flow assurance

hydrates and paraffin management

KEEFE BORDEN, oil and gas facilities ASSISTANT editor

Paraffin plugs posed special challenges to Anadarkos

Power Play prospect in the Gulf of Mexico.
Photo courtesy of Anadarko Petroleum.
A
s operators move into more remote regions, deeper
offshore depths, and into regions that yield more
challenging reservoir fluids, they face difficulty in
keeping the produced fluids and gas flowing through the
lines. The field of flow assurance, the coupling of multiphase
flow and production chemistry, was born out of necessity as it
has grown in concern to all operators.
To effectively manage flow assurance, oil and gas
operators must take a holistic approach, particularly
when working in deepwater offshore environments, Abul
Jamaluddin, NExT business manager for North America
and a flow assurance adviser to Schlumberger said. Speaking
during a recent SPE training course webinar on flow
assurance, he said that the best approach was one which
considered all aspects of the problem.
Flow assurance is essential to the economics of any
project and the overall goal is to maintain flow from wellbore
to processing. Flow assurance is a problem that has always
been around in our industry, he said. But the problem
has grown more complex as operators move into more
challenging environments. In shallow water or onshore,
operators often got a lot of solids deposits in the production
system, but gaining access to the wellbore and the flowlines
was easier. In deep water, operators have to contend with
colder temperatures, higher pressures, and longer tiebacks.
Deepwater wellbores are more expensive to access and
present more complexity in mitigating blockage of flowlines.
(In deep water) you have basically one chance to drill the
producing well and the ability to understand the reservoir
fluid characteristics because these wells are very expensive,
Jamaluddin said.
Flow assurance depends on a variety of factors, including
reservoir fluid properties, fluid flow, asphaltene, wax,
hydrates, naphthenates, scales, heavy oils, emulsions, foams,
sand, and heavy oils. Understanding the fundamentals
of these elements is the key to designing a management
strategy, he said. To address these concerns, operators must
work in three domains when maintaining flow assurance:
production chemistry, production engineering, and
production surveillance.
Jamaluddin urges operators to start with formation
testing technologies to determine the nature of the reservoirs
fluids. We want to know what kind of fluid we are dealing
with in terms of API, gas/oil ratio, and compositions, he
said. Representative samples are taken from the reservoir
for a series of laboratory tests, including pressure,
volume, temperature, asphaltenes, waxes, and hydrates
measurements that lead to effective modeling of the reservoir.
Operators need a system in place for monitoring field
production to ensure that the production conforms to the
models predictions. Finally, a feedback loop using sensors
and multiphase flow meters enables an operator to make
changes to the system if the production parameters deviate
too far from an initial design.
When planning for flow assurance, operators must bear
in mind that reservoirs are not generally homogeneous. In
the past, we used to think of a reservoir as a tank of diesel,
30 Oil and Gas Facilities February 2014
with compositions the same throughout, Jamaluddin said.
But many reservoirs have varying compositions, with lighter
fluids at the top and heavier fluids at greater depths. We
usually have a mixed fluid with light ends and heavy ends, he
said. The mixture of the two can pose additional challenges,
such as the precipitation of the asphaltenes commonly found
in heavy fluids. Asphaltenes can precipitate due to changes in
oil composition, temperature, or pressure depletion.
Common inorganic scales, such as calcite and barite,
also present challenges. Calcites are frequently formed when
produced waters from high-bicarbonate and high-calcium
zones of the reservoir are commingled.
Barite generally forms when there is a mixture of
production and injection water. The barium concentrations
in produced water are roughly inversely proportional to
the concentration of sulfates, indicating that the barium is
in equilibrium with barite in the formation. If saline water
is injected into the reservoir and mixes with the formation
water, the concentration of sulfate in the production water
may cause the super-saturation of barite.
Hydrates form in combinations of high pressure, low
temperatures, and low-molecular-weight gases (methane,
ethane, propane, or butane). Water molecules arrange
themselves into 5- or 6-membered rings, which form three-
dimensional polyhedra around the gases. One volume of
hydrate can carry from 160 to 180 volumes of methane,
which presents unique risks to deepwater offshore operators,
such as the abrupt expansion of the methane gas during the
breakup of hydrates, Jamaluddin said.
Hydrates Management
Amadeu Sum, associate professor and co-director of the
Center for Hydrate Research at the Colorado School of
Mines, said that temperatures do not have to be below
freezing for hydrates to occur. Seafloor temperatures in
the deepwater Gulf of Mexico (GOM) are close to 4C
yearround.
Hydrates can form onshore or offshore in a relatively
short period of time, plug up lines quickly, and disrupt
production. Within flowlines, hydrates can form along the
walls or can flow through the production, forming a solid
slurry, he said.
A common approach to prevent hydrates from forming
in flowlines is to inject thermodynamic inhibitorssuch as
methanol, monoethylene glycol (MEG), or ethanolat the
wellbore. Using this approach, it is therefore important to
have a good understanding when hydrates can form, in terms
of temperature and pressure, in a flowline, Sum said.
A tool used to determine the correct amount of a hydrate
inhibitor is the Colorado School of Mines Gibbs Energy
Minimization (CSMGem). It allows a user to enter specific
data on a hydrocarbon mixture and obtain a pressure/
temperature equilibrium boundary with and without a
thermodynamic inhibitor. Methanol has often been shown
to be the most effective on a per weight and cost basis, while
MEG is more commonly used for gas systems. Ethanol is a
predominant inhibitor in Brazil, he said.
 Instead of trying to eliminate hydrates entirely, which
incurs additional operating expenses for chemicals, operators
are considering alternative approaches. One of these is
to allow hydrates to form, while working to prevent their
agglomeration. The strategy allows operators to tolerate
some hydrates in flowlines without blocking the lines, and to
reduce the cost and quantity of chemicals used, Sum said.
Although less expensive, there is additional risk to this
approach: Once hydrates start to form, they can quickly plug
up lines and force operations to a halt. The key to hydrate
management is to inject anti-agglomerants, which keep
hydrates dispersed in the fluid phases, and thus, prevent
them from forming larger agglomerates that can plug the
line, he said. For this approach to be successful, one needs
to have a good understanding of how hydrates are forming,
agglomerating, depositing, and jamming.
The Center for Hydrate Research has noticed trends
in hydrate formation. Before the hydrates are formed, the
turbulence of the flow emulsifies water in oil and entrains gas
bubbles in the liquid. When the temperatures are low enough
and pressures are high enough, hydrates will most likely form
at the interface between the water and the hydrocarbon fluid,
whether oil or gas, forming a hydrate shell around water or
oil droplets that are in the emulsion. Hydrates can also form
along the pipe walls, which are continuously wet and exposed
to the gas.
The amount of water, gas, or temperature variations
can affect the growth rate of hydrates. The initial hydrate
shell probably forms very quickly. From there, mass or heat
transfer affects the growth rates of the hydrate crystals. Once
a sufficient amount of hydrates are in the system, a slurry will
change the flow behavior as hydrates are either suspended in
the oil/water fluid or deposited on the walls of the pipe. The
hydrate particulates may attempt to agglomerate into larger
aggregates or continue to grow in larger deposits on the pipe
wall, depending on the flow conditions of the continuous
fluid. If the hydrates are dispersed in a continuous water
phase, the hydrates will remain dispersed. If, however, the
particles are dispersed in an oil-continuous phase, they will
likely build into larger aggregates.
The Colorado School of Mines has developed two tools,
CSMHyK (Colorado School of Mines Hydrate Kinetics)
and CSMHyFAST (Colorado School of Mines Hydrate Flow
Assurance Simulation Tool), to model the formation of
hydrates and the resultant plugging in production systems.
Mitigation of Paraffins: A Case Study
Nathan Goodman, operations drilling engineer at Anadarko,
said deposition of paraffin and consequent plugging are
among the most most pressing issues in deepwater GOM,
after hydrates.
One well under study was located in the Power
Play prospect, discovered in 2006, at a depth of 2,315 ft.
Production started about 2 years later, through two 6.2-mile
pipe-in-pipe flowlines with insulated steel catenary risers
and an electrohydraulic control umbilical. The pipe-in-pipe
design was chosen to minimize heat loss to the sea. The
Host facility
Depth
1,650 ft
4.9 in. umbilical
34,916 ft
Subsea umbilical GB 258 #2
termination assembly Depth
2,315 ft
Pipeline end 4 x 7 in. Pipe-in-pipe northern
flowline, 34,040 ft
manifold
4 x 7 in. Pipe-in-pipe southern
flowline, 34,040 ft
Pipeline end termination
Fig. 1Subsea layout of pipe-in-pipe flowlines.
single well had the capability to flow through either or both
flowlines, which were looped so that the operator could run a
pig through them (Fig. 1). In addition, the well was equipped
with umbilical tubes which allowed for methanol injection at
the wellhead, downhole injection of a paraffin inhibitor, and a
low dosage hydrate inhibitor, Goodman said.
About 18 months after production started, the operator
split the flow through the northern and southern flowlines to
decrease the pressure drop and increase production. Initially,
both lines operated at similar temperatures and pressures,
but about 1 year later, the operator noticed some differences
between the two. The temperature of the northern flowline
was about 60F, below the wax appearance temperature
(WAT) of the crude, which was 106F. Meanwhile,
bottomhole pressure was building, and the total production
from the two flowlines had declined by 1,000 B/D . The
operator concluded that the northern flowline was partially
plugged with paraffin, Goodman said.
To mitigate the paraffin deposits in the northern
flowline and riser, the operator shut in production and used
circulation pumps and a hot oil tank to circulate from 370
to 390 B/D of oil heated to about 150F through the looped
lines. Unfortunately, oil circulation flow rates were low due
to equipment concerns and because the plug was so far from
the surface facility. The hot oil treatment did not unblock
the line. The operator halted the paraffin mitigation efforts
because it was simultaneously drilling in nearby areas and
had limited space available for equipment and personnel on
the host platform.
A crew later returned to inject xylene into the northern
flowline, and to remove it from the southern flowline.
Production from the field was again shut in for about 2 weeks
while this technique was applied. The goal was to dissolve
the paraffin until a xylene injection rate of about 1.5 bbl/min
was achieved, followed by pumping of heated water (180F)
through the loop system for additional cleaning, and flushing
of the line with a pig.
The partially plugged line did not respond as expected to
the xylene injection. Pressure built up in the northern line as
injection started, indicating the line was completely blocked.
February 2014 Oil and Gas Facilities 31
 10,000
Pressure, psi
5,000 Reduction in flowline pressure with increase in flow rate
and temperatures.
120
Temperature, F
100
80
60
8 Tue
PP_GB258_2 Upstream Press
Fig. 2With the increase in flow rate through the southern flowline, a reduction in downstream flowing pressure was observed.
The operator then tried to inject xylene into the southern
flowline and to take returns from the northern flowline. But
pressure quickly built up in the southern line, indicating the
block in the northern line was not moving. Xylene injection
failed to clear the line. The northern line remained blocked,
but the operator learned the obstruction was about 15,000 ft
from the wellhead, Goodman said.
Production from the well was routed through the
southern flowline at a reduced rate. Because of the block in
the northern line, the operator monitored the temperature
and pressure of the fluid arriving from the southern line
(installing a third line was not economical).
Within a few months, the fluid temperatures fell below
the WAT, pressure was building at the wellhead, and flow
from the reservoir was reducedindicating that the southern
line was beginning to plug.
The operator flowed the production from an upper zone
(Zone A), which had been shut in. The production rate from
Zone A was 4,200 B/D compared with the lower Zone B
production rate of 1,200 B/D of total liquids.
Zone A was unproduced and, therefore, had a higher
reservoir pressure, which resulted in an increased flowing
temperature downstream of the choke, in excess of 180F
(Fig. 2). The temperature of the flow at the surface increased
from 80F to 133F, exceeding the WAT (106F).
32 Oil and Gas Facilities February 2014
9 Wed 10 Thu 11 Fri
Time
PP_GB258_2 Downstream Press
PP_FLOWLINE Flowline Temp
SPE Technical Section
Addresses Flow Assurance
In response to the growing importance of flow
assurance,SPElaunched the the Flow Assurance
TechnicalSection (connect.spe.org/fts/) in January.
Chairedby Jeff Creek, Chevron ETC, the group
is concerned with topics related to providing
flowassurancebetween the reservoir and the
processingplant.
Section officers include Phaneendra Kondapi,
FMC Technologies; Steve Cochran, Chevron ETC;
Hari Subramanian, Chevron ETC; John Nighswanter,
Schlumberger; Dendy Sloan, Colorado School of Mines;
Greg Hatton, Shell; Cem Sarica, University of Tulsa; and
Scott Bufton, Intecsea.
Sarica, F.H. Mick Merelli/Cimarex Energy professor
of petroleum engineering at the University of Tulsa, said
that flow assurance is a broad fielda bridge between
the reservoir and downstream business, particularly for
offshorefields.
He noted that in general, the industry is doing
a good job of developing deepwater resources and
bringinghydrocarbons to the market. It will all come
fromadvances in technologies. Better technologies will
open up new opportunities for us, he said.
 In developing the technical section, the group identified
the need to facilitate interaction between industrial
and academic practitioners. We wanted to bring every
stakeholder to the table and work together to enhance our
understanding, Sarica said.
The technical section provides a platform for sharing
experiences of common problems to develop approaches to
mitigate the problems. We want to bring our heads together
to see what we can do, what works, what doesnt, and decide
what technologies and best practices to pursue, he said.
The group stressed that increased production and
improved cost structures are the goals of effective flow
assurance practices. For example, direct electrical heating
of flowlines on the seafloor to prevent hydrate blockages
and wax deposition is a technology that appears to be up
andcoming.
Heuristics related to solids deposition are being shared
in efforts to develop best practices. For example, to determine
where hydrates will be deposited, it is important to identify
where free water occurs in a flowline and to minimize its
volume early after the well. Development using subsea
facilities offers a potential solution by decreasing the distance
from the well to the processing facility.
The understanding of multiphase flow is considered to
be prerequisite science for flow assurance problems because
of the influences of local pressure, temperature, and fluid
2014 SPE International Conference on
Health, Safety, and Environment
1719 March
Long Beach Convention & Entertainment Center
Long Beach, California, USA
www.spe.org/events/hse/2014
Register Now!
distributions. Sarica said multiphase flow prediction tools
are generally developed using detailed data obtained from
small-scale laboratory experimental facilities operated
under low-pressure conditions (slightly above atmospheric
pressures) and with limited high-pressure data. This can
result in significant errors in prediction of multiphase flow.
Therefore, the integration of higher pressures and larger pipe
sizes into multiphase flow models is identified as an area for
further improvement in flow assurance. OGF
For Further Reading
SPE 166196 A Tale of Two FlowlinesParaffin Plugging and
Remediation by N.T. Goodman, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
and N. Joshi, Moulinex Business Services.
OTC 24396 Prevention, Management, and Remediation
Approaches for Gas Hydrates in the Flow Assurance of Oil/Gas
Flowlines by A.K. Sum, Colorado School of Mines.
SPE 163076 Experimental Study of Wax-Deposition Characteristics
of a Waxy Crudy Oil under Single-Phase Turbulent-Flow
Conditions by P. Dwivedi, C. Sarica, and W. Shang, University of
Tulsa.
SPE 166335 Offshore Field Application of a Low Corrosive Fluid
Designed for De-Scaling of Well with ESP Completion by
H.B. Bakar, I.C. XianLung, M.Z. B. M. Nadzri et. al. Setegap
Ventures Petroleum.
February 2014 Oil and Gas Facilities 33