. .

. m
Insulation Thermal Requirements
Texaco Inc. n

SOCiety of Petroleum Engineers

SPE 28481 Flowline for Deepwater Subsea Pipelines

M.T. Rubel and D.H. Broussard,

CopFight T+, 1994, Sccle!y of Petroleum E.gimws, 1...

P.aPer was PrePa,ed for P,e$mailon

al Gle SPE 69+h Annual Technical

Cm fwmce

.md ExhlblUon held [ New Oriems,

LA, U.SA.,

25-28

SqXember

1994,

~1$ paper ..s s.IwM for pre$ent,at(m by m SPE Program Committee Mowing review of Information contained !. an absmcl s.bmimd by the author(s), Content, of the paper, as presented, ha.. not been revlmwd by !h. Society of I%ro[eum Engtn.ws an6 are subjec+ to camcll.n by the author(s), The material, as pres.nsed, does not necessarily reflecd any pwitlm o! She Society.1 Pe$roleum EnQine.am, i,. oHlcem. m members. Papers presented at SPE mee!lngs am s.bJacl w publication review by Editcd& C.amm!nees of the Society 01 PeVdem Engl,eer$, Permlsslon b cqy 1, reslr(cted to an abs!rad of 0! more than 303 wads, Illuslmtios may not be copied, The ibtrasl should cad mn,Pico% acknowledgment of where ,.6 by whom the P,P,, 1$ Pmswted. VW,. IIYwlan. SPE, P,O. Box 833336. R(c+mrdso. TX 7608%3836, USA Telex, 163245 SPEUT,

ABSTRACT Current technology limits the distance over which subsea produced well fluids may be transported to ..ManY offshore leases exist approximately 10-15 @es. in water depths in the order of 4,000 feet that could require transportation distances of 50-60 miles. The prevention of hydrate formation in the flowline is of concern for this service. Injecting a chemical inhibitor hsa typically been considered as the primary method for preventing hydrate formation. The cm-rent knowledge of subsea insulation, particularly for deepwater applications, is very limited. The purpose of this study is to develop data needed to evaluate the effectiveness of flowline insulating systems in maintaining the fluid temperature above the hydrate formation temperature for a typical Gulf of Mexico application. The prevention of hydrate formation in flowlines has typically been achieved injecting a chemical inhibitor into the produced fluid. The current knowledge of subsea insulation, particularly for deepwater aPPhcatIOns, IS very limited. This paper will determine the overall heat transfer coeftlcient required to maintain the temperature of the produced fluids above the hydrate formation temperature over the length of the subsea flowline. The overall heat transfer coefficients will be reported for various flowline insulation systems. Bssed on these results, it is hoped that a better understanding of whether flowline insulation may be a consideration in preventing the formation of hydrates for this application.

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study is to develop data needed to evaluate the effectiveness of flowline insulating systems in maintaining the temperature of the produced fluids above the hydrate formation temperature over the length of the subsea flowline.

INTRODUCTION The current achievable distance over which produced well fluids may be transported through subsea flowlines is in the order of 10-15 miles. Many offshore leases exist at water depths of about 4,000 feet. This would require transportation distnnces of 50-60 miles. One of the problems which must be overcome before this extended reach capability can be achieved is the tendency for the hydrocarbon fluids to form hydrate crystals which in turn may block a production system.

SCOPE

OF WORK 1) obtaining thermal insulating materials, 2)

The project scope includes: properties for various flowline

References

and illustrations

at end of paper.

193

FLOWLfNE INSULATION THERiVLkL REQUIREMENTS SPE 28481 FOR DEEPWATER SUBSEA PIPELINES during the life of the field. These fluid compositions use PIPEPHASE~ to determine the overall heat were used in the PIPEPHASE runs to transfer coefficient required t6 maintain the he flowline hydraulics and in the EQUIPHASE r$tsmmlator temperature of the produced fluids above the hydrate to predict hydrate formation conditions. formation temperature over the length of the subsea flowline for the anticipated operating conditions. DESIGN FLUID COMPOSITION AND PVT MATCH Two production scenarios are investigated; a high flowrate high watercut case that represents full production from a mature field, and a low flowrate no watercut case which represents the anticipated production during the early phase of the project. It is anticipated that the later case will prove to be the most diftlcult since a relatively low flowrate in a large flowline will yield a low fluid velocity, and hence, a relatively high heat transfer rate. Table 2 shows the range of conditions tested. CRITERIA

For the hydraulic calculations, a compositional analysis was used as opposed to black oil analysis. Compositional simulation performs rigorous energy balance calculations needed to accurately predict the temperature profile along the fluid path in the wellbore and the pipeline. Accurate temperature measurement are the basis of calculating methanol requirements. In addition, vapor and liquid phases are needed for the design of pumps and compressors. Aa a first step in this atudyj matching of the PVT data was done. PVT data matching involves tuning an equation of state such as Soave-Redlich-Kwong (SRK) in order to accurately predict the fluid phases at any operating temperature and preaeure. The compositional feature of PIPEPHASE was used in this tuning procedure. The SRK equation of state was tuned to match the bubble point of the fluid, solution gas oil ratio (GOR), formation volume factor, fluid densities and compositions given in Table 1. Accuracy of the tuned equation of state was within ten percent for the bubble point, eight percent for the GOR, one perFint for the formation volume factor. The densities of the vapor and liquid were predicted within 2-3 percent compared to measured data. The only drawback in using a compositional equation of state is that the viscosities at the various temperature and pressures are poorly predicted. For this reason, the compositional PVTGEN option in PIPEPHASE was used to generate fluid property tables over the desired temperature and pressure range. The viscosities generated from a PIPEPHASE black oil PVTGEN run at the same temperature and pressure range were then inserted in place of the compositionally generated viscosities, The viscosities generated by the black oil system are much closer to measured data than. the compositionally generated viscosities. All other fluid properties were generated compositionally. Fluid compositions with various water cuts were

OVEFULL

HEAT

TRANSFER

COEFFICIENT

The overall heat transfer coeffkient,, U, is the sum of aIl thermal resistances in a system. Flgrn-e 1, for example, shows a schematic diagram of a flowline utilizing a pipe-in-pipe insulating configuration. The thermal resistances for this system (RI - R5) would include: an internal convective resistance resulting from the boundary layer on the inside of the pipe (RI), a conductive resistance due to the flowline pipe waII (R2), a conductive resistance due to the insulating material (R3), a conductive resistance due to the carrier pipe wsll (R4), and an external resistance due to the outside surrounding (R5). For this study, the small internaf convective resistance (RI) is assumed to be negligible, i.e. the inside wall temperature is assumed equal to the produced fluids temperature. Furthermore, it is assumed that the flowline will be half buried; that is, the bottom half of the flowline will be buried in soil whereas the upper half will be surrounded by water. The external resistance (R5) is thus comprised of a conductive term (soil:PIPEHASE default = 0,8 BTU/hr-ft-F) arid a convective term (water). The resnfting external thermal resistance was determined using PIPEPHASE. The water depth, temperature, and velocity versus flowline distance information used for this investigation are representative of a typical deepwater Gulf of Mexico well, as shown in Figure 2. Table 3 presents three categories of flowline insulating systeme that can be used in subsea applications. These arq double carrier, single carrier, and no carrier as shown in F@re 3. A carrier is simply a pipe-in-pipe arrangement With the annulus between the flowline pipe and carrier pipe filled with an insulating material. In the severe environment associated with a deepwater flowline, many conventional flowline insulations will not

generated using the PRO-II@ simulator. The initial fluid composition wa8 blended with water cuts ranging from 10 to 90 percent. These water cuts were changing @ pIpEPUE mid PRO II are regiattired trademarks Simulation Sciences Inc. @ EQUIPHASE ia a registered Robinson & Associates. trademark of D. B. of

194

SPE 28481

M. T. RUBEL AND D.H. BROUSSARD surrounding water fluid temperature. to the lower temperature

3 produced

withstand the high external water pressures making the pipe-in-pipe arrangement necessary. In this table, the overall heat transfer coeffkients for each type are listed both with and without the external resistance term. For thk study, the external resistance term has been added, however, this thermal property data may be needed for an application where the flowline is not half buried in soil.

The hydrate formation curves for the produced fluid with no chemical inhibitor and with 10 percent methanol (as an example) are also shown. These figures show that the temperature will reach the hydrate formation temperature with no chemical inhibitor if the overall heat transfer coeftlcient exceeds 0.10 BTU/hrft.2..F, ~s value of overall heat transfer cOefiicient iS extremely low. The low rate and relatively large flowline diameter result in a low fluid velocity. This in turn results in a high heat transfer rate from the fluid to the surroundings. For these runs, the flowrate and separator pressure were held constant. An interesting observation from these figures is, as the value of overall heat transfer decreases (corresponds to an increasing level of insulation) the required flowline inlet pressure (wellhead) decreases. In fact, the difference between the uninsulated flowline and an overall heat transfer coefficient of 0.03 BTU/hr-ft2-OF, is 168 psi.

RESULTS PIPEPHASE

Simulation

Four input data tiles were used to perform the PIPEPHASE runs: namely, low flowrate, low watercut, insulated; high flowrate, high watercut, insulate~ low tlowrate, uninsulated; and high flowrate, uninsulated. In the first two runs, the overall heat tranafer coefficient was specified for each segment of flowline. The case study option was used to obtsin a temperature profile along the length of the flowline for a wide range of overall heat transfer coefticienta. Table 4 shows the range of overall heat transfer coefficients tested. In the last two runs, the external thermal resistance was specified rather than the overall heat transfer coefficient. This provided information required to produce a temperature profile over the length of the flowline when the flowline was uninsulated. The external resistance was determined by taking the average thermal resistance of an uninsulated flowline completely buried in soil and a similar line completely surrounded by water. The average was used since it is assumed the flowline will eventually settle half way in the soil. The individual thermal resistances were determined by specifying PROPERTY.FULL ii the print statement of the PIPEPHASE input file. For each case study, PIPEPHASE generated a pressure versus temperature profile for the entire length of the Figure 4a shows the results of the low flowline. flowrate, low watercut cases. Separate curves are shown for various values of flowline overall heat transfer coefficient from 0.03 BTU/hr.ft2-F to the half buried, bare (uninsulated) flowline. The resulting curves show that, as anticipated, for any given value of pressure, the fluid temperature decreases as the overall heat transfer coefficient increase& If, however, the overall heat transfer coefficient 2 0.20 BTU/hr-fi2-F, then the fluid temperature reaches the surrounding water temperature and the reverse is true for any further decrease in pressure. This is due to the fact that as the fluid continues to flow, the water depth decreases resulting in an increase in water temperature (recall Figure 2), The surrounding water temperature thus exceeds the produced fluid temperature. A low overall heat transfer coefficient reduces the amount of heat that may be transferred from the higher temperature

Figure 4b compares some insulating systems. Clearly, the vacuum pipe (single carrier) results in the lowest heat loss. The other systems shown do not maintain the fluid temperature above the hydrate formation temperature during partial production. Although the scope of this project only included steady-state, operation, some discussion can be made regarding shutdowns. Simply, a lower overall heat transfer coefficient will result in a longer time required for the fluid temperature to reach the surrounding water temperature. Therefore, the single carrier vacuum pipe will allow the longest shutdown before the temperature of the fluid reaches the hydrate formation temperature. Since this is a transient probIem, PIPEPHASE can not predict the pressure versus temperature curves as a function of shutdown time. The double carrier, pipe-inpipe system with hot water flowing in the inner amulus could eliminate this problem, however, the capital cost to install the facilities would be high. Figure 5a shows the results of the high flowrate, high watercut cases. Again, the hydrate formation curves for no chemical inhibitor and with 10 percent methanol are shown. These figures show that the temperature will reach the hydrate formation temperature if the overall heat trsnsfer coefficient is greater than 1.00 BTU/hrft2.F. Figure 5b again compares some insulating systems. Dnring fuIl production, other systems such as a single carrier pipe-in-pipe system with a polyurethane foam filled annulus, or the double carrier pipe-in-pipe system with water in the inner annulus and polyurethane foam filled outer annulus provide adeqnate insulation to maintain the fluid temperature above the hydrate formation temperature.

195

,.

FLOWLINE INSULATION THERMAL REQUIREMENTS SPE 28481 FOR DEEPWATER SUBSEA PIPELINES Insulating the flowline to maintain the fluid this system isaufflcient to prevent hydrate formation during normal production, temperature above the hydrate formation temperature during partial production requires an extremely low Although the cost to heat the water, and the surface value ofoverall heat transfer coefficient and may not be facilities required to deliver the water would be high, considered feasible. Insulating the flowline to maintain the insulation system would only require an additional the fluid temperature above the hydrate formation carrier pipe since the insulating material is water. temperature during full production (for example, with a pipe-in-pipe single carrier whose annulus is tilled tith Therefore, the cost of the system would not be much higher than asingle carrier pipe-in-pipe system. This Kerosene Gel) maysigniticantly reduce the amount of may be a reasonable alternative if chemical inhibitors chemical inhihitor required to maintain the fluid were not required. temperature above the hydrate formation temperature. The potential savinga in chemical inhibitor cost may help offset the capital expenditure required to install CONCLUSIONS the insulation system, 4 of the produced fluids will drop 1. The temperature below the hydrate formation temperature for the anticipated operating conditions in an uninsulated, half buried flowline. 2. During the early phase of the project where only a partial production exists with very low watercut (approximately 7500 BPD) in a 16-inch nominal diameter flowline, the overall heat transfer coefficient required to maintain the fluid temperature above the hydrate formation temperature is approximately 0,1 BTU/hr-ft2-OF. This overall heat transfer coefficient isextremily low and may only be achieved by one commercially available high performance flowline insulation system; aaingle carrier, pipe-in-pipe, vacuum pipe, The overall heat transfer coefficient for this system is about 0.02 BTUihr-ft2-OF; 3. During full production with a very high watercut (approximately 40000 BPD) in a 16-inch nominal diameter flowline, the overall heat transfer coefficient required to maintain the fluid temperature above the hydrate formation temperature is approximately 1.0 BTU/hr-ft2-F. This required overall heat transfer coeftlcient may nearly be achieved by commercially available, high performance flowline insulating materials, for example, using a pipe-in-pipe single carrier whose annulus is filled with Karosene Gel (U=l.3 BTU/lm. ft2-oF). 4. Insulating the flowline to maintain the fluid temperature above the hydrate formation temperature during full production may significantly reduce the amount of chemical inhibitor required to maintain the fluid temperature above the hydrate formation temperature during partial production, The potential savings during this phase of the project may help offset the capital expenditure required to install the insulation system.

Flowline

Heating

Models

~STATOIL E has developed a method for flowline heating which utilizes three 400 Hz ACpower cables mounted 120de~eesa partoutsideof an insulated pipeline, The power cablea inductively heat the flowline from outside of the insulation. The insulation must be sufficient to prevent hydrate formation during normal full production, therefore, this system is primarily intended for startup and shutdowns, The overall heat transfer coefficient of the insulation with the proposed system was found to be inadequate to prevent hydrate formation during full production for this application buried). (1.7 < U c 2.3 BTU/hr-ft2-F, fully

. . Hot Wat ~. A method to reduce hydrate formation during startup and shutdowns is to circulate hot water over the flowline, A single carrier, pipe-inpipe arrangement with the annulus used to carry the hot water would be a simple system of this type, although a return line would be required. Due to the high cost to heat the water, and surface facilities required to deliver the water, this system has been considered for hydrate formation prevention during startup and shutdowns only. Here, the system is basically 50-mile shell-and-tube heat exchanger. As long as the inlet water temperature and rate are sufficiently high enough, the produced fluid temperature would remain above the hydrate formation temperature. During normal production, if the system were not operational, the water would essentially sit motionless within the annulus. Table 3 shows the overall heat transfer coefficient, not including the outer surroundings, is extremely high for this arrangement (175.6 BTU/hr-ft2-OF). This system would require additional insulation over the carrier pipe, For example, a double carrier, pipe-in-pipe arrangement with the outer annulus tilled with polyurethane foam would be one such arrangement. Table 3 shows that

196

SPE 28481 5.

M. T. RUBEL AND D.H. BROUSSARD

Insulating the flowline is not in itself sufficient enough to overcome all hydrate related problems. During extended shutdowns, the fluid temperature will eventually reach the surrounding water temperature. Insulation, therefore, must provide Sufficient time to allow for a reasonable shutdown without hydrate related problems. A double carrier, pipe-in-pipe arrangement with hot water circulating in the inner annulus during startup and shutdowns may be an effective method to prevent hydrate formation. The high initial cost may be offset by eliminating the need for a continuous demand for chemical inhibit ors. Current electrical trace heating systems fully buried) are for

Table

4 Overall

Heat Transfer W.c. (%) 0 70 Tin (F) 140 157

Coefficients Di (in) 15 15

Tested

Case
No.

Q
(BPD) 7500 40000

6.

1 2

u (BTu/llr-ft2-F) 0.03-3.0 0.03-3.0

7.

ineffective (U >2.0 this application.

BTU/hr-fi2-OF

Table

1 Reservoir Component Carbon Dioxide Nitrogen Methane Ethane Propane Iso-Butane N-Butane Iso-Pentane N-Pentame Hexanes Heptanes Plus

Fluid

PVT Properties Mol %

0.03
0.16 56.34 6.75 4.41 1.18 2.25 1.16 1.35 2.85 23.47

Specific Gravity
Molecular Weight

I 0.8681
268.5

HT.

Prcuuuliw

Table Case No. 1 2

2 Range W.c. (%) 0 70

of Conditions GOR 1126 1126

Tested Tin (F) 140 157 Di (in) 15 15

Q (BPD) 7500 40000

197

.4

FLOWLINE INSULATION FOR DEEPWATER

THERMAL REQUIREMENTS SUBSEA PIPELINES

SPE 28481

Table 3 Thermal Property Double Carrier Flowline NOminaf I.D. (inches)

Data u haff buried BTU/br-ft2- F

Carrier-1 Carrier-2 U without Nominaf I.D Nominal I.D. Slurounding* (inches) BTU/hr-ft2 - F (inches)

k
1

Water filled annulus Vacuum Pipe Rerosene Cd filled annulus Monoethylene Gell filled annulus Pol rethane Foam filled annulus No Carrier

Polychlomprene+ filler Trade Name Vikotherm Polypropylene foam Trade Nama Tbermotite

EPDM+glass miscrospheres ?i-ade Name Syntactic@

Notw AH values of U are based

16 20 22 1.55 1.06 FIowIine Carrier Carrier U without u Nominal I.D. Nmninal LD Thickness sun-ound~gs half buried (inches) (inches) BTU/hr-ft2- F BTU/lm-ft2- F (inches) 16 20 175.6 3.27 16 18.5 0.03 0.03 16 20 2.13 1.30 16 4.44 1.90 16 :: 0.44 0.39 Ffowline Insulation Thickness U without u Nomimd I.D. (Inc*es) surmundimm haffburied (inches) I BTU/hr-ft2-> I BTU&ft2F Id 1 3.881 s.79 2 2.16 1.31 3 1.55 1.06 1 5.07 2.01 ; 2.82 1.53 3 2,03 L26 1 1 4.17 1,85 2 2.32 1.37 3 1.67 1.11 1 1 3.85 1.79 Flowline outer 11 Nominal I.D. Surroundings BTU&-ft2F (inches) 16 Half Buried 2.985 16 No Surroundings 29 n inside diameter of inner pipe

A II J

198

SPE 28481

M. T. RUBEL AND D.H. BROUSSARD

O.tid.

Surmuntin*

Frawie % Ri R2 R3 R, %

OverallHeatTransferCdrdent.

u.

1 R1+R2+R3+R4+R5

Figure 1. Schematic Diagram of Overall Heat Transfer Coeffkient

1000, ,80

.1030
-

60

50

.3aao Wat.r Wlmity .0.33

W,

do

.4000

-5000 0 10 20 30. 40 50 60

Figure 2. Flowfine Depth and Temperature versus Distance Profile

-CL*
Doubt. Card.,

I!&
Slng!ecar,!.,

F.&?.
No

Ihd.*

M.!.*

Card.,

Figure 3. Categories of Ffowfine Insulating Systems

199

. 8 FLOWLINE INSULATION FOR DEEPWATER THERMAL REQUIRE~NTS SUBSEil PIPELINES

SPE 28481

3,000
(BTU/lwft2 -F)

2,500 t

Hydrate Formation Temperatures

10% Methanol No Inhibitor

m
Half Buried Bare pipe u = 0.05 ..

u =0.10

2 z m E

1,500
I

U=l.oo .- .- u = 5.00 I

1,000

500 -

0 o

I 50

I 100 Temperature (F)

I 150

200

Figure 4a. Pressure versus Temperature Profile; Low Flowrate, Low Watercut Case

3,000
(BTU~r-fF -F) Hydrate Formation Temperatures 10% Methanol No Inhibitor I I r
Half Buried Bare pipe Single Carrier Vacuum Pipe

2,500

.-

Single Carrier Polyurethane --------3-inch w%?%%:

g 1,500 m u) g L 1.000

I / /

. . . . --

.------------------------, /
..-/
1

2-inch Neoprene

500

/
I

,/\..

01 . LJ

-.

100

150

200

Temperature (F)
F]gure 4b. Comparison of Various Insulation Systems; Low Flowrate, Low Watercut Case
200

,.

SPE 28481

M. T. RUBEL AND D.H, BROUSSARD

9
(BTU/hr-ft2-F)

3,000

I
2,500
Hydrate Formation Temperatures 107. Methanol No Inhibitor \

Half Buried Bare Pipe

2,000
/

u = 0.03 .. u = 0.05 ..
U=o.lo -.. -----U=l.oo .. .. . . -. . -u = 3.00 -

1,500
~E
/

-,,, -- -.. / ---

.- -,.:j ,,//

1,000
/

500 /; 0

~ /j ~/;

~;q ,, 50 100 Temperature (F) 150 200

Figure 5a. Pressure versus Temperature Profile; High Flowrate, High Watercut Case

3,000
(BTUlhr-ft2-F)
Half Buried care Pipe
Single Camkr Vacuum Pipe -.

2,500

Hydrate Formation Tempek?dures

10% Methanol

No Inhibitor
I

~ 2,000 .OY Q g 1,500 UY co : 1,000

500

50

100

150

200

Temperature (F)
Figure 5b. Comparison of Various Insulation Systems; High Flowrate, High Watercut Case 201