GasTech 2011

Amsterdam RAI, The Netherlands

21-24 March 2011

The seamless integration of Subsea Architecture with

Floating LNG - Issues, Challenges and Solutions
The impact of flow assurance and transient operations on FLNG topsides
processing, and mitigating strategies

Joe T. Verghese
WorleyParsons Europe Ltd
Abstract
Long range energy forecasts suggest that world demand for LNG would double by 2020. This robust
demand trend has driven the diversification of LNG concepts, and could in the near term lead to the
deployment of the first LNG FPSO.

Industry efforts at moving FLNG concepts to market readiness have been directed at qualifying
technology for LNG liquefaction, feed gas treatment, product containment and offloading systems.
The resilience of these systems to the metocean characteristics relevant to the development province
has been the subject of rigorous examination. There is growing confidence in the industry that ship
and topsides technology has been adequately marinised. However, still under-explored are the issues
arising from marrying the subsea architecture (supplying feed gas) with the processing topsides of the
LNG FPSO.

This paper investigates the concept critical and operational challenges arising from marrying subsea
architecture with the LNG FPSO, and assesses possible solutions. Can the subsea architecture be
modified to mitigate slugging? In the extreme, is a slug handling/NGLs removal unit required upstream
of the LNG FPSO? Compatible with flow assurance, what design safeguards can be introduced
subsea and topsides to assure the performance integrity of the topsides absorption systems?

The paper concludes with a suite of recommendations that will measurably enhance the uptime and
process performance of LNG FPSOs through the seamless integration of the subsea and topsides
elements.

Introduction
Figure 1.0 illustrates the deployment of the LNG FPSO which receives its feed gas from subsea wells
in the non-associated gas field. Flowlines connect the subsea wells to the FPSO, with risers
conveying the gas through a swivel located in an external turret. LNG and any product
LPG/condensate stripped out from the feed gas is stored and periodically shipped by trade carriers to
destination markets.

LNG
Storage
Subsea LNGC
Wells
Gas
Markets

Offshore Gas LNG LNG Onshore LNG

Field FPSO Transportation Receiving &
Storage

Figure 1.0: LNG FPSO Development Architecture

Page 2 of 12
In FLNG applications, the FPSO is deployed in the vicinity of the subsea architecture unlike for an
onshore LNG plant, where the feed gas pipeline transports gas from a relatively remote gas source.
There is little opportunity for line pack to cushion supply side volatilities. The topsides system is also
significantly exposed to transient operations (turn-up, turn-down, etc), characteristic of subsea system
operation.

The quality of gas (e.g. condensate to gas ratio), the subsea architecture and flowline sizes will
determine wet gas flow stability and slugging propensity of the system. Unlike for the onshore LNG
plant, the opportunity for substantial slug capture on the floater topsides is obviously limited. The
slugging in the risers can lead to pulsating flows, which can have a detrimental effect on the stability
of the topsides pre-processing, NGLs fractionation and liquefaction operations.

The flow assurance measures adopted for subsea gas production represent a further area of design
concern. The injection of chemicals to suppress hydrates, mitigate wax formation and inhibit corrosion
can potentially result in the ingress of these chemicals into the pre-processing systems, including the
Acid Gas Removal Unit Absorber. These chemicals could promote foaming and degradation of the
solvents which are a potential threat to plant availability and performance.

LNG FPSO Topsides

Figure 2.0 is a block flow diagram of the topsides processing concept which includes two sections, the
Feed Gas Preparation and Treating, followed by the LNG Liquefaction. The extraction of LPG and
condensate is to greater and lesser extent integrated with the pre-cooling steps associated with
liquefaction step, depending on the generic configuration of the process. The tighter the integration,
the more efficient is the LNG scheme.

The principal facilities on the FPSO include:

Inlet Gas Reception Facilities

Acid Gas Removal Unit (AGRU)

Feed Gas Preparation LNG Liquefaction
Gas Dehydration
CO2,H2S

Mercury Removal Unit

Solvent
Gas Conditioning Unit Regen

Gas Liquefaction Unit Inlet Gas Gas

Dehydration LPG Dry Gas
Facilities Treating Extraction Liquefaction

C3/C4's Condensate
LPG/Condensate Fractionation
LPG/C5+ LNG LNG
Regen Storage Off-loading
Storage
Product Storage & Offloading
H2O
LPG/Cond.
Utility Systems Off-loading
To Ships

Utilities Utilities
Safety Systems To Ships

Figure 2.0: FPSO Topsides Processing Units

The topsides systems are located on a plated deck platform approximately 3.5 metres above the
vessel deck. The storage tanks for LNG, LPG and Condensate are located below deck. The Living
Quarters are located close to the bow of the FPSO upwind of the hazardous areas, flare etc.

Page 3 of 12
The core of the processing is the LNG liquefaction block for which there are several candidate
technologies, most of which are proprietary offerings. They include the technology categories
discussed in the section below:

Liquefaction Processes
Several alternative liquefaction cycles are available to the industry.

The most commonly offered liquefaction cycles are the following:

Cascade

Single Mixed Refrigerant

Dual Mixed Refrigerant

Propane Pre-Cooled Mixed Refrigerant

Turbo-expander based cycles

Details of these processes are available from several sources in the public domain.

Prospective floating liquefaction units appear to be polarising into two capacity bands with different
technology selection implications. Shell and Petrobras have FEEDs concluded on the potential
application of LNG FPSOs for capacities of 3million mtpa+ which are close to baseload plant train
capacities, and are consistent with the exploitation of gas reserves of 4-5TCF and greater. On the
other hand, companies such as FLEX and Hoegh are offering capacities in the sub 2 million mtpa
capacity domain, principally targeted at the exploitation of gas reserves of 0.5 to 3 TCF, more
characteristic of the mid-tier stranded gas reserves.

Technology evaluations carried out in previous studies by the author have demonstrated that best fit
liquefaction technology differs for the 2+ mtpa capacity range and the sub 2 mtpa capacity range.

For example, the Cascade process, and several Mixed Refrigerant processes have been
shown to be an attractive technology options when considering applications in the 2+ mtpa
capacity bracket.

In the small scale category the Dual Turbo-Expander Cycles (e.g. BHP/Kanfa Aragon/CB&I)
and the SMR processes appear to fit well the sub - 2 mtpa capacity bracket, and are suitable
for application to the mid-tier reserves.
(1)
Shells LNG FPSO concept, for a capacity of 3.5 mtpa is premised on the application of the
dual mixed refrigerant technology, thereby securing the higher efficiencies, and lower specific
power .consumption essential for upscale processing. The FLEX LNG offering is based on the
application of Kanfa Aragons dual nitrogen turbo-expander cycle. Although the turbo-expander
cycles have a penalty to pay in terms of specific power consumption, there are several
important advantages for the latter concept when it comes to floating production application,
and particularly if there is variability in the gas feed rate and composition. Figure 3.0 shows
some of the advantages of turbo-expander based processes relative to application to mid-scale
(2)
floating liquefaction .

Page 4 of 12
 Process Simplicity Turbo-Expander

Process Flexibility and

Ease of Start-up/Shutdown

Low Equipment Count

Use of proven standard

equipment (compressors,
expanders, plate-fins)

High Degree of
Modularization

No Refrigerant Inventory Plate Fin Heat Exchanger

Figure 3.0: Advantages cited for Turbo-Expander Liquefaction Cycles

Subsea System
In the evaluation of LNG FPSO technology, the principal focus of discussion has hitherto been on the
choice of the liquefaction technology, the front end processing (i.e. the gas treatment and
NGL/condensate stabilisation), and marinisation issues.

Figure 4.0: Example Subsea Architecture (photo courtesy of FMC Technologies)

Few assessments are available on the integration aspects of the subsea system that will provide the
gas feedstock to the LNG FPSO unit. In this section, it is proposed to discuss the subsea architecture
upstream of the LNG FPSO, and the key issues that must be managed both in design and operations
to ensure that the subsea and topsides systems are seamlessly integrated.

Page 5 of 12
Figure 4.0 is an illustration of a typical subsea architecture whose function is to gather the gas from
the wellheads and route this to the LNG FPSO. As noted earlier, LNG FPSO capacities can vary
considerably. Provision of capacity of 1.5 mtpa will require a gas feed rate of approximately 250
(3)
MMscfd. The 4.5 mtpa unit, now being considered for Inpexs Abadi development will require upto
18 wells and a gas feed rate estimated at approximately 750 MMscfd. It is clear that the subsea
architecture will differ considerably between the smaller capacity units and the larger units envisaged
by Shell, Petrobras, and Inpex, which will require a far more complex network.

Gas feed rate and LNG capacity are not the only variables. The composition of the gas (as produced
from the subsea wells) can exhibit significant variation. Gas fields can range widely on Condensate to
Gas ratios (CGRs). CGRs can typically vary from 1-2 bbls/MMscf to 20 + bbbls/MMscf. Likewise, the
CO2 content of the gas can also vary widely. In recognition of this, the Shell LNG FPSO is being
designed for a maximum CGR of upto 60 bbls/MMscf, and CO2 content of upto 13%.

Gas Gathering Network Modelling

Depending on the areal extent of the reservoir, the required complexity of the subsea gas gathering
architecture can vary between developments. A large areal extent combined with a high gas demand
can result in a gas gathering network that is complex to analyse, to design and ultimately to operate.
The architecture of the gathering system is developed on the basis of the location of the wells and the
LNG FPSO, and modelled utilising one of the proprietary multiphase analysis software suites such as
OLGA.

Evaluation of the gathering system requires a thermo-hydraulic analysis of multiphase flow from the
wellheads through the gathering system to the LNG FPSO. This evaluation, initially undertaken in the
steady state mode, parametrically analyses pipe size selection across several alternative gathering
system configurations, and terrain geometry. This process eventually leads to the choice of the
optimum network configuration that best balances hydraulic performance and considerations of flow
assurance.

Multiphase flow analysis of the gathering system network yields a number of results which have an
impact on the design of the topsides of the LNG FPSO. The objective of this multiphase hydraulic
modelling is to arrive at sizing of the gathering system pipeline segments which will enable the wet
gas to be transported to the LNG FPSO, and arrive there at the desired pressure whilst
simultaneously ensuring that the back pressure at the wells is at or below the desired depletion
pressure at the wells. Figure 5.0 illustrates back pressure at the wellhead for a given arrival pressure
at the LNG FPSO, and demonstrates the dramatic influence of choice of line size on back pressures.
The selection of line size must be optimised against gas production from the well as wellhead
pressures decline through field maturity. However, several other factors will also drive this decision,
and these are discussed under Flow Assurance in the following section.

Page 6 of 12
 250
12" 16" 20"
200
Inlet Pressure (Bara)

150

100

50

0
50 100 150 200 250 300
Gas Flow Rate (MM scfd)

Figure 5.0: Effect of Line Size on Backpressure at Field

Flow Assurance
The propensity to slug for a given pipeline will be determined by the two phase flow regime in the
flowline system, which in turn is determined by flowrate, CGR, terrain geometry etc as previously
discussed. These flow regimes encompass a variety of flow patterns which include the following:

Annular Dispersed/Mist

Stratified Wavy

Slug (intermittent)

Dispersed bubble.

Flow patterns for a given flowline configuration and size will vary with the turn-up and turn-down of
flow in the pipeline. A principal concern with the operation of the topsides system is the resilience of
the operations to slugging. The role of liquid hold-up in the generation of slugs is discussed below.

Liquid hold-up represents the amount of liquid resident in the flowline at a particular gas rate. Figure
6.0 shows the change in the equilibrium liquid hold- up with the change in the gas rate. The point at
which the slope of the curve becomes steeper determines the minimum critical gas rate for the
flowline.

As flowrate is reduced during turndown, Figure 6.0 shows that the equilibrium liquid hold-up
increases. Thus after a turndown period, ramp-up of production can lead to re-adjustment of the liquid
hold-up to a lower equilibrium level. This can lead to a surge of liquid reaching the topsides,
potentially overwhelming the topsides slug catcher/separator.

There are other mechanisms too for the formation and propagation of slugs. Significant changes in
the terrain profile can also lead to slug formation and propagation. Restart of operations after a
shutdown can also result in travel of slug to the topsides.

Page 7 of 12
Dynamic analysis is often employed, after steady state analysis is concluded, to analyse transient
operations and to test the robustness of the selected architecture. This type of analysis is employed to
evaluate turn-down and ramp-up scenarios, and to determine gas gathering system behaviour
including cooldown impact of extended shutdown, depressurisation, and cold restart

400
350 16" 20"

300
Liquid Hold-Up (m3)

250
200
150

100
50
0
50 100 150 200 250 300
Gas Flow Rate (MMscfd)

Figure 6.0: Variation of equilibrium liquid hold-up with flowrate and line size

It is important to design and size the flowline system to enable operations to be conducted above the
critical gas rate, and also to manage ramp-up operations carefully. For a given size of slugcatcher, the
rate of ramp-up should be managed to ensure that the liquid arrival does not induce pulsating gas
flow to the AGRU and liquefaction units.

Page 8 of 12
Liquid Management at Topsides
The preceding analysis has identified slugging as a key interface issue between the subsea and
topsides. What are the possible solutions for managing slugging, and ensuring the topsides systems
(see Figure 7.0) will see as stable a flow regime as possible? The performance of Absorber systems
in the AGRU and the liquefaction circuits require steady gas flowrates for optimal and on-specification
performance. The avoidance of pulsating gas flow through these systems is essential to ensure stable
performance and avoid operational upsets.

Molecular
Sieve Driers

Treated Gas
Separator

GAS DEHYDRATION
UNIT

From Wells /
Gathering System Acid Gas
to Disposal

Acid Gas
Inlet Separator Absorber
Slug Catcher
AMINE LNG Product
MERCURY
REGENERATION FRACTIONATION LIQUEFACTION to Storage
REMOVAL
UNIT

ACID GAS
INLET
REMOVAL UNIT
FACILITIES

STABILISATION

Water to Water
LPGs & Condensate
Treatment
to Storage

Figure 7.0: Front End Gas Reception/Processing on Topsides

The design of an adequately sized slug catcher is clearly a pre-requisite. However, unlike in an
onshore plant, there are limitations to what slug catcher size can be selected, given the limited plot
space on the vessel. Whereas for onshore plants, pipe finger type slug catchers with capacities of
3
2000 M and beyond have been installed, the slug catcher that can be realistically deployed on an
FPSO will have a maximum capacity of a few hundred bbls only. Given this constraint, it becomes
imperative to control both the formation of the slug, and the rate of receipt into the slug catcher to
ensure that production operations are not impacted.

Several options exist for the mitigation of slugs and these are discussed below.

Through careful optimisation of gathering system design ensure that stable flow range is
maximised, and hold-up is minimised through selection of lowest diameter feasible( without
exceeding the erosional velocity limits of the flowlines).

For a given bathymetry of the sea floor, select the location of the FPSO if possible such that the
flowline runs up slope to the base of the riser. This will minimise the size of the slug and the
propensity to slug in the riser.
(4)
Consider some form of predictive control that will sense the onset of slugs and activate a
choke at the inlet to the slug catcher. This will have the effect of controlling the rate of receipt of
the slug, thus ensuring that the slug can be contained (within a specified size of slug catcher),
and pulsation in flow is minimised. However, the reduction in gas rate into the AGRU may be
unavoidable.

Page 9 of 12
 Consider the application of gas lift to the base of the riser. This will ensure that no undue build-
up of slug will occur at the riser base, as the gas lift will enable a more uniform two phase
transport of fluids up the riser.

In conjunction with the above design steps, several operational procedures need to be implemented
to manage multiphase operations, and mitigate slugging and disturbance to operations of the AGRU,
the fractionation system and the liquefaction circuits. These include:

Manage subsea flowrates to stay above the critical gas rates as determined by the hydraulic
simulations.

Ensure ramp-up operations and ramp-up rates are managed in accordance with the operating
envelopes determined by the dynamic analysis carried out.

Develop operating procedures for subsea system restart that are compatible and integrated
with restart operations of the pre liquefaction and liquefaction processing steps.

In the extreme, high CGR gas feed and severity of slugging could also require consideration of more
radical solutions. Large size slugcatchers, associated liquids handling systems, and LPG/Condensate
fractionation could be located on a separate floater, i.e. give consideration to installation of an LPG
FPSO in tandem with the LNG FPSO. The economics of this more radical alternative, expected to be
marginal, will be determined by volumes of LPG and condensate that can be extracted from the rich
gas feedstock.

Another less conventional alternative is to consider the installation of a subsea slug catcher in
proximity of the LNG FPSO, along the lines deployed on the Highlander installation in the North Sea.
In this project, a subsea slug catcher module is deployed on the seabed adjacent to the base of the
jacket. The gas and liquid are separately routed to the topsides (the liquids pumped by downhole
pumps deployed in risers installed in the platform). A parallel concept can be considered for the LNG
FPSO, with seabed located pumps delivering the liquids to the topsides.

Hydrate, Corrosion and Wax Management

The management of hydrates in the subsea system has significant ramifications for the LNG FPSO
topsides. Based on Flow Assurance studies, the preferred hydrate suppression regime has to be
configured. The most common hydrate inhibitors used are methanol and glycol, which act
thermodynamically to shift the hydrate dissociation curve such that the operating temperature falls
outside the hydrate region. Depending on the differences between the operating temperature and the
hydrate formation temperature, hydrate management can also be accomplished via the injection of
(5)
low dosage hydrate inhibitors (LDHI) . These LDHIs are either Kinetic Hydrate Inhibitors (KHI) or
Anti-Agglomerants (AA), the former relying on delaying of hydrate nucleation and crystal growth
processes, and the latter on dispersing the hydrates into the liquid hydrocarbon phase, and keeping
the crystals in a slurry form.

If MEG system is adopted, then depending on the concentration of glycol required, and levels of
saturated and formation water in the gas, there could be a significant traffic of MEG that is received
back at the platform for regeneration, reclamation and storage. This could represent a significant
demand on topsides weight and space. Since the MEG after going through the slugcatcher/inlet
separator will be removed in the water phase, there is less concern with MEG carryover into the gas
phase impacting solvent operations in the AGRU unit. If methanol is employed for hydrate inhibition,
we would anticipate carryover of methanol with the gas phase, with potential ingress into the Absorber
system.

Page 10 of 12
Subsea System Depressurisation
In the event of an extended shutdown, the cooldown of the flowline system can result in the gas
entering the hydrate formation region. It will become necessary to depressure the flowline network, to
ensure pressure/temperature is outside of the hydrate formation region. The flare system on the
FPSO will need to be checked out to ensure that the depressurisation of the flowline network can be
accomplished, well before cooldown of the system can occur to the hydrate formation region.

Other Flow Assurance Impacts

Foaming in the Amine sweetening process is an often reported problem, and can be caused by a
number of reasons, which include:

Suspended solids, including pipeline corrosion products/ fines

Hydrocarbon liquid carryover

Methanol build up

Ingress of Corrosion inhibitors

An often cited reason for foaming in Amine Absorbers is the presence of liquid hydrocarbons. It is
essential to ensure, in the design of the pre-processing circuits, that liquid carryover either through the
effects of slugging or through condensation does not result in the ingress of liquid hydrocarbons.

It should also be noted that a cocktail of chemicals can be injected at the wells, including corrosion
inhibitors, wax inhibitors etc. Carryover of these and solids (rust, scale, and sand fines from the
flowlines) can exacerbate foaming problems.

Conclusions
The paper highlights the areas which merit attention in marrying subsea architecture with processing
on the topsides of the LNG FPSO.

The paper has identified the critical flow assurance issues which can have an impact on the design
and operation of the LNG FPSO. These include the generation, propagation and travel of slugs to the
topsides. Key recommendations underscore the need for configuring of the subsea architecture to
minimise liquid holdup and slugging potential, and then mitigating and managing slugs when received
on the platform. The measures needed for minimising pulsating flow to the AGRU and liquefaction
units are also outlined.

The paper also assesses the requirements of hydrate management systems on the topsides, and the
implications on topsides if hydrate management requires the deployment of MEG regeneration and
reclamation systems.

The importance of protecting the Amine Solvent in the AGRU Absorbers against the carryover of
methanol, corrosion and wax inhibitors, corrosion products, sand and other fines is also stressed to
ensure a high availability for the topsides systems.

Subsea architectures which are areally dispersed, and consist of a large number of wells, such as
may be required for the higher capacity LNG FPSOs, lead to complex gathering networks. The flow
assurance implications of such systems are more profound, and require critical focus and analysis to
deliver a seamlessly integrated gas gathering and LNG production facility.

Page 11 of 12
Abbreviations
LNG FPSO LNG Floating Production, Storage and Offloading

Mtpa Million tonnes per annum

NGL Natural Gas Liquids

AGRU Acid Gas Removal Unit

TCF Trillion Standard Cubic Feet

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas

CGR Condensate to Gas Ratio

LDI Low Dosage Hydrate Inhibitor

KHI Kinetic Hydrate Inhibitor

AA Anti- Agglomerants

MEG Mono-ethylene glycol

References:
1. Gilmour N., Shell Upstream International Floating LNG: Shells Recent History and Current
Approach LNG 16,April 2010

2. Verghese J.T. Monetising the Smaller Gas Reserves - Niche LNG Technology for Mid-Scale
LNG Applications, GasTech 2005, March 2005.

3. Kitamura T.,Inpex Corporation Outline of Inpexs Ichthys and Abadi Projects LNG 16, April
2010

4. Torpe H, et al., Statoil, Liquid Surge Handling at Asgard by model predictive control, Technical
Conference (Multiphase Pipeline Issues), November 2009.

5. Harun. A.F. et al., Assuring Gas Deliverability from BP First Subsea Tie-back to Shore,
Technical Conference (Multiphase Pipeline Issues), November 2009.

Page 12 of 12