimensional, or self diagnostic checks will ensure measurement to within
specified uncertainty bands.
In summary of the above, two key approaches to multiphase metering have emerged.
One approach involves conditioning or controlling the flow stream to ensure reproducible
flow conditions at the measurement section. The second approach uses the crosscorrelation technique in combination with flow composition sensors to derive the phase
flow rates but is highly susceptible to the complex and generally non-reproducible nature
of multiphase flows. It could be argued that multiphase metering systems based on flow
pattern- independent principles (the first of the above approaches) would most lend
themselves to calibration. Ultimately, these techniques could rely on only simple
methods of field calibration checking, which do not necessitate comparisons against flow
measurements by another master meter or proving system. All measurement
techniques are likely to require extensive test experience to evaluate and evolve
standards. The level of accuracy and its qualification required within the oil industry will
dictate the extent of the testing effort.
20.3.5 Field Calibration or Proving
All of the emerging multiphase metering techniques is likely to need some level of inservice checking, even if this only involves an initial comparison against a reference
measurement. It is recommended that consideration be given to the implications of the
following approaches to the problem of field calibration for practicality and accuracy.
H-0806.35
20-28
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Production Train Reference

Testing using the production train single phase metering system as a reference could
require that operations accommodate well shut- in periods, possibly flowing only one well
at a time. Alternatively, it could involve testing by difference where one (or more) well
is shut in at a time.
A more acceptable variation on this theme might be possible, with some types of
multiphase flow meter. Experience with the BP multiphase flow meter at Prudhoe Bay,
for example, demonstrated repeatability for all the wells tested at the well pad. These all
produced within a tight band of gas volume fraction (although water cut and flow rate
and behavior varied markedly between wells). In such circumstances, the multiphase
meter measurement would be checked by comparing the sum of the individual well
measurements with the total production of the well site.
Such a method, based on summing the production of the wells, would have to account for
any difference in the flow rate from the wells when switched between the production line
and the multiphase meter by-pass, in cases where multiphase metering is not available on
every individual well. Some multiphase metering hardware introduces a pressure drop
(see Section 20.2.2 covering the BP and Framo multiphase metering systems in the
review of techniques).
A further alternative, which could be considered in certain circumstances, would be to
flow more than one well through the multiphase meter and compare its measurement
directly with the production separator metering system receiving the combined flow from
the same wells. This approach could be constrained by the maximum flow rate or
turndown of the multiphase meter, which would dictate that some wells be shut in during
the proving exercise.
Portable Test Separator
Although involving additional high cost, particularly offshore, another approach to
consider is the use of portable test separation equipment. This might be an option for
multiphase metering equipment requiring infrequent checking in certain circumstances.
In addition to reservations regarding the cost penalties of such an operation, this type of
reference will be subject to uncertainty levels of an order associated with the multiphase
meter itself. It would serve the purpose of a check rather than as a means to calibrate.
H-0806.35
20-29
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Multiphase Proving
This might consider adapting existing multiphase (or single phase - such as compact
swept piston devices) metering technology for portable and non-continuous use. Certain
types of multiphase metering technology, designed for prolonged service in extreme
conditions of flow, might be made more cheaply for this purpose. It could also be
manufactured and operated for more accurate performance. This would be possible with a
switch of design emphasis from robustness in favor of accuracy. It would be realizable
with short service exposure intervals, coupled with regular inspection and maintenance
and operational precautions not possible in the running of the installed multiphase
metering system.
20.4
Pressure Boosting
20.4.1 Introduction
If the pressure within the reservoir is inadequate to transport the hydrocarbon fluids at the
required rate to a suitable place for processing them, then some form of pressure boosting
will be required. This may be by enhancing the pressure of the reservoir itself (e.g. by
pressurized aquifer support and/or gas re-injection or by pressurizing the reservoir from
above). An alternative is the use of downhole single phase pumping, which does not
affect the reservoir itself, but raises the well head flowing pressure. Lastly boosting may
be applied downstream of the well head where the flow is normally multiphase. This
section considers these options and in particular the use of multiphase pumping option.
Pressure enhancement may be required early in the field life or may only be required
towards the end of field life when the reservoir pressure has fallen too low for the
standard methods of transport to be adequate. Therefore, consideration of pressure
boosting should be considered in the conceptual design. There are several forms in
which pressure boosting can be applied. Section 20.4.2 discusses the selection of the
method, including multiphase pumps and gas lift (which is really a means of pressure
drop reduction rather than pressure boosting).
Multiphase pumps generally have higher power requirements than those of single phase
machines (pumps or compressors) performing similar duties. The theoretical power
requirement depends both upon the duty conditions and the theory used in calculation.
As a result, attempts to compare performance in terms of efficiency tend to be misleading
and are best avoided.
H-0806.35
20-30
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Although they are described as pumps it would be more accurate to describe these
multiphase pressure boosters as wet gas compressors, as gas is almost always the
dominant phase (volumetrically). The volumetric throughput, that is the volume of the
feed fluids at the feed conditions, is the most important factor in pump design; in addition
the gas volume fraction (GVF), the feed pressure, and the pressure ratio are required.
Table 20.4-1 outlines the capabilities of the pump types that presently seem to have some
commercial potential.
H-0806.35
20-31
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Table 20.4-1: Multiphase Pump Types
H-0806.35
20-32
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
20.4.2 Outline Review of Multiphase Pumping Systems

Introduction
Pumps may be of either rotodynamic or positive displacement type. The two types
operate on different principles and it is practical to present their performance curves
differently.
Rotodyna mic pumps operate by imparting velocity (kinetic energy) to the fluid and then
decelerating it to convert the kinetic energy to pressure. Consequently at any particular
flow rate a given specific energy or head is imparted to the fluid. Thus the differential
pressure generated is proportional to fluid density. The governing variable is flow rate
through the pump and the characteristic is represented as shown in Figure 20.4-1A. If
differential pressure is to be shown then the characteristic depends on density as shown in
Figure 20.4-1B.
Figure 20.4-1 A & 1B: Rotodynamic Pump Curves
Positive displacement pumps operate by trapping a pocket of fluid at the pump suction,
carrying it through the pump and forcing it out at the discharge. The differential pressure
achievable is limited by the strength of the pump to withstand pressure and the effect of
the differential pressure on the internal leakage. The characteristic of such a pump is
conventionally shown as in Figure 20.4-2A.
H-0806.35
20-33
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 20.4-2 A & 2B: Positive Displacement Pump Curves

If the axes are interchanged to achieve a representation similar to that for rotodynamic
pumps then a performance characteristic similar to that in Figure 20.4-2B is produced.
Comparison with Figure 20.4-1B shows the difference in characteristic between the two
types of pump.
Application to Multiphase Duties
If the two pump types are applied to Multiphase duties their characteristics remain
unchanged but the effect of the presence of the gas phase must be considered.
Rotodynamic Principle
If the rotodynamic pump is handling a mixture in which the two phases are well mixed it
can be regarded as handling a fluid of density and compressibility between those of liquid
and gas.
In order to calculate the head it is necessary to consider the work done on the
compressible gas and the incompressible liquid separately. Even in cases of high GVF
the mass of liquid present is much larger than the mass of gas and isothermal
compression may be assumed.
This leads to:
(1-)(P2- P1 ) + P1 Ln (P2 / P1 )
H =
H-0806.35
20-34
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
M
where:
M = Mixture density = (1-)L + G
H =
Head
Gas Volume Fraction (GVF)
P =
Absolute pressure
Density
Suffices:
1
Suction
Delivery
G =
Gas
L =
Liquid
M =
Mixture
Analysis of published data shows that for a wide range of GVF a single curve represents
the pump performance at a given speed.
Conversion of performance from one speed to another can be done using the normal
affinity laws:
Capacity is proportional to speed
Head is proportional to speed squared
The effect of speed change is shown in Figure 20.4-3.
H-0806.35
20-35
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 20.4-3: Effect of Speed on Flow Rate & Head

Positive Displacement Principle
Positive displacement machines trap a fixed volume of fluid at the suction and in general
it makes little difference to the capacity whether the fluid is liquid or gas. As
speed
changes internal leakage remains constant while capacity varies linearly with speed. See
Figure 20.4-4A.
Figure 20.4-4 A & B: Comparison of Positive Displacement Pumps

Twin screw machines tend to show increasing volumetric efficiency as GVF rises until at
high GVF, typically more than 85 percent, volumetric efficiency starts to drop. This is
thought to occur when there is no longer sufficient liquid present to fill the internal
clearances and provide a seal. The lower density gas can leak through these clearances
much faster than the liquid. The value of GVF at which volumetric efficiency is a
H-0806.35
20-36
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
maximum depends upon the number of pitches on the screw. A typical curve is shown
in Figure 20.4-5.
Summary
Positive displacement pumps tend to be of lower capacity than rotodynamic but have a
greater differential pressure capability and are less affected by changes in GVF, suction
pressure and differential pressure. They are tolerant of viscous fluids but subject to wear
by sand laden fluids.
Rotodynamic pumps have larger capacity but are much more affected by changes in
GVF, suction pressure and differential pressure. As head is a function of GVF,
differential pressure and pressure ratio, plots of differential pressure performance can
only be prepared for a given set of conditions. Viscous fluids degrade rotodynamic pump
performance.
As they do not depend on close clearances to maintain volumetric efficiency,
rotodynamic pumps should be tolerant of sand- laden fluids. However this has yet to be
demonstrated and experience with other pumps running at similar speeds suggests that
erosion may be a problem. The use of very hard materials may prove necessary.
Rotodynamic Pumps
Helico-Axial
The leading rotodynamic multiphase pump is the helico-axial style of pump. The IFP
designed Poseidon pump and its derivatives have been the most successful. Extensive
testing and production operation has been carried out on versions of this pump supplied
by Framo (Frank Mohn) and Sulzer. It is most appropriate where high volume
throughput is combined with high GVF at low pressure ratios, or where the GVF is lower
and higher pressure ratios are required.
The pump consisted of three basic modules:
(1) The Drive unit; this is generally an electric motor driving through a speed increasing
gearbox; suitable electric motors for subsea application are under development
(1Q96) by Sulzer, the Nautilus Project, and FRAMO, their ELSMUBS Project. The
SMUBS pump has a hydraulic turbine drive.
H-0806.35
20-37
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
(2) The Pump consists of a multistage assembly of impellers, which have axial flow and
high solidity. Shaft speed is high, typically in the range 40006000 rpm.
(c) It was found that pump performance was significantly improved if gas and liquid were
well mixed. A homogenizer has been developed and is fitted immediately before the
pump suction.
This form of pump is establishing a good track record of successful operation and is
considered to be commercial in the medium size range (approximately 500m3 /h).
Side Channel
Side channel pumps have high head/low flow characteristics combined with good gas
handling ability. However they are of low efficiency and are used in low flow
applications where the particular characteristics are valuable and the power penalty can
be accepted. They also depend upon close internal clearances to control internal leakage
and are therefore unsuitable for liquids containing abrasives, such as sand. It is expected
that larger size pumps could tolerate larger clearances while maintaining acceptable
efficiency, but no suitable pumps are presently available, and development effort has
ceased. No commercial pump is in prospect.
Contra-Rotating
Two forms of multistage pump having contra-rotating impellers have been considered.
One has stages arranged radially, similar to the Ljungstrm steam turbine, and the other
type has stages arranged axially. The former machine is designated as Contra-Rotating
Disk Compressor (CRD). Performance of a test machine was said to have been good on
gas but poor when liquid was injected and development is either on hold or has been
abandoned. The Contra-Rotating Axial Flow Pump (CRA) has been built by Frank Mohn
and tested by Shell at their De Lier field.
In both cases the purpose of employing contra-rotation is to give very high relative
velocity between the two sets of blading so increasing the head rise per stage and
minimizing the number of stages required. Suitable application might be low/medium
total volume, with high GVF and low/medium pressure ratio boosting.
Centrifugal
Conventional centrifugal pumps lose performance at GVF above about 10 percent. A
modified impeller was developed which allowed effective operation up to about 50
H-0806.35
20-38
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
percent. The modification involves the provision of holes in the shroud and gaps in the
vanes, which allow liquid to sweep gas away from the positions where it tends to
accumulate.
Axial Flow
Some work on axial flow impellers showed promising results in the mid 1980s and
further work has been concentrated on axial flow impellers having a high hub/tip ratio in
order to minimize centrifugal separation. The impeller has been compared to an inducer,
which suggests it is broadly similar to the Poseidon (Helico-Axial) impeller.
Pumps intended for downhole application with gas handling capability in the 30-60
percent GVF range have been designed. A much higher suction pressure is responsible
for the lower GVF and improves pump performance by increasing gas density. It is
probable that the range of application is narrow, but where boosting is required downhole at low (but significant) GVF then modified centrifugal pumping can be considered.
Positive Displacement
Twin Screw
Twin screw pumps were among the first to be applied for pumping multiphase mixtures.
Their positive displacement action gives them an inherent gas handling capability. The
use of purely rotary motion and the absence of valves and sliding components are all
advantages compared to other types of positive displacement pump.
This type of
machine has the highest capacity for a given size, which is attractive for the flow rates
involved in oil production operations.
Twin screw pumps can generally handle up to about 95 percent GVF. Higher GVF can
be handled by injecting liquid into the pump so that the liquid content within the pump is
maintained to provide a sealant and also provide cooling and lubrication. Since the twin
screw machine in its normal form does not have internal compression, the power
consumption is high compared to that of a compressor performing a similar duty. The
difference depends upon the GVF and the pressure ratio. Attempts have been made to
incorporate internal compression but the increased losses have outweighed the benefits.
The twin screw pump format is poorly suited to subsea application because of the
problems of seals and timing gears. The twin screw pump is best suited to low/medium
H-0806.35
20-39
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
throughput applications where the pressure ratio or differential pressure is high and GVF
less than 95 percent.
Internal Twin Screw
This development is a variant of the Mono pump (or Moineau Screw Pump) in which the
stator is allowed to rotate, and known as the idler. In principle this is a twin screw
pump in which one screw rotates inside the other. This has the advantage that all
components run in bearings, which reduces wear by reducing forces between rotor and
idler. This allows much higher speeds to be used than in a conventional Mono pump,
thereby reducing pump size for a given capacity and allowing the efficient use of
hydraulic turbine drive. However during testing it was found that the elastomer of the
idler could not stand the duty and further work has been abandoned.
Reciprocating/Linear Motor
A reciprocating pump driven by a linear electric motor has been tested for subsea
application. The project is known as Multiphase Electric Pump Station (MEPS). The
unit is large and heavy for a relatively low capacity, 130m3/h. This machine is best
suited to low flow rate, high pressure ratio, high differential pressure applications. Initial
works testing was followed by testing at Texacos Humble facility and is said to have
been successful.
Diaphragm
The machine is based on the pumping of hydraulic oil by a conventional pump. The oil is
alternately pumped into and out of two pumping vessels where it acts on an elastomeric
diaphragm to displace the multiphase mixture. During testing, material selection was
satisfactory but problems were experienced in detecting diaphragm position at the end of
stroke. These problems have since been overcome and the pump has been on long term
test. For subsea applications, the hydraulic pump would be immersed in the oil reservoir.
The volumetric capacity is not expected to be large.
Hydrobooster
This system is based on a conventional centrifugal pump. Separated liquid is sequentially
pumped into several vessels to alternately draw in and displace the multiphase mixture.
Thus each vessel acts as the cylinder of a reciprocating compressor in which the liquid
H-0806.35
20-40
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
acts as the piston. A full scale prototype has been successfully tested on hydrocarbon
gas/liquid mixture.
Double-action Piston
Double acting piston pumps would work but have too low capacity for the application. A
large number of pumps would be required to operate in parallel.
Ram Slurry Pump
There is no reason why a slurry pump should perform any better than a conventional
piston pump except for its solids handling capability. The use of rams lowers capacity
compared to piston pumps. Valves are generally leaky compared to those of
conventional pumps.
Other Systems Jet Pump
The jet pump has the potential of being a simple no- moving-part pressure booster in
relatively low flow applications. Because of its very low efficiency it does need a
virtually free source of high pressure driving fluid, suc h as a high pressure well which
would otherwise be choked.
It has the advantage of simplicity, but high fluid velocities render it susceptible to erosion
by sand laden fluids; however by careful design this may be minimized and the
vulnerable parts made easy to replace. The high pressure motive flow should be single
phase, otherwise the already poor efficiency is further degraded. The motive flow can be
gas for a gas-pressure boosting but for the multiphase flow pressure boosting the motive
fluid must be liquid-only for reasonable performance.
Systems with Separation
Strictly speaking these are not multiphase boosting systems but depend on the division
of the flow into separate phases.
Kvaerner Booster Station (KBS)
The Kvaerner Booster Station is a separation/compressor/pump system based on a
compact vertical separator with a centrifugal pump to increase the liquid phase pressure
and a wet gas compressor to increase the vapor phase pressure. Although pilot trials have
been satisfactorily completed and the potential is for a very flexible system of wide
H-0806.35
20-41
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
applicability, the complexity of the system does not bode well for its commercial success.
Further development is currently on hold.
VASPS
The Vertical Annular Separation and Pumping System (VASPS) is a way around the
problem of multiphase pumping by separating the mixture (via cyclone type separation)
and using conventional liquid pumps to handle the liquid while allowing the gas to freeflow under its remaining pressure. Only the liquid phase is pressure boosted so strictly
speaking it is not a multiphase pump system. The separator consists of a vertical length
of conductor some 600 mm in diameter. Multiphase fluid is fed into this conductor and
forced to follow a helical path. This induces accelerations of 3 to 4 g. The high
acceleration combined with the short distance bubbles must travel through the liquid
yields good separation. Gas rises naturally to the top of the conductor and flows away
under its own pressure. Liquid collects at the bottom and is pumped away by a
conventional ESP installed at the bottom of a tube within the conductor.
20.4.3 Known Performance Track Record
Of the many proposed multiphase pumping systems only two have any significant track
record of industrial or (semi- ) commercial operation, i.e. the helico-axial and the twin
screw type pumps. Also the Jet Pump principle has been in use in the WELLCOM
system.
Rotodynamic Helico-axial Pumps
The Poseidon Project was a French (IFP/Total/Statoil) led project to develop remote
subsea production systems by identifying gaps in technology and developing the
necessary techniques and equipment. Subsea multiphase pumping was always regarded
as an essential part of such a system. The project itself was closed out in 1990. A pump
had been tested successfully (3000 running hours) at a land site in Tunisia. A second test
in a Norwegian fjord in 1987 88 in 150 m water depth was also successful (4000 hrs).
Manufacture has been licensed to Sulzer Pumps and to Framo and several further
successful developments have been carried out.
Pecorade Field (Elf)
A pump (Model P 302) built by Sulzer was installed in the Pecorade Field in the
Southwest of France and has been running since June '94, with over 8000 hours by
H-0806.35
20-42
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
February '96. The pump is used in normal production operations but is also the subject of
a test program so that it experiences a wider range of operating conditions than would
otherwise be the case. The maximum throughput has been 365 m3/h, 55 MBD. There is
an active proposal to continue the operation of this pump on a commercial basis.
Gullfaks Field (Statoil)
A pump built by Framo was installed on the Gullfaks A platform and started up in May
1994. It had accumulated over 5000 hours running by mid '95, by which time the
program was considered complete. Operation is satisfactory except that seal leakage is
considered high (seals are manufactured by Burgmann).
Draugen Field (BP/Shell/Statoil)
A SMUBS (Shell Multiphase Underwater Boosting System) pump has been installed on
the Draugen Field in 270 m water depth. In the SMUBS Project, Framo, supported by
Shell, has taken the Guinard pump, which is very similar to the Poseidon Pump, and
packaged it for subsea installation. Pump internals are built into a tubular casing, which
can be installed from the surface into a vertical housing without diver intervention. Drive
is by hydraulic turbine, thus avoiding subsea electrical equipment and the problems of
keeping well fluids away from the motor. There are technical and economic distance
limits for power transmission. With injection water being used as power fluid, the
SMUBS pump has now been running periodically since early November '94. All subsea
operating procedures have been verified and operation is satisfactory. While the use of
the pump has increased oil production by approximately 39 percent, the reasons for its
periods of non-operation are not known for certain. Although they are believed to be due
to platform production limits and the process requirement for maximum water injection
pressure.
Positive Displacement Twin Screw Pumps
Twin screw pumps were among the first to be applied for pumping multiphase mixtures
and several successful trials have been carried out, although the helico-axial pump is now
surpassing it in terms of operational track record.
Bokor B Sarawak
A Multiphase Systems MP 40 pump was tested on the Shell Bokor B Platform, Offshore
Sarawak, at up to 97 percent GVF. Production operation was regarded as successful after
H-0806.35
20-43
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
initial commissioning problems, with availability approximately 96 percent and an

estimated 16 percent increase in oil production.
Wehrblec, Germany and Housemartin, Canada
On the Wehrblec Field in Germany a Bornemann Twin-Screw pump has been installed
and as the result the field life has been extended by 5 years. On the Housemartin Field in
Canada a similar twin screw pump has been installed to lower the wellhead pressure and
so avoid hydrate conditions.
Tinmar, Trinidad
On two wells in the Tinmar Field (offshore Trinidad) Leistritz twin screw pumps (model
L4) have been installed. This has resulted in the re-opening of one well and the up rating
of the other with a net increase in production and a payback time of less than a month.
Jet Pump (WELLCOM)
The jet pump principle is in use as a multiphase pressure boosting system using the high
pressure flow from one source (a well or group of wells) to boost the pressure from
another well or group of wells.
20.4.4 Design Outline
Required Information
The most important parameters for the selection and sizing of multiphase pumps are:
Suction pressure
P1
Delivery Pressure
P2
Total Volumetric Flow at Suction Conditions
Q1
Gas Volume Fraction at Suction Conditions
Because of its effect upon a and Q1 , P1 has a marked influence on the sizing of the pump
and the power requirement. Other important considerations are the location, i.e. subsea
or surface, the power source, and whether abrasive solids are present.
H-0806.35
20-44
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Note that the term Gas Liquid Ratio (GLR) is often used in connection with multiphase
pumps but refers to volumes at suction conditions, rather than the accepted definition of
GLR with volumes referred to standard conditions; care must be taken to avoid this
confusion. Note also that flow rates for pumps often use the units of BPD, which
includes no t only the liquid rate but also the gas, both at suction conditions.
Additional factors such as design temperature and pressure, and fluid
composition/properties, will be relevant to detail design, pump material selection, and
motive power unit design. The flow regime of the feed flow may dictate a need for the
pre-conditioning of the feed, particularly if sudden changes in GVF or periods of 100
percent GVF are possible.
Furthermore, the change in duty, flow rate, and
suction/discharge conditions during operation may mean that no single pump type, or
even one form of pressure boosting, will be ideal throughout field life.
The first stage is to calculate the maximum total flow at the suction conditions (Q 1 ), the
pressure ratio required (P2 /P1 ), and the GVF. An attempt can now be made to select a
suitable pump type from Table 20.4-2. However no pump type may be completely
appropriate and some accommodation may be necessary between what is ideally required
and what is available.
Type Selection
There is as yet insufficient information or operational experience to be definitive
about the selection of suitable multiphase pumping systems.
Feasibility Design
The feasibility of using a rotodynamic pump can be checked as follows:
(1) Calculate maximum total flow at suction conditions. Figure 20.4-5 shows the range
of pump sizes available. Sulzer Pumps) presently quote the maximum size for a single
pump at about 1200m3 /h (180 MBD = MPP6 in Figure 20.4-5), however a limit of
500m3 /h (75 MBD = MPP3/4) is shown in Table 20.4-1. Above this rate, multiple
pumps in parallel are recommended.
H-0806.35
20-45
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 20.4-5: Maximum Volumetric Flowrate at Suction
(2) Calculate the pressure ratio required (P2 /P1 ) and verify from Figure 20.4-6 that it is
achievable.
H-0806.35
20-46
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 20.4-6: Maximum Achievable Pressure Ratio P1 /P2
(3) Assuming that these steps have shown the use of a rotodynamic pump to be feasible
the power requirement can be estimated from Figure 20.4-7.
H-0806.35
20-47
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figure 20.4-7: Power Coefficients
Where:
B = f(P1 ,GLR) from the upper graph
E = f(P2 /P1 ,GLR) from the lower graph
H-0806.35
20-48
1-Dec-00
Power =
DEEPSTAR
ExQL xP1
kw
B
Note in this equation:

QL = Liquid flow rate, m3 /h (Q L = Q1 (1-a))
P1 = Suction Pressure, bar
GLR = Gas/Liquid Ratio = al(1-a)
Note that published data appears to show a marked improvement in the performance of
rotodynamic pumps as suction pressure increases. This is because such data is normally
presented as graphs of differential pressure vs. flow rate. As the suction pressure
increases the differential pressure can increase while keeping the head constant.
The feasibility of using a twin screw pump can be checked as follows:
1. Calculate the total suction flow rate. Twin screw pumps are obtainable up to about
2000m3 /h, (300,000 bpd)
2. Check that the pressure requirements are within the capability of the pump being
considered, i.e. pressure rating of the casing, seals, etc.
3. Estimate the power required from
Power =
(P2 P1 )xQ1 kw
36 x0.6
Note:
1. In this equation pressures are measured in bars and flow rate in m3 /hr.
2. The 0.6 factor assumes an efficiency of 60 percent
3. Twin screw pump vendors machines vary widely in size and pressure rating.
It would be best to check possible applications with one or more vendors.
It is possible that the power transmission limitations may restrict the available pump
performance and will almost certainly affect the pressure boosting economics. It is
necessary to consult electrical and control engineers on this aspect.
H-0806.35
20-49
1-Dec-00
21.0
DEEPSTAR
THIS SECTION IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK. DEEPSTAR CTR 5202/5304 IS

ADDRESSING OPERATING STRATEGIES."
H-0806.35
21-1
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
MULTIFLOW DESIGN GUIDELINE
22.
HOST FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

The host facility constitutes a key part of subsea production system design, and its requirements
and capabilities must not be overlooked.
The flow assurance effort helps to define the
requirements and capabilities of the host facilities. The host facilities that are significantly
impacted by the overall subsea system design include:
The arrangement and capacity of receiving equipment such as separators and slug catchers
(if used) determine the steady state and transient volumetric rate of produced fluids that can
be flowed to the facility. The flare/vent systems liquid knockout capacity may place a limit
on the rate at which flowlines can be blown down for unplanned shutdowns. Multiphase
pumps could potentially be used upstream from high-pressure separators to allow wells and
flowlines to be operated at relatively low pressure without increasing platform gas
compression requirements.
Injection chemicals have to be stored on and distribution from the host facility. Particularly in
the case of methanol, host storage and delivery rate limitations can pose an operational limit
on the subsea production system.
Pig launchers/receivers, pigging pumps, and pigging fluids have to be provided.
Metering systems for well testing, allocation, fiscal/custody, chemical injection, and other
have to be provided.
Power for normal and emergency operations have to be provided. For long-offset subsea
production systems, emergency power requirements may be substantially greater than
normally provided on platforms.
Controls for operating the subsea system have to be provided. The control systems have to
be integrated with the operating strategies and procedures developed to operate and
protect the system.
22.1
Receiving Equipment and Facilities
22.1.1 Field Ownership Issues

Partnership and/or Third Party Developments:
For ownership and allocations reasons, each development where a single company is not
100 percent owner, will require dedicated access to an inlet separator on a per well or per
H-0806.35
22-1
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
field basis (depending on several factors including operator philosophy and platform space).
A dedicated production train is not required provided that the proper permits (MMS) have
been obtained (although a dedicated production train is the simplest method of production
accounting for multiple field developments on one platform). All produced fluids are
allocated back to the proper ownership based on the inlet separator measurements.
For subsea developments where a single company is 100 percent owner, multiple
developments may be produced to a single production train. Metering (e.g., test separator
or multiphase meters) upstream from the production train may be required to measure the
production from each system.
22.1.2 Risers
In general, each flowline will be brought onto the host platform via a dedicated riser. Depending
on the arrival pressure, the riser may have to be gas lifted. This should be looked into during
design and provided for if necessary.
22.1.3 Slug Catchers and Flow Controls
In general, it is preferable to not provide slug catchers on platforms due to size and weight
constraints.
Providing appropriate separator capacity and control systems will accommodate normal
steady state (hydrodynamic) liquid slugs.
Larger intermittent liquid slugs, which will occur primarily on startup, and perhaps shutdown,
will be handled primarily by separator inlet and outlet rate control.
22.1.4 Separators
Inlet separators should be sized for anticipated oil, gas, and water production rates (the term
inlet here refers to the separator that production is received into). When sizing separators, the
following should be considered:
Gas volumes at separator conditions will be lowest for high pressure separators.
Oil volumes at separator conditions will be highest for high pressure separators.
Because of gas volumes, using low pressure separators as inlet separators can require those
separators to be physically large, maximizing gas compression requirements.
H-0806.35
22-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The size of the separation train can be kept physically small and gas compression
requirements can be minimized, by using multiphase pumps in front of the inlet separator
(preferably a high pressure separator); see Section 22.2.3.
22.1.5 Heaters/Coolers
The need for inlet heaters will be dependent on emulsion characteristics of the produced fluids
and other processing requirements. Because watercut will typically increase late in life, the need
for inlet heaters to treat emulsions can tend to be greatest late in the life of the field. The use of
chemicals to break emulsions should be reviewed prior to installing a heater.
High inlet flow temperatures (above 130-150 F) may require the use of an inlet cooler, as
above these temperatures reclamation of glycol used for gas dehydration becomes problematic.
Additional difficulty is realized in that personnel protection may have to be added to the
platform piping.
Overall, with properly designed and insulated flow systems, the need for inlet heaters or coolers
will be minimized.
22.1.6 Flowline Depressurization for Planned Shutdowns
The subsea production system should be capable of depressurizing the flowlines and risers for
planned shutdowns. This may be a rapid blowdown through the process system to product
export and is intended to release as much liquid (and gas) as possible from the flowlines. When
blowdown begins, production rates and the flowline exit pressure (separator pressure) are at the
normal operating levels. As blowdown continues, production will be moved to successively
lower separator pressure. Final depressurization will be accomplished to the flare/vent system.
The volume removed from the line will be as much of the pre-shut-in volume as is possible.
22.1.7 Flowline Depressurization for Unplanned Shutdowns
The system should be capable of depressurizing flowlines in the event of unplanned shutdowns.
This will probably be a slow blowdown to the flare/vent system, intended to release gas from
the flowlines without flowing significant quantities of liquid onto the platform. If there is not time
to depressurize the flowlines for unplanned shut-ins, they may be vigorously blown down prior
to restart, in which case the objective would be to get as much liquid out as possible.
H-0806.35
22-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Where/when separators are available (i.e., are able to receive flow), the system can be
depressurized through the process train. Where/when separators are not available, the system
will be depressurized directly to the flare/vent system.
For unplanned shutdowns, the gas blowdown rate will be intentionally low to prevent significant
quantities of liquid from flowing out with the gas. This low rate will be achieved by using a
small-diameter choke upstream from the separator. After the fluids have settled and the
pressure in the flowline has dropped, the choke can be opened to increase the gas efflux rate.
22.2
Production Facilities
22.2.1 Differences Between Separator and Stock Tank Volumes

Production facilities should be designed for the fluid production rates to be encountered
throughout system operating life. In this context, it is important to remember that well and
flowline production rates are generally measured in stock tank units (STBOD, BWD,
MMSCFD) whereas separator capacities are, by necessity, measured in actual volumetric units
(BLD, BOD, BWD, MMCFD) at separator conditions. Differences between separator and
stock tank conditions are due to pressure and temperature effects and associated gas dissolved
in oil.
22.2.2 Separator Sizing
In general, the following should be considered when sizing a separator:
The steady state multiphase flow regime exiting the flowlines may typically be slug flow.
This means that liquid and gas flow will enter the separators in liquid and gas packets. This
normal hydrodynamic slug behavior should not be confused with severe slugging,
heading, surging, or other unstable or quasi-stable flow regime. Normal slug length will
range between 1 and 60-100 pipe diameters in length.
The highest steady state oil rate will occur at the beginning of field life (BOL).
The highest steady state water rate will typically occur at the end of field life (EOL).
Intermittent liquid rate can be higher than steady state rate during system startup and
shutdown and, perhaps, late in field life. Separator level and inlet and outlet rate controls
may be needed to control transient conditions.
H-0806.35
22-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
For undersaturated reservoirs (above the bubble point pressure), gas rate will be linear with
oil rate and will therefore be highest at beginning of life. For saturated reservoirs (below the
bubble point pressure), gas rate may increase as reservoir pressure drops.
Gas rate at separator conditions (MMCFD) will increase as separator pressure decreases.
Refer also to Sections 22.1.3 (Slug Catchers and Flow Controls) and 22.1.4 (Separators).
22.2.3 Platform-mounted Multiphase Pumps

Depending on several factors, rather than having a high-volume intermediate or low pressure
inlet separator, it might be advantageous to use multiphase pumps positioned just upstream from
high pressure inlet separators. This would accommodate low pressure flowline operation while
minimizing the physical size and complexity of the separation trains and greatly minimizing the
amount of process gas compression required.
22.3
Metering
Several different types of metering systems will have to be provided by the host facility,
depending on the fluid being measured. The majority of the metering requirements will be for
oil, water, and gas production:
Per well, field, facility, and/or operator For normal purposes, meter accuracy of 5 to 10
percent is sufficient.
Well testing
Allocation Allocation meters are likely to require accuracy in the 2 to 5 percent range.
The specific accuracy will be negotiated between the owners (Section 22.3.1).
Fiscal/custody transfer Fiscal meters will require much higher accuracy, usually in the 0.25
to 0.5 percent range (Section 22.3.2).
Chemical injection Chemical injection rates can be measured to determine the amount of
chemical being used and to allocate those chemicals to the appropriate owners/operators
(see Section 22.3.3).
Pigging Fluid
22.3.1 Allocation
H-0806.35
22-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Allocation meters (to allocate production among the various owners) are likely to require
accuracy in the 2 to 5 percent range. The specific accuracy will be negotiate/agreed between
the owners. Allocation meters may be meter the individual gas and liquid streams or may
measure the combined two/three phase stream using multiphase meters.
22.3.2 Fiscal/Custody Transfer
The required accuracy of fiscal meter will be in the 0.25 to 0.5 percent range. Oil and gas
streams will be measured individually. Water is typically not measured to this accuracy, as it is
not sold as a commodity.
22.3.3 Chemical Injection
Chemical injection metering is needed for several purposes:
General inventory monitoring, although this maybe best accomplished glass sight level
gauges as they are cheaper and do not require maintenance (lower OPEX).
Where multiple owners are involved, meter results can be used for cost allocation (only
required when using the same chemical bulk storage unit).
To verify proper operation of the system.
Subsea metering may also be required to ensure that chemicals are actually being injected
where and when intended.
22.3.4 Pigging Fluid

The volume of fluid being used to move flowline pigs needs to be measured for two reasons:
The volume of liquid delivered to move the pig is a good indication of the location of the pig
in the flowline.
When oil to move the pig is bought back from the export pipeline, the buy back oil has to
be measured for fiscal purposes.
As can be seen, this is a subject that will need to be studied further and will vary with each
development.
22.4
Chemical Storage and Distribution

Chemical usage can be quite expensive, both from the standpoint of the chemical itself as well as
the cost of the facility space to store it. As can be seen in the sections below, a high rate GOM
H-0806.35
22-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
field (or fields) will require a large amount of chemical usage as well as storage. If possible,
extensive laboratory studies should be undertaken to determine the best and least costly
chemicals to be used (if any are required).
22.4.1 Methanol Storage Volumes
Basic guidelines in determining the amount of methanol storage for oil production systems is as
follows:
Before starting a subsea production system, the minimum volume of methanol to have in
storage is the volume required to start the system plus the volume required to safely shut it
down. Once the system is in steady state operation, it would be operationally safe to have
only the volume required to shut in the system.
Methanol volumes are calculated based on the operating strategy and the subsea system
design.
The amount of methanol required strongly depends on the produced watercut. The design
watercut should be no higher than necessary to realistically accommodate the expected
water production profiles.
Where practical to do so, methanol storage should be based on startup of systems with at
least one dry well (<1 percent watercut). Starting systems with all wet wells, (generally a
late life condition) will require much higher methanol volumes. The high volumes required for
wet system startup can be supplied by floating methanol storage (a supply vessel), if
needed.
If the host facility has more than one subsea development producing to it, methanol volumes
should be based on starting one system (the worst case) and shutting down all systems.
With multiple systems, the volume of methanol required to start up and shut down all wells
without re-supply could be quite large. However, the volume of methanol required to start
any one system (the one with the highest methanol demand) and to shut in all systems is
much lower and safe operation still results.
22.4.2 Methanol Pump Skids

Typical Arrangement
Some key features of a typical methanol pump skid are:
H-0806.35
22-7
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Each well has two downhole injection lines to provide the high methanol injection rates
required for high watercut startup. One of these downhole lines for each well is fed by a
dedicated well injection pump. The second is fed from a common header that is fed by
another injection pump. Therefore, the number of required methanol injection pumps is one
per well plus one spare (common).
The second downhole line could serve as a backup chemical injection line.
The manifold has two methanol injection points, one per flowline. Each injection point has a
dedicated methanol pump.
All pumps feed off a common methanol supply.
Arrangement for multiple subsea developments to a single host.

When multiple subsea developments produce to a single host, assuming that the insulation
system provides appropriate intervention time, two systems can share a single set of methanol
pumps, thereby reducing capital cost and power requirements.
Dedicated Methanol Supply - With dedicated methanol supplies, all startup and shutdown
operations for each subsea system can be accomplished independently of the others.
Startup and shutdown can be simultaneous or sequential.
Shared Well and Flowline Methanol Pumps - Using flowline blowdown as the default
shutdown method, if well pumps are shared between subsea systems, all operations except
flooding of manifolds (of all sizes) and startup of all wet well systems can be accomplished
by starting and shutting in shared systems sequentially. By sharing well methanol and flowline
pumps between no more than two systems, all startup and shutdown operations can be
accomplished.
22.4.3 Wax and Corrosion Inhibitor Injection and Storage

Generally, fluid properties allowing, wax and corrosion inhibitors will be injected in a single line
for each subsea system. Each subsea system will have its own storage, pumps, and delivery
lines. If the required wax and corrosion inhibitors for any subsea development are incompatible,
dedicated lines for each will be needed. Compatibility studies are generally performed by a
laboratory prior to introducing the chemicals into the production stream.
The chemical injection concentration required (combined concentration for inhibitor plus carrier
fluid) will generally range between 200 and 500 ppm (parts per million) of the produced oil rate.
H-0806.35
22-8
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
When wax and corrosion inhibitors are combined the concentration for both plus carrier will
still range between 200 and 500 ppm.
Storage volume should be based on at least a one week supply at peak field production rate.
22.4.4 Pour Point Depressant
If pour point depressant should be required, the probable injection concentration will be 1000
ppm or less.
22.5
Pigging
Pigging operations are highly dependent on the development (i.e. a dry gas field may never
require pigging). However, if pigging is deemed necessary, the following are some general
guidelines:
Dual flowlines enable round trip pigging no intervention vessel would be required, as
would be the case with a single line, though this could prove to be costly.
Pigging for wax removal purposes is expected to be infrequent (chemical inhibitors should
be used).
System shutdowns using flowline blowdown will require flowline pigging for system restart,
further reducing the need for wax-specific pigging.
Pigging operations are described in more detail in Section 19.

22.5.1 Launchers/Receivers
The pig launcher/receiver should be designed to accommodate smart/intelligent pigs. These pigs
require launchers/receivers that are approximately 23 feet in length. The loading zone for the pig
can take up an area of 14.5 feet by 3.5 feet in front of the launcher/receiver. As the smart pigs
can be quite heavy, an overhead hoist should be installed if they are to be used.
If smart pigs are not to be used, the launcher/receiver will be approximately one-half the size
stated above.
22.5.2 Flow Path
The recommended minimum flow path for pigging operations is:
Minimum bend radius; 5D (D = flow path ID)
Minimum straight lengths between bends; 3D
H-0806.35
22-9
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Taper between wall thickness changes (differences in ID); 1:4
22.5.3 Stuck Pig Removal

Should a pig become stuck, the surface piping should be designed such that an auxiliary high
pressure pump can be easily tied in to the pipeline. Caution should be exercised in that the
pump used in attempting to remove the stuck pig does not overpressure the line.
22.5.4 Pumps
The required pump volumetric rate will depend on the flow path diameter. It is recommended
that 3.5 ft/s be used as a design pig speed. Figure 22.5-1 shows the required pump rate to
achieve 3.5 ft/s in various sized flowlines.
Q = 293.738d 2 ; where d = flowline ID, inches.
Pump Rate, BPD
Pigging Pump Rate

45000
40000
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
10" Flowline
8" Flowline
6" Flowline
4" Flowline
0
10
12
14
Flow Path Internal Diameter, inches
Figure 22.5-1: Pigging Pump Rate 3.5 ft/s
The pumping duration will depend on the offset and design pig velocity. Figure 22.5-2 shows
the round trip pigging time for various offset distances when using a design speed of 3.5 ft/s.
t = 0.838 L ; where L = offset from host to manifold, miles.
H-0806.35
22-10
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Round Trip Pigging Time, hr
Pigging Time
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
10
15
20
25
Offset, Miles
Figure 22.5-2: Pigging Time 3.5 ft/s
22.5.5 Dry Oil Storage

Dry oil required for pig propulsion can be taken from the dry oil tanks. Although, due to the
large volumes required, keeping this much storage would be extremely costly in terms of the
platform structural costs (unless the host facility has large storage potential, such as that of an
FPSO). Total volume required for a range of flowline sizes and offset distances is shown below
in Figure 22.5-3. For unplanned shutdowns, this dry oil must be available in storage (not likely)
or will have to be bought back from the export lines (most likely).
Vpig = 24618
. d 2 L ; where d = flowline ID, inches, and L = offset, miles.
H-0806.35
22-11
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Dry Oil For Pigging, bbl
Pigging Volume
18000
16000
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
4" Flowline
6" Flowlines
8" Flowlines
10" Flowlines
10
15
20
25
Offset, Miles
Figure 22.5-3: Pigging Volume

22.5.6 Pig Types
The general types of pigs and their uses are as follows:
Smart pigs Can detect corrosion/erosion and do other analysis (such as pipe wall
thickness readings). These pigs are typically over 10 feet in length and can weigh several
hundred pounds.
Spherical pigs Generally used for liquid removal. These pigs are generally made of either
plastic (or some other similar material) or wax. The wax pigs have the advantage of being
able to be dissolved by liquid hydrocarbons (over a period of time).
Cylindrical pigs Generally used for paraffin/scale removal (requires scrapers/scratchers on

the side) as well as batch treating with inhibitors (this pig will have rubber cups on it).
All pigs listed will most likely have a smaller OD than the flowline ID as to allow some fluid to
pass by the pig in the event that the pig becomes stuck. This can be further enhanced on the
wax pigs by cutting and removing small sections.
22.6
Power
Host facility power systems must provide both the normal operating power for the platform and
the emergency power system required to safely shut-in the system in the event of an emergency
or safety shut-in situation.
H-0806.35
22-12
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
22.6.1 Utilities
Platform utility load requirements are generally a function of the platform production throughput.
Normal loads include power for human systems and for processing equipment, controls, subsea
system operation, and production export.
22.6.2 Emergency
Platform emergency power requirements are generally a function of the number of methanol
pumps simultaneously running during unplanned shutdowns.
The use of shared methanol systems (or sequential shutdown of 1/3 to 1/2 of the wells if
methanol systems are not shared) for unplanned shutdowns will:
Result in fewer running pumps and a lower emergency power demand
Result in longer duration for shut-in operations.
For the subsea production systems, extended duration power for methanol pumps and the
PCS will be required.
22.7
Controls
The PCS for all subsea developments producing to a common host facility should be integrated
into a logical whole.
The PCS for all subsea developments producing to a common host facility should send data to
the platform CAO and should accept shutdown signals from the CAO.
22.8
Compression
In some situations, it may be desirable to reduce wellhead (and flowline) pressure so as to lower
reservoir abandonment pressure and/or to increase well production rate.
One option for doing this is to route production to a lower pressure separator, which can
require that the lower pressure separator have high gas handling capacity. Compression of that
higher gas volume would be required. (Full detailed recommendations on the type and size of
compressor needed is beyond the scope of this manual and will not be discussed further).
Another options would be to install multiphase pumps upstream of the HP separator, thereby
greatly simplifying the process system design. Assuming proper planning, such pumps could be
installed if and when needed.
H-0806.35
22-13
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
22.9
Flare/Vent
The flare/vent system should be designed to handle flow system blowdown for both planned
and unplanned system shutdowns. This may require an unusually large flare/vent scrubber.
Likewise, subsea developments tied into existing host facilities have to be designed in view of
the facilitys existing capabilities.
22.10 Other Subsea Developments

Operation of multiple subsea development by and to a single host is viable, provided that the
designs of the subsea and host systems allow it. To that end, the following general design
precepts should generally be followed:
Integrate the PCSs for all developments into a single platform-wide PCS. Successful
operation of the entire system will demand that the entire system be continuously considered
as a whole.
To reduce capital outlay, share methanol pumps between compatible systems.
Start wells and production systems sequentially
For planned shutdowns, shut-in subsea developments sequentially.
For unplanned shutdowns, shut in system sharing methanol pumps sequentially. Otherwise,
shut in systems simultaneously.
Provide appropriate production, allocation, and fiscal metering.
Develop a set of subsea system design guidelines to be applied to all subsea systems to be
operated by and to the host.
H-0806.35
22-14
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
23.
SYSTEM ECONOMICS AND RISK MANAGEMENT
23.1
Introduction
Economic analysis compares decisions on the basis of monetary value. All other factors
being equal, the decision resulting in the highest profit is the superior decision. This
section will only touch on basic economic principals as related to cost/benefit analysis
and risk management and is not intended to be full course on economics as philosophies
and calculation methods can and do vary from project to project as well as company to
company.
The economics of a system is made up of four major elements:
1. Capital investment (CAPEX)
2. Operating expense (OPEX)
3. Government burden (taxes)
4. Gross Revenue
The profit derived is:
Profit = Gross Revenue CAPEX OPEX taxes
The Profit equation suggests two ways to maximize profits:
Increase gross revenue. This can be accomplished by increasing the volume of the
product being produced for sale at a constant price, producing the same volume at a
higher price or increasing both volume and price.
Reduce one or more of the remaining three terms in the equation.
There is no legal way to increase the sales price of oil and gas or of reducing taxes on the
product. Therefore, the items amenable to change are the volume of product produced,
the initial capital investment, and the operating expense.
Efforts to increase production may require greater initial investments. Efforts to decrease
initial investment may result in lower production. Both may result in increased operating
expense. The effort to determine the best balance between production, investment, and
expense is known as cost/benefit analysis.
H-0806.35
23-1
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
Complicating cost/benefit analysis of deepwater oil and gas projects is the fact that
conditions are certain to change during the life of the project. An optimum system for
conditions during the early life of a project may cause problems during mid- life and, in
fact, may be incapable of production during late life. Because of this, flow assurance
studies can be of great value and may be the only means of comparing systems on a
cost/benefit basis.
23.2
Cost/Benefit Analysis
As already mentioned, a cost/benefit analysis is used to determine the best balance
between production, investment, and expense. This does not mean that the selected
project or way of approaching a project will be the cheapest or provide the highest
production rates (though it could), but the most efficient way given the individual project
parameters and company philosophies.
Two examples of cost/benefit analysis are line sizing and thermal modeling:
Line Sizing
The system components most frequently chosen using flow assurance is the flow line
size. At first glance it would appear that no cost/benefit analysis should be necessary. If
the ability to handle the peak production volume is the most important consideration in
choosing the line size this might be true.
However, if other factors are introduced the choice may not be so clear. For example,
assume that flow assurance modeling shows that a line of sufficient size to handle peak
production volumes during early life will result in high liquid holdup and severe slugging
during the middle of the projects life as pressures decline and water cuts increase.
Further assume that the model shows that the system will stop producing 20 percent short
of producing all recoverable reserves.
For such an example, it may be more advantageous to size the line to handle a flow rate
below the peak which will not result in slugging later in life and that will continue
producing until a higher percentage of reserves are recovered.
A cost/benefit analysis is the only way to properly decide.
Thermal Modeling and Insulation Requirements
Further, say that a certain insulation type and thickness will maintain the above system at
a temperature above the hydrate formation and wax deposition temperatures, but will also
H-0806.35
23-2
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
result in an operating temperature above that which can be tolerated by certain

elastomeric elements of an expensive existing riser system.
Given all factors, the choice of a different insulation, insulation thickness, the use of
continuous or intermittent chemical injection for hydrate and wax inhibition or some
combination of the above may be the proper solution.
Again, cost/benefit analysis must be coupled with the flow assurance work before an
informed decision can be made.
23.3
Risk Management
While a cost/benefit analysis will provide the most bang for the buck solution, it does
not take into account the risk factors associated with each possible solution. Therefore,
risk identification and management needs to be an integral part of finding the best
solution to the problem or project at hand. An example of this is shown below.
Prevention vs. Intervention: Asphaltenes
The current state-of-the-art with respect to prediction of asphaltene deposition is not well
developed. There is a real, and understandable, lack of understanding in the industry as to
the seriousness of the problem because of lack of correlatable data and experience.
Because of this uncertainty, designing systems to deal with asphaltene deposition
currently requires the application of some type of risk weighted probability and good
judgement to prevent either over or under reaction to the presence of asphaltenes.
The mere fact that asphaltenes are present in a particular oil and that these asphaltenes
can form depositions under the conditions of pressure and temperature predicted in a
system is no guarantee that deposition will occur (See Section 11.0).
Should fluid compositional analyses and flow assurance models suggest that asphaltene
deposition would be a problem, the operator faces a choice. They can attempt to inhibit
deposition with a dispersant, plan to use a solvent, either in a continuous or intermittent
(batch) mode to dissolve the asphaltene, plan to mechanically remove the asphaltene by
scraping or cutting, either by pigging or by intervention with a rig or other maintenance
vessel. Or they can plan to do none of the above and see what develops. Each has an
associated cost and risk.
Asphaltene inhibition usually requires that the dispersant chemical be injected deep down
hole in order to be effective in protecting the whole system. Due to the high viscosity of
H-0806.35
23-3
1-Dec-00
INTEC ENGINEERING
DEEPSTAR
the most effective dispersants, relatively large ID injection tubing or more than one tube
will be required.
Dissolving asphaltenes will usually require relatively large volumes of aromatic
chemicals such as toluene or one of the xylenes. These chemicals are difficult to handle
in an offshore environment and expensive in the volumes required. In addition large
volumes require either large ID supply lines or large numbers of smaller supply lines to
achieve the desired result.
Mechanical removal by pigging is an option, however, due to the relatively hard
composition of many asphaltenes, this may or may not be effective, and carries its own
costs such as additional equipment and lost production during pigging operations.
Direct intervention with a rig or other vessel to remove asphaltenes is obviously an
expensive proposition, but may be the most effective and indeed only method available in
some circumstances.
With all the uncertainty involved and the multiplicity of choices as how to deal with the
problem if it in fact exists, some consistent method of evaluation is necessary. The best
currently available is a risk weighted cost/benefit analysis.
23.4
Calculation Methods
There are several methods available to determine the best overall solution to a problem.
This is accomplished through economic calculations coupled with risking methods
ranging from complex Monte Carlo simulations to a simple decision tree analysis. There
are many computer programs that can handle these types of calculations and are available
commercially (some operators have also developed these programs in- house).
As assigning a risk factor to each solution for a single problem can be a daunting task, it
is best to consult your company guidelines/philosophies or in- house experts on what
programs/methods are available and what should be used for the given problem/project.
H-0806.35
23-4
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
24.0
DEEPWATER ISSUES AND CASE STUDIES
24.1
Introduction
A large proportion of future oil production is likely to be provided by deepwater offshore
developments. A DeepStar study estimated that 95% of presently unexplored offshore
acreage is in water depths of 3,000 ft or more. The main areas of activity at present are in
the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) with current leases extending to 9,250 ft. West of Shetland
the water depth is not as great (around 1,600 ft at present with potential developments at
depths up to 4,000 ft). However the environmental conditions are very severe and have
had a large impact on the design of the present and future. The other main deepwater
development areas are offshore Norway, where BP is drilling a well in the Voring basin
at a water depth of 4,200 ft, and West Africa (600-7,000 ft) with present studies of the
4,500 ft WD Girassol development. Although these are the main deepwater provinces for
one operator, there are also other potential future prospects in the Black Sea, Caspian
Sea, and offshore Indonesia, China and Vietnam. Each of these areas have their own
unique combination of conditions relating to the available oil and gas infrastructure,
environmental conditions, and political climate etc. but share in common the deepwater
nature of the province. Figure 24.1-1 illustrates the environmental conditions
characteristic of these areas of activity.
One of the critical issues is whether a tieback to shallower water depths is practical as this
may eliminate the need for ultra-deepwater surface piercing structures. Thus, the
hydraulic limitations on the step out distance need to be investigated. At present the
Troika subsea development requires 14 mile long flowlines from a seabed template in
2,670 ft of water to the existing Bullwinkle platform in 1,350 ft of water. One of the
controlling features of the design is to maintain a high level of insulation on the flowlines
in order to provide high flowing temperatures and to avoid hydrate formation. The GOM
Neptune discovery is in 6,000-7,500 ft of water and could conceivably involve tieback
distances in the range 25 to 30 miles. However this may not represent the ultimate
challenge.
Drilling has already taken place in the GOM at water depths of 7,800 ft (BAJA), and the
deepest lease in the April 1996 GOM Central lease sale was in 9,289 ft of water.
Therefore, a realistic design challenge is 10,000 ft water depth. The Shell Mensa
development is in 5,300 ft of water and involves a 68 mile, 12 tieback to a host platform.
Looking at the existing GOM infrastructure and the potential future plays indicates that a
tieback distance of 100 miles is a reasonable target.
H-0806.35
24-1
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 24.1-1: AREAS OF ACTIVITY
H-0806.35
24-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
If we can design for such long tiebacks this may eliminate the need for ultra-deepwater
surface piercing structures. Although there are a large array of potential host platform
configurations ranging from floating tankers, tension leg platforms, spars, compliant
towers, and semi- subs etc. they share in common the need for riser systems to connect the
subsea flowlines to the facilities. These risers can be rigid vertical conventional or hybrid
designs, steel catenaries, or may be constructed of flexible pipe in a variety of
configurations including catenary, S and potentially double S. As the water depth
increases the pressure drop over the riser increases and has a larger impact on the
hydraulic characteristics of the system. However there may be severe limitations in the
ability of present design methods to accurately predict the hydraulic performance of such
deepwater riser systems, and there is no field scale data on which to test and evaluate the
performance of the models. The present limiting size of flexible risers is around 12",
although at increased water depths, sizes of up to 20" may be required. This large
diameter brings into question the accuracy of the hydraulic models, which have
historically been validated on relatively small, bore well tubing.
24.2
Key technical issues

The key technical issues can be summarized under the headings of energy, integrity and
delivery.
24.2.1 Energy
The provision of sufficient pressure to transport the required flowrates of fluids from the
reservoir to the processing facilities.
The system pressure drop increases with water depth and step out distance as illustrated
in Figures 24.2-1 and 24.2-2. This may be a limiting factor if the natural well head
flowing pressure is insufficient. Most of the pressure drop is expected over the deepwater
riser, although the proportion of the total pressure drop over the flowline will increase
with the tieback distance. A true assessment of design limits requires accurate pressure
loss prediction methods for which there are two main concerns. First, the shape of the
flexible and steel risers utilized in deepwater is expected to influence the hydraulic
characteristics. This brings about the need for design tools and guidance on the effect of
the different riser shapes to enable accurate predictions to be made and to assess the
issues and limitations pertaining to the various configurations. One potential problem
lies in the basis of the steady state multiphase design programs, such as Multiflo, which
H-0806.35
24-3
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 24.2-1: EFFECT OF DEPTH ON PRESSURE DROP

12 ID, 1200 GOR, 0% WC, 20 MBD, 1000 PSIA DELIVERY
H-0806.35
24-5
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 24.2-2: EFFECT OF DISTANCE ON PRESSURE DROP

12 ID, 1200 GOR, 0% WC, 20 MBD, 1000 PSIA DELIVERY
H-0806.35
24-6
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
describe pipelines and risers by a number of discrete segments to capture the features of
the topography. This may require many sections for a true representation of a catenary or
S shaped riser. However each segment is treated in isolation and hence the flow regime
and holdup can change significantly at the segment boundaries. In practice the conditions
in one segment can influence the downstream conditions, for example, slug flow
generated in the flowline may persist in a riser, even though the riser is predicted to
operate in another flow regime.
The second potential inaccuracy is that the hydraulic models developed for vertical and
highly inclined flows have historically been developed from relatively small bore well
tubing data and have not been validated at the increased diameters that may be required
for deepwater developments.
In deepwater developments the reservoir can fail to produce naturally at much higher
pressures than conventional shallow water developments. Hence it is possible that a great
benefit can be obtained by providing some kind of pressure boosting or pressure drop
reduction. Pressure boosting can be obtained by using downhole ESP's, multiphase
pumps or subsea separation and boosting. Pressure drop reduction can be provided by
using gas lift, drag reduction agents (DRA), using foaming agents, or removing the water
at the wellhead. The optimization of these methods requires that many factors be taken
into consideration and can benefit greatly from integration with the reservoir
performance, the flowline and riser hydraulics, and the process equipment performance.
Steady state programs such as Multiflo are ideal for generating the hydraulic data
provided that the accuracy is sufficient when applied to deepwater systems. Future
system integrated models offer promise if the complexity does not hamper the simulation
speed. This may require that a simple description is used for the reservoir. Figure 24.2-3
illustrates the main energy related issues.
Transient considerations may also play a part in the energy related is sues in that
unacceptable conditions may arise due to unstable operation under normal flowing
conditions or during shutdowns, restarts, and flowrate increases. For example sufficient
pressure may not be available to start up wells against the high backpressure generated by
stationary fluids in the flowline and riser. Temporary riser gas lift may be a solution to
unloading the riser and kicking off the wells, which may flow naturally after startup.
H-0806.35
24-7
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 24.2-3: ENERGY RELATED ISSUES PROVIDE PRESSURE FOR TRANSPORT
H-0806.35
24-8
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
24.2.1.1 System pressure drop components

The production capacity of a deepwater development is principally determined by the
reservoir pressure available and the pressure drop over the entire system from the sand
face to the facilities. If there is sufficient driving energy from the reservoir to overcome
the total pressure drop to the facilities the desired production capacity will be realized
provided that the system integrity is maintained and the facilities can handle the delivered
fluid flowrates. Figure 24.5-4 illustrates an integrated approach to the overall system
pressure drop and indicates the various components that contribute to the system pressure
drop.
a) Reservoir
Starting at the reservoir the pressure is normally high initially and declines with time as
the reservoir is depleted, although the pressure decline can in normal cases be moderated
by pressure maintenance (e.g. water or gas injection). A reservoir that is normally
pressured has an initial pressure approximately equal to the hydrostatic pressure for a
column of water equal to the depth of the reservoir. For example a 15,000 ft reservoir
from the seabed located at a water depth of 10,000 ft would have an initial pressure of
approximately 10,800 psi. If adequate pressure support is not provided the pressure could
drop to the bubble point of say 5,000 psi. This will have a great influence on the energy
available for transporting the fluids.
The range of reservoir characteristics and flowing conditions are great and it is beyond
the scope of this manual to consider all options. This is best done when analyzing specific
developments.
b) Formation pressure drop
As the fluids are produced from the reservoir to the wellbore a pressure drop is
experienced over the formation. The relationship between the formation pressure drop
and the flowrate is called the inflow performance and in its simplest form is expressed as
a linear relationship between the oil flowrate and the drawdown, which may be typically
10 to 100 bpd/psi. Hence a productivity index (PI) of 10 with an initial reservoir pressure
of 10,800 psi would yield a bottom hole flowing pressure of 8,800 psi for an oil flowrate
of 20 MBOPD.
H-0806.35
24-9
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
FIGURE 24.2-4: WELLS AS PART OF THE PRODUCTION SYSTEM
H-0806.35
24-10
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
c) Well tubing pressure loss

The next component of the system pressure drop is the tubing loss, which in shallow
water systems is usually the biggest loss. However, in deepwater the greater riser depth
substantially increases the significance of the riser pressure drop. In the early production
life of an oil field the flow into the well bore may still be above the bubble point, but the
flow usually becomes two phase due to the pressure drop in the well tubing. This
necessitates the need of two-phase flow models to predict the pressure drop. For gas
wells, retrograde condensation also gives rise to a two-phase mixture.
Typical vertical two-phase flow patterns are illustrated in Section 2 where the flow may
be bubbly just above the bubble point in an oil well but may change to slug, churn, and
finally annular if there is sufficient gas evolution. The flow is generally symmetrical
about the centerline due to axial gravity effects.
There are three main components to the pressure drop across the well tubing. These are
due to friction, hydrostatic effects, and acceleration. At low flowrates the hydrostatic
term usually dominates and requires accurate prediction of the liquid content or holdup.
At high flowrates friction dominates. The acceleration term is usually only of
significance at very high flowrates which may be impractical for other reasons such as
erosion. The competing hydrostatic and frictional losses usually result in a U shape to
the plot of tubing pressure loss vs. flowrate.
Original two-phase pressure drop methods were based on simple correlations but they
were found to be limited when applied to conditions outside the original data range on
which they were developed. New methods based on mechanistic models for the flow
regimes provide a higher level of confidence. The Ansari mechanistic model has been
shown to give pressure drops of within 3% of the Foinaven EWT data. Typical tubing
sizes of interest in subsea wells are in the range 4 to 7.
d) Choke and manifold pressure loss
Usually the pressure loss associated with the subsea wellhead, manifold, and jumpers etc.
is relatively low, typically tens of psi compared to the control chokes with hundreds of
psi pressure drop unless full open for maximum production rate. The pressure drop
generated by the production control chokes is usually determined by a calibrated
correlation for the particular type of choke and its duty. A representative relationship is
usually provided for design and during operation the performance of the actual
correlation used can be monitored through well testing. It is often the case in steady state
analysis that the solution involves calculation from the reservoir to the well head and
H-0806.35
24-11
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
from the facilities to the manifold, with required choke pressure drop inferred from the
difference in pressures between the well head and the manifold.
e) Flowlines and risers
The flow regimes in horizontal and slightly inclined flowlines are analogous to the
vertical flow patterns but are complicated by the asymmetry caused by gravity. These
have also been discussed in Section 2. The pressure drop across the flowline is mainly
due to friction effects and hence usually increases with flowrate, although if the flowline
is inclined uphill hydrostatic effects can be important. Again the mechanistically based
models are thought to provide the best results when applied to real systems.
As the water depth increases the effect of the riser pressure loss becomes more significant
and the shape of the combined flowline and riser characteristic becomes more U shaped
due to the increased hydrostatic effects, similar to a well bore. The largest uncertainties
are expected to be in the possible complex riser geometry as well as the accuracy of the
riser pressure drop prediction because of the potentially large diameter (up to 20")
compared with the small well bore sizes on which the models have been validated. The
larger diameter and inclination effects are expected to lead to increased slip between the
phases, which will increase the liquid holdup and the hydrostatic pressure loss. This is
particularly true for three-phase flows where a much greater proportion of water is
possible than in the homogeneous assumptions used in two-phase flow models.
Another potentially large inaccuracy can arise from the hysterisis nature of multiphase
flow in which the flow regime developed in one section of the geometry may persist for
sometime in downstream sections. This is particularly true for large slugs and is a major
limitation of general steady state two-phase design programs in which the topographical
segments are treated independently.
f) Arrival pressure
Historically a range of arrival pressures may occur during the lifetime of a development
as the oil production rate declines. Delivering to the lower pressure separators can
accommodate this. For example the initial Pompano fluids are produced into the HP
separator at 1250 psig, with the initial FWHP being high enough for the flowlines to run
at a back pressure of 2000 psig at the platform upstream of a choke, giving rise to bubble
flow in the flowlines. As the available pressure subsea declines, the production can be
successively switched to the IP separator operating at 450 psig and finally the LP
separation stage operating at 150 psig. As can be seen, a large variation in the arrival
pressure that can be used to provide for flexibility of operation.
H-0806.35
24-12
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The arrival pressure is usually fixed by the processing requirements, although there will
inevitably be some tradeoff with the productio n capacity of the whole system if an
integrated approach is used.
24.2.1.2 Network integration

An integrated approach to the system pressure drops is important if an optimized system
is to result from the design. This approach is likely to overcome past failures in the
communication between the various disciplines involved. For example, the subsurface
analysis is likely to provide a minimum FWHP in order to give them a design margin,
whereas the process design may adopt a high delivery pressure to provide them with a
better margin for compression. The result can be that there is an unrealistically low
pressure drop available for the interconnecting flowline and riser system. In addition, real
systems can involve multiple wells, flowlines, and risers where it can be difficult to
optimize production without an integrated model to determine which wells should be
choked to what manifold pressure and produced to which separator pressure. Figure 24.25 shows a simple multiple well, single flowline example where the hydraulic
characteristics of the wells are different and may be updated in a database using the
results from well tests to adjust for changing operating conditions. The approach becomes
even more complicated if other operational constraints are involved such as well bore gas
lift. This complication may give rise to the need for computer assistance in making
operational decisions for optimized performance and for future field development
planning.
By consideration of the various components in the production system it can be seen that
the natural oil flowrate can be maintained or increased by supporting the reservoir
pressure, reducing pressure drop from the reservoir to the separator, and by reducing the
delivery pressure. Maintaining the reservoir pressure can involve gas re- injection,
voidage replacement, or water injection, usually with associated CAPEX and OPEX cost
penalties. The pressure loss between the reservoir and the tubing can be reduced through
improved completion design and stimulation to reduce the pressure drawdown across the
formation. The pressure loss across the well tubing, flowline and riser may be reduced by
increasing the diameter (although too low a velocity may lead to hydraulic instabilities
H-0806.35
24-13
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
FIGURE 24.2-5: MULTIPLE WELLS TO ONE FLOWLINE TO SEPARATOR
H-0806.35
24-14
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
causing unmanageable transient flowrates and possibly high restart pressures). Using
foams, gas lift, or DRA may reduce tubing and riser pressure losses while boosting may
be provided by using ESPs, multiphase pumping, or seabed separation and pumping.
Flowline pressure drops may be reduced by using DRA or removing the water prior to
transportation. Reducing the arrival pressure may increase compression requirements and
worsen oil- gas separation efficiency. The optimum solution will involve a tradeoff
between the competing economics.
In some cases pressure boosting or pressure drop reduction may provide economic
alternatives to maximize production as a solution to the problems faced by natural flow.
24.2.2 Integrity
Designing to ensure that the fluids are contained and that the flow is not impeded.
One of the biggest potential deepwater problems here is related to cold temperature
operation and the impact on production chemistry issues such as wax, hydrate, and
emulsion formation. Lower ambient temperatures and longer transportation distances are
likely to lead to increased cooling of the fluids, although this may be partly offset by
higher flowing wellhead temperatures which may give rise to material limitations.
Two modes of operation are possible:
Normally operate at temperatures above the wax, hydrate, or emulsion formation

conditions and provide measures for abnormal operation such as during shutdowns
and restarts.
Operate in the wax, hydrate, or emulsion formation region but use chemicals to
suppress formation or the occurrence of problematic conditions.
The DeepStar project has recognized the importance of assuring flowing conditions and
has estimated that 10-30% CAPEX reductions could be realized if chemicals could be
developed to avoid flowline blockages. The cost savings are related to moving from
expensive bundle pipeline designs to bare pipe options ($ millions per mile saving),
removing insulation requirements (approximately $150,000 per mile saving), plus $
millions per mile if a pigging loop is avoided, with additional OPEX reduction of $1
million for a 36 hr shutdown at 30 MBOPD.
H-0806.35
24-15
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Figures 24.2-6 and 24.2-7 illustrate flowline temperature profiles for a concrete coated
pipeline and a bundle with a high value of insulation and indicate that high insulation and
flowrates are required to maintain high temperatures over long distances.
Solutions to the thermal problems revolve around developing inhibiting chemicals,
preferably lower cost alternatives to conventional chemicals and insulation or heating.
The higher pressure operation leads to increased hydrate formation tendency and
corrosion. Higher pressure also leads to more expensive pipeline designs and could lead
to the use of High Integrity Pressure Protection Systems (HIPPS) if it is not possible or
economic to design for full shut- in wellhead pressures.
Deepwater flowlines are expected to operate at a higher pressure due to the greater
pressure drop across the riser. To provide acceptable velocities at the riser top within
erosion or corrosion inhibitor shear stripping limits, the velocity in the flowline may be
relatively low, leading to the potential for surging and solids or water deposition, which
can have an impact on the flowing capacity, pigging, and corrosion.
At a first glance the integrity issues related to the topsides plant are not expected to be
any worse than conventional shallow water developments because the arrival pressures
and steady velocities are expected to be similar. Hence, the slug mechanical loads
imposed on the pipe work and the erosional velocities are expected to be similar.
However, there is concern over the potential dynamic effects caused by the large
hydrostatic pressure drops possible at increased water depths, giving rise to the stalling of
large slugs as the gas in the flowline packs to provide the increasing hydrostatic pressure.
When such slugs are produced into the facilities the extra hydrostatic back pressure is no
longer needed and is converted to friction as the slug tail is accelerated giving rise to
potentially high transient velocities and mechanical loads. Figure 24.2-8 illustrates the
acceleration of the slug tail. Other sections of this design guide discuss the estimation of
slug forces in furthe r detail. Figures 24.2-9 and 24.2-10 illustrate the potential integrity
related issues.
a) Low temperature limits and effect on physical chemistry issues
Low operating temperatures occur if the fluid is exposed to a cold environment for a
significant period of time. The greatest effects that deeper water and longer step out
distances will have are on the lower ambient temperature in deeper water and longer
residence time that the fluid will have in the transportation system as well as riser
H-0806.35
24-16
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 24.2-6: TEMPERATURE PROFILES FOR PIPELINE WITH 2 OF

CONCRETE COATING WITH BURIAL.
H-0806.35
24-17
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 24.2-7: TEMPERATURE PROFILE WITH LOW OVERALL HEAT

TRANSFER COEFFICIENT OF 0.14BTU/HRFT2 F.
H-0806.35
24-18
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 24.2-8: SLUG ACCELERATIONS IN A RISER
H-0806.35
24-19
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 24.2-9: Integrity related issues Avoid impeding flow/contain fluids
H-0806.35
24-20
1-Dec-00
FIGURE 24.2-10:
H-0806.35
DEEPSTAR
INTEGRITY RELATED ISSUES AVOID IMPEDING

FLOW/CONTAIN FLUIDS
24-21
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
auto-refrigeration effects. If the pressure drop available is relatively low such that a large
diameter flowline and riser is required, the residence time will increase for the same
production rate, and this will give rise to lower temperatures. It is apparent that for
typical systems the operating temperature may be below 90F even with high levels of
insulation. As rule of thumb, 90F is a minimum arrival temperature for good separation
efficiency.
b) Hydrates
Low temperatures and high pressures typify hydrate formation conditions. Therefore,
deepwater operations with longer tiebacks are expected to increase the likelihood of
hydrate formation which can reduce the flowing capacity, or in the extreme, complete
flowline blockage can occur which can give rise to safety and containment problems as
well as the potential high cost of remediation and production loss.
Hydrates are part of a chemical class of compounds called clathrates and can form at
temperatures as high as 70F in hydrocarbon/water systems operating at high pressures.
Hydrates are solids composed of water and gas and are in some ways similar to ice with a
frost like or ice appearance. The density of hydrates is similar to ice. However, whereas a
pressure increase over water reduces the tendency to form ice as the temperature is
decreased, a pressure increase in a hydrocarbon gas/water system increases the tendency
to form hydrates as temperature is decreased. Figure 24.2-11 shows a typical hydrate
decomposition curve for a oil/water/gas fluid on which is superimposed a pressure and
temperature profile for a 50 mile subsea flowline from deepwater wells to a shallow
water platform. In this case, it is seen that most of the flowline operates in the hydrate
formation region.
The classical approach to avoiding hydrate problems under normal operation is to
insulate the flowlines or to use inhibitors such as methanol or mono ethylene glycol
(MEG). Insulation or heating the flowline is employed to move the operating line to the
right of the hydrate region, whereas chemical inhibition is used to move the hydrate curve
to the left of the operating line. Insulation can significantly add to the CAPEX cost of a
flowline (approximately $150,000 per mile) whereas classical inhibition can require large
quantities (10-40% of the water rate) of relatively expensive chemical which can add
significantly to the OPEX cost. Even if the normal operation remains out of hydrate
forming conditions, shutdown and subsequent cool down can cause hydrate formation. If
depressurization is used to prevent hydrates during extended shutdown periods,
chemicals may still be required during startup since the flowline pressure often increases
faster
than
the
temperature,
taking
the
H-0806.35
24-22
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
FIGURE 24.2-11: HYDRATE DECOMPOSITION / FLOWLINE TEMPERATURE-PRESSURE PROFILE
H-0806.35
24-23
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
operating line into the hydrate formation region. In this case there can be a tradeoff
between the methanol storage requirements and the startup production profile.
By comparison with Figure 24.2-7 it is seen that the flowing fluids cool to 70F in around
30 miles for a production rate of 5 MBOPD. At higher rates this distance is increased,
thus turndown to low flowrates needs to be considered and the lowest expected
production rate can define the design case, depending on the effects of water cut. Figures
24.2-6 and 24.2-7 indicate that there are significant operating regions where the arrival
temperature can be below 70F. However the pressure may also be lower at the facilities,
thus the determination of hydrate free conditions requires consideration of the flowline
temperature and pressure profile. As illustrated in Figure 24.2-11, it is possible for each
end of the flowline to be free of hydrates, yet they may form part way along the length.
The high cost of classical hydrate inhibitors has recently led to a search for lower cost
alternatives, which are required in smaller quantities. The three main types of low dosage
additives are kinetic inhibitors (THI), growth modifiers (HGI), and emulsion additives.
Each has its own operational implications as discussed below:
Kinetic inhibitors
These are added to suppress the formation of hydrates like classical inhibitors but will not
work at high subcooling (more than 10C) or for extended time periods. This may have
implications for three-phase flow wet gas systems operating at low velocities where the
water phase can have a very long residence time in the transportation system. The active
agents in these inhibitors are polymers, which are typically transported by a carrier
solvent and are thought to be effective for gas, oil, or condensate fluids.
Growth modifiers
Growth modifiers are active in the water phase and are designed to modify the growth of
the hydrate and to encourage the crystals into the hydrocarbon phase. They are effective
up to around 30% water cut and require that the hydrate crystals are transported as solids
in the hydrocarbon liquid.
Emulsion additives
These inhibitors work in the oil phase by creating stable water- in-oil emulsions which do
not have a high viscosity and which can be transported as a slurry, hence a hydrocarbon
liquid phase is required. These are the newest and least tested low dosage inhibitors.
H-0806.35
24-24
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Each of the hydrate inhibitors has specific implications for processing and these are
outlined in Table 24.2-1. The required dosage rate of the new inhibitors can be as low as
0.25 wt% giving treatment costs of around $6/bbl of water compared to MEG and
methanol inhibition costs of approximately $16 and $10 respectively. Given the potential
cost saving of avoiding insulation and possibly of burying subsea flowlines, the new
breed of hydrate inhibitors may have a large impact in the future since it will be likely
that even with the best insulation, transport over long distances will not be possible at
temperatures above those at which hydrate can form.
TABLE 24.2-1: CHARACTERISTICS OF HYDRATE INHIBITORS
TYPE OF
KINETIC
GROWTH
EMULSION
ADDITIVE:
INHIBITOR
INHIBITOR
ADDITIVE
Multiphase
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Gas
Yes
Unlikely
No
Yes
Condensate
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Oil
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Dose rate
0.125-0.25% of
0.25% of water
2%of
10-40%
water rate
rate
water rate
of water rate
METHANOL
APPLICATION
OPERATING
10C
15C
15C
15C
subcooling
subcooling
subcooling
subcooling
Water cut
No limit
30-40% WOR*
30-40% WOR*
No limit
Effectiveness
Not typically
Not known
Probably
Very
against ice
effective
effective
effective
Additional
No
Heating /
Heating /
Recovery
demulsification
demulsification
No
Demulsifiers
Demulsifiers
No
Known
Emulsion
Not
Not
Material
deployment
formation
problems
Regenerable
viscosity of blend
No
Unlikely
No
80% typically
Downstream
None
Possible product
Possible product
Occasional
impact
known
contamination
contamination
product
potential cause of
haze in heavier
haze in heavier
loss of LNG
contamination
fractions
fractions
Temperature
equipment
Additional
chemicals
H-0806.35
compatibility
24-25
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Disposal stream
In water
Typically in oil
In oil
In all phases
Environmental
Water quality
Not known
Not known
Onshore disposal
consideration
hydrocarbon limit
UK regulatory
D/E
limits
A
Unknown
rating for
disposal
For these additives, the amount of hydrate formed and so the effective operating limit
could be a complicated function of flow rate, flow regime, gas amount and water cut. At
this stage in development, practical limits are best determined from field trials, or better,
from loop tests
The hydrate formation can sometimes be detected by a reduction in the produced water
flowrate as water is being absorbed to form hydrate crystals. In other cases an increased
pressure drop may be detected. Complete blockage is usually detected by reduced gas
flowrates and pressure abnormalities. Some systems are being developed to detect
hydrate and wax deposits on pipe walls and are based on ultrasonic techniques. These
may be useful to monitor trouble spots such as uninsulated jumpers for example.
Complete blockages can be difficult to locate precisely and may take sometime to melt
using inhibitors. A preferred method for melting hydrate plugs is to depressurize the
flowline. However this generally requires that the pressure is reduced on both sides of the
blockage simultaneously as high differential pressures can cause the plug to move rapidly
on melting, and can cause structural loads due to impact damage if the flowline changes
direction, such as at the riser base for example. Depressurization of a subsea flowline
blockage on both sides generally requires a flowline loop to the platform, which is a setup
typically used in the GOM as it also assists in turndown and allows for flexibility if
producing different separator pressures. However, the total subsea production is lost
during the depressurization. The Shell Mensa development only has one flowline and
depressurizing from both ends will be facilitated using a surface vessel to tie in to the
subsea manifold and lower the pressure on this side.
Melting hydrates using the application of external heat is possible. However care is
required if localized heating is employed as very large pressures can be generated as the
hydrate vaporizes if it is contained within the plug.
Although hydrate formation problems have been discussed here, it should not be
forgotten that most production operations could suffer from a combination of
H-0806.35
24-26
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
simultaneous problems that can be compounded. For example, hydrate formation

followed by or concurrent with wax formation can form particularly persistent blockages
that have in the past lead to the abandonment of flowlines.
c) Wax
DeepStar has identified problems with wax or paraffin deposition as the top priority
problem for deepwater deve lopments. Typical cloud points or wax appearance
temperatures are usually in the range 50 to 100 F and are not very sensitive to the water
cut or the operating pressure, but are dependent on modeling the operating conditions by
using live, rather than dead oil samples. Best estimates of the wax formation and
deposition characteristics can be determined using real fluids in laboratory or field
deposition tests.
As flowing temperatures fall below the cloud point, small particles of wax may form
which are carried along with the fluid. A temperature gradient is required for wax
deposition on the pipe wall to occur and this is usually the case with subsea flowlines
where the wall temperature is lower than the fluid temperature. Because of these
temperature gradients, wax can deposit before the bulk fluid reaches the wax appearance
temperature further downstream when the fluids have cooled to the temperature of the
wall where the temperature gradient and wax deposition is reduced. Therefore, a wax
deposition profile can exhibit a hump for a long flowline as illustrated in Figure 24.2-12.
When the fluid and pipe wall has cooled to the same temperature the wax forms by
diffusion in much lower quantities and can be transported by the fluids. One way of
approaching the wax problem would be to cool the fluids produced fluids to the ambient
temperature at the wellhead (though this may have adverse effects on hydrate
management).
H-0806.35
24-27
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
FIGURE 24.2-12: Subsea flowline wax deposition profile
H-0806.35
24-28
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Potential problems with wax deposition can depend on the amount and type of wax
deposited. Soft wax deposits may be carried along with the fluids and may not cause a
significant problem, whereas hard deposits may require mechanical removal using
pigging, melting by solvents, or by flushing with high temperature fluids. There will
likely be a tradeoff between the lost production due to the reduced capacity resulting
from paraffin deposition and the frequency of remediation, which will incur operating
costs and deferred production.
For example, a certain crude has a wax content of 7.5-8.5 wt%, which begins to deposit at
pipe wall temperatures below 38C (100F). It is expected that 0.5-2 mm of wax could be
deposited in the flowline and 1.5-4 mm in the riser during 1 month of operation. The
increased pressure loss is estimated to reduce the flowing capacity to 97%. Hot oil
flushing requires a temperature of 10C above the wax appearance temperature to be
effective and it is estimated that a flushing period of 12 hours will be required, which if
carried-out once a month would give a average capacity of 98.5%.
In practice, optimized operation is likely to involve careful monitoring of the wax
deposition and the evaluation of gains from wax control procedures. If operating
conditions change rapidly it may be difficult to determine the cause of the reduced system
capacity (such as increased water cut or paraffin deposition).
If pigging is used to remove wax deposits, care must be taken to ensure that the pig does
not become stuck. Some operations have benefited from using soft pigs so that some wax
is left on the wall, which acts as an insulator and reduces wax deposition rates, whereas
complete wax removal could give rise to high deposition rate and high pigging
frequencies, not to mention potential wax handling problems at the facilities.
Deep water operations and longer step out distances are likely to give rise to more severe
paraffin problems where conventional remediation methods may have problems. For
example, it may be difficult to maintain the temperature of flushing fluids over longer
distances and pigging large quantities of wax may not be possible due to plugging. For
these reasons there is considerable interest in the development of wax inhibitors which
modify the wax crystals and prevent deposition on the pipe wall. These chemicals may
not prevent the formation of wax but may make them transportable.
As with hydrates, the interaction with other solids and inhibitors may be significant in
practical operations. For example certain developments have the potential for paraffin
H-0806.35
24-29
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
deposition and relatively high sand production rates of up to 10 lbs per thousand barrels
of oil. The effects of the combined wax and sand production are little understood.
d) High viscosity oils and emulsion formation
The viscosity of oils increases rapidly at low operating temperatures, although this may
be partially offset at high operating pressures due to the effect of solution gas, which
reduces the viscosity. Figure 24.2-13 shows typical oil viscosity vs. temperature
relationships. Measurements on field samples at several temperatures can be used to tune
physical property correlations in multiphase design software to improve the accuracy of
predictions. The increased oil viscosity leads to greater frictional pressure loss, which
may have implications for long flowlines.
Some oils are very viscous and can be non-Newtonian giving rise to high pressure drops
in normal operation and high restart pressure requirements. Some of these problems have
been overcome by using chemicals to form stable low viscosity emulsions or by ensuring
that a lower viscosity fluid is in contact with the pipe wall with the high viscosity fluid
flowing down the middle, such as in core-annular flow.
The determination of the liquid viscosity is generally more difficult if oil/water emulsions
are present since the viscosity can be many times higher than the individual phase
viscosities. The viscosity of an emulsion depends to a large extent on the particle size
distribution, which is a function of the flow history and the shear generated during
transport through chokes, pumps, and the flowline itself. High shear creates smaller
particle sizes and tighter dispersions, which gives rise to increased fluid viscosity as
illustrated in Figure 24.2-14. Peak viscosities (over 30 times the oil phase value) typically
occur near the inversion point where the emulsion reverts from a water- in-oil dispersion
to an oil- in-water dispersion. The inversion point usually prevails at water cuts in the
range 40 to 60 %.
Emulsions generally exhibit non-Newtonian shear thinning flow behavior so that the
viscosity is dependent on the shear rate. Problems can arise following shutdowns due to
increased restart yield stresses and the effects of aging. Longer flowlines with emulsion
formation may require excessive pressures to restart the flow.
Typical assumptions of a weighted average viscosity of the oil and water are likely to
significantly underestimate the liquid viscosity if emulsions are present. More
H-0806.35
24-30
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 24.2-13: CRUDE OIL VISCOSITY AS A FUNCTION OF API GRAVITY AND

TEMPERATURE.
H-0806.35
24-31
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 24.2-14: VARIATION IN VISCOSITY OF CRUDE OIL AND BRINE WITH

BRINE CONTENT
H-0806.35
24-32
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
realistic models for the viscosity of emulsions relate the ratio of the emulsion/continuous
phase viscosity to the concentration of the dispersed phase modified by some power. This
relationship can be tuned with me asured data to improve the prediction accuracy.
A final point on the effect of high fluid viscosities is the impact on multiphase flow
regimes and slug characteristics where it has been seen during tests with air and
water/glycol mixtures that high viscosities lead to a larger slug flow region. However, the
slugs are generally smaller and more frequent.
24.2.3 Delivery
Ensuring that the process facilities can handle the fluid delivery from the flowlines and
risers.
The two main issues here are related to the arrival temperature (which if too low can give
rise to separation problems and if too high may require cooling) and to the variations in
the flowrates of the fluids delivered to the facilities as a result of normal hydrodynamic
slugging, terrain induced slug flow, or resulting from transients caused by changing
operating conditions and pigging.
The arrival temperature problems are related to the low temperature issues discussed in
the integrity section, which can lead to wax, hydrate, or emulsion formation. In addition,
higher temperatures also assist separation, where around 30 C (90 F) is a good rule of
thumb and may require heating the fluids upstream of the separation facilities. A too high
an arrival temperature resulting from HT well production can also give rise to problems
and may require coolers necessary for compression or dehydration.
Some of the most severe potential operating limitations may be imposed by transient
flowrates resulting from normal or abnormal operation. The greater flowline length and
riser depth leads to a larger liquid inventory with potentially increased transient surge
problems. In addition, the flowline topography and the shape of the riser can lead to
severe slugging at relatively high production rates. This would make processing the fluids
almost impossible and could require the use of control techniques such as gas injection to
alleviate the condition. Figure 24.2-15 illustrates the delivery related issues.
H-0806.35
24-33
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 24.2-15: DELIVERY RELATED ISSUES DELIVER FLUIDS IN AN ACCEPTABLE MANNER
H-0806.35
24-34
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Further discussion of the effects of deepwater riser configuration on severe slugging and
the limitations of design methods is provided below:
a) Effect of riser shape on severe slugging
The effect of the deepwater flowline/riser configuration on the hydraulic stability of a
system was investigated by performing PLAC transient two-phase flow simulations for
various flowline and riser geometries. Three riser configurations were used for the
dynamic simulations and are shown in Figure 24-17. The configurations are all based on
a 10,000 ft water depth and consider vertical, catenary, and S shapes. The base case
flowline configuration consists of a 20 mile horizontal flowline and sensitivities have
investigated the addition of a 10,000 ft, l downhill sloping section to the riser base. All
simulations are based on a 12 inside diameter system.
The PLAC simulations are based on a fluid composition with a GOR of 1200 SCF/STB.
A constant inlet mass flow rate is assumed, and two cases equivalent to 10 and 20
MBOPD have been modeled using a fixed inlet temperature of 40 F. The outlet pressure
is fixed at 1000 psia.
Table 24.2-2 shows the results of the simulations and indicates that inclining the flowline
down hill l at the base of the riser has a large effect of the stability of the system. For all
cases with a horizontal flowline the stability limit is between 10 and 20 MBOPD, but the
dip shape of the S leads to much more severe surges with a horizontal flowline. With
the inclined line the surges produced by the S riser were not as severe as with the other
shapes due to the trapped gas bubble preventing the riser completely filling with liquid.
b) Conclusions on the limitations of transient codes to simulate deepwater flowline/riser
hydraulic instabilities
Although general purpose transient two-phase flow simulators offer the most potential for
assessing the hydrodynamic stability limits of deepwater production systems there are
presently some concerns over the limitations of the codes. This is highlighted in Figure
24.2-17, which shows flow pattern map for lazy S riser tests compared to the results of
the OLGA code. It is seen that OLGA predicts a much smaller severe slugging region.
Present limitations of the transient codes are thought to be:
H-0806.35
24-35
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
TABLE 24.2-2: EFFECT OF RISER SHAPE

Riser
Vertical
Flowline
20 mile
Oil rate
Static
Dynamic
(MBOPD)
analysis
analysis
10
Unstable
Small fluctuations
10bbl surge
Vertical
20 mile
20
Stable
Stable
10
Unstable
Severe slugging
with 1 dip
Vertical
20 mile
1069bbl surge
Catenary
20 mile
10
Unstable
Small fluctuations
10bbl surge
Catenary
20 mile
20
Stable
Stable
Catenary
20 mile
10
Unstable
Severe slugging
with 1 dip
1432bbl surge
None
10
Unstable
Stable
20 mile
10
Unstable
Slugging
306bbl surge
20 mile
20
Stable
Stable
20 mile
10
Unstable
Severe slugging
with 1 dip
H-0806.35
866bbl surge
24-36
1-Dec-00
FIGURE 24.2-16: RISER SHAPES USED IN ANALYSIS
H-0806.35
24-37
1-Dec-00
FIGURE 24.2-17: LAZY S RISER, FLOW PATTERN MAP
H-0806.35
24-38
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Cannot inherently model slug flow

Flowline slugging can have a large impact on the severe slugging region. However
general purpose transient two-phase flow computer programs such as PLAC and OLGA
usually employ averaged equations when slug flow is predicted, so they are insensitive to
the flow and pressure variations that result from normal hydrodynamic slug flow. OLGA
has been modified to incorporate a slug tracking model, but this is a simple model that
initiates slugs of a predetermined length when formation conditions occur. In some cases
this can force the result and while it may be a useful tool, it does not necessarily lead to
a valid simulation. The implementation of the slug tracking model also slows the code
down significantly. Work is in progress on both PLAC and OLGA to improve the
modeling of hydrodynamic slugging.
Poor boundary conditions
Normally when transient codes are used to model severe slugging in flowlines and risers,
simple fixed inlet and outlet boundary conditions are usually specified. In most cases the
inlet mass flowrate supplied to the flowline is specified as constant, as is the platform
arrival pressure boundary.
In practice the flowrates at the start of the pipeline may vary as a result of slugging or
heading in the wells, or even as a result of flowline back pressure variations affecting the
well inflow rate. If there are interactions between the wells and the flowline this may
require that the wells be modeled also, although if the pressure drop across the choke is
high this may decouple the well and flowline dynamics.
At the other end of the system, variations in the arrival pressure may result in practice
due to the interaction with the process plant and its control action. Even relatively small
outlet pressure variations have been shown in the past to completely dominate the
transient response of flowlines. There have been various projects aimed at coupling
dynamic process plant simulators with transient pipeline codes such as the DSpice/OLGA interface. This goes some way to simulate the interaction between the
flowline/riser and the facilities, but the resulting tools are relatively cumbersome and may
not be appropriate for simulations early in a project where there is insufficient definition
of the facilities. Under these circumstances a sensitivity to typical boundary condition
variations may be a sensible way to proceed.
H-0806.35
24-39
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Three phase flow effects

If water is present in the fluids there will be a tendency for slip to take place between the
oil and water phases as well as the gas and liquid phases. This will be more pronounced
at low flow rates typical of severe slugging operating conditions and will give rise to a
higher liquid holdup and density compared to the homogeneous liquid phase assumptions
usually applied to handle water cut effects in two-phase flow simulators (steady state and
transient). In addition, the homogeneous assumption cannot model the actual oil and
water arrival rates and this may affect the operation of the process plant if, for example,
transient sweep-out produces a large water slug. It is expected that proper accounting of
the three phase flow may result in an increased region of flow instability.
A simple three-phase flow model has been implemented in OLGA and there are plans to
include one in PLAC also.
Single composition
Both PLAC and OLGA use a single fluid description for the transient simulation, which
is used to generate lookup tables of the physical properties. This is adequate for most
cases, but if modeling riser base gas injection, for example, the injection gas is forced to
have the feed gas composition. In practice the injection gas will have been processed and
will have a different solubility in the oil, which will effect the free gas content and the
overall effect on the system stability. Compositional tracking has been attempted with
both PLAC and OLGA with limited success due to the much longer computing times
involved.
Simple one dimensional flow models employed
The hydraulic models employed in the transient simulators rely on simplified one
dimensional descriptions of the flow regimes with closure laws derived from correlations.
In some cases this approach has limitations due to the three dimensional nature of the
flow and the inherent complexity in real systems. In addition, the closure laws are
usually based on laboratory scale data that may not be valid under field conditions.
24.3
Deepwater operating limitations and solutions

We shall now combine these operating limits in order to assess those that are a direct
result of the deepwater nature and those that are more generic in an attempt to identify the
critical issues for deepwater developments. The most promising solutions are discussed
H-0806.35
24-40
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
and the implications for future deepwater system design and operation are outlined. It is
not possible to consider limitations simply as low throughput and high throughput limits
as the dynamic nature of two-phase flow leads to some obscure results. For example, low
steady flowrates may lead to riser slug stalling and accelerations that produce higher
loads than steady production at high throughputs.
A large proportion of the operating limitations are related to high or low flowing
velocities which are partly determined by the characteristics of the reservoir fluid and are
principally beyond our control, for example the GOR and water cut. However downhole
gas and water separation may change this in the future. The operating pressure and the
flowline size are also major variables.
It can be difficult to assess the relative importance of the various operational constraints
in practice as it may not be possible to provide a large enough operating envelope which
avoids all limitations, and it may be required to asses the gray areas of operability which
mitigate against the worst problems. Such an assessment requires that all the relevant
considerations are understood and weighed up. This often requires inp ut from various
disciplines in a true integrated design.
Figure 24.3-2 shows a typical operating envelope that was produced for the Foinaven
development and considers the capacity limit due to the available pressure drop, the
unstable hydraulic operating limit, the erosion rate, sand deposition limit, and the
minimum arrival temperature. This only represents a few of the possible operating
limitations, and the figure shows a clear operating envelope. If the water depth and
tieback distance were to increase the flowline pressure would increase and the arrival
temperature would decrease with the result that some of the limit lines may move to
reduce the operating region, or may crossover to produce a gray operating region.
The relative importance of the various operating limits depends to a large extent on the
specific development and hence it is not possible to reliably generalize. It is
recommended that the results of this study be applied to a number of potential future
deepwater developments in order that the research efforts can be better focused.
H-0806.35
24-41
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 24.3-1: FOINAVEN OPERATING ENVELOPE
H-0806.35
24-42
1-Dec-00
24.3.1 Critical factors for deepwater hydraulic design

The most critical factors for the successful design and operation of Deepwater
developments are judged to be as follows:
a) Provision of required system pressure drop
The differential pressure across the transportation system will increase with water depth
and tieback distance, requiring higher wellhead flowing pressures and larger flowline
diameters. The flowline inlet pressure may be increased by:
High reservoir pressure
High well PI
Reduced tubing loss
Low choke pressure drop
The tubing loss may be counteracted by adding energy in the form of down hole ESPs or
reduced by using DRA/foams or gas lift. Gas lift has the disadvantage of potentially
increasing the flowline pressure drop.
The capacity of the flowline/riser system may be increased by:
Boosting at the wellhead or riser base
Reducing the delivery pressure
Increasing the flowline size
Using DRA or foams
Water removal at the wellhead or downhole
The effect of each mitigating measure should be judged using accurate pressure drop
prediction methods in an integrated system model. Considering the practicality and cost
of some of the boosting measures, the most promising technologies for deepwater are
considered to be downhole ESPs, water removal systems, the use of drag reducing
agents, and accurate integrated model predictions. The addition of energy using ESPs is
probably the most efficient and reliable means, but may still have problems due to long
distance power transmission. Other means of supplying power need to be considered.
b) Low temperature related problems
Low operating temperatures are likely to result from the lower ambient temperature and
longer fluid residence time in the transportation system. The low temperature related
problems may be overcome by:
H-0806.35
24-43
1-Dec-00
Reduced flowline diameter
Insulation
Use inhibitors
Chemical or electrical heating
Pigging
Hot oil and solvent flushing
Water separation at wellhead
Uninsulated risers
Because of the difficulty and cost of maintaining the temperature of long tiebacks the
most promising control method is the use of low dosage inhibitors, but these may have
limited application due to the relatively low subcooling that can be tolerated. Cooling at
the wellhead may be a potential for wax problems since if the fluids are cooled to the
temperature of the pipe wall there is no temperature gradient for wax deposition and the
small amount of wax that is formed by diffusion can be transported as a slurry. The autorefrigeration in the deepwater risers was previously not anticipated and should be the
subject of further study.
c) High temperature problems
High temperature related problems are only likely in the vicinity of the wellheads and are
mainly associated with increased corrosion and the strength of coatings and flexible
pipes. These issues are being addressed by HP/HT developments and are not considered
as critical here.
d) High velocity limits
Steady state velocities at the receiving facilities are not likely to be any higher than with
conventional developments, but the transient velocities caused by slugging could be
much higher as the water depth and the riser diameter increases. This can yield
intermittent erosion and corrosion inhibitor film stripping. The biggest problem for
deepwater is considered to be in the prediction of slug accelerations and the pipeline load
and fatigue implications. If accurate predictions cannot be made, then in-service
monitoring of the material wall thickness and fatigue life could be necessary. Aerating
the slugs or moderating the slug accelerations may reduce loads.
e) Low velocity related problems
The high backpressure generated by deepwater risers gives rise to lower operating
velocities in the flowline, which may lead to solids deposition and water accumulation.
Pigging can be used to control these problems to some degree, but is costly and time
H-0806.35
24-44
1-Dec-00
consuming. There is little that can be done about the solids problem apart from separation
at the wellhead. Remote water removal is also a possibility as is the use of emulsion
forming agents to maintain the water in suspension in the oil phase, and hence avoid
water accumulation and corrosion.
f) High pressure operation
High pressure operation is likely to be unavoidable. There is still a potential that there
will be a considerable difference between the wellhead shut in pressure and the maximum
required operating pressure of the flowline. HIPPS systems can be used to reduce the
flowline pressure rating and cost if the system is able to monitor and control the pressures
effectively. There are a number of circumstances that can arise where the measurement of
the pressure at the ends of the flowline is insufficient to infer the pressures throughout,
such as during pigging or if blockages occur. Here dynamic hydraulic models tuned to
field measurements may improve the accuracy of the shutdown system.
g) Problems with gas and liquid flowrate variations at the facilities
Larger diame ter flowlines and risers are likely to generate larger normal hydrodynamic
slugs, while the longer flowline length combined with the shape of the riser may increase
the likelihood of severe slugging. The larger system inventory can also lead to more
severe surges during transient operation. The flowrate variations resulting from severe
slugging are so large that this mode of operation is to be avoided, so the use of control
measures such as riser base gas lift or the use of foams is essential, as are design tools
required to predict the occurrence of severe slugging. Methods for limiting the effects of
transient operation, such as reducing the liquid inventory and using operating procedures,
are also important. Normal slug flow is more difficult to avoid, and methods for active
control and detection subsea may be worthwhile pursuing.
The critical areas discussed above are illustrated on a deepwater schematic in Figure 2420.
24.3.2 Assessment of limitations
The real life assessment of critical design limitations is likely to be complicated by the
wide range of factors involved, the variation of operating conditions over the life
H-0806.35
24-45
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 24.3-2: UNDERSTANDING THE HYDRAULIC LIMITATIONS
H-0806.35
24-46
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
of the field, and the large cha nges in the flowing conditions from the reservoir to the
processing facilities. There is also a compromise to be made regarding the relative
importance of various issues that may reduce one problem while worsening another.
Table 24.3-1 shows an assessment of the significance of a number of variables related to
deepwater developments and may be used to rank the configuration of a development
with regard to potential hydraulic limitations. The higher the overall score, the more
challenging the hydraulic design is likely to be. This is an initial attempt at this approach
and may be elaborated on in the future if considered to be worthwhile.
TABLE 24.3-1: NATURE OF EXTREMES EFFECT
Extremes / Effect
Significance
Variable
Worst
Best
(out of 10)
Water depth
Very deep (10,000

ft)
Shallow (0ft)
10-0
Flowline/riser
diameters
Large 28
Small 3
10-1
Upstream flowline
length
Long
100 miles
Short
0 miles
8 Low flow 0
1 high flow
Inclination of
upstream flowline
0-20 down
7-20 up
10 Low flow 0
2 High flow
Geometry of riser
Double S
S Catenary
Vertical
10 Low flow 2
Low flow
2 High flow 2
High flow
% of production
100%
small %
up the riser
Multiply to get comparisons of different combinations
10-3
The practical application of hydraulic design limitations can be communicated using

design charts such as illustrated in Figure 24.3-1. However the number of limits may be
many and such charts may become complicated. In addition, the operating envelope may
change considerably as the field is depleted and the system characteristics change. For
these reasons it is anticipated that in the future the operating limitations should be
computerized and regularly updated to take account of changing conditions. Because of
H-0806.35
24-47
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
the many variables, intelligent software tools may be required. These could be linked to
the monitoring and control system and warn the operator if corrective action is required.
An example of this could be if the measurements of the fluids into and out of the flowline
are used to determine the liquid inventory and warn the operator when to send a pig to
control the build-up of liquid. This type of approach could be important, as operations
become more complex and more marginal.
24.4
Other Studies
24.4.1 ABB Global Engineering

ABB undertook a major study in 1993 of subsea developments in very deep water. They
considered the problems associated with pipeline hydraulics, hydrate formation and
paraffin deposition.
On the subject of hydrate formation they identified five fairly obvious methods of hydrate
control:
(i) Remove free water or prevent it from entering the system
(ii) Maintain the operating pressure below the hydrate formation line
(iii) Maintain the temperature above the hydrate formation line
(iv) Modify the wellstream composition to remove hydrate promoting molecules
(v) Use inhibitors
They concluded that:
The use of three phase separators and water treatment facilities to remove water at a
deep wellhead is not viable, not least due to technical difficulties in meeting
environmental standards for water discharge.
In gas condensate systems bulk separation would probably not prevent hydrate
formation due to condensation at a later stage.
Lowering of operating pressure is unlikely to be economically feasible.
It is
generally the case in subsea developments that in order to minimize the size of
equipment the pressure is maintained at a high level (within design constraints).
H-0806.35
24-48
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
The use of inhibitors (usually methanol or glycol) is probably not feasible for deep
subsea developments where there is significant free water due to the large quantities
of the chemicals that would be required.
Separation of the light hydrocarbons (which form hydrates) and subsequent singlephase transportation is feasible, but might be technically difficult in deep waters.
Insulation or heating of flowlines appears to be the only viable method for

transporting oil/gas/produced water streams from wellheads to host facilities over
relatively short distances. However, special arrangement s, e.g. depressurization must
be allowed for in the case of shut in conditions, otherwise hydrate plugs could be
launched on restart due to depressurization on one side only.
(DeepStar has
demonstrated that this can be done if care is taken, although the plug velocities can be
very high - up to 270ft/sec for plugs of 25 to 200 ft in length).
With regard to paraffin or wax deposition they concluded:
The expectation is that hydrocarbon fluids from very deep water developments
will have a relatively high wax content.
Chemical, mechanical, and thermal methods are available, but for very deep
developments careful consideration of the correct choice is important to ensure
the integrity of the system.
ABB considered the hydraulics as a function of the type of completion:

a) Surface completions
They looked at the Flowing Bottom Hole Pressure (FBHP) that would be required to
overcome the pressure loss in deep riser systems and showed how the FBHP would vary
as water cut and GOR in an oil dominated system. Table 24.4-1 shows the depth at
which two phase flow would be expected to arise as a function of GOR, for a water cut of
40%.
H-0806.35
24-49
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
TABLE 24.4-1: TWO-PHASE FLOWPOINT IN DEEP WATER

Property
GOR
(SCF/BBL)
Height for two
phase flow (m)
Head in riser
& tubing (psi)
2000m Water Depth

200
600
1000
3000m Water Depth

200
600
1000
1900
1400
1000
2600
2400
300
277
259
389
363
340
A similar analysis for gas condensate systems, based on a 6- inch riser, was used to
generate a relationship between FBHP and gas flow for different water depths, as shown
in Figure 24.4-1.
b) Mid-depth completions
It was concluded that the only real difference between the surface and mid depth
completion was that the mid depth choke would induce more gas to break out of the
liquid flow, thus reducing hydrostatic head in the risers and pressure losses. This effect is
greater with higher GOR's.
c) Subsea completions
They concluded that as an alternative to seabed separation and single phase export, the
use of multiphase pumping systems was viable but presents a number of technical
challenges due to the non- homogeneity of the flow. In fact, for gas/condensate systems
multiphase export is probably the only viable technique. They point out that for oil
systems a number of other associated deep water factors must be considered:
At the pressures required to pump a two phase oil/gas system to the surface the fluid
may be compressed above its bubble point, thus reverting back to a single phase.
A differential head of 200-400 bar may be required, implying the use of multiple
pumping sets.
The potential for hydrate formation, particularly at high water cuts.
A significant slug catcher on the host facilities.
H-0806.35
24-50
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Potentially low system availability.
d) Tieback to shallow water.

The most significant conclusion was that for a range of GOR's from 200 to 1000
SCF/BBL, severe slugging would occur in the riser at the host platform in shallow water
for all fluids regardless of GOR and water cut.
H-0806.35
24-51
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 24.4-1: FBHP REQUIRED TO DELIVER GAS/CONDENSATE AT 50 BARA
H-0806.35
24-52
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
24.4.2 BG
A similar study to identify areas of concern to BG was also carried out. This also
identified produced fluids and slugging as areas of special concern in deepwater. The
produced fluids issues are being addressed through JIPs such as DeepStar, but this study
identified that most of the severe slugging research to date had been conducted in low
pressure test equipment and would be of doubtful value to an assessment of the issues in
deepwater. BG Technology has initiated a separate investigation of severe slugging. A
number of deepwater scenarios have been investigated theoretically, based on deepwater
locations in the Mediterranean, offshore Egypt. Two possible export options were
considered, long distance transport to shallow water and subsea completion with tie in to
a floating structure in deepwater. These are depicted in Figure 24.4-3. Two production
scenarios were considered: A gas/condensate system with a CGR of 20 bbl/MMSCF and
a maximum throughput of 300MMSCFD, and an oil- gas system with a GOR of 400 and a
throughput of 50,000 bbl/d. A turndown ratio of 1:10 was considered for the gas
condensate system. The main hydrodynamic factors, generated using the PLAC pipeline
simulator, are indicated in Tables 24.4-2 through 24.4-4.
From Table 24.4-3, at maximum throughput, the riser case indicated no particular
hydrodynamic problems. The long distance pipeline had a significant pressure drop due
the hydrostatic head to be overcome on the incline. The liquid holdup is not excessive.
Under turndown conditions, the riser did show slug formation with a slug size of about 2
tons. The pressure drop is much larger due to the increased liquid holdup. In the long
distance line, the main problems appear to be the very large holdup in the incline. The
pressure drop in this case was also high (522 psi).
TABLE 24.4-2
Line
Topography
Flow regime
Average pressure drop
Pressure swing
Liquid holdup
Maximum liquid velocity
H-0806.35
Riser
Stratified/annular
65 psi
35 bbl
5.5 m/s
24-53
3 degree incline
Stratified/annular
320 psi
3500 bbl
2 m/s
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
TABLE 24.4-3: GAS/CONDENSATE SCENARIO FOR 30 MMSCFD
Flow regime
Pressure swing
Liquid holdup
Maximum liquid
velocity
Line
Topography
Riser
3 degree incline
Slugging/annular
Slugging/annular
334 psi
522 psi
7 psi
420 bbl
48000 bbl
2 m/s
0.15 m/s
For the oil/gas case some hydrodynamic slugging was seen along the line but the outlet
liquid production rate was steady. In the riser, however, severe slugging was clearly a
problem. The slugs were up to 100 tons in size and a pressure swing of 450 psi was seen
(Table 24.4-4).
TABLE 24.4-4: OIL AND ASSOCIATED GAS
Flow regime
Pressure swing
Liquid holdup
Maximum liquid velocity
H-0806.35
Line
Topography
Riser
3 degree incline
Severe slugging
Hydrodynamic slugging
348 psi
550 psi
450 psi
800 bbl
12 m/s
1 m/s
24-54
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
FIGURE 24.4-2: DEPTH PROFILES FOR THE DEEPWATER SCENARIOS
H-0806.35
24-55
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
24.4.2.1 Summary of Deepwater effects (BG Study)

Multiphase metering
Multiphase metering will almost certainly be required for well testing on long tieback
subsea developments. The reliability of such equipment needs to be proved under subsea
deepwater conditions.
Pressure drop
Bigger pressure drops resulting from greater distances and depths will almost certainly
necessitate the use of pumps and boosters. The provision and reliability of pumps for
deepwater will be critical. Petrobras is currently proposing the trial of a deepwater
booster in the Campos basin. BP has suggested the creation of foams to reduce pressure
drops in risers; however, this also introduces the need for the breakdown of the foam at
the host facility. Long tiebacks may lead to power supply problems. A review of
pumping and boosting equipment is included in elsewhere in this guide.
Slugging
Deeper risers will lead to large slugs, with the potential for structural damage and
intermittent flow at the host facility. The use of slug control techniques will be required.
Complex riser shapes, for example 'S', lazy 'S', double 'S' etc., may require the detailed
analysis of their hydraulics, and new models may be required.
Flow assurance
The possibility of wax, hydrate, and asphaltene deposition may be increased in
deepwater, due to high pressure and low temperature. However, the main concern in
deepwater is the difficulty of implementing prevention and remediation techniques.
Deepwater will make the breaking of a line, the ultimate remedy in the event of a
blockage, prohibitively expensive. The use of coiled tubing, which can be used to
unblock lines, is a possibility. Mentor Engineering has produced a design of an access
point for flowlines. Conventionally, coiled tubing is only regarded to be viable over
distances of a few kilometers. DeepStar is investigating the possibilities of the
application of this technique over greater distances.
H-0806.35
24-56
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
'Aggressive' pigging is also a possible means of mechanically removing blockages. In

deepwater, the provision of subsea pigging facilities and flow loops may be impractical.
All aspects of pigging are covered in more detail in Section 19.
Chemical techniques are also possible but once again may be very expensive in
deepwater if remote distribution of chemical inhibitors is required. Hydrate and wax
prevention and remediation techniques are covered in Sections 9 and 10.
It may be that passive techniques, such as the insulation of flowlines or the application of
magnetic fields, could be the most economically viable methods in deepwater. Thermal
insulation is only effective over limited distances (approximately 20 - 30 km) and in the
event of a shut in, some other arrangement will be necessary, possibly the replacement of
the solids- forming fluids with non-depositing ones or depressurization. Also, the use of
tube bundles to conserve heat is a possibility. Pipe- in-pipe construction will probably be
required to protect insulation from crush damage at the high hydrostatic pressures in
deepwater. Heating of flowlines will be an effective, but expensive, solution to these
problems. Magnetic methods have still to be convincingly proved. DeepStar is currently
investigating these techniques.
Similar arguments apply to corrosion, erosion, and scale control in deepwater (i.e. there is
no particular reason for thinking that the potential for these problems will be greater, it is
just that it will be more expensive and technically difficult to deal with them).
24.5
Design methods for deepwater

In most cases the design methods are the same in deepwater as in shallow water. The
same simulation software can be used. In the long term it may be possible to relax
pipeline design codes since the high external hydrostatic pressures will balance high
internal pressures. DeepStar is currently investigating possible alterations to ASME
codes. More emphasis will have to be placed on equipment reliability and availability
and novel riser designs will almost certainly have to be considered. The applicability of
traditional multiphase flow models in this situation will have to be considered.
24.6
References
Wheeler, G.A. et al, The DeepStar Project: An Overview of Industry Cooperation, OTC
Conference, Houston, 1993.
Intec Engineering Inc., Deepwater IIA - System Overview and Integration, DeepStar IIA,
CTR A1102, March 1996.
H-0806.35
24-57
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR
Anon., Study of Subsea Developments in Very Deep Water, ABB Global Engineering,
DTI-OSO report OTN-93-018, 1993.
Gordon, I.C. and Fairhurst, C.P., Multi-Phase Pipeline and Equipment Design for
Maginal and Deepwater Field Development, 3rd Int. Conference on Multi-phase Flow,
Netherlands, 1987.
H-0806.35
24-58
1-Dec-00
25.0
DEEPSTAR.
TYPICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS

Material properties
Material
Carbon Steel
Stainless Steel
Concrete
(Saturated)
Onshore Soil (Wet)
Subsea Sandy Soil
Coal Tar Epoxy
Fusion
Bonded
Epoxy
Neoprene
Polyurethane Foam
Heat, Density, lb/ft 3
Thermal
Conductivity,
Btu/hr- ft-degF
26
8-13
0.75-1.2
Specific
Btu/lb-degF
0.11
0.11
0.10
490
488
147-200
1.35
1.25-1.50
0.20
0.15
0.20
0.30
0.35
0.32
90-110
105-115
92
75-90
0.12-0.15
0.011-0.022
0.50
0.38
90
2-12
Material
Thermal Conductivity
Btu (hr F ft)
Concrete (saturated low density)

Concrete (saturated high density)
FBE
1.66
2.87
1.18(1)
2.04
0.114
Coal Tar Enamel
W (mK)
0.2
0.114
0.2
Neoprene/EPDM
0.156(2)
Polyurethane Foam (PUF)
0.017(3)
PVC Foam
0.023-0.04(3)
0.04-0.7
Syntactic PU
0.07(3)
0.12
H-0806.35
25-1
027
0.03
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
Sea Water Temperatures

Location
Temperature (deg.C)
UKCS summer
Depth
(m)
50.000
UKCS winter
50.000
4.000
Mediterranean
(summer)
Mediterranean (winter)
30.000
20.000
30.000
10.000
Mediterranean
(summer)
Mediterranean (winter)
surface
29.000
surface
10.000
Gulf of Mexico
600 - 1000
0.5 - 4
Gulf of Mexico
surface
20.000
SE Asia
12.000
27.000
Typical Thermal Conductivity Values for Wellbores

Casings
The thermal conductivity of the casings and the tubing is high compared with the other mediums.
Therefore the calculation of the equivalent thickness of cement is insensitive to this value. For
the range of temperatures normally experienced with typical wells the thermal conductivity of
steel is 26 Btu/hr/ft/F.
Cement
The thermal conductivity of a typical cement is 0.5 Btu/hr/ft/F.
H-0806.35
25-2
1-Dec-00
DEEPSTAR.
Oil Based Mud

The thermal conductivity of the mud varies with density, different sources quote different values.
a typical range is given below:
Density
(s.g.)
Thermal
Conductivity
(Btu/hr/ft/F)
1.2
2.0
0.200
0.343
1.08
1.26
1.51
0.220
0.245
0.285
H2O Based Mud

As with oil based muds, the thermal conductivity varies with density. Typical values are given
below:
Density
(s.g.)
Thermal
Conductivity
(Btu/hr/ft/F)
1.0
1.2
2.0
0.36
0.393
0.489
H-0806.35
25-3
1-Dec-00

Deepstar - Multiphase Flow

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Deepstar - Multiphase Flow

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEEPSTAR IV PROJECT

FLOW ASSURANCE DESIGN GUIDLINE

DSIV CTR 4203b-1

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

FLOW ASSURANCE SUMMARY AND FUNDAMENTALS

FLUID PROPERTIES AND PHASE BEHAVIOR

STEADY-STATE HYDRAULIC SIMULATION AND LINE SIZING

(INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

HOST FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

SYSTEM ECONOMICS AND RISK MANAGEMENT

DEEPWATER ISSUES AND CASE STUDIES

TYPICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS

USERS GUIDE FOR HYDOFF AND XPAND

SECTION 9 APPENDIX C: HYDRATE BLOCKAGE AND REMEDIATION

Sec9 App D.pdf

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

The Flow Assurance Design Guide (FADG) is of a general nature.

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

PVT and fluid properties

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

THIS SECTION IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

Establish design basis

Interface with mechanical design

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

Assessment of Transient Thermal-Hydraulic Behavior

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

Assessment of Fluid Behavior and Solids Formation/Deposition

Interface with Mechanical Design

Host Facility Requirements

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

Flowlines, Pipelines, & Risers

FLOW SYSTEM THERMAL-HYDRAULIC DESIGN AND FLUID

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

FLUID PROPERTIES AND PHASE BEHAVIOR

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

Pure Component Phase Diagram

Figure 4.2-1: Phase Diagram for a Single-Component System

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

Vapor Pressure Curve

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

Multiple Component Phase Diagram

DEW POINT CURVE

VAPOR FRACTION = 100 MOLE %

Figure 4.2-2: Multiple Component Phase Diagram.

Dew Point and Bubble Point

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

Components of Reservoir Fluids

Paraffins (straight chain and branched)

Methane, ethane, propane, butanes, pentanes, hexanes, heptanes, octanes, etc.

Cyclopentane, cyclohexane, methylcyclohexane, etc.

Benzene, toluene, xylenes, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, etc.

Resins and Asphaltenes

The non-hydrocarbon components of reservoir fluids include:

Carbon dioxide (CO2 )

Hydrogen sulfide (H2 S), mercaptans

Types of Reservoir Fluids

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.