OTC 13073

Canyon Express Slugging and Liquids Handling

Bryan K. Wallace, Marathon Oil Company, Ravi Gudimetla and Geir Saether, Intec Engineering Inc.

Copyright 2001, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2001 Offshore Technology Conference held in Introduction
Houston, Texas, 30 April–3 May 2001.
TotalFinaElf, BP, Marathon Oil Company, Pioneer Natural
This paper was selected for presentation by the OTC Program Committee following review of Resources USA, Inc., and Mariner Energy Inc. intend to
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to jointly develop three deepwater fields in the Gulf of Mexico
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference or its officers. Electronic reproduction, region. The fields are the Marathon-operated Camden Hills in
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
Mississippi Canyon (MC) 348 block, TotalFinaElf-operated
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The Aconcagua in MC305 block, and BP-operated King’s Peak in
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented. DeSoto Canyon (DC) 133 , DC177, and MC217 blocks. The
production consists primarily of methane gas with varying
volumes of water and condensate. Methanol is to be injected at
Abstract
the wellhead for hydrate inhibition. Maximum production
The Canyon Express development is a three operator
rates from each field range from 100 to 225 MMSCFD with
(TotalFinaElf, BP, and Marathon Oil Company) subsea
approximately 200 to 450 BPD of condensate, 300 to 900
development consisting of the transport of gas-condensate
BPD of water, and 450 to 1400 BPD of methanol.
from deepwater (~7000 feet) subsea reservoirs to a host
The production from the wells will be transported via twin
platform via dual 47-mile 12-inch nominal OD flowlines. The
12-inch nominal O.D. flowlines from the Camden Hills field
three developments are Camden Hills (Marathon, Pioneer
at approximately 7200-foot water depth, to the Aconcagua
Natural Resources USA, Inc., and TotalFinaElf), Aconcagua
field at approximately 7050-foot water depth, then to King’s
(TotalFinaElf, Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc., and
Peak field at approximately 6600-foot water depth, and finally
Mariner Energy, Inc.) and King’s Peak (BP). The Canyon
to a host platform fixed structure located on the continental
Express development is unique in that it involves ultra-
shelf. The twin flowlines (East and West) form a piggable
deepwater reservoirs from three individual operators flowing
system via a loop connecting the two flowlines at the flowline
into a common subsea multi-phase gathering system in which
ends. The flowlines are separated by a pigging valve, which
the operating pressure is lowered over time as dictated by
will remain closed during the normal operation of the system.
reservoir decline. The flowline fluid is predominantly methane
Thus, the flowlines will operate independently of the other.
gas along with a liquid phase consisting of condensate,
Analysis of the flowline gas/liquid behavior under various
produced water, and methanol (injected for hydrate
operating scenarios is required to establish and verify
inhibition). To verify the operability of the system it was
operability. The flowline tie-ins of the individual wells are as
necessary to perform transient simulations of the flowline to
follows:
predict the behavior of the fluid in the flowline.
The primary objective behind the transient simulations was
East Flowline
to determine the impact of the liquids in the flowline on the
(2) Camden Hills (MC348-1, MC348-2)
topside facilities and evaluate system performance during both
(1) Aconcagua (MC305-3)
upset and normal conditions. The software used to perform
(1) King’s Peak (DC177-2)
these simulations was Scandpower’s OLGA-2000 version
1.01. Scenarios and time points where potential problems due
West Flowline
to liquids were identified as well as appropriate techniques to
(2) Aconcagua (MC305-1, MC305-2)
control the any associated liquid slugs. The results from this
(3) King’s Peak (MC217-3, MC217-2, DC133-2)
work will form the basis of the operational procedures to be
developed for the Canyon Express flowline system.
The layout is shown schematically in Figure 1.
2 B. WALLACE, R. GUDIMETLA, G. SAETHER
The operation of the Canyon Express production system
will consist of a gradual reduction in topside pressure over
time (Early Life Host Platform Arrival Pressure of 2000 psig
through to Late Life Arrival Pressure of 500 psig) to maximize
recovery from the wells. As the gas rate and reservoir pressure
decline over time, liquid loading in the wells and flowlines
will increase. As the liquid loading in the flowlines increase,
various production problems due to liquid slugging may occur
during both normal production and transient situations (system
restarts, flow increases, etc.) if liquids are not properly
managed. Thus, the handling and management of temporary
increased liquid flowrate and volume is a significant aspect in
determining the operability of the Canyon Express system.
The objective of this paper is to describe the dynamic
simulations, using OLGA 2000 version 1.01, performed to:
• Determine the approximate range and duration of
increased liquid flow expected over the field life for
different production scenarios,
• Summarize the range of liquid volume computed
• Identify specific scenarios during the field life where
liquid management problems arise.
Studied Scenarios
With input from the various Canyon Express partners, specific
steady-state and non-steady-state scenarios were identified for
dynamic modeling to predict slug volumes (if any) that could
be present with each specific scenario. The scenarios were
simulated for early (2000 psig arrival), mid (1000 psig arrival)
and late (500 psig arrival) field life conditions to show the
effect of increased liquid loading due to decreased flowline
pressure and water production. These pressures were used to
differentiate between the times in the field life are shown in
the Design Data and Assumptions section of this paper. In
addition, all simulations were performed for the East flowline
only as this line is expected to have lower gas flowrates,
higher water rates, and lower pressure which results in a
greater potential for liquids management problems.
The scenarios where significant variations in liquid
flowrate may occur are as follows:
Steady-State Operation (Low Flow). For normal operation
where the gas flowrate is too low to maintain steady flow,
liquid and pressure builds up in the flowline until the flowline
pressure is high enough to push the liquid slug out of the
flowline and onto the platform topsides facilities. For this
scenario, the liquid rate to the topsides would fluctuate due to
the cyclical loading and unloading of flowline liquid content.
As long as the HP Separator can adequately handle the liquid
fluctuations, the operation could tolerate "slight slugging" but
not require any slug tank capacity. If the periodic slugs were
in excess of topsides liquid handling capability then the slug
tank must be sized such that the predicted periodic slug
volume could be contained thus allowing for continued
operation at the design gas flowrate. Modeling this scenario
also helped to evaluate the “operating envelope” of the
production system. The “operating envelope” involves finding
OTC 13073
the lowest flowline production rate, at which the system can
operate without the creation of slugs whose size is greater than
the capacity of the topside facilities.
System Shutdown and Restart. This is indicative of
situations where all wells on a flowline are shutdown for an
extended period and subsequently restarted. During the
shutdown, liquids are expected to settle at low spots in the line
due to gravity. Upon restart of the wells, these liquids will be
transported out of the flowline in the form of temporary higher
liquid flowrates. The analysis was centered on evaluating the
increased liquid volume and to determine if these slugs are in
excess of the liquid handling capacity of the topside facilities.
Increase of Gas Flow. This is indicative of bringing a well
on-line or increasing the flowrate from a well. For a constant
host platform arrival pressure, the higher the gas flow, the
lower the steady-state liquid holdup in the flowline. As the gas
flow from the wells is increased the flowline liquid content is
reduced from the steady-state volume of the lower flow. As
with the shutdown and restart case, during the period in which
the higher liquid content is being displaced there is a
temporary increase in liquid flow to the topsides. The more
rapid the gas flow increase, the higher the liquid rate to the
topsides facilities. Therefore, an increase in gas flowrate must
be limited to a rate that results in manageable liquid volumes.
Increase of Liquid Flow. An increase of associated liquids
from one or more wells (e.g. increased water flowrate due to
breakthrough) will result in a higher steady-state liquid
flowrate to the topsides facilities. If the liquid flow is in
excess of the topsides capacity then the high liquid cut wells
would need choked back as the slug tank is designed and
intended for transient liquid flow increases and not continual
high liquid flows.
Pigging and Rapid Flowline Depressurization. Although
pigging and flowline depressurization were considered and
evaluated in the design and are important factors in
determining adequate topside facility capacity for liquids
management, neither topic is discussed in this paper.
Design Data and Assumptions
Flowline Fluid Composition. Canyon Express hydrocarbon
fluid is predominantly methane (~99 mol%) with a liquid
condensate in the quantity of 2 Bbls/MMSCF at stock tank
conditions. Additional liquids in the flowline include produced
water and methanol injected upstream of the choke at each
wellhead for hydrate inhibition.
Flowline Route Profiles and Properties. The East flowline
route profile, shown in Figure 2, was obtained directly from
flowline alignment sheets. The flowline and riser outside
diameter is 12.75-inches. The flowline wall thickness varied
based on mechanical requirements and codes.
OTC 13073 CANYON EXPRESS SLUGGING AND LIQUIDS HANDLING
Reservoir Data. Each field operator in the Canyon Express
system has independently modeled their respective reservoirs.
For this work the specific reservoir data was compiled and
used as the basis for input to the transient simulations and for
evaluation of the results. Due to confidentiality issues, the
reservoir data are not stated in this paper. The parameters used
for input and evaluation include: water production per zone
over time, production rate over time, and corresponding
reservoir pressure over time.
Flowline Fluid Rates. The basis for the transient simulations
cover conditions representing early life, mid life, and late life
flowline operation as outlined in Table 1. This covers an initial
host platform arrival pressure of 2000 psig, end of life arrival
pressure of 500 psig, and includes an intermediate operation
with an arrival pressure of 1000 psig. The liquid flow from the
individual wells assumed in the flowline during these periods
are consistent with the liquid predicted in the reservoir models
and steady-state flowline simulations :
• The liquid flow values used in the simulations were
obtained from the steady-state simulations and the
reservoir performance predictions provided from each
Canyon Express partner.
• The host platform arrival pressures and predicted gas
flowrates for each case were obtained from the steady-state
simulations.
Host Platform Topside Facilities. Included in the OLGA
dynamic simulation of the flowline was modeling of the HP
Separator operation and its respective outlet liquid flows.
Figure 3 shows the flow schematic diagram of the topside inlet
facilities for one of the two flowlines. The process flow path
of the production is summarized as follows:
• The multi-phase flow from the Canyon Express
flowlines is routed to its respective inlet HP Separator.
• The gas phase from the HP separators is compressed
and dehydrated.
• During normal operation, the separated liquid
production flows from the Canyon Express two-phase
HP Separators to further liquid processing facilities.
This includes separation facilities for the water,
methanol, and condensate.
• Any liquid from the flowline that flows into the HP
Separator in excess of its normal processing capacity is
routed to a 2400 barrel slug tank on the topsides.
The dynamic modeling performed with OLGA 2000
included simulation of the HP Separator operation and its
respective liquid outlet flows. This provided a prediction of
the effect and response of the host platform inlet separator and
its resultant normal flow to the downstream liquid facilities
and emergency flow to the slug tank. The topside modeling
portion of the flowline simulation, illustrated in Figure 3,
included the HP inlet separator only. To adequately represent
the normal liquid flow from the separator the normal outlet
flow was constrained to the capacity of the downstream
equipment. Any flow in excess of this constraint was routed to
3
an emergency dump (slug tank). The OLGA modeling of the
inlet separation did not permit application of a constraint on
the emergency dump liquid flowrate. Conformance to any
identified liquid flow constraints to the slug tank were
confirmed and adhered to via iteration of the simulations. The
topside basis assumed for separator simulation is as follows:
• A normal liquid level was defined for the two-phase HP
Separator. A level of 1.25 feet above the normal level in
the HP separator results in liquid flow to the emergency
dump (slug tank). A 4" liquid level control valve on the
liquid outlet line was modeled and tuned to maintain the
normal liquid level setpoint. The emergency dump closes
when the HP separator liquid level reaches 0.05 feet below
the defined normal level.
• A maximum outlet liquid flow constraint from the HP
Separator was used to simulate the liquid handling
limitation of downstream facilities for liquid from the East
flowline. Any flow above this value would result in the
liquid level rising in the HP separator. This flowrate
constraint differed for the three periods modeled as the
downstream facilities service both flowlines and the West
line liquid flow varies over time. The total liquid flow
constraint value used was consistent with the capacity of
the downstream liquid handling facilities.
• The flow of liquid from the HP Separator to the slug tank
via the emergency dump is limited by a fixed choke
(installed to limit gas blowby) in the line. Constraint to this
flowrate on the emergency dump liquid within the model
was not possible as this is not an OLGA capability. This
value was manually adhered to by verification from the
simulation output and modifying as necessary.
System Modeling and Analysis Summary
The transient simulations for the Canyon Express system were
performed using OLGA 2000 version 1.01. Data generated
from steady-state modeling was used as the initial input into
the transient model and the OLGA model was then run to a
steady-state condition. Flowline operation was manipulated to
simulate both steady-state operation and the various non-
steady-state scenarios described above to determine the
ultimate effect of operational changes on flowline liquid
loading and host platform topside facilities.
The following sections briefly summarize the simulation
procedure and results for each of the scenarios. Critical cases
where significant slug volumes occur for a specific scenario
are discussed in more detail within the respective section.
Steady-State Operation Procedure and Summary
Simulation Procedure. The objective of these simulations
was as follows :
• Determine if flow instabilities due to slugging occur
during the normal steady-state operation of the
flowlines for various flowrates across the range of
potential operating conditions.
4 B. WALLACE, R. GUDIMETLA, G. SAETHER
If slugging were present at design production rates, then
flowline diameter, gas rates, and operating pressure would
need to be modified. The simulation procedure was to run at
various flowrates for a specific arrival pressure. Each
simulation continued until a steady-state condition was
reached. A steady-state condition was defined as when the
liquid content in the flowline remained constant or when
steady cyclic fluctuations were observed in the liquid content
and exit liquid rates as shown in Figure 6. The former is
indicative of higher flowrate conditions where liquids are
swept out of the line at constant rates due to the higher gas
sweeping velocity. The latter is indicative of increased liquids
production due to an increase in water production combined
with lower gas sweeping velocities.
Summary of Steady-State Operation Results.
The initial analysis concerning transient modeling was to
determine the flowline liquid content and flowrate for various
gas flowrates and pressures in the range of flowline operation.
Liquid management problems are generally observed at lower
gas velocities and higher liquid content resulting in higher
pressures at the wellheads and fluctuations in liquid rates at
the topsides. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the resulting liquid
loading and wellhead pressure at different flowline outlet
pressures and produced water content.
Figure 4 shows the predicted liquid content in the flowline
for various gas flowrates in the Canyon Express operating
envelope. The graph illustrates the following:
• Liquid content increases as the flow rates for each case
decrease as shown in the top graph.
• Higher liquid contents are observed for the higher
pressure cases compared to the lower pressure cases at
similar rates as there is less velocity in the flowline.
(e.g. 100 MMSCFD at 2000 psig arrival shows a 7000
barrel liquid content versus 5000 barrels for the 100
MMSCFD at 1000 psig case).
• Operation at 20 MMSCFD for all three cases shows a
liquid content of approximately 20,000 barrels.
Figure 5 shows the predicted wellhead pressure (end of
the flowline) for various gas flowrates in the Canyon Express
operating envelope. In general, a change in gas flow rate
affects the pressure at the end of the flowline. For dry gas, a
decrease in gas flowrate should result in a decrease in pressure
drop across the flowline. The graph illustrates the following:
• For the Canyon Express multiphase flow a decrease in
gas flowrate results in an increase in liquid content.
This additional liquid effectively reduces the cross-
sectional area of the flowline and creates pockets of
liquid and hydrostatic head that the gas must overcome.
• At higher gas flowrates the pressure drop across the
flowline decreases as gas flow through the flowline is
reduced. This is due to the relatively insignificant
change in flowline liquid content at these flowrates.
• At lower gas flowrates the pressure drop across the
flowline actually increases as gas flow through the
flowline decreases. This is due to a significant increase
in flowline liquid content at the lower gas flowrates.
OTC 13073
• The transition point between higher flowrates and lower
flowrates (as illustrated by the inflection) can be seen
on the early life curve at 150 MMSCFD. This is where
the flowline pressure drop moves from gas flow
dominant to liquid content dominant.
Figures 4 and 5 illustrate that lower gas flowrates do not
necessarily result in lower flowline pressure drop as the
resultant increase in liquid content at lower gas rates
significantly increases the pressure at the end of the flowline.
As ascertained from these graphs, flow instability (e.g.
sudden liquid increase at the platform over time), is likely to
occur at low flowrates which might occur anytime during field
life. Thus analysis was performed to determine the liquid
slugging potential and system operability for a range of gas
flowrates. A summary of this analysis per time is as follows:
− Early Life. The liquid flowrate was constant at the higher
gas flowrates. Slight liquid fluctuations were observed at a
low gas flowrate of 20 MMSCFD but no liquid volume in
excess of HP Separator capability was predicted.
− Mid Life. The liquid flowrate was constant at the higher
gas flowrates. Slight liquid fluctuations were also observed
at low gas flowrate of 20 MMSCFD but no liquid volume
in excess of HP Separator capability was predicted.
− Late Life. The liquid flowrate was constant at the higher
gas flowrates. Slight liquid fluctuations were observed at
the low gas flowrates of 20 MMSCFD and 40 MMSCFD
but no liquid volume in excess of HP Separator capability
was predicted.
For the low gas flowrates, liquid fluctuation occurs when
the large total liquid content in the flowline begins to block
flow at the flowline low spots. When the appropriate pressure
build up behind the liquid occurs, these liquid slugs are pushed
further down the flowline eventually reaching the topside
separator. This process is cyclic as the liquid buildup volume
in the flowline fluctuates when the liquid slugs exit the
flowline. This operation would continue as long as sufficient
reservoir pressure exists to move the slugs of liquid.
Liquid slugging during steady-state operation was seen to
occur for the late life, low flowrate case from the OLGA
simulator results. Most notable, as shown in Figures 6 and 7,
for the late life, low flowrate case, are fluctuations in total
liquid flowrate, total flowline liquid content, and HP separator
liquid level.
Figure 6 shows liquid flowrate at the flowline outlet pipe
section prior to the separator and also the total flowline liquid
content. The graph illustrates the following:
• The fluctuations observed for liquid flowrate indicate
that some degree of slugging is present. If no slugging
were present, the plotted line would be level upon
reaching steady-state conditions.
• Although the liquid flowrate varies between 0 and 3500
BPD, the flowline liquid content only between 14,900
and 15,000 bbls. The liquid content differential of 100
bbls between the high and low values indicate that the
slugging conditions are very slight.
OTC 13073 CANYON EXPRESS SLUGGING AND LIQUIDS HANDLING
The operability at the low flowrate is evident in Figure 7
which shows the liquid level in the separator for this case. The
graph illustrates the following:
• Although fluctuations in liquid are present, the inlet
separator can adequately handle the liquid flow to the
topsides at the normal liquid level setpoint with only
slight oscillations in the separator level
Shut-In / Start-Up Simulation Procedure and Summary.
Simulation Procedure. For early, mid, and late life cases, a
simulation of steady-state operation, followed by a total line
shut-in and subsequent full restart was performed to determine
instantaneous slug volumes during startup scenarios. The
objectives of these analyses were as follows:
• Determine increased liquid volume using a ramp-up
rate (time period in which gas rate goes from zero to
operating rate with a linear increase in flow rate) per
well typical to a field start-up.
• Verify that the predicted slug volume is within the
liquid handling capabilities of the host platform topside
facilities. The host platform topsides capability was
assumed to be adequate if the accumulated slug volume
was less than the slug tank capacity.
• Determine pressure requirements at the wells at restart
considering liquid holdup for each time point.
The simulation procedure for each case was as follows :
• Run simulation with the four wells until a steady-state
condition is reached.
• Shut-in all four wells for 24 hours to allow liquid
content in the flowline to settle to the lowest points.
• Start-up the wells one at a time starting with the furthest
well and working forward up the flowline. Each well is
ramped to full rate over a six hour period. The start-up
of a next well is three hours after the previous start-up.
Summary of Shut-Down and Startup Results
− Early Life. Liquid flowrate to the host platform eventually
increases above normal liquid rates due to the displacement
of the liquid volume which gravity flowed to the end of the
flowline during the shut-in period. The transient higher
liquid flow did not result in a problem for the separator.
− Mid Life. Similar to early life results. The increased liquid
flow slightly increased the HP separator level above
normal but never reached the high-high level.
− Late Life. Liquid flowrate to the host platform increases
significantly during the transient period after restart. This
is due to the displacement of the liquid which settles in the
flowline during the shut-in period. The increased liquid
flow (for this staggered start-up scenario simulated) was in
excess of the HP separator capability and thus required the
use of the slug tank (450 barrels accumulated). This
volume is within the capacity of the slug tank.
Whether or not a slugging problem exists for the cases
described above was determined from examining several
outputs from the OLGA simulation. Most notably, the liquid
5
flowrate, flowline content, HP separator level fluctuation, and
slug tank accumulated liquid volume were reviewed. These
graphs are shown in Figures 8 thru 10 for the late life case.
Figure 8 shows the liquid volume flow at the last pipe
section upstream of the separator and the total liquid content
in the flowline. The graph illustrates the following:
• The wells flow into the flowline is shutdown at hour 24.
• The wells remain closed for 24 hours to allow the liquid
holdup in the line to settle.
• After the wells are restarted at hour 48, the liquid
content in the flowline rises to almost 8000 bbls as
additional liquid from the restarted wells is introduced
into the flowline. This increase occurs as the gas flows
are low and the liquid in the line present before the
shutdown is yet to be displaced.
• After liquid flow to the host facility recommences at
hour 60, the instantaneous flow to the inlet separator
increases to a maximum of nearly 5500 BPD which is
above the capacity of the liquid flow from the inlet
separator to the downstream liquid processing facilities.
Figure 9 shows the separator level and portrays the relative
level between the oil phase and water/methanol phase for the
liquid in the separator. The graph illustrates the following:
• The relative volume of water/methanol decreases as the
liquid first arrives at the platform following the startup.
This higher flow of oil in the initial return of the flow is
due to the separation of the oil and water phases in the
liquid holdup of the flowline during the shut-in period.
• The high volume of water/methanol in the flowline
liquid content results in a high flow of water/methanol
approximately 6 hours after the re-establishment of
liquid flow. The water/methanol and oil in the separator
varies until steady-state operation is re-established.
• The level in the separator cannot be maintained at the
normal liquid level and eventually reaches the high-
high level which activates flow into the emergency
dump (flow to the slug tank).
Figure 10 shows the accumulated volume of liquids that
flowed to the slug tank over the transient period. As the
simulation predicted liquid flow through the emergency dump,
it was vital to determine whether the topside slug tank was of
adequate size to receive the liquid slug volume predicted for
this case. The graph illustrates the following:
• The 450 bbl accumulation predicted is well below the
capacity of the 2400 bbl slug tank. In addition, a longer
start-up period may greatly reduce the 450 bbl value.
• The great majority of the liquid volume flowing into the
slug tank is the water / methanol phase. This is due to
the separation of the oil phase from the water /
methanol phase for the liquids which were resident in
the flowline during the shutdown period. The initial
liquids into the separator after restart are predominantly
oil phase and arrive at a manageable flowrate as the gas
rate is still low. The subsequent liquid is predominantly
water / methanol and flowing at a higher rate due to the
higher gas rates as the wells reach full flow.
6 B. WALLACE, R. GUDIMETLA, G. SAETHER
Flow Increase Simulation Procedure and Result Summary.
Simulation Procedure. The objective of these cases was as
follows :
• Determine for early, mid and late field life, the effect on
the topside liquids handling of bringing a well on line
(no flow to full flow) with the other wells on the
flowline already flowing.
The increase in gas rate also results in a subsequent
increase in liquid rate as represented by the gas / liquid ratios
listed in Table 1. This scenario required thorough study as it
will be a standard operation with a significant potential for
liquid slugging. For each case, the well to be brought on-line
was MC305-3 as this is the highest flowrate well. Higher gas
flow will cause the higher liquid content to be displaced from
the line at a higher rate than the start-up of the other wells.
Using this well is a conservative case for this scenario. The
effect of the higher gas flowrates on liquid content is
illustrated in Figure 4 which was previously described. The
simulation procedure for each point was as follows :
• Run simulation with three wells on-line (MC305-3
shutdown) until a steady-state condition is reached.
• Start-up well MC305-3 at various ramp-up speeds
(instantaneous through up to seven days) to determine
the ramp-up achievable for each case that does not
overwhelm the liquid handling at the host platform.
Summary of Results
- Early Life. The liquid rate to the host platform from the
flowline is increased for a short period as the higher gas
velocity displaces the additional liquid content (600
barrels) associated with lower flow. The instantaneous
(immediate increase from no flow to full flow) ramp-up
case caused a small volume (<20 bbls) to flow to the slug
tank. For a 12-hour ramp-up rate the liquid level in the
separator remained normal
− Mid Life. As with the early case, the liquid flowrate from
the flowline to the host platform increases with the higher
gas flowrate while the liquid content decreases. The total
liquid differential to be displaced with the increase in gas
volume and velocity is 3300 barrels. For an instantaneous
start-up of MC305-3 the increased liquid flow was in
excess of the HP separator and slug tank capability. To
alleviate this problem, the well, (MC305-3) must be
ramped-up to full production over a longer period of time
to limit the rate and volume of liquid received at the
topsides. A minimum ramp-up of 12 hours was required to
adequately contain the additional liquid volume. A volume
of 2230 bbls at the slug tank was predicted for this case
which is at the slug tank volume limit. A ramp-up of 48
hours resulted in 950 bbls to the slug tank which is within
the slug tank capacity.
− Late Life. As with the early case, the liquid flowrate to
the host platform from the flowline increases with the
higher flowrate while the liquid content decreases. The
total liquid differential to be displaced with the increase in
gas volume and velocity is 7500 barrels. For an
OTC 13073
instantaneous start-up of MC305-3 the increased liquid
flow was in excess of the HP separator liquids handling
and slug tank capacity. Ramp-up periods of 24, 48, and 96
hours were also evaluated and found to be too short to
manage a predicted volume of liquid within the slug tank
capacity. A minimum ramp-up period of 120 hours was
required to adequately process the additional liquid volume
within the topside facilities capacity. A volume of 1960
barrels at the slug tank was predicted for this case.
Increasing the ramp-up time to 144 hours only slightly
lowered the slug tank accumulated volume to 1770 bbls.
Although the gas flowrate increases from 40
MMSCFD to 75 MMSCFD the predicted wellhead
pressure at the MC348-1 well actually decreases from
2200 psig to 1750 psig. This illustrates the effect that the
7500 bbls of additional liquid content at the lower
flowrate has on the predicted pressure drop in the
flowline. The additional gas flowrate is beneficial as it
increases the gas velocity thus sweeping out liquids. This
ultimately has a positive effect on the pressure drop as
generically shown in Figure 5.
As with the startup and shutdown , the key graphs to examine
for this scenario were the total liquid volume and content,
separator level fluctuation, and accumulated liquid in the slug
tank. Figures 11 through 13 show these graphs for the mid life
and Figure 14 is for a late life case.
Figure 11 shows the liquid volume flow for instantaneous,
12, 48 and 60 hour ramp-up start-up of MC305-3 (mid life
conditions). The graph illustrates the following:
• For the instantaneous ramp-up case, the instantaneous
flowrate to the inlet separator increases to a maximum
of nearly 13,000 BPD which is above both the capacity
of the topsides liquid processing facilities and the
overall liquid handling capacity of the separator. The
increased liquid flowrate is due to the sudden higher
gas velocity in the flowline from the gas flow increase.
• For the other ramp-up cases (12, 48, and 60 hours) , the
liquid flow is spread out over a longer period of time
which results in a lower maximum liquid flow.
• The steady-state condition returns approximately 24-72
hours (depending on the ramp-up speed) after the
startup of MC305-3. This results in approximately
1200 BPD of liquid (steady-state) from the flowline
after MC305-3 is startup.
Figure 12 shows the inlet separator liquid level for the
instantaneous, 48 and 60 hour ramp-up cases (mid life). The
graph illustrates the following:
• The steady-state normal liquid level is maintained in the
separator during steady-state operation but cannot be
maintained during non-steady-state operation.
• For all cases, the liquid level in the separator exceeds
the normal level and reaches the high-high level upon
receipt of liquid from the flowline at the topsides
facilities. This activates the emergency dump valve
(flow to the slug tank). High-high levels show a lesser
occurrence for the longer ramp-up periods.
OTC 13073 CANYON EXPRESS SLUGGING AND LIQUIDS HANDLING
Figure 13 shows the accumulated liquid into the slug tank
over time for the instantaneous, 12, 48, and 60 hour ramp-up
periods. The graph illustrates the following:
• For the instantaneous cases, predicted accumulated
volume is greater than the slug tank capacity.
• For the 12 hour case, the total predicted accumulated
volume is just below the capacity of the slug tank.
• For the 48 and 60 hour cases, the total predicted
accumulated volume is well less than the capacity of
the slug tank.
For the late life case, longer ramp-up times are required
due to the large liquid holdup present in the line. The specific
ramp-up period identified where the accumulated volume did
not exceed the slug tank volume was 120 hours. Figure 14
shows the accumulated liquid volumes in the slug tank for the
instantaneous, 48, 96, and 120 hour cases. The graph
illustrates the following:
• For the instantaneous, 48, and 96 hour cases, predicted
accumulated volume is greater than slug tank capacity.
• For the 120 hour case, the total predicted accumulated
volume is below the capacity of the slug tank.
Liquid Flow Increase Simulation Procedure and Result
Summary.
Simulation Procedure. The objective of these cases was as
follows :
• Determine if a significantly increased liquid rate results
in slugging which overwhelms the topside liquid
handling facilities.
These simulations were performed only for the late life flow
conditions as this is the worst case scenario for significant
impact on the topsides liquids handling. For the liquid
volume associated with the late life flow of 75 MMSCFD, the
water production (and associated methanol dosing) of one well
was increased to simulate an instantaneous increase in liquid
rate in the flowline. This would be indicative of water
breakthrough in a single well and illustrates the resultant
impact on the host platform liquid handling facilities. The
simulation procedure for this analysis was as follows.
• Run simulation with all four wells operating at the late
life flowrate until a steady-state condition is reached.
• Increase the water production ratio at MC348-1 to
simulate a sudden increase in liquid rate in the
flowline. The ratios for MC348-1 were increased
from 8 bbls / MMSCF to 25, 50, and 100 bbls /
MMSCF respectively. The gas flowrate for MC348-1
in the late life case is 20 MMSCFD. The methanol
flowrate ratio of 1.5 times the water rate is held
constant.
Summary of Results
− 25 BBL/MMSCF: This water rate increase resulted in an
increased flow of 850 BPD per day (water/methanol).
Total liquid flow increased to 1290 BPD. The liquid
handling facilities as modeled are capable of handling the
7
excess liquids for this case with no flow to the slug tank.
The pressure at MC348-1 increases with higher flowline
liquid content.
− 50 BBL/MMSCF: This water rate increase resulted in a
flow increase of 2100 BPD of liquid (water/methanol).
Total liquid flow increased to 2540 BPD. The excess
liquid exceeded slug tank volume in 2.75 days following
arrival at host platform. The pressure at MC348-1
increases with higher flowline liquid content.
− 100 BBL/MMSCF: This water rate increase resulted in a
flow increase of 4600 BPD of liquid (water/methanol).
Total liquid flow increased to 5040 BPD. The excess
liquid exceeded the slug tank volume in 1 day following
arrival at host platform. The pressure at MC348-1
increases significantly with higher flowline liquid content.
Figure 15 illustrates the results outlined above.
Conclusions
− No steady-state operation scenarios were identified in
which liquid slug volumes were present in excess of the
HP Separator liquid handling capability. For the great
majority of cases investigated there was no liquid slugging
predicted.
− Non-steady-state scenarios were identified which result in
increased liquid flow in excess of topside capacity.
However, there are cases where slug volumes could be
operationally mitigated via procedures in which the liquid
inlet flow rates were reduced by controlling the flowline
gas rate (e.g. slower ramp-up of well).
− Operation with a reduced slug tank volume (<2400 bbls)
may be possible as liquid inlet rates can be operationally
controlled but not necessarily eliminated. There were
cases identified during the late life where the minimum
slug tank size predicted was approximately 1700 barrels.
However, control of liquid rate by reducing gas rate will
require longer ramp up times during increases in flow to
reduce liquid inlet rate.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the management of Canyon
Express field owners TotalFinaElf, BP, Marathon Oil
Company, Mariner Energy, Inc., and Pioneer Natural
Resources USA, Inc., for permission to publish this paper. We
would like to thank Dick Shea of Scandpower and Norm
McMullen of B.P. for their valuable assistance and modeling
suggestions with the OLGA 2000 simulator.
8 B. WALLACE, R. GUDIMETLA, G. SAETHER OTC 13073

CANYON EXPRESS DEVELOPMENT

FLOWLINE SCHEMATIC
TRANSIENT STUDY BASIS

CAMDEN ACONCAGUA KINGS

HILLS PEAK

HOST
MARATHON TOTALFINAELF BP PLATFORM
GAS EXPORT

MC MC MC MC DC
305-1 305-2 217-3 217-2 133-2
WEST

EAST

DUAL 12"
MC MC MC DC
PIPELINES
348-1 348-2 305-3 177-2

4 miles 11 miles 32 miles

Figure 1- Schematic Model of Canyon Express Production System

CANYON EXPRESS DEVELOPMENT

EAST FLOWLINE ROUTE PROFILE
TRANSIENT STUDY BASIS

1000

HOST PLATFORM
0

-1000

-2000
Elevation (ft)

-3000

-4000

-5000

-6000

-7000
177-2
305-3
348-2
348-1

-8000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260
Distance (1000 ft)

Figure 2: East Flowline Route Profile used in OLGA Simulations

OTC 13073 CANYON EXPRESS SLUGGING AND LIQUIDS HANDLING 9

Case Î Early Mid Late

Water Rate (bbls/mmscf) 0.7 2.5 8.0

Methanol Rate (bbls/bbl
1.5 1.5 1.5
water)
Condensate Rate (bbls/mmscf) 2.0 2.0 2.0
Host Arrival Pressure (psig) 2000 1000 500
Host Separator Pressure (psig) 1750 750 486

East Line Wells Flow (mmscfd)

MC348-1 50 31 20
MC348-2 50 50 10
MC305-3 60 55 35
DC177-2 50 14 10
Total 210 150 75

Table 1: Basis for Transient Simulations

CANYON EXPRESS DEVELOPMENT

TRANSIENT STUDY HP SEPARATOR BASIS

INLET
CANYON CHOKE
EXPRESS
MULTIPHASE INLET HP SEPARATOR
FLOW
HLL 3 ft - 93inft - 9 in
HLL LC
60"

NLL NLL
2 ft - 62inft - 6 in LC
EMERGENCY

NORMAL
FLOW
DUMP

FC

CONSTRAINT
2600 to 2800 BPD

TO
SLUG TANK
Figure 3- HP Separator Model Used in OLGA 2000
10 B. WALLACE, R. GUDIMETLA, G. SAETHER OTC 13073

Liquid Content East Flowline

Early = 2000 psia, 0.7 H2O, Mid = 1000 psia, 2.5 H2O, Late = 500 psia, 8 H2O

25000

20000
Liquid content (bbls)

Early life
15000
Mid life
Late life

10000

5000

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Gas Flowrate (mmscf/d)

Figure 4 - Flowline Liquid Content at Various Gas Flowrates

Subsea Inlet Pressure East Flow line

Early = 2000 psia, 0.7 H2O, Mid = 1000 psia, 2.5 H2O, Late = 500 psia, 8 H2O

4500

4000

3500
Pressure at Camden Hills (psia)

3000

2500 Early life

Mid life
2000
Late life

1500

1000

500

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Gas Flow rate (m m scf/d)

Figure 5 - Pressure at End of Flowline at Various Gas Flowrates

OTC 13073 CANYON EXPRESS SLUGGING AND LIQUIDS HANDLING 11

4000 15250

LIQUID CONTENT
3500 15000

3000 14750
Liquid Flowrate at Separator (BPD)

LIQUID FLOWRATE

Flowline Liquid Content (Bbls)

2500 14500

2000 14250

1500 14000

1000 13750

500 13500

0 13250
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144
Time (Hrs)
Figure 6 - Late Life
Steady-State Operation at 40 MMSCFD
Liquid Flowrate at Separator and Flowline Liquid Content

4.00
High-High Liquid
Level
3.75

3.50
Separator Liquid Level (ft)

3.25

3.00

2.75

Actual Liquid Level

2.50

2.25

2.00
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144
Time (Hrs)

Figure 7 - Late Life

Steady-State Operation at 40 MMSCFD
Host Platform HP Separator Liquid Level
12 B. WALLACE, R. GUDIMETLA, G. SAETHER OTC 13073

6000 8500

5500 8250

5000 8000

4500 7750
Liquid Flowrate at Separator (BPD)

LIQUID CONTENT

Flowline Liquid Content (Bbls)

4000 7500

3500 7250
SHUTDOWN

RESTART
3000 7000

2500 6750

2000 6500
LIQUID FLOWRATE
1500 6250

1000 6000

500 5750

0 5500
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120
Time (Hrs)

Figure 8: Late Life

Full Flow / Shutdown / Re-Start (75-0-75 MMSCFD):
Liquid Flowrate at Separator and Total Liquid Content

4.00
High-High Liquid
Level
3.75

3.50
Separator Liquid Level (Ft)

3.25
SHUTDOWN

RESTART

3.00

2.75
Actual Liquid Level
2.50

2.25

2.00
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120
Time (Hrs)

Figure 9: Late Life

Full Flow / Shutdown / Re-Start (75-0-75 MMSCFD):
Host Platform HP Separator Liquid Level
OTC 13073 CANYON EXPRESS SLUGGING AND LIQUIDS HANDLING 13

2800

SLUG TANK CAPACITY

2400
Accumulated Volume per Phase (Bbls)

2000
SHUTDOWN

1600

RESTART
1200

800

400
WATER / METHANOL

OIL
0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120
Time (Hrs)

Figure 10 - Late Life

Full Flow / Shutdown / Re-Start (75-0-75 MMSCFD)
Liquid Accumulation at Slug Tank

14000

12000
INSTANTANEOUS RAMP-UP
Liquid Flowrate at Separator (BPD)

10000
RESTART WELL

8000
12 HOUR RAMP-UP

6000

48 HOUR RAMP-UP
4000

60 HOUR RAMP-UP

2000

0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168
Time (Hrs)

Figure 11 - Mid Life

Gas Flow Increase (95 MMSCFD to 150 MMSCFD)
Flow Rate at HP Separator for Various Ramp-up Times
14 B. WALLACE, R. GUDIMETLA, G. SAETHER OTC 13073

4.00

High-High Liquid Level

3.75

3.50 INSTANTANEOUS
RAMP-UP
Separator Liquid Level (Ft)

3.25
RESTART WELL

60 HOUR RAMP-UP

3.00

48 HOUR RAMP-UP
2.75

Normal Liquid Level

2.50

2.25

2.00
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168
Time (Hrs)

Figure 12 - Mid Life

Gas Flow Increase (95 MMSCFD to 150 MMSCFD)
Host Platform HP Separator Liquid Level

3000

SLUG TANK
0 HOUR RAMPUP
CAPACITY
2400
Accumulated Liquid Volume (Bbls)

12 HOUR RAMPUP
RESTART WELL

1800

1200

48 HR RAMPUP

600
60 HR RAMPUP

0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168
Time (Hrs)

Figure 13 - Mid Life

Gas Flow Increase (95 MMSCFD to 150 MMSCFD)
Liquid Accumulation at Slug Tank at Various Ramp-up Times
OTC 13073 CANYON EXPRESS SLUGGING AND LIQUIDS HANDLING 15

7200
0 HR RAMPUP

6400

5600
Accumulated Liquid Volume (Bbls)

4800
RESTART WELL

48 HR RAMPUP
4000

3200
SLUG TANK
96 HR RAMPUP
CAPACITY
2400

1600

800 120 HR RAMPUP

0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120 132 144 156 168
Time (Hrs)
Figure 14 - Late Life
Gas Flow Increase (95 MMSCFD to 150 MMSCFD)
Liquid Accumulation at Slug Tank for Various Ramp-up Times

7200
WATER RATIO LIQUID
6400
RATE
25 BBL / MMSCF 2,500 BPD
5600 50 BBL / MMSCF 4,000 BPD
Accumulated Liquid Volume (Bbls)

100 BBL / MMSCF

100 BBL / MMSCF 6,500 BPD
INCREASE LIQUID

4800

4000

3200
SLUG TANK CAPACITY 50 BBL / MMSCF

2400

1600

800
25 BBL / MMSCF

0
0 12 24 36 48 60 72 84 96 108 120
Time (Hrs)
Figure 15 - Late Life
Liquid Flow Increase
Liquid Accumulation at Slug Tank for Various Liquid Ratios