Flow Assurance Training Course-1 Underlined (IOGPT)

IOGPT Flow Assurance Training page 1
TRAINING MANUAL
ON
FLOW ASSURANCE
COURSE DESIGN BY :
AJIT KUMAR, GGM(P)

C P SINGHAL, GM(P)
RAJAN JAIRAM, DGM(P)
A K VARMA, DGM(P)
S K VIJ, CE(P)
RAJEEV BANSAL, SE(P) – CO-ORDINATOR
B RAVISHANKAR, SE(P)
NANDINI PANDEY,AEE(P)
OMPRAKASH PAL, DGM(CHEMISTRY),HEAD

TRG
VIPUL GARG, CHIEF CHEMIST, I/C TRG
CONTENTS
• Introduction
• Flow assurance issues and standard terminology
• Fluid properties & Phase determination
• Fluid flow analysis for single phase & multiphase
• Surge Analysis
• Slug prediction & management
• Hydrate Formation & Prevention
• Wax formation & Prevention
• Asphaltene Prediction & remediation
• Pigging operation
• Start up & Shut down
CHAPTER -1 : INTRODUCTION
“Flow assurance is the ability to maintain the flow of oil & gas from reservoir to processing facilities
(and beyond to sales point) throughout the field life with minimum life cycle costs”
Institute of Oil and Gas Production Technology (IOGPT) envisages to develop flow assurance skills of
ONGC personnel. The objective of this course is to transfer and exchange knowledge in flow assurance
and operability issues encountered during FDP studies for Onshore ans offshore fields including
deepwater and ultradeepwater fields. The purpose of this document is to provide an in-depth review of
flow assurance and operability issues and how they relate to system design and day to day operation.
CHAPTER -2 : FLOW ASSURANCE ISSUES AND STANDARD TERMS

The following section summarizes a list of flow assurance basic terminology, commonly used within the
industry.
Active Heating: Term used to describe an actively insulated system, where energy is added in the form
of electricity or heat, in order to maintain the thermal energy of the production fluid.
Anti-agglomerate (AA): A substance that is used to prevent hydrate crystals from agglomerating to
form a blockage. AA’s are a subset of a group of low dosage hydrate inhibitors (LDHIs), which are a
relatively new technology designed to treat production fluids. AA’s typically allow small hydrate
particles to form, but prevent their accumulation/blockage of the pipeline. AA’s require a hydrocarbon
liquid phase to work and are not particularly suitable for low condensate gas systems.
Artificial Lift: Means of increasing production rates and/or decreasing line sizes. Artificial lift provides
additional ways to decrease the pressure requirements on a system.
Gas Lift – Physically injecting gas either downhole (in the wellbore) or at the base of the riser.
Gas lift at the base of the riser is typically only possible for vertical riser towers, and not catenary
risers, due to fatigue concerns near the touchdown point. Gas lift may decrease arrival
temperatures due to the Joule-Thomson cooling of the additional gas added.
Multiphase Pumping – Physical apparatus that allows pumping of a multiphase fluid. From a
flow assurance perspective, multiphase pumping offers significant benefits by increasing
production rates without additional Joule-Thomson cooling (gas lift) or removing the water
(subsea separation).
Subsea Separation – Physical apparatus that separates gas, hydrocarbon liquid, and water at the
seafloor. The gas is typically sent up an un-insulated flowline, while the liquid is sent up another
flowline. Water may be re-injected in disposal wells. This enables two smaller, single-phase
flowlines than a large, multiphase flowline. However, by removing the water, the hydrocarbon
liquid often arrives at a lower temperature. Further, if water is not separated from the gas/water
in sufficient quantities to eliminate a hydrate formation risk, hydrates will still pose a problem.
Asphaltenes: Asphaltenes are defined by the ASTM D-3279-90 (IP143/90) test as a solid that
precipitates when an excess of n-heptane or n-pentane is added to a crude oil.
Chemically, asphaltenes are high molecular weight, polynuclear aromatic, polar compounds containing
carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, sulphur and some heavy metals such as vanadium and nickel. The
diagram gives a representation of an asphaltene molecule; however, asphaltenes do not have a single,
unique structure or molecular weight.
• Asphaltenes are dark brown to black solids.
• Unlike waxes, asphaltenes do NOT melt. Consequently, thermal methods such as insulation, hot
oiling, etc. do not work to prevent or remediate asphaltene deposition.
• Asphaltenes are believed to be solids suspended by resins as micelles in the crude oil.
The asphaltene flocculation point is the pressure at which asphaltenes first begin to precipitate given a
fixed temperature. Typically the "live" sample is reconditioned to reservoir conditions and the sample is
slowly depressurized while observing for asphaltene flocculation. The test method may use one of a
number of techniques for detecting the asphaltene flocculation including visual observation, light
scattering, filter plugging, etc. If a number of these measurements are made over a range of
temperatures, then an asphaltene flocculation phase envelope can be generated as shown below.
The first pass test is to plot the reservoir pressure minus the bubble point against the in-situ density on a
de Boer plot. The de Boer plot was published by Shell and is based upon a number of crude oil samples
that have been studied. The de Boer Plot simply identifies regions where asphaltenes are likely to pose a
problem.
Client - Project
de Boer Plot - Asphaltene Prediction
11000
Fluid
10000
Severe Slight
Problem Problem
9000
Reservoir pressure - Saturation pressure (psia)
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
No
Problem
3000
2000
1000
0
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
In-situ crude density (kg/m³)
BML: Below Mud Line. Distance given for reservoir/wellbore depths, measured as the distance below
the mudline. This is the distance from the bottom of the sea floor below the earth.
BOPD: Barrels of oil per day.
BWPD: Barrels of water per day.
Bare Pipe: Un-insulated pipe that is common of gas/condensate systems. Typical U-values for bare pipe
may be 30 BTU/hr-ft2-°F, depending on the burial depth and sea current velocity.
Bathymetry: Seafloor topography that defines any dips and undulations along the flowline route.
Bathymetry profiles are used to map out the route and may induce terrain slugging.
Bottom Hole: Traditional term used to refer to the point at which the fluid enters the production
wellbore. This is typically the lowest point modeled in Pipesim/OLGA simulations. The bottom hole is
located above the reservoir and typically operates at a lower pressure. The difference between the
pressure at the reservoir and the bottom hole defines the inflow performance of the reservoir.
Bubble Point: Pressure at which the first bubble of gas appears. For black oil systems, this is the lowest
pressure at which the fluid will still be right near the edge of the single-phase region on the phase
envelope (single phase liquid). The bubble point is typically a critical parameter used to tune reservoir
fluid compositions to measured data. Typically, the bubble point measurements are accurate to within a
few psi and the tuning parameters should be set accordingly.
Bundles: A number of bundled flowline configurations have been or are currently being installed. There
are two main types of bundles, passive and actively heated bundles. Both kinds bundle the flowlines, test
lines, methanol lines and umbilicals together inside of a larger carrier pipe. Many different bundle
configurations have been proposed. The most common is a simple pipe-in-pipe arrangement. Except for
the simple pipe-in-pipe, these bundles require very specialized modeling to accurately simulate the heat
transfer in the system, particularly for transient operations such as start-up and shutdown. Unsymmetrical
geometries are especially difficult to model. Bundles are most commonly used for hydrate prevention and
in the process also prevent or reduce wax formation. They may be used for wax prevention but most
likely, only in cases where pigging is not possible.
Actively Heated Bundles – Include hot water circulation or electrical heating cables (example
diagrams) to maintain operating temperatures above hydrate and/or wax formation temperatures
during both steady state and transient operations. These are typically more expensive to build
and difficult to operate. The advantages are that methanol/glycol are not required except to
protect wellheads and manifolds and the system is protected even during shutdown and start-up.
Passive Bundles – Provide a much lower overall heat transfer coefficients than can be obtained
with single insulated lines primarily because good insulating materials would be crushed if
exposed directly to the hydrostatic pressures in deepwater. For many production systems the
passive bundles will allow the operating temperatures to be maintained above the hydrate and/or
wax formation temperatures under a range of steady state operating conditions. The passive
bundles will also provide a much longer cooldown period during shut-in. However, under start-
up and long shut-in conditions, methanol or glycol will be required until the system is above the
hydrate formation temperature.
When do you need a bundle?

• Perform steady state simulations to determine the pressure/temperature profile of the system
assuming perfect insulation (i.e., no heat loss to the surroundings). There will still be some
temperature drop due to the Joule-Thomson expansion and potential energy changes.
• If the resulting arrival temperature is below the hydrate and/or wax formation temperature then
you will need to consider an actively heated bundle to add energy to the system. No amount of
insulation alone will keep the system above the hydrate formation temperature.
• If the system can stay above the hydrate formation temperature with perfect insulation, then
determine the actual overall heat transfer coefficient required to stay above the hydrate formation
temperature plus some conservatism. One should consider the accuracy of the predictions,
projected versus actual flow rates and reliability of fluid samples.
• Identify the most technically feasible and cost effective method to achieve the required heat
transfer coefficient. If the required heat transfer coefficient is beyond the range of standard
insulation applicable for the producing environment then consider a passive bundle to allow the
use of materials with higher insulating values.
• When choosing a bundle, keep symmetry in mind, as it will be much easier to model. Find a
company with the capability to perform transient modeling on bundles.
C-Factor: The C-Factor is a measure of erosion tendency for a given system, based on the API RP 14E
standard. The equation below contains the formula for calculating the C-Factor in multiphase flow:
C − Factor = (3.2808 ⋅ ((BE ⋅ VL ) + (G A ⋅ V D ) + ((1 − HOL) ⋅ VG ))) ⋅ 0.0624 ⋅ ((HOL ⋅ ρ L ) + ((1 − HOL) ⋅ ρ G ))
BE: Liquid Film Volume Fraction

GA: Liquid Droplet Volume Fraction
HOL: Total Liquid Holdup (BE + GA)
VL: Average Liquid Film Velocity (m/s)

VD: Average Liquid Droplet Velocity (m/s)
VG: Average Gas Velocity (m/s)
ρL: Liquid Density (kg/m³)
ρG: Gas Density (kg/m³)
Essentially, the C-Factor equation given above takes an average density and an average velocity for all
phases present. Typical C-Factor limits are 150 for carbon steel and 200 for corrosion-resistant alloy.
Flexible pipes have been known to exceed 250-300+. The guidelines provided above are to be used
unless otherwise specified by the operator.
CGR (Condensate/Gas Ratio): For gas/condensate systems, CGR is the ratio of condensate to gas,
typically measured at stock tank conditions. The CGR is typically reported in units of bbl/mmscf and are
on the order of 0-50. The CGR is highly dependant on the conditions that it is reported at. You should
always determine whether the CGR is reported at stock tank conditions or at pipeline conditions.
Casing: One of the many physical barriers used in wellbores to set the production tubing. Casings are
typically 9-5/8”, 12-1/4”, 13-5/8”, etc. The casing profile is provided with the wellbore and helps
determine the overall heat transfer coefficient (U-value). Within OLGA, the entire casing program is
built into the simulation and defined in the radial direction from the production tubing.
Catenary: Geometric shape for riser trajectory that is typical for steel pipes, as well as flexible pipes.
The key dimension required for catenary riser shape definition is the ‘touchdown point”, or the point
closest to the topsides facility where the riser is still touching the seafloor.
Typical Catenary Profile
600
550 TOPSIDES
500
450
Vertical Distance (m)
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50 TOUCHDOWN POINT
0
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 225
Horizontal Distance (m)
Lazy-S – Modified catenary riser profile where the riser is anchored in the mid-point by a buoy, creating
a wave in the riser, or a “Lazy-S” shape. This type of riser is particularly prone to slugging.
Choke: Any valve that is used to control the flowrate, such as a “subsea choke” or a “topsides choke”.
The terminology may also be used to describe the action of controlling the flowrate.
Cloud Point (a.k.a. Wax Appearance Temperature, WAT): The cloud point or Wax Appearance
Temperature (WAT) is the temperature at which the first waxes crystallize from the crude oil. As soon as
the pipe wall temperature drops below the cloud point, wax can deposit on pipe walls even though the
bulk fluid temperature is still higher than the cloud point. The cloud point is probably the single most
important piece of information for evaluating the waxing potential for a new project. For Gulf of Mexico
fluids, the WAT is typically near 100°F. If measured correctly, it can be used along with production
profiles and thermal modeling of the production scenarios to determine when and where waxes may cause
operational problems.
The WAT is directly proportional to the pressure. Cloud points are pressure dependant, and are typically
reported for the dead oil only. For live oils, where the pressure may be much higher, the WAT can be
significantly higher; the cloud point increases as the pressure decreases below the bubble point.
Coiled Tubing: Device used for hydrate remediation, where a long-reaching wire is inserted down a
flowline towards the hydrate blockage.
Completion Fluid: Fluid placed within the innermost annulus in the wellbore. Typically, the completion
fluid is a brine solution that is defined by weight (salt content).
Compositional Models: Approach used to characterize a reservoir fluid for flow assurance analysis.
Typically, these are broken down into two primary categories: “black oil model” and “compositional
model”
Black Oil Model – Simplifies composition into a “gas phase” and “liquid phase” and is most
applicable to predominantly oil systems. This approach does a fair job of predicting steady state
hydraulics, but the compositional effects on wax/hydrates will not be captured. This is an
empirical approach to evaluating the phase splits and transport property generation.
Compositional Model – More rigorous fluid characterization approach, whereby the entire
composition is used as input to generate the physical/transport properties of the fluid. This is
required to better predict the interfacial relationships between the gas/liquid phases, particularly
in gas/condensate systems, where the liquid holdup is critical. The accuracy of the compositional
model is highly dependant on the accuracy of the PVT data (i.e. contamination levels, etc.)
Conversion Factors:
Gas – Conversion factor that converts MMSCFD to kg/s. The gas conversion factor is typically
on the order of 0.25 kg/s/MMSCFD. The conversion factor is strictly a function of the molecular
weight of the fluid, and is highly dependant on the conditions (phase, pressure) at which the
molecular weight is taken.
Liquid – Conversion factor that converts BPD to kg/s. The liquid conversion factor is typically
on the order of 1.80-2.20 kg/s/1000 BPD. The conversion factor is a function of the conditions
(molecular weight, density, phase fractions) at stock tank conditions.
Cooldown Time: The time, following initiation of a shutdown, for the system to cool from normal
operating temperatures to hydrate formation temperature at shut-in pressure.
Dead Fluid (Dead Oil): Oil that contains no dissolved gas, hydrocarbon fluid that has generally been
flashed to stock tank conditions and does not present a hydrate formation issue. Typically, dead oils have
been de-gassed and de-watered, containing only the hydrocarbon liquid.
Depressurization (Blowdown): Transient operation where the system is reduced to a lower pressure
(~30 psi for flare systems) following a shutdown in an effort to get the pressure below hydrate formation
conditions. For deepwater developments, depressurization often does not reduce the pressure low enough
to keep the system out of the hydrate formation region. Key parameters to be evaluated during
depressurization analysis are the minimum flowline pressure, minimum topsides temperature, and outlet
gas/liquid flowrates.
Dew Point: Pressure at which the first droplet of liquid appears. For gas/condensate systems, this is the
lowest pressure at which the fluid will still be right near the edge of the single-phase region on the phase
envelope (single phase gas). The dew point is typically a critical parameter used to tune reservoir fluid
compositions to measured data. Typically, the dew point measurements are accurate to within a few psi
and the tuning parameters should be set accordingly.
Displacement (Crude Oil Displacement): Transient operation where de-gassed/de-watered crude oil is
circulated throughout the flowline. To utilize displacement, a looped flowline configuration must be in
place. This is done in an attempt to preserve the flowline from hydrate formation by replacing the
resident fluid with non-hydrate formation fluids. Crude oil displacement must be accomplished prior to
reaching the cooldown time. Displacement operations must consider the available crude storage, the time
to displace the flowlines, and the pump discharge pressures on the crude oil pumps. Typical displacement
rates are 1 m/sec and may be increased slightly if time is of the essence.
Downhole: Term used to describe the area below the mudline where chemicals may be injected,
typically near the bottom of the wellbore. For example, downhole chemical injection assumes that the
chemicals will be delivered near the perforations/bottom hole.
Drill Center: Concentrated area where multiple wells may be drilled. A drill center may contain a
cluster of wells and potentially multiple manifolds. Each drill center may have unique flow assurance
challenges, depending on seafloor bathymetry, flowrate, and tieback length.
Emergency Shutdown (ESD): Unplanned shutdown of all operations, possibly triggered by a fire on the
host facilities or some other catastrophic event. In the event of an ESD, the production fluids will remain
in the flowline and are subject to hydrate formation. ESDs present the most severe operating conditions
that must be addressed in the design stages of the flow assurance work.
Emulsions: Emulsions are two immiscible fluids, with one of the liquids dispersed in the second liquid.
Under normal conditions, the two liquids would naturally settle-out and separate into layers. If an
emulsion is formed, the liquids become quite difficult to separate, impacting the transport properties of
the fluid. Emulsions tend to have high viscosities, which can be an order of magnitude higher than either
of the two liquids that comprise the emulsion.
FBE: Fusion Bonded Epoxy – Coating material, typically applied to the outside of pipes for protection.
FBE is applied in thin layers, particularly to bare pipes, and does generally not provide any significant
insulating benefits.
FBHP: Flowline Bottom Hole Pressure
FBHT: Flowline Bottom Hole Temperature
FSO (FPSO): Floating (Production,) Storage and Offloading vessel
FWHP: Flowing Wellhead Pressure

FWHT: Flowing Wellhead Temperature
Finite Element Modeling (FEM): Specialized computational fluid dynamics that involves thermal and
hydraulic analysis of complex geometries. Often, FEM is required for hybrid riser towers to ensure the
overall heat transfer coefficient (U-value), for heating medium hydraulics within production bundles, and
for thermal analysis of subsea equipment such as manifolds, trees, and jumpers.
Flash Calculation: Calculation used to determine thermodynamic and transport properties at a given set
of conditions. “Flashing” a fluid to a given set of conditions essentially means instantaneously exposing
the fluid to those conditions.
Flexible Pipe: Pipe that is constructed of several ancillary layers and is typically used for catenary risers
and short subsea tiebacks. Roughness values for flexible pipe are considerably higher than steel pipe. U-
values are on the order of 1.00-1.50 BTU/hr-ft2-°F. Typically, flexible pipes may not be used in high-
pressure services.
Flow Regime: Type of flow that is defined by fluid properties, velocities, etc.
Annular (Mist) – Flow regime where gas velocity exceeds that for stratified flow and the liquid
forms a complete annular ring around the surface of the pipe. Some liquid is entrained as a mist
in the gas core.
Bubble (Dispersed) – Flow regime where the gas velocity is very high and the flow-induced
turbulence causes the liquid and gas to become well mixed. The gas phase is distributed more or
less uniformly in the form of discrete bubbles in a continuous liquid phase.
Slug – Flow regime that occurs at low gas velocities. The fluids are ordered as alternate slugs of
liquid and bubbles of vapor. This flow regime is highly undesirable, and will be discussed in
more detail in a later section.
Stratified – Flow regime characterizes by low gas and liquid velocities where the phases
segregate with the liquid flowing along the bottom, and the gas flowing through the upper part of
the pipe. The interface between the phases is relatively smooth.
Flowline: Portion of the pipeline that spans from the mudline at the tree/manifold through to the riser.
Gas/Condensate: Traditional terminology used for a predominantly gas system. Gas/condensates are
traditionally found in the North Sea, as well as the Middle East. Gas/condensate systems are typically
produced via un-insulated flowlines and continuous hydrate inhibition is used for cold ambient
conditions. Primary areas of concern among gas/condensate systems involve liquids handling during
transient conditions such as turndown and ramp-up.
Gas Injection: Process of injecting gas in disposal wells, typically for reservoir pressure maintenance or
for lack of processing facilities on the host facilities. Gas injection may result in changes in the fluid GOR
over time, depending on the proximity of the gas injection wells.
Gel Strength: The yield stress (gel strength) is the force required to break down the wax structure
developed below the pour point, and it determines the pumping pressure required to restart flow in a line.
As with pour points, the effects of sample history, the temperature of the fluids before shutdown, the
cooling rates, the time of the shutdown and the final fluid temperature can all be significant. These
parameters all influence the amount of precipitated wax, the gel structure, gel strength and consequently
the pressure required to break it. In pipelines, when a shutdown occurs, the precise effects will differ for
crudes in various parts of the line. Following a shutdown, crude will cool from a different temperature
and at a different rate, depending upon its position in the pipeline.
Yield stress is usually measured using model pipelines or controlled strain rheometers. Laboratory data
can be scaled up to full size pipelines using the equation below:
Restart pressure (Pa) = (4 x length (m) x yield stress (Pa))/diameter (m)
Gelled Fluids: Either a water-based or oil-based fluid that is used especially in dry tree riser annuli for
thermal insulation. Gelled fluids may be subject to thermal breakdown where the fluid starts convecting,
significantly degrading the overall thermal performance. Typically, water-based gelled fluids have a
greater overall thermal mass (+), but a higher thermal conductivity (-); oil-based gelled fluids have a
lower overall thermal mass (-), but a lower thermal conductivity (+).
Geothermal Gradient: Temperature gradient of the ambient soil below the mudline. Typically, a linear
geothermal gradient is assumed between the reservoir temperature and the seabed temperature.
GOR (Gas/Oil Ratio): For black oil systems, GOR is the ratio of the gas to oil, typically measured at
stock tank conditions. The GOR is obtained by flashing the fluid from reservoir (or other, high-pressure)
conditions down to stock tank conditions. The GOR is typically reported in units of scf/stb and are on the
order of 500-5000. Over time, the GLR is likely to stay constant or increase due to a decline in oil
production. The GOR is path-dependant, meaning that a single-stage flash will provide a different GOR
than a multi-stage flash to the same final conditions. You should always determine whether the GOR is
reported for a single-stage or multi-stage flash.
GLR (Gas/Liquid Ratio): For black oil systems, GLR is the ratio of the gas to liquid, typically
measured at stock tank conditions. Similar to the GOR, the GLR includes the oil and the water. Over
time, as the water cut increases, the GLR is likely to stay constant or even decrease.
GUTS (Grand Unified Thermodynamic Simulator): MSi’s proprietary phase equilibria package.
Developed as part of a joint industry project with BP, Conoco, Arco, etc., GUTS provides various phase
equilibria calculations, as well as detailed wax, hydrate, and asphaltene predictions. The wax module was
developed in conjunction with the University of Tulsa, and the hydrate module was developed in
conjunction with the Colorado School of Mines hydrate module.
HP/HT System (High Pressure/High Temperature): System where the reservoir fluid is at high
pressure (10,000+ psi) and high temperature (250+ °F). HP/HT systems often have Joule-Thomson
Heating across the wellbore perforations/subsea choke. Additionally, HP/HT systems have the unique
challenge of arriving too hot for the topsides processing facilities, so temperature loss during steady state
operation is preferred, while maintaining temperature under transient conditions such as cooldown.
Hydrate: Natural gas hydrates (or clatharites) are crystalline compounds formed by water with natural
gases and associated liquids. The hydrates are solid ice-like crystals composed of cages of water
molecules surrounding ‘guest’ hydrocarbon gas molecules such as methane, ethane, propane, etc. Like
pure ice, hydrates can block any type of flowline, production tubing, and pipeline. However, unlike ice,
hydrates can form at much higher temperatures than 32ºF. Gas hydrates of interest to the petroleum
industry are composed of water and the following eight molecules: methane, ethane, propane, isobutane,
normal butane, nitrogen, carbon dioxide and hydrogen sulfide.
• Hydrates can form in gas, gas-condensate and black oil systems.

• One cubic foot of hydrates can contain 180 standard cubic feet of gas.
• Hydrate blockages can occur very rapidly. Transient operations such as start-up, shutdown, and
blowdown are very susceptible to hydrate blockages because this is when the production system
is likely to drop into the hydrate formation region.
• Hydrate formation temperatures are very dependent upon the gas composition. Richer gases
(those with higher propane and butane concentrations) will tend to form hydrates at higher
temperatures and lower pressures.
• Hydrate formation temperatures are inhibited by brine concentrations.
Hydrate Curves: Temperature/pressure relationships at which hydrates will or will not form. Hydrate
formation is exacerbated at high pressure and low temperatures. When presented with a hydrate
formation curve, any area to the left of the curve falls within the hydrate formation region, while any area
to the right of the curve falls outside of the hydrate formation region.
Hydrate Dissociation: The process by which hydrates may be remediated through natural dissociation.
By reducing the pressure below the hydrate formation pressure at ambient temperature, the hydrate will
be in equilibrium with the hydrate formation conditions.
Hydrate Formation Conditions

300
280
260
240 AMBIENT TEMPERATURE
220
200
Pressure (psia)
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20 HYDRATE EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE
0
-30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Temperature (°F)
In doing so, the ambient seabed temperature will be warmer than the hydrate equilibrium temperature so
heat will be added to the system. The rate of heat transfer is highly dependant on the U-value of the
flowline, as well as the temperature gradient. Hydrate dissociation may be a very time-consuming
process, taking on the order of weeks, or longer.
Hydrate Inhibitors: Chemicals that inhibit hydrate formation by permanently reducing the temperature
at which hydrates will form by changing the thermodynamics. This is the same as adding anti-freeze to
water to lower the freezing point. Conventional hydrate inhibitors are methanol and glycols. The hydrate
inhibition rates will determine how fast a system may be restarted, as well as the “Light-Touch” time
required to treat multiple wells during a shutdown. Hydrate inhibition rates must take into account loses
to the vapor phase. Typical hydrate inhibitor rates for methanol are 0.5 BBL MeOH/BBL H2O.
Hydrate Propensity: Measure of the likelihood for hydrates to form. The difference between the actual
temperature and the hydrate formation temperature at operating pressure is calculated. If the actual
temperature is above the hydrate formation temperature, then the hydrate propensity is above zero and
hydrate formation will not occur. If the actual temperature is below the hydrate formation temperature,
then hydrate formation may occur and the amount of sub-cooling is the hydrate propensity.
Joule-Thomson Effect: Isenthalpic expansion of a fluid. The result of a Joule-Thomson expansion (JT-
expansion) is either an increase or decrease in temperature. The nature of the temperature change is
strictly defined by the enthalpy behavior of the fluid over a range of operating conditions.
• A loss in temperature is referred to as “Joule-Thomson Cooling” and often occurs at low
pressures (< 6000 psia). The lower the pressure, the more pronounced the impact of the Joule-
Thomson effect. This often occurs as the fluid travels up the riser and loses pressure, or as the
fluid is let down to separator pressure across the topsides valve.
• A gain in temperature is referred to as “Joule-Thomson Heating” and often occurs at high
pressures (6000+ psia). For deepwater developments, or HP/HT systems, any pressure drop
taken across the wellbore perforations or across the subsea choke may result in a slight increase in
temperature.
Jumper: Pipe work that links either the tree to the manifold or from the manifold to the flowline. The
jumper is often insulated to a much lesser degree than the flowline and may be subject to more stringent
hydrate formation criteria.
Kick-off Point (KOP): Point below mudline in the wellbore where the well deviates from a strictly
vertical trajectory and starts to extend outwards in a sidetrack direction.
Kinetic Hydrate Inhibitors: Hydrate inhibitor that does not thermodynamically lower the hydrate
formation temperature. What they do is prevent crystals from forming (i.e., they prevent nucleation) and
thereby temporarily allow the fluids to be supercooled (cooled below the actual freezing point without
crystallization). Typically a kinetic inhibitor will allow 10ºC of supercooling. Margin technology for
hydrate control.
Kinetic inhibitors prevent hydrate crystal nucleation and growth without emulsifying water into the
hydrocarbon phase and thereby temporarily allow the fluids to be supercooled (cooled below the actual
freezing point without crystallization). Prevention of nucleation prevents hydrate crystals from growing
to a critical radius. Growth inhibition maintains hydrates as small crystals, inhibiting progress to larger
crystals. Hydrate inhibitor that does not thermodynamically lower the hydrate formation temperature.
Typically the measure of the effectiveness of the kinetic inhibitor is the degree of subcooling a system can
operate without forming hydrates. Subcooling (∆T) is the measure of the lowest temperature that the
system can be operated relative to the hydrate formation temperature at a given pressure. Typically a
kinetic inhibitor will allow 10ºC of supercooling. Marginal technology for hydrate control.
“Light-Touch” Time: The time interval, starting at the conclusion of the “No-Touch” Time, where the
only actions required to prevent hydrate formation do not impact a subsequent restart. Generally,
wells/trees, jumpers, and manifolds are spot treated with thermodynamic inhibitor in this time interval.
The “Light-Touch” time requirements are dictated by the number of wells to treat, as well as the chemical
deliverability constraints.
Line Pack: Line pack is the excess gas stored in a pipeline during normal operation due to operating
pressures beyond the minimum required. This is typically done by closing the topsides outlet valve and
allowing the reservoir to continue to produce. The pressure will rise in the system due to the additional
mass added to the system, combined with the compressibility of the gas.
Liquid Holdup: Measure of the amount of liquid in the flowline. Liquid holdup may be given as a
volume fraction of the pipeline, with 0 equating to no liquid and 1 equating to a liquid-filled pipeline.
Additionally, the liquid holdup may refer to the volumetric amount of liquid in the pipeline. For black oil
systems, the liquid holdup is relatively insensitive to flowrate. However, for gas/condensate systems, the
liquid holdup is a strong function of flowrate. The figure below illustrates a typical liquid holdup profile
for a gas/condensate system.
Live Fluid (Live Oil): Oil with dissolved gas present, hydrocarbon fluid at elevated
pressure/temperature, or other typical conditions that the fluid may be exposed to while in the production
system. Live fluids may be prone to hydrate formation.
Liquid Holdup vs. Flow Rate
50
45
40
35
Liquid Holdup (BBL)
30
25
20
15
10
0
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 150
Flow Rate (MMSCFD)
Low-Dosage Hydrate Inhibitor (LDHI): Hydrate inhibitor that is injected at a very low concentration,
relative to traditional hydrate inhibitors such as methanol. Typical dosage levels are approximately 1/10
that of methanol, but are highly dependant on the maximum degree of subcooling below the hydrate
formation region. LDHIs are often very viscous, requiring greater pump discharge pressures.
Additionally, LDHIs may not be stable for extended periods of time if left resident in the chemical
delivery lines.
Manifold: Apparatus, located on the seafloor, which provides a gathering point for multiple wells/trees.
A cluster of trees is often linked together, via well jumpers, and all production is routed to the manifold
and then directed through the flowline. The manifold is often un-insulated and subject to rapid cooldown
during a cooldown.
Measured Depth (MD): Actual depth below mudline, surface, etc. The measured depth accurately
represents the flowing length along which the fluid will traverse. The MD is used in combination with
the TVD to accurately define the routing profile.
Methanol: Hydrate inhibitor used in most black oil systems. Typical injection rates are up to 25 gpm
per well.
Mitigation Time: The time interval, starting at the conclusion of the “Light-Touch” Time and ending at
the Cooldown Time, where actions are required to prevent hydrate formation throughout the system in a
long-term shutdown. Typical example operations are depressurization and fluid displacement.
Monoethylene Glycol (MEG): Hydrate inhibitor typically used in gas/condensate services.
Mudline (a.k.a. Seafloor): Place where land meets the water. The wellbore is located below the mudline
and the seawater is located above the mudline.
“No-Touch” Time: The time, following initiation of a shutdown, where no action is required to prevent
hydrate formation in a long-term shutdown. No touch times may be different for different components
such as trees and flowlines. Typical “No-Touch” times range from 2-4 hours, depending on the number
of wells and chemical deliverability.
Operating Envelope: Range of flowrates, water cuts, and gas lift rates that can be delivered and do not
undergo severe slugging, wax deposition, hydrate formation, or other detrimental operational procedures.
PVT Report: Compositional analysis of the reservoir fluids, provided by sampling laboratories such as
Oilphase or Corelabs. The PVT report typically contains the reservoir fluid composition, pseudo-
component properties (if any), viscosity, API gravity, GOR, and bubble point. The PVT report may be
the single-most critical piece of information required for a proper flow assurance analysis. The fluid
properties will significantly impact the overall thermal and hydraulic performance of a proposed design.
Perforations: Point in the system where the production tubing in the wellbore “perforates” the reservoir
sands.
Pipe-in-Pipe: Insulation system where an inner production pipe is surrounding by an outer pipe and the
annulus is filled with insulation. The insulation must be protected from the seawater (“dry insulation”),
thus the reason for the outer pipe. Typically, the outer pipe must be 2 line sizes larger than the inner pipe
(6” x 10”, 8” x 12”) and the U-value is 0.2 BTU/hr-ft2-°F.
Pigging: Transient operation where a pig is inserted into the flowline and circulated for liquid control in
gas/condensate systems or for wax removal in black oil systems. Key parameters to evaluate during
pigging operation are the backpressure requirements to prevent gas breakout behind the pig, pump
discharge pressures, and pig velocities.
Pig: Small, sphere or disc apparatus that is used to sweep a flowline. Primary reasons for pigging may be
(1) line cleaning (commissioning, debris cleaning), (2) line management (liquid removal, corrosion
inhibitor dispersal, and wax removal), and (3) line inspection (intelligent pigging).
A “scraper” type pig may be used for wax removal from the pipe walls, whereas a “foam” type pig may
be used to simply clean a flowline and remove any liquids. The drive fluid, or the fluid that forces the pig
around, may either be the live production fluid, oil, or gas. For pigging with gas, pig velocity control is a
significant challenge.
Pig Launcher: Process equipment that launches a pig

Pig Receiver: Process equipment that receives a pig
Platform: Collective term given to a host facility that is anchored to the seabed, rather then tethered
from a vessel such as an FPSO.
Pour Point: The pour point is defined as the lowest temperature at which the crude oil can be poured
under force of gravity. When an oil is at a temperature significantly below its cloud point or Wax
Appearance Temperature (WAT), wax crystals can interact to form a matrix structure. Under static
conditions, the structure may eventually extend throughout the entire sample, gelling the crude oil. Once
this occurs, the crude is said to be below its pour point. However, if a pipeline is shutdown and the fluids
in it cool to below the pour point, a semi-solid gel will form which requires an initial yield force to be
applied before the gel structure breaks and the fluid begins to flow.
Productivity Index (PI): Measure of the reservoir performance and is defined by the flowrate
achievable for a given pressure drop across the reservoir perforations. As the PI increases, the achievable
flowrate increases. Typical PIs for black oil reservoirs range anywhere from 2 bbl/psi to 100 bbl/psi.
RKB (Rotary Kelly Bushing): Term given to the point where most measurements are taken from.
MD/TVD measurements are often reported as the distance from RKB. Typically, the RKB is located
approximately 80 feet above the sea level, so this distance must be subtracted from any measurements to
get the true depth subsea or below mudline.
Ramp-up: Terminology used to describe the process of increasing the flowrate
Reservoir: Location of the hydrocarbon reserves.
Reservoir Fluid: Multi-component mixture which is to be produced from the reservoir. Typically, the
reservoir fluid composition is the starting point for all flow assurance analysis. The reservoir fluid
composition may be defined in a PVT report, supplied by the various testing laboratories. It is useful to
categorize fluids into broad categories in order to quickly identify some of the key flow assurance
concerns that are likely to occur:
Dry gas: Primarily methane gas, which is typically solely gas under all temperature/pressure
conditions. In general, no hydrocarbon liquids are formed from the gas (water condensation can
occur). In general, gas hydrates are the typical flow assurance concern for dry gas fluids.
Wet gas: Similar to dry gas, but containing heavier components. The fluid may be single-phase
gas at reservoir conditions. However, a hydrocarbon liquid phase is typically present at pipeline
temperature/pressures. As the pressure drops in the system, liquid condensate occurs. Hydrate
formation and liquid holdup management are the primary concerns. Depending on the level of
condensate, wax may be an issue. Liquid loadings are defined by the condensate/gas ratio
(CGR), which typically range from 1 – 50 bbl liquid/mmscf gas
Retrograde condensate: Similar to wet gas, but generally containing higher liquid loadings. At
high pressures, a pressure drop tends to induce hydrocarbon liquid dropout. At low pressures, the
liquid may re-dissolve into the gas phase, resulting in lower liquid loadings. The magnitude of
the liquid dropout is highly dependant on the fluid phase envelope and path of production
(temperature/pressure profiles). Condensates are generally low molecular weight systems, with
methane concentrations still in excess of ~70 mole%.
Volatile oil: A fluid that exhibits both gas/condensate behavior and black oil behavior. Volatile
oils contain more heavy components than condensates, but have a low enough molecular weight
to not necessarily be considered black oils. Fluid conditions at the reservoir are often near the
critical point, which may induce two-phase flow from the reservoir as the pressure is decreased.
Volatile oils may start out as single-phase oils in early-life, but can become multiphase mixtures
as the reservoir pressure declines.
Black oil: Common term for a predominantly liquid-filled system. Black oil is a generic term
that encompasses a wide range of heaver molecular weight fluids. As the pressure drops along
the pipeline, gas is released from the liquid and forms a gas phase. Black oils are typically
characterized by their gas/oil ratio (GOR), which may range from <100 scf/stb for heavy oils to
~3000 scf/stb for near-volatile oils. Black oils may pose hydrate formation risks, along with wax
deposition and gel formation issues. For deepwater systems, the pressure drop in the vertical riser
column for black oils is a significant flow assurance challenge.
Restart: Transient operation where the system is brought back on-line following a shutdown. The rate
of restart is often determined by physical constraints on the wellbore and by hydrate inhibition delivery
rates. Even if the system has been inhibited from hydrates, the live fluid from the wellbore may need to
be inhibited if the shutdown has allowed the fluid to cool significantly. Typical deliverables are the time
to warm-up above hydrate formation conditions, overall chemical consumption used, and restart slugging
(if any).
Cold Restart – Restart following a prolonged shutdown. Either the flowline or the wellbore +
flowline has been allowed to cool to ambient conditions. Typically, the wellbore may take
several weeks to reach ambient conditions, so a completely cold restart is a rare occurrence.
Warm Restart – Restart following a short-term shutdown. Warm restarts are evaluated to
determine whether or not the system can be brought back on-line without requiring any hydrate
inhibition. The cooldown time allowed for a warm restart is typically set by the “No-Touch” and
“Light-Touch” times, and it must occur prior to the Mitigation Time.
Riser: Term given to portion of a tieback that begins the vertical riser from the seafloor to the surface.
Dynamic Riser – Portion of a catenary riser that is suspended above the seafloor. This is the
portion directly downstream of the “touchdown point”.
Static Riser – Portion of a catenary riser that is connected to the flowline and still laying on the
seafloor. This riser occupies the portion upstream of the “touchdown point”.
Concentric Offset Riser (COR) – Riser type with a concentric production riser located within a
larger-diameter carrier pipe.
Hybrid Riser Tower – Riser type, where multiple individual risers are bundled together within a
single carrier pipe. Extremely complex heat transfer predictions.
Single Leg Offset Riser (SLOR) – Riser type, very similar to the COR
Dry Tree Riser – Riser type that consists of a vertical riser running directly from the wellbore up
to the platform. The only controls are located at the surface.
Roughness: Measure of the friction factor within a pipe and directly impacts the frictional pressure drop.
Typical values are:
Steel Pipe – 0.0018”
Tubing – 0.0006”
Flexible Pipe (mm) – Pipe ID (mm)/250
SCR (Steel Catenary Riser): Common riser profile used for most systems where a riser tower is not in
service.
SCSSV (Surface Controlled Subsurface Safety Valve): Valve located in the wellbore and used as a
last resort for isolation of the reservoir. The SCSSV is typically always operated fully open, with the
exception of dry tree risers when the SCSSV may be closed during depressurization. SCSSV setting
depths are determined by the hydrate formation conditions and the geothermal temperature gradient.
SPAR: – Production platform type
Sail Angle: Angle of the wellbore, defined as the deviation from the vertical that spans from the kick-off
point to the perforations.
Scale: Scale is a deposit of the inorganic mineral components of water. This is in contrast with wax and
asphaltenes that deposit from the crude oil. Oilfield scale is generally inorganic salt such as carbonates
and sulfates of the metals calcium, strontium and barium. Scale may also be the complex salt of iron such
as sulfides, hydrous oxides and carbonates.
The major forms of oilfield scale can form in one of two ways:
1. As a brine (e.g. formation water) undergoes a temperature or pressure change during production,
the solubility of some of the inorganic constituents will decrease and result in the salts
precipitating. Scales formed under these conditions are generally calcium/magnesium carbonate
scales.
2. When two incompatible waters (such as formation water rich in calcium, strontium and barium
and sea water rich in sulfate) are mixed. Scales formed under these conditions are generally
sulfate scales.
Separator: Vessel that separates the gas from the hydrocarbon liquid (and possibly the water). The
separator typically sits on the host facilities and represents the end point. If a slug catcher is not provided,
the separator must be sized large enough to handle any additional surge volume during slugging
operation.
HP Separator – High Pressure Separator
IP Separator – Intermediate Pressure Separator
LP Separator – Low Pressure Separator
Shutdown: Transient operation where the topsides (and potentially subsea) valves are closed and
production is stopped. During a shutdown, the fluids may be subject to hydrate formation if they have not
been inhibited prior to the shut-in.
Packed Shutdown – Shutdown where the topsides valve is closed, but the subsea valves are left
open for a set amount of time. During this time, additional mass is added to the flowline,
increasing the pressure. Packed shutdowns may occur due to long closing times on the subsea
valves, or may be done intentionally to increase the thermal mass of the flowline which prolongs
the cooldown time.
Planned Shutdown – Shutdown where hydrate inhibition is added to the live production fluid
before the system is shut-in. As such, the fluids that remain in the flowline are inhibited from
hydrate formation.
Un-packed Shutdown – Shutdown where the topsides and subsea valves are closed
simultaneously. Un-packed shutdowns keep the shut-in pressure low, but may result in shorter
cooldown times.
Un-planned Shutdown – Shutdown where hydrate inhibition is not added to the live production
fluid before the system is shut-in. As such, the fluids that remain in the flowline are not inhibited
from hydrate formation. Un-planned shutdowns are often referred to as ‘Emergency Shutdowns’
or ‘ESDs’.
Slugging: Terminology used to describe the physical behavior of a multiphase system operating within
the “slug flow” regime. Slug flow operation creates significant operational problems, both for topsides
processing facilities, as well as for fatigue life of risers.
Hydrodynamic Slugging –High frequency slugging that may be a result of low velocities or
terrain changes. The flowrate oscillates about a defined pseudo-steady state flowrate, with a
relatively small change in gas/liquid flow rates. Typically, hydrodynamic slugging does not pose
a significant challenge for the topsides facilities, namely the separator/slug catcher, in terms of
surge volume requirements.
Hydrodynamic Slugging
Gas Outlet Flow
7
0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Time (hours)
Ramp-up Slugging – Slugging that is common within gas/condensate systems relating to the
change in liquid holdup that occurs as the flowrate is increased. Since the liquid holdup is a
strong function of flowrate, ramping up the flowrate results in a much lower liquid accumulation
in the flowline. As such, there is a significant amount of liquid that is expelled from the flowline
and must be processed topsides.
Start-up Slugging – Slugging that is results from starting up a flowline following a shutdown.
The impact of start-up slugging is highly dependant on the seabed bathymetry and the location of
any liquid that has settled throughout the flowline
Terrain Slugging – Terrain slugging is characterized by prolonged periods of no flow, followed
by short periods of very high gas/liquid flow. Terrain slugging is often caused by changes in the
seabed bathymetry, especially downsloping flowlines leading into a riser. Typically, this severe
form of slugging is often seen at low flowrates (low velocities) and high water cuts (high fluid
density). Terrain slugging may cause significant problems for the topsides facilities in terms of
surge volume requirements.
Terrain Slugging
Liquid Outlet Flow
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
Time (hours)
Slug Catcher: Vessel installed to dampen the liquid inlet flowrates that are generated by slug flow
operation. Slug catchers are sized to provide sufficient volume for slug flow operation.
Finger-Type Slug Catcher
Vessel-Type Slug Catcher

Steady State: Normal operating conditions. Steady state issues are typically wax/hydrate formation and
slug flow operation; in all cases these are generally exacerbated at low flowrates.
Stock Tank Conditions: Similar to “standard conditions” in the chemical industry, stock tank conditions
in the oil/gas industry are typically 14.7 psia and 60°F. Nearly all flowrate measurements provided in the
oil industry refer to the rates at stock tank conditions.
Stroke Time: Time required for a valve to go from fully open to fully closed.
Subsea: Term referred to the piping and equipment located below the sea level.
Surge Volume: Additional volume required, above normal operating requirements, that directly relates
to the liquid arrival rates due to slug flow operation or from restart operation.
THP: Top Hole Pressure, typically used in conjunction with dry tree risers to define the pressure
upstream of the separator
TLP: Tension Leg Platform vessel
Thermal Mass: The thermal mass is a function of the density and heat capacity of the various materials,
along with the thickness of each material, and is a measure of a system’s ability to retain/store heat. As
the thermal mass increases, the amount of cooldown time increases. Conversely, the amount of time
required to warm-up a system also increase for high thermal mass fluids.
Three-Phase Systems: Systems that are gas, hydrocarbon liquid, and water. For black oil systems,
three-phase modeling should be assumed only when complex operations such as crude oil displacement
are being modeled, with the crude oil incorporated as the 3rd phase. For gas/condensate systems, three-
phase modeling should generally be used, with the water as the 3rd phase. There is often a very distinct
operating range where the relative slip differential between the water and hydrocarbon liquid phase
produces water accumulation volumes that are significantly different than the hydrocarbon liquid holdups.
Thus, discrete modeling of each phase is required.
Touchdown Point: Point at which the riser “touches down” on the seafloor. Beyond the touchdown
point, the riser continues upward to the host facility. The touchdown point is highly susceptible to fatigue
due to movement on the seafloor, causing stress and erosion. The touchdown point is required in order to
define the catenary riser profile.
Topsides: Term referred to the piping and equipment located at the host facilities.
Transient Operation: Operations that are defined as being deviations from the expected, steady state
operations. Transient operations are time-dependant and are often dictating facility design, especially for
deepwater systems. Typical transient operations are:
• Cooldown/Shutdown
• Crude Oil Displacement
• Depressurization
• Pigging
• Restart
• Slugging
• Wax Deposition
Tree: Physical piece of equipment, typically supplied by ABB, Cameron, or FMC, that is located at the
top of the wellbore and contains the controls for flowrate control, as well as other isolation valves. Trees
are typically not modeled within OLGA, as they are very small pieces of pipework, relative to the overall
development option. However, they often represent cold points in the system subject to rapid cooling in
the event of a shutdown.
Dry Tree – Tree is located at the surface only, above the water (hence the name “dry tree”).
Wet Tree – Tree is located on the seafloor. Production from the tree may be routed to a
manifold, or directly to the main flowline for subsea tieback back to the host facility.
True Vertical Depth (TVD): Vertical depth below mudline, surface, etc. The true vertical depth is a
measure of how deep a particular component is located and does not account for any deviations from the
vertical direction. The TVD is used in combination with the MD to accurately define the routing profile.
Tubing: Piping that is typically located within the wellbore. Production tubing has roughness values
different than standard pipe, as well as different line sizes. It is imperative to use a tubing string sizing
chart, rather than a traditional pipe-sizing chart, when reading diameters. Typical tubing sizes are 3-1/2”,
4-1/2”, or 5-1/2”.
Turndown: Terminology used to describe the process of decreasing the flowrate. The minimum
flowrate at which operation is feasible (maximum turndown rate) is often dictated by the resulting surge
volumes during ramp-up for gas/condensate systems. Terminology for turndown rates may be 3:1
turndown, which relates to reducing the flowrate to 1/3 of the steady state design rate. Additionally, the
minimum turndown rate for a black oil system is dictated by the Wax Appearance Temperature/hydrate
formation temperature.
Two-Phase Systems: Systems which are gas and hydrocarbon liquid only. For black oil systems, two-
phase modeling should be assumed, with the water incorporated into the oil phase and average properties
of the mixture assumed. For gas/condensate systems, two-phase modeling should only be used when no
water is present.
U-value: Overall heat transfer coefficient. The U-value is critical in evaluating the steady state thermal
performance, and has a large impact on the transient thermal performance (along with the thermal mass).
In most cases, the U-value is reported based on the piping ID, but can be based on the OD. It must be
clearly defined what the basis for the U-value calculation is (i.e. ID-based or OD-based). Typical U-
values for various insulation configurations are:
Bare Pipe – 30 BTU/hr-ft2-°F
Flexible Pipe – 1.00-1.50 BTU/hr-ft2-°F
Wet Insulation – 0.50-0.80 BTU/hr-ft2-°F
Pipe-in-Pipe – 0.20-0.25 BTU/hr-ft2-°F
Micro-porous – 0.09 BTU/hr-ft2-°F
Umbilical: Service line that runs from the topsides down to the trees/manifolds to deliver chemicals
(hydrate inhibitor, scale inhibitor, paraffin inhibitor, etc.) and power (if required). The umbilical line is
typically constructed of several, smaller bundled lines that may range from 3/8” to 3” in diameter.
VIT (Vacuum Insulated Tubing): Specialized tubing that results in very low heat loss under steady
state conditions. Typical applications for VIT are within the wellbore or in dry tree risers.
WGR (Water/Gas Ratio): For gas/condensate systems, WGR is the ratio of water to gas, typically
measured at stock tank conditions. The WGR is typically reported in units of bbl/mmscf and are on the
order of 0-50.
Water Depth: Measured depth from the seafloor to the surface.
Water Hammer: Phenomenon that occurs when a sudden valve closure occurs while the flowrate has
not been stopped. The instantaneous stopping in flow velocity is translated into a pressure wave that
propagates throughout the system, potentially subjecting the system to pressures in excess of the design
limits.
Water Injection: Process of injecting water in disposal wells, typically for reservoir pressure
maintenance or for lack of processing facilities on the host facilities. Water injection may result in
changes in the fluid GOR/GLR over time, depending on the proximity of the water injection wells.
Additionally, the injection of water may result in cooling of the reservoir temperature over time.
Water Salinity: Salt content of any water that may be produced back through the production system.
Water salinity has an impact on the density of the fluid and can impact the hydraulics for considerably
saline waters. In addition, the water salinity has a pronounced effect on hydrate formation conditions. As
the water salinity increases, hydrate formation conditions become less severe.
Hydrate Formation Conditions

9000
Pure Water (0 mg/l)
8000
Sea Water (35.4 mg/l)
7000
Produced Water (60 mg/l)
6000
Pressure (psia)
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Temperature (°F)
Wax: Wax is not a single compound but rather a wide range of high molecular weight paraffins that
solidify from crude oil primarily due to a decrease in the crude oil temperature. Waxes may consist of
straight chain, normal paraffins or may be branched or cyclic paraffins.
High molecular weight compounds are only minutely soluble in crude oil at reservoir conditions. As the
temperature of the crude oil drops during production, these compounds begin to crystallize. The
temperature where the first crystals occur is called the cloud point or Wax Appearance Temperature
(WAT) of the crude oil. At the cloud point only a tiny fraction of waxes crystallize; however, as the
temperature continues to drop, more and more waxes crystallize.
While temperature is the primary factor affecting wax crystallization, pressure also plays a role. Light
ends (which act as solvent for waxes) are at the highest concentration in the crude oil at the bubble or
saturation point; consequently, the cloud point is lowest at the bubble point. Above the bubble point, no
additional light ends are dissolved in the crude oil; however, the pressure continues to increase which
causes the cloud point to increase. Below the bubble point, light ends are removed from the crude oil as
the pressure drops; therefore, the cloud point increases as the pressure decreases below the bubble point.
Wax can precipitate on surfaces such as tubulars and pipe walls. Over time, the build-up of the solid
deposit will reduce the internal diameter and eventually block the line. A second effect, which will likely
cause operational problems much earlier, is that the solid deposit increases the surface roughness of the
pipe wall. This causes an increase in the pressure drop that can result in higher pumping costs or reduced
throughput. Wax build-up on tubulars and tiebacks can effectively choke back the wells and can kill a
well even though the line is not totally blocked. Total blockages of flowlines and pipelines due to wax
build-up have occurred, but are still rare. However, blockages can occur due to crude oil gelling or
because of other types of deposits. The cloud point or Wax Appearance Temperature is a critical property
since wax deposition can begin whenever the temperature of any surface in contact with the crude oil
drops below the cloud point.
Wax Deposition: Transient operation where the rate of wax deposition is determined. Wax deposition
rates are modeled external to OLGA and are a function of the diffusion coefficient, the WAT, and the
temperature profile. In order to perform wax deposition modeling, and extended n-paraffin analysis is
required. Wax deposition rates are used to determine pigging frequencies.
Typical pigging frequencies are set once the wax deposition thickness reaches 1-4 mm. Slow deposition
rates are very hard to remove, so pigging must be done once the thickness reaches 1 mm to avoid the risk
of the pig becoming stuck. For fast deposition rates, the deposits are much softer and easier to remove, so
the deposition thickness may be allowed to reach 4 mm.
Wax Propensity: Measure of the likelihood for wax to deposit. The difference between the actual
temperature and the Wax Appearance Temperature (WAT) at operating pressure is calculated. If the
actual temperature is above the WAT, then the wax propensity is above zero and wax deposition will not
occur. If the actual temperature is below the WAT, then wax deposition may occur and the amount of
sub-cooling is the wax propensity.
Wellbore: Piping below the mudline, between the reservoir and the production trees. The wellbore
typically has a U-value of 2.0 BTU/hr-ft2-°F (4-1/2” OD) and consists of the “production tubing” and
casings.
Well Testing: Process of testing individual wells in order to accurately determine flowrate, composition,
etc. In many cases, separate flowlines called “testlines” are installed to flow a single well through to a
“test separator”. In other cases, where a testline is not installed, multiple wells may be flowed in a single
flowline and a given well may be added or subtracted. Then, the change in flowrate/composition can be
measured and the specific properties of a given well can be determined by addition/subtraction.
Wet Insulation: Insulation system where insulation is applied on the outside of a single production pipe.
Typically, the thickness of insulation is limited to approximately 2-3 inches and the U-value is 0.5-0.8
BTU/hr-ft2-°F.
Wing Valve: Valve located subsea that is typically only used in the event of a shutdown. The wing
valve is not used for flow control and is a fast-acting valve that may close in 2-3 seconds in the event of
an emergency shutdown.
Chapter 3: Fluid properties & Phase determination

The single-most critical parameter for any flow assurance study is the fluid properties. All hydraulic and
thermal calculations are based on the fluid properties. An incorrect fluid characterization can lead to a
flow assurance design that does not address the needs of the actual system once production has started.
Thus, it is critical to ensure that the fluid properties are well defined at the outset of a project.
3.1 Gas Condensate Systems
The following sections deal with fluid characterizations for gas condensate system and the required data
for any flow assurance study to be performed for such a system.
3.1.1 HYDROCARBON COMPOSITION
The composition of the fluid should be provided from the appropriate source. If it is desired to model the
system from the reservoir, then the full PVT report for the gas should be provided. If it is desired to
model the fluid from the platform/compressor outlet, then a representative composition should be
provided, either from the PVT report or the output from a process model (i.e. HYSYS).
Fluid composition should be provided out to at least C7+. Depending on the actual fluid composition and
the liquid loading, additional compositional data above C7 may be required. Typically, for
gas/condensate systems, the large majority of the composition is C7 or lighter.
It is imperative that any fluid contamination in the fluid sample be accounted for. Drilling fluid
contamination is often present, which can lead to an incorrect fluid characterization. Drilling fluids
typically appear in the PVT reports at carbon numbers from C14 – C20. Table 0-1 below illustrates a
fluid composition taken from a PVT report.
Table 0-1: Sample Hydrocarbon Composition
Component Base
N2 0.390
CO2 0.079
H2S 0.000
C1 98.959
C2 0.162
C3 0.045
iC4 0.015
nC4 0.006
iC5 0.009
nC5 0.005
C6 0.016
C7 0.020
C8 0.027
C9 0.017
C10 0.006
C11 0.004
C12 0.004
C13 0.005
C14 0.014
C15 0.018
C16 0.112
Component Base
C17 0.020
C18 0.054
C19 0.006
C20 0.002
C21 – C29 0.003
C30+ 0.002
Total 100.000
Note that the mole percent for C16 and C18 appear to be quite high, relative to the other values. This is
as a result of the drilling fluid composition, which can often appear in the PVT report grouped with the
hydrocarbon composition. If the composition above is used to define the fluid properties, then the high
carbon components will result in an over-prediction of the amount of liquid in the system. This can lead
to an overly conservative system design, large slug catchers, and other operational issues.
For the example above, the condensate/gas ratio (CGR) for the fluid composition in the table is ~4.5
bbl/mmscf. For the un-contaminated case (removing the contamination from the C14, C16, and C18
components), the CGR is reduced to <0.5 bbl/mmscf. At a desired production rate of 150 MMSCFD, this
changes the liquid processing requirements from 4500 bbl/day to <500 bbl/day. Contamination removal
can be done by either averaging the existing composition vs. carbon number and re-normalizing OR, if
the drilling fluid composition is provided, a detailed mass balance can be used to subtract the
contaminated concentration from the base hydrocarbon fluids. Accounting for contamination in
gas/condensate samples is critical to accurately develop a liquid management strategy.
3.1.2 PHASE EQUILIBRIA
Once the fluid composition is finalized, the next step is to characterize the fluid using an Equation-of-
State (EOS) model. Fluid characterization is used to generate the phase envelope and transport
properties. Typical EOS models are Peng-Robinson (PR) or Soave-Redlich-Kwon (SRK). Commercially
available software are typically used for fluid property definition, with the EOS being selected either from
the PVT report EOS (if provided) or should be selected to best match the PVT report tuning parameters.
The EOS model should be tuned to match the key fluid properties defined in the PVT report. The two
most critical parameters are the dew point and the condensate/gas ratio. The dew point is often provided
at reservoir conditions in the PVT report and is useful in tuning the phase envelope to predict the correct
conditions where liquid dropout is expected. For all gas/condensate projects, the phase envelope should
be generated to visually inspect whether or not the system will operate in the single-phase (dense phase)
region, two phase region, or a combination of both.
Figure 0-1 illustrates a sample phase envelop for a gas/condensate system. Note that if the expected
ambient temperature profile and pressure profiles are plotted against the phase envelope, an initial
assessment of the liquid handling issues can be ascertained. For example, if the delivery pressure is
maintained very high, the system may operate in the single-phase region (i.e. 100 bara). A decrease in
pressure (i.e. below ~95 bara at 10°C) indicates that liquids are expected. However, if the delivery
pressure is decreased further (i.e. below ~15 bara at 10°C), then the phase equilibria indicates that no
liquids will be received at the pipeline outlet, although liquid drop-out is expected along the pipeline
profile.
150
140
130
120
110
100
90
Pressure (bara)
80
70
60
50 50 BAR - 1.63 bbl/mmscf
40
30
20
10
8 BAR - NO LIQUIDS
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Temperature (°C)
Figure 0-1: Phase Equilibria

The phase envelop itself cannot be used to predict the amount of liquid in the system, but it can serve
as a guide to indicate potential problems, as well as to provide a quality assurance check against the
results obtained from the hydraulic/thermal modeling of the fluid.
NOTE: Caution should be taken if the operating range is near the critical point of the fluid. Small
changes in the temperature/pressure of the system can lead to rather significant changes in the phase
equilibrium of the fluid. If the expected operating region is near the critical point of the fluid, additional
certainty is required in the fluid composition to help ensure validity of the phase equilibrium. Additional
over-design margins may be required as well, to account for the situation where the fluid behavior in the
field is not the same as that in the laboratory/EOS model.
Fluid properties should be defined over the range of expected operating conditions, both steady state and
transient events. This is typically defined by the following:
• Temperature range: Pipe material limit (MINIMUM) – reservoir temperature (MAXIMUM)
• Pressure range: Flare pressure (MINIMUM) – reservoir pressure (MAXIMUM)
3.1.3 CONDENSATE/GAS RATIO (CGR)
The second of the two critical hydrocarbon characterization parameters is the CGR. The CGR defines the
amount of liquid expected on a gas-volumetric basis (at a given pressure). Relatively dry gases or
processed gas from an offshore platform may have a CGR < 1 bbl/mmscf, whereas high liquid-loaded
systems may have a CGR of 100 bbl/mmscf. As the CGR increases (as well as the WGR), multiphase
flow transport becomes increasingly difficult, as the additional liquid in the system can serve to increase
liquid hold-up, increase pressure drop, and potentially increase slugging tendency.
Because the CGR is temperature/pressure-specific, the basis for the CGR should be explicitly defined at
the start of a project. If the CGR is not provided in the PVT report, it may be predicted from the
hydrocarbon phase equilibrium at a given condition using an EOS model. For most projects, the CGR is
defined either at stock tank conditions (1 bara/15°C) or at delivery conditions (separator pressure/ambient
temperature). Table 0-2 contains the CGR for an example gas/condensate fluid over a range of
conditions.
Table 0-2: Condensate/Gas Ratio Summary

Temperature Pressure CGR
(°C) (bara) (bbl/mmscf)
40 120 Single Phase
40 80 Single Phase
20 60 0.201
20 40 0.351
15 40 1.038
10 40 1.642
10 20 1.005
10 10 Single Phase
4 20 1.743
4 10 0.605
As the table shows, the actual CGR may increase or decrease with changes in field conditions, depending
on the phase equilibria. Pressure decreases may result in more or less liquid input into the pipeline and
associated liquid accumulation, again depending on the pressure regime where the changes are taking
place. Thus, dynamic operational issues such as separator fluctuations or flowrate changes can impact the
pressure profile and the resulting liquid holdup. In addition, seasonal temperature changes can impact the
liquid loading as well. The CGR may change over the life of the field, but also many change depending
on the time of year. For onshore systems, the time of day can impact the liquid loading due to cooler
temperatures at night. It is critical to understand the phase behavior and resulting liquid loading as a
function of the operational conditions envisioned.
3.1.4 WATER/GAS RATIO (WGR)
The water/gas ratio (WGR) is defined as the total amount of water present on a gas-volumetric basis.
Unlike the CGR, the WGR is relatively constant over the range of operating conditions
(temperature/pressure). The WGR should be defined over time, to account for the impact of increased
water production in late-life, if expected.
Even for “dry” systems (i.e. WGR = 0 bbl/mmscf), as good practice saturated water is assumed. This is
typically defined by the amount of water required to saturate the hydrocarbon at reservoir conditions.
When predicting fluid properties, particularly hydrate inhibitor requirement, the actual WGR value is very
important.
All hydrate-related properties are typically based on pure water, as this is the most conservative. All
transport-related properties, particularly those used for hydraulic modeling, should be based on produced
water. Especially for high salinity samples, the density of the water phase can be quite a bit higher than
pure water (~1000 km/m3). For deepwater developments or for systems with a very small tolerance for
pressure increases, the hydrostatic effects of the water phase can be critical. Thus, it is important to
identify the produced water composition expected for the development.
3.1.5 HYDRATE INHIBITOR
If hydrate formation is an issue, based on ambient temperatures, it is common practice to continuously
inhibit the gas with hydrate inhibitor. It may be possible to insulate the system to maintain temperature if
the reservoir temperature is quite high, or it may be possible to utilize an actively-heated system design
(i.e. electrical heating) to maintain the temperatures outside of the hydrate formation region. However,
this document will focus on the industry-standard approach of continuous hydrate inhibition for hydrate
management.
Hydrate inhibition rates for gas/condensate systems should be determined early-on in the project lifecycle,
as the rates can impact system hydraulics, liquid holdup, etc. Typically, hydrate inhibition rates are taken
at the maximum pipeline pressure and ambient temperature. Maximum pipeline pressures can be difficult
to estimate prior to the hydraulic modeling, but an early indication of maximum allowable operating
pressure (MAOP), maximum shut-in tubing pressure (SITP), or other pressure limitation can be used as a
guide for a first-pass at the hydrate inhibition requirements.
Hydrate inhibition is required at the pipeline inlet (i.e. subsea wellhead or offshore platform) and may be
either (1) thermodynamic inhibitors such as methanol or glycols, (2) low dosage hydrate inhibitors such
as AAs or KHIs or (3) a cocktail of both. For thermodynamic inhibitors, the dosage rates are a function
of the fluid composition, the WGR, and the shut-in conditions. Depending on the system, concentrations
as high as 50 wt% (based on water rates) may be required. This equates to ~1-2 bbl inhibitor/bbl water,
which quickly doubles (or triples) the amount of liquid in the system. Thus, the total volume of liquid
moving through the system, including condensate, water, and hydrate inhibitor must be considered.
LDHIs have very low dosages, typically ~1-2 vol.% of the water phase, so their overall contribution to the
overall liquid holdup is quite small.
When developing the fluid properties and hydraulic model, it is necessary to provide for the hydrate
inhibitor rates. The hydrate inhibitor will affect (1) the liquid outlet rates, (2) the total liquid holdup in
the pipeline, and (3) the hydrostatic component of pressure drop in the system.
For deepwater systems, the hydrostatic component is quite critical. In particular, mono-ethylene glycol
(MEG) has a specific gravity of ~1.14, and can impose a higher backpressure than methanol which has a
specific gravity of ~0.79. Table 0-3 illustrates the hydrostatic pressure contribution for various water
depths for a methanol-inhibited and MEG-inhibited system.
Table 0-3: Hydrostatic Pressure Impacts
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
Property
MEG MeOH MEG MeOH MEG MeOH
Total Liquid Volume, BBL 100 100 200 200 500 500
Liquid Column Height, m 387.4 387.4 774.8 774.8 1937 1937
Pressure at Column Base, bar 39.9 34.2 79.8 68.4 199.5 171.0
Difference, bar 5.6 11.4 28.5
The table shows that the MEG system can increase the pressure drop by 5-30 bar, depending on water
depth. If the MEG phase is not accounted for, then the system design may not properly evaluate the true
hydraulic capacity.
3.2 Black Oil Systems
The key parameters that must be clearly defined for oil systems are described in this section.
3.2.1 HYDROCARBON COMPOSITION
The full PVT report for the oil should be preferred. If the reservoir fluid composition is not available,
then a recombined separator gas/liquid composition, mixed in the appropriate gas/oil ratio, is used.
Depending on the fluid type, the fluid composition should be provided out to at least C30+. Heavier
fluids may require additional fluid characterization (i.e. C36+). Providing limited compositional data will
result in a large “plus fraction” component (i.e. C10+), which introduces error/uncertainty in the
calculations. This can have a significant impact on the fluid phase equilibria (bubble point) and other
physical properties (i.e. viscosity, API gravity, etc.)
It is imperative that any fluid contamination in the fluid sample be accounted for. Drilling fluid
contamination is often present, which can lead to an incorrect fluid characterization. Drilling fluids
typically appear in the PVT reports at carbon numbers from C14 – C20. The following Table 0-4
illustrates a fluid composition taken from a PVT report.
Table 0-4: Sample Hydrocarbon Composition
Component Base
N2 0.141
CO2 0.115
H2S 0.000
C1 25.658
C2 8.191
C3 7.547
iC4 1.393
nC4 4.329
iC5 1.701
nC5 2.394
C6 4.771
C7 4.434
C8 4.103
C9 2.915
C10 3.157
C11 2.578
C12 2.106
C13 1.994
C14 2.022
C15 1.730
C16 2.173
C17 1.712
C18 1.496
C19 1.047
C20 0.866
C21 1.207
C22 0.705
C23 0.731
C24 0.572
C25 0.524
C26 0.486
C27 0.463
C28 0.485
C29 0.368
C30+ 5.890
Total 100.000
Note that the mole percent for C14, C16, and C18 appear slightly higher than the general decay with
increasing carbon number. This is as a result of the drilling fluid composition, which can often appear in
the PVT report grouped with the hydrocarbon composition. If the composition above is used to define the
fluid properties, then the high carbon components can result in an incorrect gas/oil ratio (GOR) or bubble
point. Contamination removal can be done by either averaging the existing composition vs. carbon
number and re-normalizing OR, if the drilling fluid composition is provided, a detailed mass balance can
be used to subtract the contaminated concentration from the base hydrocarbon fluids. Accounting for
contamination in oil samples is critical to accurately predict the multiphase flow properties.
3.2.2 PHASE EQUILIBRIA
Once the fluid composition is finalized, the next step is to characterize the fluid using an Equation-of-
State (EOS) model. Fluid characterization is used to generate the phase envelope, and transport
properties. Typical EOS models are Peng-Robinson (PR) or Soave-Redlich-Kwon (SRK). Commercially
available software are typically used for fluid property definition, with the EOS being selected either from
the PVT report EOS (if provided) or should be selected to best match the PVT report tuning parameters.
The EOS model should be tuned to match the key fluid properties defined in the PVT report. The most
critical parameters are the bubble point, gas/oil ratio (GOR), API gravity, and fluid viscosity. The bubble
point is often provided at reservoir conditions in the PVT report and is useful in tuning the phase
envelope to predict the correct conditions where gas breakout is expected. For all oil projects, the phase
envelope should be generated to visually inspect whether or not the system will operate in the single-
phase region, two-phase region, or a combination of both.
Figure 0-2 illustrates a sample phase envelop for an oil system. Note that if the expected ambient
temperature profile and pressure profiles are plotted against the phase envelope, an initial assessment of
the likelihood for single phase or multiphase operation can be ascertained, particularly when in field life
the system may be two-phase in the reservoir and at what separator pressure gas breakout may be
expected. Unlike gas/condensate systems, a reduction in pressure is nearly always accompanied by an
increase in the gas fraction.
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
130
120
Pressure (bara)
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600
Temperature (°C)
Figure 0-2: Phase Equilibria

The phase envelop itself cannot be used to predict the amount of gas in the system, but it can serve as a
guide to indicate potential problems, as well as to provide a quality assurance check against the results
obtained from the hydraulic/thermal modeling of the fluid.
NOTE: Caution should be taken if the operating range is near the critical point of the fluid. Small
changes in the temperature/pressure of the system can lead to rather significant changes in the phase
equilibrium of the fluid. If the expected operating region is near the critical point of the fluid, additional
certainty is required in the fluid composition to help ensure validity of the phase equilibrium. Additional
over-design margins may be required as well, to account for the situation where the fluid behavior in the
field is not the same as that in the laboratory/EOS model.
With respect to the degrees of freedom that are typically available to tune the phase equilibria to match
the expected PVT data, the most common are:
• EOS: EOS should be selected to best reflect tuning parameters
used in PVT analysis. Ensure that all fluid properties,
hydrate predictions, and other properties use the same
EOS model throughout the flow assurance study.
• Plus Fraction: By defining a “plus fraction” (i.e. C30+), there is some
degree of freedom in tuning the exact molecular weight
and specific gravity of the “plus fraction”. This can be
used to tune bubble point/GOR, but has limited effect as
the “plus fraction” value decreases.
• Pseudo Components: By defining pseudo-components, specific properties for
heavy-end components can be used to tune the phase
equilibria in lieu of lumping the properties together in a
“plus fraction”. When defining pseudo-components, the
following variables can be defined:
• Binary Interaction Parameters (KIJ Factors)
• Molecular Weight
• Specific Gravity
• Boiling Point
• Critical Temperature
• Critical Pressure
• Critical Volume
• Accentric Factor
• Volume Shift Factor
By defining the pseudo-components, the degrees of
freedom are removed and, typically, the resulting
bubble point, GOR, API gravity, etc cannot be further
tuned.
Fluid properties should be defined over the range of expected operating conditions, both steady state and
transient events. This is typically defined by the following:
• Temperature range: Pipe material limit (MINIMUM) – reservoir temperature (MAXIMUM)
• Pressure range: Flare pressure (MINIMUM) – reservoir pressure (MAXIMUM)
3.2.3 N-PARAFFIN COMPOSITION (WAX DEPOSITION MODELING ONLY)
If wax deposition modeling is required, the n-paraffin composition must be defined. The n-paraffin
composition is obtained typically from high-temperature GC analysis. It is important that weight percent
of n-paraffin is explicitly defined in the characterization, rather than just a simple carbon number weight
percent of the paraffins and olefins. N-paraffin analysis should be performed out to C100, or to as high a
carbon number as can be detected to a sensitivity of ~1 ppm. Typical input format for an n-paraffin
composition is given in the following Table 0-5.
Table 0-5: N-Paraffin Composition
n-Paraffin Weight n-Paraffin Weight n-Paraffin Weight
Carbon # Fraction Carbon # Fraction Carbon # Fraction
17 0.007098 32 0.001087 47 0.000028
18 0.007166 33 0.001167 48 0.000022
19 0.006640 34 0.000655 49 0.000015
20 0.005886 35 0.000517 50 0.000015
21 0.005326 36 0.000306 51 0.000011
22 0.004336 37 0.000244 52 0.000008
23 0.003901 38 0.000199 53 0.000007
24 0.003366 39 0.000173 54 0.000006
25 0.003182 40 0.000173 55 0.000005
26 0.002758 41 0.000100 56 0.000004
27 0.002467 42 0.000094 57 0.000004
28 0.002030 43 0.000072 58 0.000003
29 0.001614 44 0.000066 59 0.000002
30 0.001640 45 0.000046
31 0.002382 46 0.000045 TOTAL 0.064866
N-paraffin compositions are typically provided on dead oil samples (stock tank conditions). For wax
deposition modeling of production systems (live fluids), the stock tank n-paraffin composition must be
scaled to match the reservoir fluid, based on the liquid fraction at stock tank conditions for the live
fluid.
3.2.4 DENSITY/API GRAVITY
A key parameter, particularly for deepwater projects, is the fluid density/API gravity. The density plays a
big part in the overall system hydraulics. The hydrostatic pressure losses in the riser can contribute up to
90% of the overall system pressure drop. Thus, accurate prediction of the fluid density is critical.
3.2.5 VISCOSITY
Viscosity values have a significant impact on system hydraulics (pressure drop), as well as potential
impacts on the rates of wax deposition. Thus, defining the fluid property behavior with respect to
viscosity is critical, both for live production fluids, as well as dead oil/stock tank fluids that may be used
during displacement and export operation.
If non-Newtonian behavior exists at operation below the Wax Appearance Temperature (WAT), wax
deposition modeling should be coupled with the basic fluid hydraulics in order to determine the true
hydraulic impact on the system. For those cases where chemicals will be injected continuously for
wax/gel control, their impact on viscosity should be clearly defined. In addition, for those cases where
emulsions are an issue, the effective viscosity for a range of water cuts should be defined.
3.2.6 GAS/OIL RATIO (GOR)

The gas/oil ratio (GOR) defines the amount of gas expected for a given volume of oil. Relatively low
GOR fluids may have values of 100 scf/stb, whereas more volatile oils may have GORs ranging from
2000-3000 scf/stb. As the GOR increases, the total mass through the system increases for a constant oil
rate, increasing the overall frictional pressure drop, but potentially reducing the hydrostatic component.
In addition, the higher GOR fluids have increasing erosion concerns due to the higher velocities. Also,
higher GOR fluids typically have more thermal challenges due to the expansion cooling of the gas (Joule-
Thomson effect). Conversely, higher GOR fluids typically have higher velocities, which help to mitigate
slugging concerns.
3.2.7 WATER CUT
In addition to the GOR, the amount of free water present in the system should also be defined. The water
cut is defined as the volume of water present vs. the total amount of fluid. Water cut is expressed as a
percentage, with 0% being no free water and 100% representing an all-water system. Typically, water cut
increases over time due to either water break-through or water addition due to water injection (for
reservoir pressure maintenance).
From a flow assurance perspective, increasing water cut over time serves multiple purposes. First, if the
oil rates are decreasing and the water rates are increasing, the total fluid volume may stay relatively
constant. This helps to ensure that the line size is not too big, mitigating slugging. Also, the relatively
high heat capacity of water helps to maintain temperature in late-life, helping to reduce wax/hydrate
formation concerns under steady state operation.
Unlike gas/condensate systems, the actual amount of water used in hydrate predictions is not as critical.
Sufficient water should be added to the system to ensure that water is not the limiting reactant, but the
hydrate conditions typically show little sensitivity to water volumes.
Produced water chemistry should be input into all fluid property calculations. Hydrate predictions are
typically based on pure water, as this is the most conservative. All transport-related properties,
particularly those used for hydraulic modeling, should be based on produced water. Especially for high
salinity samples, the density of the water phase can be quite a bit higher than ~1000 kg/m3. For
deepwater developments or for systems with a very small tolerance for pressure increases, the hydrostatic
effects of the water phase can be critical. Thus, it is important to identify the produced water composition
expected for the development. This is often overlooked, as the focus of exploratory efforts is to find oil
and gas; the water is often ignored.
3.2.8 WAX PROPERTIES

Discussed in more detail in the wax section to follow, the following wax-related properties should be
identified at the outset of any oil system flow assurance study. Depending on the fluid properties,
additional testing/modeling may be required.
• Wax Appearance Temperature (Dead Oil and Live Oil, if available)
• Wax Melting Temperature
• Wax Content – Carbon number analysis
• Diffusion Coefficient
• Pour Point (Dead Oil and Live Oil, if available)
3.2.9 HYDRATE INHIBITOR

For most oil systems, continuous hydrate inhibition is not economically feasible and it is not typically
required during normal steady state operation. However, hydrate formation conditions should be
evaluated in order to predict the operating envelopes for the fluid where hydrate formation is favorable
and where hydrate formation is unlikely in order to define the operational procedures. Hydrate inhibitor
will often be used for startup (cold temperature period) and for treating stagnant liquids in the tree,
wellbore, jumpers, manifolds after a shutdown.
Chapter – 4: Fluid flow analysis for single phase & multiphase

A detailed pipeline profile is used in the hydraulic model for fluid flow analysis. The pipeline
route and terrain is captured in the simulation model to predict the flow behavior as accurately as
possible. For subsea systems, accurate ambient water temperature and water velocity should be input into
the model along the riser length. Modeling of process equipment within the hydraulic simulations for the
wells, pipelines, and risers is generally not required. A constant pressure at the outlet can be used to
represent the separator in steady state operation. For transient operations, a constant pressure at the outlet
can be used in most cases. Inclusion of portions of the separation, control, and compression facilities may
be necessary for severe slugging systems. For all hydraulic models, it is critical to define the desired
flowrate in relation to a given set of conditions.
4.1 STEADY STATE FLOW HYDRAULICS
The primary goal of the steady state analysis is to define the line size required to meet the desired
production rates throughout field life.This involves optimizing the line size to meet production rates,
limiting erosion, maintaining sufficient velocities for corrosion management, preventing severe slugging
at turndown rates, and preventing excessive liquid holdup that can cause severe operational upsets during
transient operations.
Error! Reference source not found. provides a logic diagram that may be used for steady state –
hydraulic pipeline design. Each question should be addressed (as defined in the subsequent sections) in
order to ensure the flow assurance engineer that the line size selected is correct.
CONSIDER DUAL FLOWLINES
Select line size
Sufficient
inlet
YES Pressure? NO
INCREASE LINE SIZE
Acceptable
C-Factors?
NO YES NO
INCREASE LINE SIZE
Liquid holdup
NO
manageable?
DECREASE LINE SIZE
YES
Figure 3-3: Hydraulic Pipeline Design – Logic Diagram

4.1.1 PRESSURE DROP
Delivery of the desired production rates constrains the minimum line size. Deliverability constraints can
typically be evaluated using a steady state simulation, although the liquid holdup volumes should be
properly defined in the software at low flowrates in order to ensure that the pipeline hydraulics is correct.
The overall pressure drop in the system is comprised of the following:
• Frictional pressure drop

• Hydrostatic pressure drop
• Restriction-induced pressure drop
Pressure drop generally increases with increasing flowrate due to friction effects, which is typically the
dominant effect on system hydraulics.
Error! Reference source not found. illustrates a typical pressure drop vs. flowrate trend. As the
flowrate increases, pressure drop increases.
Wellhead Pressure vs. Flowrate

1200
10" Line
1100
12" Line
1000
14" Line
900
Wellhead Pressure (psia)
16" Line
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120
Gas Flowrate (MMSCFD)
Figure 0-4: Pressure Drop vs. Flowrate (High Velocity)

However, for existing fields, particularly large trunklines with declining production, the flowrate may be
sufficiently low enough such that the frictional pressure loss term is quite small. Instead, the hydrostatic
component (for subsea systems) becomes increasingly dominant if the pipeline outlet is at a higher
elevation than the pipeline inlet. Liquid may accumulate in the system, inducing a pressure drop term
even when the frictional pressure drop contribution is almost negligible.
Error! Reference source not found. illustrates the pressure trends for a different system, this time at
very low flowrates for a large pipeline. As the graph shows, for high flowrates, the pressure drop
increases with flowrate. At very low rates, the pressure drop starts to increase at very low rates, due to
hydrostatic effects of the increased liquid holdup in the system.
Figure 0-5: Pressure Drop vs. Flowrate (Low Velocity)

When evaluating pressure drop constraints, a range of flowrates are evaluated and cross-plots
generated. This provides useful information over the life of the field, as well as providing a quality
assurance measure to ensure that any single calculation is correct. Multiphase flow calculations can be
somewhat inconsistent, depending on the system, which is why it is always a good idea to run multiple
scenarios to ensure that all values are consistent.
Pressure drop vs. flowrate relationships can also prove to be valuable in detecting any potential pipeline
blockages (i.e. hydrate formation, solid accumulation, etc.). Field data can be compared against model
predictions over time to understand whether the hydraulic capacity of the system is performing as
expected or if additional pressure drop is occurring, which may be limiting flowrate.
4.1.2 EROSION/MAXIMUM VELOCITY
Erosion rates are directly related to fluid velocity. Once the pressure drop relationships are defined, the
minimum pipeline size to meet desired production rates is defined. Erosion constraints may further limit
the minimum pipeline size if the velocities are too high.
Erosion is typically defined for multiphase flow systems by the API RP 14E specification. This standard
defines the maximum velocity allowable, based on an empirical relationship with the density. In recent
years a great deal of work has been done to better characterize erosion rates. 14E is no longer considered
the state-or-the-art approach to erosion management. See Section Error! Reference source not found.
for a discussion of erosion management.
C
Ve =
ρ MIX
where:
VE = fluid velocity (ft/sec)
C = empirical constant (“C-Factor”)
ρMIX = fluid density (lbs/ft³)
C-Factor limits are somewhat arbitrary and vary between operators. In general, the following C-Factor
guidelines may be used:
• Solids-free, continuous services: 100
• Solids-free, intermittent service: 125
• Solids-free, non-corrosive services: 150 – 200
• CRA, CRA Clad or lined pipe: 150 – 200
• Flexible pipe: Vendor-specific (values may range as high as 200 – 250)
In all cases, the C-Factor assumes sand-free production. If sand is detected, the C-Factor “rules of
thumb” are not applicable and some other form of erosion prediction should be considered. In general,
the C-Factor represents a good guideline for erosion risk. However, in all cases, if there is concern
that the operation may potentially put the material integrity at risk, more detailed erosion modeling
should be undertaken. Whereas the equation tends to be conservative for liquid systems, it can be non-
conservative for gas systems. High velocity gas systems are inherently more erosive than liquid
systems.
4.1.3 MINIMUM VELOCITY
There are no direct minimum velocity constraints on line sizes. The following criteria is used:
• In general, a bulk velocity of ~3-5 ft/sec is required for adequate water sweep. Operating at
velocities lower than this will result in liquid accumulation in the pipeline, which may lead to
liquid handling concerns, as well as localized areas prone to corrosion.
• At low velocities that result in a flow regime change between stratified and annular mist flow,
corrosion inhibitor distribution becomes critical. Annular mist flow ensures that all areas of the
pipe wall are exposed to the same fluids (uniform corrosion rates). Additionally, all surfaces of
the pipe circumference are equally wetted by the produced fluids.
• Operation at very low flowrates/velocities will reduce the frictional pressure drop term and may
cause the hydrostatic pressure losses to dominate, increasing overall system pressure drop.
• A minimum velocity is required to prevent slugging.
• A minimum velocity is required to push a sphere/pig and prevent the sphere from becoming stuck
4.1.4 LIQUID HOLDUP
Perhaps the single-most important factor to consider for multiphase gas/condensate systems is the liquid
holdup within the pipeline. Due to “slippage” between the gas and liquid phases, whereby the liquid is
“pulled” along the pipeline by the gas, the liquid phase is transported at a lower velocity than the gas
phase. Moreover, the aqueous phase is transported at a lower velocity than the hydrocarbon (condensate)
phase.
At high velocities, most of the liquid is transported with the gas, resulting in very little liquid
accumulation in the pipeline. As velocity decreases, more liquid drop out is observed, resulting in higher
liquid holdups. Error! Reference source not found. illustrates the liquid holdup vs. flowrate curve for
various pipe diameters. As expected, for the same flowrate, the liquid holdup is higher for the larger line
sizes (lower velocities).
5000
6 " F lo w lin e
4500
8 " F lo w lin e
4000
1 0 " F lo w lin e
3500
Liquid Holdup (bbl)
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
F lo w ra te (M M S C F D )
Figure 0-6: Liquid Holdup vs. Flowrate (Line Size)

In general, the liquid holdup is a velocity-driven phenomenon, along with the phase equilibria. The
relative fluid CGRs and WGRs play a role in how fast the liquid may build up, but the steady state
equilibrium liquid holdup is typically within the same order of magnitude for various liquid loadings.
Error! Reference source not found. illustrates the liquid holdup for various liquid loadings. Note that
while the total amount of liquid is slightly different, the difference is relatively small between the lowest
and highest loading values.
200000
WC 5, CGR 2
WC 10, CGR 2
180000 WC 15, CGR 2
WC 20, CGR 2
WC 5, CGR 4
160000 WC 10, CGR 4
WC 15, CGR 4
WC 20, CGR 4
140000
Total Liquid Holdup (BBL)
120000
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Figure 0-7: Liquid Holdup vs. Flowrate (CGR/WGR)

At high flowrates, near the “horizontal” portion of the holdup curve, the total liquid holdup is dominated
by the condensate phase. At very low flowrates, the aqueous phase becomes dominant and the liquid
holdup starts to increase exponentially. It is strongly advised to avoid operating within this exponential
region of the liquid holdup curve. Error! Reference source not found. illustrates water, condensate, and
total liquid holdup profiles as a function of flowrate. The total liquid holdup vs. flowrate curve is critical
for all gas/condensate projects.
140000
Total Liquid
Oil
Water
120000
100000
Liquid Holdup (BBL)
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Figure 0-8: Liquid Holdup vs. Flowrate
The liquid holdup curves provide an early indication of the severity of any liquid handling issues during
transient operations. For example, during ramp-up from a turndown condition, the difference in liquid
holdup between the initial and final liquid holdup will be expelled from the pipeline. The downstream
process equipment will be required to handle this volume of liquid over some time. Using this total
volume to size processing equipment (i.e. slug catchers) may lead to very large vessels and increase
overall project economics. Transient simulation should be used to confirm the actual liquid outlet rate
profile over time, rather than design for the difference between the initial and final pipeline holdups.
As the decision logic diagram in Section Error! Reference source not found. indicates, it may be
advisable to utilize multiple pipelines, rather than a single large-diameter pipeline, in order to limit liquid
holdup within the pipeline. For example, dual lines offer the advantage of operational flexibility in terms
of routing wells, lower liquid holdup for the same total flowrate as a single line, and can be used for
round-trip sphering or double-sided depressurization for hydrate plug remediation. In addition,
multiphase software typically is more accurate with respect to liquid holdup (and pressure drop)
predictions for smaller-diameter pipelines, as more benchmarking has been completed. The disadvantage
of the multiple lines is typically cost.
NOTE: When performing steady state liquid holdup calculations, ensure that the aqueous phase AND the
condensate phase have reached an equilibrium value. Multiphase software models may be slow to predict
the true liquid holdup with a single iteration. Software such as OLGA2000 should be run in
dynamic/transient mode, particularly for low flowrate systems, in order to ensure that the total amount of
liquid is predicted. Trend plots (liquid holdup vs. time) should be generated for each case analyzed, in
order to ensure the simulation has converged on the equilibrium values.
4.2 THERMAL
For the majority of gas/condensate systems, thermal management is not required since it is quite difficult
to ensure fluid temperatures reach the pipeline outlet above hydrate/wax conditions. The low ‘thermal
capacity’ of the gas and the high rate of expansion cooling results in the temperature profile reaching
ambient conditions some distance from the pipeline inlet, regardless of insulation type. Error!
Reference source not found. illustrates a typical temperature profile along the length of the pipeline.
Temperature Profiles
60
55 INLET FLOWRATE = 60 MMSCFD
50
45
40
Temperature (C)
35
30
25
20 MIDLINE TIE-IN = 50 MMSCFD
15
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Distance (kilometers)
Figure 0-9: Temperature Profile

Typically, gas/condensate pipelines are left un-insulated and/or buried, without requiring insulation.
Continuous hydrate inhibition protects the system from hydrate formation during steady state and
transient operations. Insulation may be used if the gas/condensate has a high Wax Appearance
Temperature (WAT) or if the system is a high-temperature service with limited hydrate inhibitor
capabilities.
Chapter 5 : SLUGGING - PREDICTION AND MANAGEMENT
5.1 Slugging
It is a multiphase flow phenomenon that is characterized by alternating liquid plugs and gas pockets
moving along a pipe. Slug flow operation creates significant operational problems, both for topsides
processing facilities, as well as for fatigue life of risers. Transient modeling is carried out for Slug
Prediction and devising the management strategy. Slugging could be Hydrodynamic Slugging, Ramp-up
Slugging, Start-up Slugging, Terrain slugging.
The “Slug Flow” regime is common at low liquid and gas velocities, as illustrated in Error! Reference
source not found.. Low velocities may occur as a result of declining production or for an “over-sized”
pipeline.
Figure 0-10: Flow Regime Map

Depending on the severity of the slugging, a wide variety of operational issues must be addressed,
including:
• Process facility upsets
• Wellbore instability/dynamic well-kill
• Inefficient inhibitor transport
• Mechanical/fatigue issues
•
5.2 SLUG TYPES
Slugging can be broken down into two primary categories – hydrodynamic and severe (terrain).
5.2.1 Hydrodynamic Slugging

Hydrodynamic slugging is high frequency slugging, characterized by gas/liquid rates that oscillate near an
average steady state value. Hydrodynamic slugging is often experienced in operations, but generally
without severe consequence, as the instantaneous liquid volumes are typically low. Error! Reference
source not found. below illustrates an example of hydrodynamic slugging.
25000
20000
Liquid Outlet Flowrate (B/d)
15000
10000
5000
0
3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0
Time (hours)
Figure 0-11: Hydrodynamic Slugging Example

In order to predict actual slug sizes, transient simulations are required. The accuracy of OLGA to predict
general hydrodynamic slugging trends is acceptable, but the accuracy/ability to predict individual slug
characteristics (i.e. length, volume, etc.) is poor – with potential errors in slug sizes of +/- 100%. There is
a wide range of data scatter within the industry literature on hydrodynamic slug sizes. Intensive
calculations to accurately define the individual slug properties are not warranted, since the size of an
individual slug is typically inconsequential. Rather, the flowrate boundary between the hydrodynamic
and the severe (terrain) region is the more critical operational parameter. In general, steady state
multiphase simulation packages cannot predict hydrodynamic slugging, particularly with any resolution
on the slug sizes.
5.2.2 Severe (Terrain) Slugging
Severe (terrain) slugging is periodic oscillation of gas and liquid rates which can be quite detrimental to
operations, causing flooding of process equipment, dynamic kill of wells due to pressure surges, and
mechanical/fatigue issues. Severe (terrain) slugging is less of an issue for gas/condensate systems than
for black oil systems, where the gas velocities are lower. Severe (terrain) slugging is characterized by
periods of no liquid outlet rates, followed by short-term, high rates of gas/liquid. Error! Reference
source not found. below illustrates an example of terrain slugging.
Figure 0-12: Terrain Slugging Example

The terrain slugging cycle typically consists of four distinct phases – slug formation, slug production,
blowout, and liquid fallback that occur in cycles. During the first phase, the liquid at the base of the riser
starts building up, thus preventing the gas from flowing since the gas does not have sufficient head to
push the liquid. Once the gas has built up enough pressure, it rapidly discharges the liquid into the
topsides and this is classified as the slug production phase. After the liquid exits, the gas then surges into
the topsides and, once the gas is discharged, the pressure in the pipeline has reduced such that it is unable
to deliver the liquid and hence the liquid starts falling back to the base of the riser and thus cycle is
repeated. Error! Reference source not found. illustrates an example.
Figure 0-13: Terrain Slugging Cycles

Terrain slugging is most commonly seen in the riser. For deepwater riser systems, accurate slug
prediction is much more difficult, as there is limited work to accurately predict the decay of slugs in the
vertical direction. Typically, riser-induced slugging can only occur if:
• Downward sections with stratified flow are present just upstream of an upward section
• Growth of slug is possible in the upward section

• Flow is unstable in the upward section
• There is no annular flow in the upward section
If all conditions are met, then the slugs can grow locally in each upward facing section, but they could
also dissipate as they flow along the vertical plane. However, if all conditions are met at the base of the
riser, then slugging will occur in the riser. From a topsides process standpoint, the behavior and accurate
prediction of slugging in the riser is most critical, as this directly impacts the ability to predict the liquid
arrival rates into the separator.
Terrain slugging can be characterized to some extent using steady state calculations, but more rigorous
definition is obtained through the use of transient multiphase flow software. Steady state codes are
primarily based on empirical correlations and recently have started incorporating mechanistic models that
are more accurate in predictions as well. While steady state simulators are quite handy for simulating
steady state scenarios, they are not quite accurate when it comes to slug flow. This is because these
models depend on established slugging maps, based on experimental data obtained from small diameter
test beds, and also because steady state codes have no mechanism to store historical effects, which are
particularly relevant for slug propagation. In order to predict slug flow, transient simulators are a better
option.
CHAPTER -6 : SURGE ANALYSIS
6.1 Surge analysis for oil systems, typically crude oil export pipelines and water injection systems,
considers the effect of sudden interruptions in the process flow (i.e. spurious valve closure, pump trip,
etc.). Sudden valve closures, either at the platform or at the wellhead, depending on flow direction, can
create a high-pressure pulse, the magnitude of which depends on the time it takes to close the valve. This
pulse will propagate through the system and, depending on the valve closing sequence, can potentially be
significant enough to increase pressures in the pipeline above the design pressure, causing failure of the
pipeline. As such, it is necessary to evaluate various shutdown scenarios and calculate the transient
pressure fluctuations in the flowline.
The magnitude of any pressure change is highly dependant on the fluid properties, particularly the fluid
compressibility and the wave celerity (speed of sound in fluid - ~1500 m/s for crudes, ~2000 m/s for
water). With respect to compressibility, highly compressible fluids such as gases show almost no
propensity for wave propagation. Crude oils, which have some compressibility, will absorb the energy
from the pressure pulse to some extent. Water, which is essentially incompressible, does not dissipate
any energy, resulting in large pressure swings (i.e. “water hammer effect”).
The worst-case scenario for a pressure increase would be to assume a sudden, instantaneous valve closure
for an incompressible fluid. Essentially, the velocity would go from the steady state flowline velocity
down to zero immediately. From a simple energy balance, this change in kinetic energy must be
transferred into another form of energy that, in this case, is the form of a high-pressure pulse. Jukowsky’s
law, which governs the maximum pressure rise in a rigid pipe for an instantaneous valve closure:
c
∆P =   • v o
g
∆P: Maximum Pressure Rise
c: Speed of Sound in Fluid
g: Gravitational Constant
vo: Fluid Velocity prior to Valve Closure
Software simulation should be used to perform a proper transient analysis with respect to surge, taking
into account such factors as compressibility, valve closure time, pump curve behavior, pipe elasticity, etc.
For example, as the valve closure time increases, the fluid velocity starts to decrease, limiting the
magnitude of any pressure pulse. Similarly, depending on the pump curve, the flowrate will not
necessarily remain constant throughout the transient event.
6.2 WATER INJECTION
Error! Reference source not found. illustrates an example water injection system, where sudden closing
of the subsea valve can induce pressure surge events back to the pump discharge on the platform. Key
variables to consider are the stroke time on the valve, pump curve, and the high-pressure alarm set point
on the pump.
P
HIGH
PRESSURE
STROKE
ALARM = ?
TIME = ?
STROKE TIME = ?
Figure 0-1: Schematic (Water Injection – Surge Analysis)

Error! Reference source not found. and Error! Reference source not found. illustrate example
transient pressure plots for a surge analysis through the water injection system, while Error! Reference
source not found. summarizes example results.
900
800
700
600
Pressure (bara)
500
400
300
200
100
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
Time (seconds)
Instantaneous: 210 bar Trip 1 Minute: No Trip 1 Minute: 210 bar Trip 1 Minute: 345 bar Trip
3 Minute: 210 bar Trip 3 Minute: 345 bar Trip 5 Minute: 210 bar Trip
Figure 0-2: Pressure vs. Alarm Set-Point (Water Injection – Surge Analysis)
350
325
300
275
250
225
Pressure (bara)
200
175
150
125
100
75 Outlet
50
Discharge
25
0
0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
Time (seconds)
Figure 0-3: Pressure Wave Propagation (Water Injection – Surge Analysis)
Table 0-1: Maximum Pressures (Water Injection – Surge Analysis)

High Pressure Maximum Pressure
Valve Closing Time (min)
Set-Point (bara)
Topsides Subsea (bara) Topsides Subsea
1 0 205 254 320
1 1 NONE 725 792
1 1 205 250 319
1 1 345 388 454
1 3 205 210 276
1 3 345 385 452
1 5 345 205 265
The tables and figures are provided to show sample output from a surge study on a water injection
system, as well as to show the relative impact of various parameters on the overall system hydraulics
Chapter – 7 : Hydrate formation and prevention
7.1 HYDRATES
Gas hydrates (or clatharites, from the Latin word for ‘cages’) are ice-like structures that are formed by
water and light hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbons are encaged in structures that rapidly grow and may
agglomerate to sizes that can block pipelines. Four key factors are required for hydrate formation:
1. Light hydrocarbons
2. Water
3. High pressure
4. Low temperature
Hydrates typically form at the hydrocarbon-water interface, in a ratio of ~85 mole% water to 15 mole%
hydrocarbon. On a volume basis, 1 m3 of hydrates typically contains ~ 5m3 of gas. Hydrate formation is
an endothermic reaction, giving rise to low temperatures during hydrate formation.
Hydrate formation is a kinetic process, typically driven by water condensation on the pipe walls.
Hydrates may form in small particles that can agglomerate and block the pipeline. Or, hydrates may form
in a thin film along the pipe wall, increasing in thickness and forming a flow-path restriction by reducing
the cross-sectional area for flow. The second type is much easier to monitor (i.e. increasing pressure
drop) to attempt to predict hydrate formation.
Hydrates are somewhat porous and have the ability to transmit some degree of pressure. Aside from
blocking flow-paths, hydrates can cause pipeline ruptures and projectile motion dangers while being
remediated. The following sections address some of the specific risks, testing required to quantify
hydrate formation/dissociation, and prevention/remediation techniques.
7.1.1 Risk
The following are some common risks associated with hydrate formation:
• Under flowing conditions (particularly gas systems), hydrates can form at ambient conditions if
the air/water temperature is low enough.
• Hydrate formation in subsea equipment (tress, manifolds, valves, jumpers) is particularly

problematic if components are left un-insulated.
• During cold well start-up, hydrates will form until the well has warmed sufficiently from
production. Chemical injection is often required until the well is above hydrate forming
conditions.
• During transient operations such as depressurization, hydrate particles may form in downstream
process equipment as a result of expansion cooling of the fluids (Joule-Thomson effect).
• In gas lift systems, hydrate formation can occur at the inlet valve if back-flow into the gas lift line
is observed.
• For gas export systems, hydrate formation can occur if the water dehydration system goes off-
spec and water is allowed to be injected into the pipeline.
• In water injectors, hydrate formation can occur during back-flow scenarios.
• In long-distance pipelines, hydrate formation risks increase and remediation becomes more
difficult due to accurate prediction of water holdup locations. Hydrate plug formation is most
common along low spots, where water is allowed to accumulate.
• Hydrates may be transferred to process separation systems, resulting in cooler than expected
operating conditions, particularly if anti-agglomerating hydrate inhibitors are used.
• Hydrate inhibitors, particularly methanol, present an uncertain risk to the operating performance
of drying systems in processing plants. Molecular sieve drying systems are can become
overloaded by the adsorbtion of hydrate inhibitor (i.e. methanol).
• Procurement and supply chain management for large volumes of hydrate inhibitor required are
expected to present significant management challenge and overhead.
• During depressurization (hydrate remediation), hydrate plugs may act as projectiles and exit
pipelines at high velocities when they become dislodged. Serious injury and even death has
resulted from hydrate projectile motion.
• Pipeline rupture may occur due to trapped pressure between multiple hydrate plugs
7.1.2 Prevention
Hydrate prevention is typically accomplished through one of two methods:
• Thermal control – this includes providing sufficient insulation to keep steady state operation
above hydrate formation conditions, while also providing sufficient cooldown time in the event of
an unplanned shutdown to treat the system. Thermal control can also be maintained via active
heating through hot fluid circulation (bundles) or electrical heating.
• Inhibitors – typical for gas/condensate systems, chemicals can be injected continuously to prevent
the growth of hydrate particles and/or shift the phase equilibria of the hydrocarbon to result in
less severe hydrate formation conditions. Through the use of inhibitors, no actions are typically
required in the event of an unplanned shutdown.
7.1.3 Prediction/Testing
For systems that will operate in the hydrate formation region, or for systems that require large chemical
volumes for inhibition, hydrate testing is recommended. Commercially available software packages offer
satisfactory prediction of the hydrate conditions for most hydrocarbon systems. Additionally, the
software can also be used to predict inhibitor requirements for thermodynamic inhibitors such as
methanol and glycol. For low dosage hydrate inhibitors (LDHIs) such as Anti-Agglomerates (AAs) or
Kinetic Hydrate Inhibitors (KHIs), specific laboratory tests are required.
7.1.3.1 Formation/Dissociation Curves
The key to understanding hydrate risk is to identify the hydrate formation conditions. Commercially
available software packages offer equation-of-state models to predict hydrate dissociation conditions.
Hydrate dissociation conditions are the conditions at which hydrates will dissociate. This forms the basis
for most hydrate prevention systems and is somewhat conservative. As hydrate formation is a kinetic
process, operation inside of the hydrate dissociation region is permitted to some extent. However, the
degree of sub-cooling into the hydrate region, as well as the time within this region, is not a well-
understood phenomenon. Figure 0-4 illustrates an example hydrate formation/dissociation curve.
Hydrate Dissociation Curve Hydrate Formation Curve

or Hydrate Equilibrium Curve
PRESSURE (bar)
HYDRATE
HYDRATE ZONE RISK ZONE
HYDRATE
FREE ZONE
TEMP (°
(°C)
Figure 0-4: Hydrate Formation/Dissociation Conditions
The extent of the ‘hydrate risk zone’ is typically unknown, as hydrate formation is a kinetic event. The
extent to which the operating conditions fall below the hydrate dissociation conditions is termed the
amount of “sub-cooling”. Figure 0-5 defines sub-cooling for a system, which is a measure of how many
degrees into the hydrate region the system is operating.
PRESSURE (bar)
HYDRATE ZONE
6°C Subcooling
30
HYDRATE
FREE ZONE
4 10 TEMP (°
(°C)
Figure 0-5: Hydrate Conditions – Sub Cooling
In most cases, additional laboratory testing is not required to define the hydrate dissociation
conditions. Figure 0-6 illustrates an example of field data vs. predicted conditions for three four different
fluid samples.
500
Field 1, Measured
450 Field 1, Predicted

Field 2, Measured
Field 2, Predicted
400
Field 3, Measured
Field 3, Predicted
350
300
Pressure (bara)
250
200
150
100
50
0
4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26
Temperature (C)
Figure 0-6: Hydrate Conditions – Actual vs. Predicted

Predictions should be compared on a temperature-basis (+/- °C), and NOT on a pressure-basis (+/- bar).
Model predictions vs. actual laboratory experiments may be within 1-2°C. However, for high-pressure
operations, laboratory testing is recommended, since the data used to tune the commercially available
models is limited.
7.1.3.2 Water Impacts

As noted above, one of the key requirements for hydrate formation is the presence of water. There are
two main issues with respect to water.
First, the water salinity has an impact on hydrate conditions. The more saline the produced water, the less
severe the hydrate conditions. The salts act to inhibit the hydrate formation process. Figure 0-7 below
illustrates the effect of produced water salinity on the hydrate curves.
150
Pure Water
140
Seawater
130
Produced Water
120
110
100
90
Pressure (bara)
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Temperature (C)
Figure 0-7: Hydrate Conditions – Water Salinity

In general, using pure water (no salt) is the most conservative approach and forms the basis for hydrate
prevention design. However, if the salt content is high and produced water is expected throughout field
life, use of the less severe hydrate conditions may result in an overall cost savings to the project
development.
Second, the amount of water is critical to the hydrate formation. For gas systems, the hydrate formation
conditions can be altered if insufficient water is present. It is important to predict the hydrate conditions
using a realistic water loading value.
For gas export systems, the dehydration specification is based on the hydrate conditions. Figure 0-8
illustrates the hydrate formation pressure as a function of water content (lb/mmscf). As the graph shows,
the hydrate formation pressure is sensitive to the water loading. The dehydration specification should be
based on the maximum amount of water that can lead to hydrate formation at operating conditions. For
example, if the operating pressure of the system in the figure is 300 bar, then the maximum amount of
water allowable would be ~5 lb/mmscf.
600
500
Hydrate Formation Pressure (bara)
400
300
200
100
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Water Content (lb/MMSCF)
Figure 0-8: Dehydration Specifications

For oil systems, there is a “minimum threshold” water cut that is required before hydrates can form and
block a pipeline. This water cut varies from project to project, but recent experience has shown that
hydrate blockage at water cuts less than 10% may not occur.
7.1.3.3 Thermodynamic Inhibitors
Thermodynamic inhibitors include chemicals such as methanol and glycol (mono-ethylene glycol, di-
ethylene glycol, tri-ethylene glycol). These inhibitors may be added on a continuous basis
(gas/condensate systems) or on an intermittent basis to assist with shutdown/start-up operations (oil
systems). The inhibitors tend to “shift” the hydrate conditions, making them less severe. For continuous
inhibition, the goal is to add sufficient inhibitor to “shift” the hydrate conditions out of the operating
region (steady state and shutdown). Figure 0-9 illustrates the effect on the hydrate conditions that various
levels of inhibition have.
350
Pure Water
10% MeOH
300 20% MeOH
30% MeOH
250
Pressure (bara)
200
150
100
50
0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
Temperature (C)
Figure 0-9: Hydrate Conditions – Thermodynamic Inhibitor Effects
Figure 0-10 below illustrates the effect of the hydrate inhibitor on the hydrate conditions at various
inhibitor concentrations. Note that the actual laboratory measurements (vs. EOS software predictions)
tend to vary widely at the elevated concentrations.
600
Experiemental - Pure
Prediction - Pure
500 Experiemental - 25wt% MeOH
Prediction - 25wt% MeOH
Experiemental - 35wt% MeOH

400 Prediction - 35wt% MeOH
Pressure (bara)
300
200
100
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature (ºC)
Figure 0-10: Hydrate Conditions – Thermodynamic Inhibitor Effects

As noted in the graph above, it is highly recommended that hydrate inhibitor testing be carried out for
high-pressure systems. If sufficient fluid samples are available and software models predict high inhibitor
concentration requirements, hydrate testing should be considered.
Hydrate testing for methanol and/or glycol can be carried out using the following methodologies:
• Autoclave – evaluates hydrate formation at a single temperature/pressure, whereby the conditions
are held within the hydrate formation region for a long period of time. Temperature/pressure
response is monitored to note when gas is taken up from the sample into the hydrate particle.
Gas Inlet & Pressure monitor
Boroscope / videocam
Pressurised test gas
PRT probe Sapphire window
Constant temperature jacket

Pressure vessel
Fluid
Coolant inlet
Magnetic
follower
• Hydrate wheel – evaluates hydrate formation at a single temperature/pressure, through the use of
a rotating wheel system. This is much less common than the autoclave tests
Typically, methanol is the inhibitor of choice for most developments. However, due to volatility issues,
as well as downstream crude contamination issues, glycols are being considered more often. Table 0-2
below presents a comparison between methanol and mono-ethylene glycol (MEG) with respect to some
common parameters.
Table 0-2: Methanol vs. Glycol Comparison
Property Methanol (MeOH) Ethylene Glycol (MEG)
Cost (approximate $USD/gallon) $0.65 $2.00
Density (kg/m3) 790 1145
Viscosity (cP) 0.75 48
Flash Point (°C) 11 30
Vapor pressure (bara) 0.31 0.01
Vapor phase losses (lb/MMSCF) ~1 ~0.002
Typical dosage requirements Lower Higher
Salt precipitation risk Lower Higher
Under-dose hydrate risk Higher Lower
Downstream contamination risk Higher Lower
Topsides recovery Lower Higher
Thermodynamic Requirements:
Methanol is classified as a vapor-phase inhibitor. The relatively low vapor pressure of methanol allows
the chemical to partition to the vapor and liquid phases. This is the reason that the inhibition rates are
higher for methanol, relative to MEG, since these “vapor phase losses” must be accounted for. By
vaporizing into the gas phase, the methanol is allowed to condense out of the gas phase in conjunction
with the free water, effectively preventing hydrate formation as the fluid cools and travels away from the
injection point. The ability to have inhibitor present in both liquid and gas phases makes it an acceptable
choice for use in both restarts and shut-ins.
MEG is a liquid-phase inhibitor, which will work best when the MEG can be injected and mixed directly
with the free water. On advantage of MEG is that under-injection (injection below the required dosage
rate) does not have any negative impacts upon the hydrate formation temperature. On the other hand,
under-injection with methanol may actually increase the hydrate formation temperature and make
conditions worse than not injecting any inhibitor at all. There is also a concern in regulating the methanol
injection rates properly, lest saline waters start to precipitate salts if the injection rate is not properly set.
Figure 0-11 and Figure 0-12 illustrate typical inhibitor requirements for methanol/glycol in both an oil
system and a gas system, respectively. For oil systems, methanol requirements are typically lower than
glycol. For gas systems, methanol requirements are also lower, but only at low pressures. As the
pressure increases, the glycol requirements increase at a much slower rate. Thus, for high-pressure
systems, glycol may be the preferred inhibitor in terms of volume requirements.
1.00
MeOH
0.90
MEG
0.80
Inhibitor (BBL Inhibitor/MMSCF)
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
65 90 115 140 165 190 215 240 265 290 315 340 365 390 415
Pressure (bara)
Figure 0-11: Methanol vs. Glycol Requirements (Oil System)
2.50
MeOH
2.25
MEG
2.00
1.75
Inhibitor (BBL Inhibitor/MMSCF)
1.50
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700
Pressure (bara)
Figure 0-12: Methanol vs. Glycol Requirements (Gas System)

Fluid Properties:
Relative to methanol, MEG has a higher density/viscosity. With respect to umbilical design, the MEG
system might have a marginally larger tubing size requirement due to the increased frictional pressure
drop at a given flowrate. However, the flowrate requirements for methanol are also slightly higher than
those for MEG. Thus, these two effects are likely essentially offset one another and not require the use of
a larger tube size.
Aside from umbilical design issues for the two chemicals, the higher density MEG will induce a higher
shut-in pressure due to the increased hydrostatic head of the fluid during shutdown/restart. In general, the
flowline routings are quite gradual in the area downstream of the manifold. Thus, liquid settle-out during
shutdown is likely to be along the flowline route and not all concentrated at the wellhead. The key area
for liquid holdup issues during restart will be when the liquid column enters the riser.
In addition, the late-life operation of an MEG-based system may result in transport difficulties as the gas
velocity drops. For methanol, the increased solubility in the liquid/gas phases will enable the inhibitor to
be effectively transported topsides. For MEG, which will remain essentially in the liquid phase, the MEG
may start to accumulate in the flowline at a much faster rate than even the water, resulting in an even
more pronounced liquid holdup at turndown rates.
One final fluid property of the MEG that is advantageous, relative to the methanol, is the decreased flash
point. This makes storage and handling much safer.
Chemical Recovery:
The major advantage that MEG has over methanol is the low volatility in the gas and condensate phase,
which makes recovery easier. The efficient recovery from the production fluids means that MEG will not
be in sufficient quantities to reduce the price of the sales gas, which may not be the case with the use of
methanol as an inhibitor choice. Overall operating costs of a MEG recovery system is less than a
methanol recovery system because of the reduced losses to the condensate phase, gas phase and
mechanical carryover within the recovery process. The recovery process is also less complex, with fewer
components and a smaller required footprint than the methanol recovery process, which reduces the
capitol costs maximizes the space available topsides.
7.1.3.4 Low Dosage Inhibitors

Increasing in popularity in recent years, low dosage hydrate inhibitors (LDHIs) can provide a lower-
volume alternative to conventional thermodynamic inhibitors. LDHIs work at dosage rates which are
~1/10 that of methanol/glycol, or ~1-2 vol.% of the water phase, as a rule-of-thumb. Per-unit costs for
LDHIs are much higher than thermodynamic inhibitors, but the lower volume requirements make them an
economically viable alternative for many projects. LDHIs may be commingled with methanol for ease of
transport, particularly over long-distances. LDHIs are typically tailored for a specific fluid, so fluid
testing is essential. Since the actual mechanisms for how LDHIs work are not well established, enabling
a-priori prediction in software models, similar to thermodynamic inhibitors, is not available. The two
primary LDHI classifications are:
• Anti-Agglomerates (AAs) – surfactants that cause the water phase to be suspended as small
droplets in the oil or condensate. AAs do require a liquid phase, which may preclude their use in
very dry gas systems. Suspended droplet are converted to hydrates, but are transported without
blockage. AAs have a typical maximum water cut limit of ~50% and sub-cooling limits of 20-
25°C, with a typical dosage rate of 1%-2% (based on water phase). Fluid testing for AAs is
typically carried out in a rocking cell (shown below), which evaluates hydrate formation at a
single temperature/pressure by visual inspection of a pellet which rocks back-and-forth over time
until hydrate formation is observed, stopping the pellet movement.
• Kinetic Hydrate Inhibitors – low molecular weight polymers dissolved in a carrier solvent.
Bonding to hydrate surface and prevent nucleation growth for a period of time. Typical carrier
times are 48-72 hours, after which the chemical becomes inactive. KHIs have typical sub-cooling
limits of 10-12°C (although this is improving over time), with typical dosage rates of 0.5% - 3.5%
(based on water phase). Fluid testing for KHIs is typically carried out in an autoclave (previously
discussed).
7.1.4 Mitigation
In the event hydrates have formed and block the flowpath, a number of means are available for removing
the blockage. When remediating plugs, multiple hydrate plugs should always be assumed. Trapped
pressure may be present between the plugs may result in high-velocity hydrate particle movement and/or
pipeline rupture. Typical means of hydrate remediation are:
• Depressurization – the most common form of hydrate mitigation is depressurization. As
discussed, hydrate formation requires high pressures. If the pressure can be reduced from the
system, then the hydrate may naturally dissociate. For deepwater operations or long-distance
tiebacks, removing sufficient pressure may not be feasible. In deepwater service, hydrate
formation conditions at seabed temperatures are typically ~10-15 bara. Sufficient liquids often
remain in the system, even after depressurization, to maintain a backpressure greater than 15 bara
o In the event that depressurization is a viable option, it is always preferred to depressurize
on both sides of the plug. Since multiple plugs may be present, single-sided
depressurization presents a safety risk if the plug becomes dislodged and rapidly exits the
pipeline. Dual lines are often utilized in deepwater designs to allow for this dual-sided
depressurization. If a single line exits, depressurization through the tree via the umbilical
line or other accessible conduit may be required.
o Typical hydrate dissociation is thought to occur in the radial direction, whereby heat is
input from the pipe walls, melting the hydrate plug form the outside and reducing the
area. Thus, the actual length of the plug is not a significant factor. Once sufficient
communication is available across the plug, typically near the pipe walls, the plug may
start to move. Figure 0-13 below illustrates an example radial dissociation of a hydrate
plug.
1-hour 2-hours 3-hours
Figure 0-13: Radial Hydrate Dissociation

o The entire hydrate plug does not have to be dissociated to see pressure response across
the plug and to achieve particle movement. The factors impacting the rate of radial
dissociation are:
 Hydrate conditions – as the pressure is decreased, the hydrate temperature will
remain in equilibrium with the hydrate pressure. As indicated in the graph
below, at very low pressures, the hydrate temperature will reach very cold
temperatures, often times sub-ambient. The lower the pressure, the colder the
temperature. Figure 0-14 illustrates the hydrate dissociation conditions at low
temperatures/low pressures. For a seabed temperature of ~4°C, the pressure
would have to be reduced below ~12 bar to allow for dissociation. If the pressure
can be reduced further, say 5 bar, the equilibrium hydrate temperature would be
~-5°C.
300
Pure Water
275 Sea Water
Produced Water
250
225
SEABED TEMPERATURE = 4°
4°C
200
175
Pressure (bara)
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
Temperature (C)
Figure 0-14: Hydrate Dissociation Conditions – Low Pressure

Temperature gradient – the difference between the ambient temperature and the
equilibrium hydrate temperature will impact the amount of heat added to the
system. The larger the temperature gradient, the greater the driving force for
hydrate dissociation. As the previous figure indicates, the hydrate temperature
may be some 10-20°C colder than the ambient, thus allowing the “warm”
ambient conditions to melt the hydrate
Pipeline U-value – the U-value defines the rate of heat addition to the system.
For low U-value systems (i.e. pipe-in-pipe), the rate of heat transfer is quite slow,
prolonging dissociation times. For high U-value systems (i.e. bare pipe), the rate
of heat transfer between the ambient and the hydrate is quite high, decreasing
dissociation times. The figure below defines some typical dissociation times as a
function of reduction in cross-sectional area. For highly insulated systems,
hydrate plug dissociation may take weeks! Figure 0-15 illustrates the %
dissociation vs. time for various insulation types. The graph shows that the low
U-value system dissociates much slower than the higher U-value system.
400
P ip e -in -P ip e
350 W e t In s u la tio n
B a re P ip e
300
250
Time (hours)
200
150
100
50
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
% R a d ia l D is s o c ia tio n (% )
Figure 0-15: Hydrate Dissociation – U-value Impacts

Plug porosity – most dissociation assumptions are based on a generalized term
for the heat of fusion required to melt a plug. In reality, the porosity of the plug
will play an important role in dissociation times. The plug porosity is difficult to
estimate for a given condition, hence its general exclusion from dissociation
models.
• Plug wall friction/minimum differential pressure requirement – similar to
porosity, the frictional coefficient between the hydrate and the pipe wall plays a
role in defining the mobility of the plug. The greater the wall friction, the more
heat is required to melt the hydrate and allow movement. In addition, once the
plug starts to dissociate, there is a minimum amount of pressure required to
induce movement. Both of these terms are still relatively unknown within the
industry, so they are often omitted from classic dissociation models.
• Active heating (direct/indirect) – electrically induced heat is applied to the pipeline area
surrounding the hydrate plug (if location is known). Over-pressure concerns during the heating
process should be taken into account and caution is to be exercised. This is typically only an
option if an electrically heated pipeline has been designed, as localized heat input is difficult for
conventional systems, particularly in subsea environments. Other heat-input systems (i.e.
Petrobras’ SGN exothermic reaction systems) are available for more specific remediation
requirements.
• Chemical addition – methanol can be delivered to the hydrate plug location (if known) and slowly
act to dissociate the hydrate. Similar to heating, this technique may be impossible in subsea
systems with long-distance tiebacks and/or deepwater environments
• Coiled tubing – physical remediation via coiled tubing can be accomplished, provided the coiled
tubing can access the plug. Coiled tubing effective lengths are increasing within the industry,
capable of 1-5 miles, depending on the application/geometry
Chapter 8 : Wax formation and prevention
8.1 PARAFFIN/WAX FORMATION

Wax is a solid that precipitates from the production oil/condensate and consists of a wide range of high
molecular weight straight chain, normal paraffins and/or branched or cyclic paraffins. The temperature
where the first crystals occur is called the cloud point or Wax Appearance Temperature (WAT). The
primary flow assurance challenges that can result from wax formation are wax deposition and gel
formation. This section will focus on wax deposition and Section 8.2 will focus on gel formation.
In general terms, wax deposition occurs at a rate given by the following equation:
dC dT
DepositionRate = D * *
dT dr
D: Diffusion Coefficient
dC/dT: Wax concentration gradient versus temperature
dT/dr: Temperature gradient in the radial direction
Various correlations currently exist for the diffusion coefficient term listed in the equation above, but the
Hayduk-Minhas equation has been found in the University of Tulsa Paraffin Deposition JIP to be most
applicable to n-paraffins in alkane solvents. The Hayduk-Minhas diffusion coefficient correlation is as
follows:
A * Tw1.47 * µ γ 10.2
D= 0.71
,γ = − 0.791
VA VA
A: Diffusion Parameter (default value is 13.3 E-8)
Tw: Pipe Wall Temperature (K)
µ: Viscosity (cP)
VA: Molar Volume of the Paraffin (cm3/gmol)
D: Diffusion Coefficient (cm²/s)
As reflected in the equations listed above, four key factors are required for wax deposition to occur:
1. WAT > ambient temperature
2. Fluid temperature < WAT
3. Positive heat flux (wax deposition does not occur when the fluid temperature is ambient)
4. Shear (wax deposition does not occur without fluid movement)

Wax can deposit on surfaces such as tubulars and pipe walls. Over time, the build-up of the solid deposit
will reduce the internal diameter and may eventually block the line. A second effect, which will likely
cause operational problems much earlier, is that the solid deposit increases the surface roughness of the
pipe wall. This causes an increase in the pressure drop that can result in higher pumping costs or reduced
throughput. Wax build-up on tubulars and tiebacks can effectively choke back the wells and can kill a
well even though the line is not totally blocked. Total blockages of flowlines and pipelines due to wax
build-up have occurred, but are still rare.
The following sections address some of the specific risks, testing required to quantify wax deposition, and
prevention/remediation techniques.
8.1.1 Risk
The following are some common risks associated with paraffin/wax formation:
• Waxes will deposit on various segments of the subsea system (wellbores, flowlines, production
risers, surface processing facilities). If the temperature of the pipe wall drops to the WAT, wax
will start to form and some of the crystals will stick to the pipe walls. The wax deposit can build
up and if not addressed can lead to blockage and loss of serviceability of the subsea system.
• Wax will potentially appear in lumps in the processing systems, upsetting separator controls and
interfering with processing.
• Wax will arrive in potentially large quantities in pipeline pig traps on pigging and will present a
blockage and disposal problem.
• Wax will present oil export and transportation concerns, and sales transportation planning,
valuation and marketing will need to recognize these concerns.
8.1.2 Testing
Unlike available hydrate prediction models that will accurately predict hydrate dissociation conditions for
a given fluid; the currently available WAT/wax deposition prediction methods have a large degree of
uncertainty without supporting laboratory data. Therefore, quality laboratory measurements are required
to understand the degree to which a fluid may have a waxing potential problem. Several measurements
are available, which can determine the conditions in which wax deposition will occur and what the
general rates of deposition are for a given fluid.
For any waxing potential tests that are completed, quality samples are essential to ensure quality
laboratory data is obtained. In general, DST (drill stem test) samples are preferred for waxing potential
analyses because they are less likely to contain drilling mud contamination than other types of samples.
Fluid samples should also be taken from the production zones that are likely to be produced and there
should be an understanding as to the heterogeneity of the reservoir and therefore the representativeness of
the samples.
Additionally, when sampling in the field, the fluid samples should be taken above the WAT of the fluid to
ensure that the wax hasn’t been depleted from the sample at the time of sampling. When transferring
samples from the field to the laboratory, care should be taken to ensure that the samples are homogeneous
and no wax is removed from the samples during the process of transfer. Lastly, the pre-treatment
procedure used by the laboratory should ensure that the fluids are pre-treated to approximately 80°C and
the sample transfers should minimize light-ends loss in the samples as much as possible, in order to
provide representative conditions what match expected production fluids.
8.1.2.1 Wax Appearance Temperature (WAT)

Of all of the measurements that can be completed to determine the waxing potential of a given fluid, the
most important measurement is the cloud point or Wax Appearance Temperature (WAT) of the fluid.
The WAT is a critical property since wax deposition can begin whenever the temperature of any surface
in contact with the crude oil drops below the cloud point. WAT measurements are typically completed at
stock tank oil conditions but they can also be completed at live conditions as well.
A summary of the various commercially available laboratory techniques for WAT is illustrated in Table
0-3. The measured WATs from the various laboratory techniques can vary by ±15°C and in some
instances, it has been seen that the measured WATs can vary by as much as 30°C from technique to
technique and from laboratory to laboratory. The sample volumes required to complete the measurements
vary from technique to technique and should be verified by the laboratories completing the analyses. As a
point of reference, 10 to 20 mL of dead oil/condensate is required for a WAT measurement by cross-
polarized microscopy (CPM).
Table 0-3: WAT Measurement Techniques
Test Method Advantages Disadvantages Recommendation
Cross-Polarized Detection of first wax Difficult to use at high Recommended method

Microscopy (CPM) crystal and subsequent pressure. for WAT measurement.
detection of growth rates
Widely used reliable
and morphology.
method with high
Small sample size sensitivity.
required.
Requires low cooling
rates and high quality
samples.
Differential Scanning Detects phase change. Fast, unrealistic cooling Widely used, generally
Calorimetry (DSC) rates required for good repeatable method.
Quick, easy, reliable.
sensitivity.
Requires good sample
Can infer solid phase
Can give low values quality.
content.
(typically ~5°C lower
Sensitivity can be poor
than CPM
for low wax contents.
measurements)
Filter plugging Can be used for high- Very fine filters Somewhat subjective
pressure tests. required for accurate method that shouldn’t be
determination of WAT. used as primary WAT
Simple equipment.
measurement.
May be confused by
precipitation of other
solids.
Viscosity Large sample size adds Subjective Possibly recommended

to representiveness. Can interpretation for live crudes with
use high-pressure marked WAT, but
Does not work for low
viscometer. should be used with
wax content fluids.
caution.
The WAT of the fluid is effectively a thermodynamic property that describes the temperature at which
solids will begin to precipitate out of solution. As illustrated in the table, the cross-polarized microscopy
(CPM) method is the most sensitive method for measuring WAT. Therefore, the WAT measurement is a
kinetic measurement that measures the crystal growth of the fluid and is thus time and energy dependent.
Consequently, the measured WAT is dependent on the way in which the sample is handled prior to the
measurement, and the cooling rate used in the laboratory. It is recommended that a cooling rate of 0.05 to
0.1°C/minute be used to obtain the most accurate WAT measurements. The photos below illustrate
photos from a CPM measurement for a gas/condensate fluid at ambient conditions (after the fluid has
cooled significantly below the WAT).
As discussed in Section 8.1.2, quality of samples is critical in measuring the correct WAT of a fluid. In
particular, oil based mud sample contamination can significantly impact the WAT measurements.
Because the most sensitive WAT measurement technique (CPM) relies on visual inspection of a
magnified sample as it is cooled, any contamination of the sample clouds the field of vision and reduces
the precision of the measurement. The pictures below illustrate a heavily contaminated sample
significantly above the WAT and 20°C below the WAT (at ambient seabed temperature).
As illustrated in the pictures, if a sample is heavily contaminated, it can be difficult to differentiate

between oil based mud contamination and the exact point at which wax crystal formation begins to occur.
Therefore, for highly contaminated samples, more than one type of WAT measurement is recommended
to determine the true WAT of the sample.
While temperature is the primary factor affecting wax crystallization, pressure also plays a role. Light
ends (which act as solvent for waxes) are at the highest concentration in the crude oil at the bubble or
saturation point; consequently, the WAT is lowest at the bubble point. Above the bubble point, no
additional light ends are dissolved in the crude oil; however, the pressure continues to increase which
causes the WAT to increase. Below the bubble point, light ends are removed from the crude oil as the
pressure drops; therefore, the WAT increases as the pressure decreases below the bubble point. The
effect of light end dissolution on the WAT is illustrated in Figure 0-16 and Figure 0-17. In Figure 0-16,
the WAT of the live production fluid decreases with increasing pressure up until the bubble point of the
fluid and then begins increasing with increasing pressure. Figure 0-17, the dead fluid is essentially at the
bubble point at stock tank conditions and therefore the WAT of the dead fluid will always increase with
increasing pressure.
Figure 0-16: Live WAT for Production Fluid
Figure 0-17: Live WAT: Production Fluid vs. Dead Fluid

In addition to laboratory tests to measure WAT, thermodynamic packages can predict the WAT of the
fluid based upon the standard fluid composition and extended n-paraffin composition (to be discussed in
Section 8.1.2.2). These models provide acceptable information to verify that the laboratory measured
WATs is consistent with the other measured fluid properties. However, the WAT predictions cannot be
used for design as they can vary from the measured WATs by 5 to 15°C. Additionally, if the n-paraffin
composition of the fluid is unknown and/or the samples are heavily contaminated, the accuracy of the
WAT predictions reduces even further.
For design purposes, WAT is the critical factor that is used to evaluate the potential of the production
fluid to cause wax problems in the system. Yet if wax deposition does occur, it is important to note that
there is a significant difference between the point at which wax will begin to form, and the temperature
required to completely melt the wax. In general, the melting point of wax will be 10 to 20°C above the
WAT of the fluid and if the wax has been allowed to deposit over a long period of time (causing a hard
deposit), the melting point of the wax can be as high as 40°C or more above the WAT of the fluid.
However, to remove a wax deposit in the system after it forms, the temperature does not need to be
increased above the melting point of the wax. Wax will re-dissolve into solution at temperatures greater
than the WAT and below the wax melting point. A slurry of wax particles will then be transported in the
bulk fluid and the majority of the wax deposit will eventually be removed. Note, however, that this slurry
of wax particles may be highly viscous and impact the hydraulic performance of the system.
8.1.2.2 N-Paraffin Composition/Wax Content
The n-paraffin composition (or wax content) of the fluid is another parameter that helps to determine the
waxing potential of the fluid. The n-paraffin composition of the fluid is important as it influences the
thermodynamic properties of the fluid (such as WAT) that are predicted by thermodynamic models. It
dictates the calculated concentration gradient of wax in the fluid vs. temperature As was discussed in
Section 0, the rate of wax deposition is effectively a function of the diffusion coefficient of the fluid, the
concentration gradient of wax in the fluid versus temperature, and the temperature gradient of the fluid in
the radial direction.
Two primary laboratory analyses are currently available to measure the wax content in the fluid:
1. Precipitation Method
2. High Temperature Gas Chromatography (HTGC)
The precipitation method effectively removes asphaltenes from the sample, chills the sample to
approximately -32°C, filters the solid from the sample, and then reports the wax content as the wt.% of
the filtered solid in relation to the total mass of the original sample.
In contrast, the HTGC method (or extended n-paraffin analysis) is a compositional method that
determines the n-paraffin composition of all n-paraffin components between approximately C15 and
C100. As a standard GC analysis only provides high-resolution data up to approximately C30, a separate
high temperature GC analysis is required to obtain high-resolution data at carbon numbers approximately
above C30. An example extended n-paraffin distribution from an HTGC analysis is illustrated in Figure
0-18. The sample volume required for an HTGC analysis will vary from laboratory to laboratory, but as a
point of reference is approximately 5 to 10 mL.
Figure 0-18: Extended n-paraffin distribution

As shown in Figure 0-18, the wax content of the fluid is heavily influenced by the n-paraffin components
at relatively low carbon numbers (between C15 and C30). However, the WAT of the fluid and the
deposition potential of the fluid can be heavily dictated by the n-paraffin distribution at much higher
carbon numbers. This is also illustrated in Figure 0-19 for two example fluids that have relatively similar
wax contents (C20+ n-paraffin contents of 9.6 versus 9.4 wt.%), but have very different WATs (27°C
compared to 54°C). Therefore, in comparison to an HTGC analyses, wax content measurements from
precipitation methods provide a quick screening method to determine the amount of wax in the sample,
but they should be used with caution, as they do not provide any information regarding the n-paraffin
distribution of the sample.
Figure 0-19: Wax Content vs. WAT

8.1.2.3 Viscosity
The viscosity of the fluid is important in terms of waxing potential because the viscosity significantly
influences how rapidly the wax diffuses through the fluid to form a deposit. This is illustrated in the
Hayduk-Minhas correlation in Section 0, in which the rate of wax deposition is inversely proportional to
the viscosity of the fluid. In other words, the lower the viscosity of the fluid, the higher the rate of
deposition in the system, and vice versa. The fluid viscosity is also important as it provides a general
indication of the WAT of the fluid.
In order to obtain useful viscosity data, viscosities should be measured by shearing the samples at a
constant rate and by cooling the sample at a constant rate from above the WAT to the minimum ambient
temperature expected in the field. As was discussed with WAT measurements, care should be taken to
ensure the fluids are properly handled prior to starting the measurements, a reasonable cooling rate should
be used for the measurements (it is recommended that a cooling rate of 0.5°C/minute be used to obtain the
most accurate viscosity data), and a sealed viscometer should be used to minimize light-ends loss in the
sample. Example stock tank oil viscosity data versus temperature and shear rate is illustrated in Figure
0-20. The sample volume required for stock tank viscosity measurements will vary from laboratory to
laboratory, but as a point of reference is typically 200 mL or less for each shear rate evaluated.
Figure 0-20: Stock Tank Viscosities vs. Temperature

As illustrated in Figure 0-20, the viscosities of the example stock tank fluid inflect significantly (on a
logarithmic basis) at temperature of 17°C. This inflection is evidence that enough paraffin has
precipitated out of solution at 17°C that it is impacting the viscosity of the fluid. As discussed in 8.1.2.1,
viscosity measurements can be used to determine the WAT of the fluid. However, this method of
determining WAT is not recommended as a significant amount of paraffin has to drop out of solution
before it will impact the viscosity of the fluid (for the fluid presented in Figure 0-20, the WAT measured
by CPM was 24°C while the inflection point of the viscosities occurs at 17°C).
In addition to laboratory tests to measure the fluid viscosities, thermodynamic packages can predict the
viscosities of the fluid at temperatures above the WAT. However, because thermodynamic packages
assume that the fluids act as Newtonian fluids, the models do not correctly predict the fluid viscosities
below the WAT of the fluid. Additionally, because fluid viscosities have a large impact on the rates of
deposition that will be predicted by any wax deposition model, thermodynamic models should be tuned to
match the experimental laboratory data as closely as possible in order to ensure the most accurate wax
deposition rates possible.
Lastly, it should be noted that if an emulsion forms, it will likely impact the rates of deposition that will
occur for a given fluid. Currently, limited data is available regarding this topic, but because emulsions
increase viscosities so dramatically, the rates of wax deposition will decrease in a similar fashion. It is
also speculated that at very high water cuts (likely at the inversion point of the emulsion), wax deposition
will cease entirely. Studies are currently ongoing at the various paraffin JIPs to validate this assertion.
8.1.2.4 Wax Deposition Rates
Other than WAT measurements, determining wax deposition rates is the second most important waxing
potential laboratory measurement. The results of these measurements provide a general understanding of
the expected fluid wax deposition rates and (of greater value to system design) can provide further data as
input into a wax deposition model. A wax deposition model allows for the modeling of the expected rates
of deposition in an actual or proposed production system.
Two primary laboratory analyses are currently available to measure the wax deposition rates of the fluid:
1. Cold finger – this apparatus consists of a test tube-shaped metal finger cooled by flowing chilled
fluid through the finger, and a heated stirred container for an oil sample. After the test is
completed, the finger can be removed and the wax deposit can be visually inspected and weighed
to estimate the deposition rate during the test. The primary advantages for this measurement are
that it allows for direct quantitative and qualitative measurements of the wax deposit, it requires a
small sample size, and allows for better temperature control than the flow loop test. However, the
disadvantages of this type of measurement are that it is unable to match turbulent flow conditions
(which would be expected in the field), it doesn’t directly match the shear and flow conditions
expected in the field, and the wax deposition rates have a large degree of uncertainty because they
are estimated after the measurements are completed. Because the rates are estimated after the
measurement is complete (by weighing the total deposit that occurs on the cold finger), the cold
finger measurement does not take into account wax deposition rate changes over time which are
highly likely in the test because the small sample size will likely deplete over time.
2. Flow loop – a flow loop is a pipe in pipe heat exchanger in which the cold fluid is pumped
through the shell side and the oil is heated and pumped through the tube side. The wax
deposition rate is calculated by measuring the pressure drop increase across the tube side and by
correlating the pressure drop to wax deposition volume increase. The primary advantages for this
measurement are that it more closely matches shear and flow conditions in the field, it can
achieve turbulent flow conditions if the diameter is large enough, and based upon correlations, it
can determine the wax deposition rates versus time (and is therefore less susceptible than the cold
finger to sample depletion). The disadvantage of this type of measurement is that it requires a
large sample size (as a point of reference, 2 liters of sample or more for the entire analysis), and it
can be difficult to directly quantify/qualify the deposit (only possible by “pigging” flowloop at
end of test to validate the correlations used to estimate wax deposition thickness over time).
Both methods for measuring wax deposition rate provide the opportunity to directly compare the
deposition rates found in the measurements to the deposition rates previously measured for other samples
(giving a general indication as to the qualitative level of wax deposition expected for the fluid). However,
as mentioned previously, the real value of these measurements is the ability to correlate the experimental
laboratory data to a diffusion coefficient that is specific for the given fluid. This diffusion coefficient can
then be used in wax deposition modeling to predict the rates of deposition in an actual production system.
Using the wax deposition rate equation and the Hayduk-Minhas diffusion coefficient correlation
discussed in Section 0, the rates of wax deposition can be predicted for a series of flow loop
measurements. Figure 0-21 illustrates an example of the experimentally measured mass fluxes (similar to
the deposition rates) versus the predicted mass fluxes assuming the default Hayduk-Minhas correlation
(‘A’ value equal to 13.3E-8).
1.8E-05
Measured 170 1/s
Predicted 170 1/s
1.6E-05
Measured 511 1/s
Predicted 511 1/s
1.4E-05
Mass Flux at Wall (kg/m2-s)
1.2E-05
1.0E-05
8.0E-06
6.0E-06
4.0E-06
2.0E-06
0.0E+00
35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85
Wall Temperature (ºF)
Figure 0-21: Measured vs. Predicted Mass Fluxes (13.3E-8 Diffusion Parameter)
As illustrated in Figure 0-21, the predicted mass fluxes using the default Hayduk-Minhas correlation (‘A’
value equal to 13.3E-8), greatly over predict the wax deposition rates that are measured in the laboratory
for the example fluid. Therefore, the diffusion parameter (or ‘A’ value) in the equation has to be fit to
more accurately predict the wax deposition rates that were measured in the laboratory. Figure 0-22
illustrates the predicted mass fluxes when the diffusion parameter is fit to a value that is consistent with
the laboratory measurements (‘A’ value equal to 6.65E-8).
1.0E-05 Measured 170 1/s

Predicted 170 1/s (c=0)
Measured 511 1/s
9.0E-06
Predicted 511 1/s (c=0)
8.0E-06
7.0E-06
Mass Flux Wall (kg/m2-s)
6.0E-06
5.0E-06
4.0E-06
3.0E-06
2.0E-06
1.0E-06
0.0E+00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Wall Temperature (C)
Figure 0-22: Measured vs. Predicted Mass Fluxes (6.65E-8 Diffusion Parameter)
Using this methodology, the experimentally calculated diffusion parameter (‘A’ value equal to 6.65E-8)
can then be used to perform wax deposition modeling. Based upon the deposition rate equation discussed
in Section 0, the wax deposition model uses the following pieces of information to predict the deposition
rates in the system:
1. Parameters from the actual system configuration (geometry, U-value, etc.)

2. Steady state data from the system configuration (system temperatures, pressures, flowrates,
holdups, etc.)
3. Fluid properties from either experimental measurements or predictions (diffusion coefficient,
viscosities, wax concentration gradients, etc.)
An example set of results from a wax deposition model is illustrated in Figure 0-23 for a case with a wet
insulated flowline and riser.
3.0
0 days 10 days
20 days 30 days
2.5
40 days 50 days
2.0 60 days 70 days

Wax Thickness (mm)
80 days 90 days
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Distance (km)
Figure 0-23: Example Wax Deposition Modeling Case

Based upon the results from the wax deposition modeling, an expected pigging frequency can be
estimated for a range of production cases and system configurations. The various criteria that can be used
to estimate pigging frequency are as follows:
1. Limit pressure drop across pig (3.5 to 7.0 bar)
2. Limit total wax in front of pig (50 bbls)
3. Limit wax thickness vs. cross-sectional area (10%)
4. Limit absolute wax thickness
a. 1 mm for slow/hard deposits (consistent with high levels of insulation)
b. 4 mm for fast/soft deposits (consistent with low levels of insulation)
It is important to note that the currently available wax deposition models have several areas of uncertainty
that need to be understood in order to provide proper perspective on the wax deposition modeling results.
The primary area of uncertainty in the models is that most of the industry data is available for single-
phase systems operating in the laminar flow regime at near-ambient pressure. This data is then scaled to
actual subsea systems that are typically operating in multiphase flow, in the turbulent flow regime at
pressures significantly higher than ambient. Because of this, most wax deposition models are typically
conservative and contain a reasonable amount of uncertainty in the results.
Other areas of uncertainty in the models include the effect of water cut, the amount of wax vs. liquids in
the deposits, and the effect (if any) of wax “sloughing” on the deposition rate. In terms of the water cut, it
is currently assumed that wax deposition will cease to occur at very high water cuts. However, the point
at which the water cut forces wax deposition to stop is currently unknown and the data that currently
exists regarding this phenomenon is inclusive. In terms of the wax/liquid ratio in the deposit, this is
currently one of the biggest areas of uncertainty in terms of wax deposition predictions. In general, it is
assumed that for systems that do not deposit for a long period of time, the deposit is made up of 20% wax
and 80% liquid for black oil systems and 50% wax and 50% liquid for gas condensate systems. However,
experimental data suggests that the wax contents can vary greatly from fluid to fluid and depending upon
the conditions used to create the deposits (the wax content in the deposit will increase over time, which
will impact deposition rates over a long period of time). Lastly, the effect of “sloughing” (or the deposit
removal from the wall at high fluid velocities) is uncertain as to how it occurs or even whether or not it
does occur.
8.1.2.5 Paraffin Inhibitors
If a fluid is shown to have a high waxing potential, continuous paraffin inhibition can be used to slow the
rate of wax deposition in a subsea system. However, none of the currently available paraffin inhibitors
eliminate wax deposition altogether. Therefore, once an appreciable level of wax has deposited, an
additional remediation method (such as pigging, hot oil circulation, etc.) will be required to remove wax
from subsea system. Additionally, unlike hydrate inhibitors whose effectiveness is relatively independent
from the fluid properties (only the dosage rates will change from production fluid to production fluid),
laboratory testing must be completed to determine whether or not a paraffin inhibitor will be effective and
the required dosage rate for the recommended chemical. Lastly, paraffin inhibitors should be added to the
production fluid at temperatures ~10°C above the WAT of the fluid to ensure maximum inhibitor
efficiency.
Currently available paraffin inhibitors are as follows (note that these chemicals are similar in structure for
both paraffin inhibitors and pour point depressants):
1. Crystal Modifiers – these inhibitors are very large molecules of paraffinic nature and as the oil
cools and paraffin crystals start to form, the inhibitor will co-crystallize within the paraffin
structure, disrupting the structure and hindering further growth.
2. Wax Dispersants – these inhibitors penetrate and bind to the paraffin crystals, restricting further
growth of the paraffin crystals and dispersing them into the liquid phase.
In order to test the effectiveness of the paraffin inhibitors, chemical vendors will usually perform several
screening level laboratory tests to determine an optimum inhibitors and dosage rates (these tests typically
consist of cold finger and flow loop testing). To ensure the effectiveness of the paraffin inhibitor relative
to the un-inhibited fluid, it is recommended that multiple laboratories select paraffin inhibitors for the
production fluid, and then independent laboratory testing is completed to determine the effectiveness of
the paraffin inhibitor. For example, if a suite of waxing potential measurements is completed on the
inhibited and un-inhibited fluids, these test results could then be used in wax deposition modeling to
provide a better understanding of the effect of paraffin inhibitor on the pigging frequency in the system.
It is important to note that similar inhibitors are used to reduce wax deposition rates and to reduce the
gelling potential of the fluid (the gelling potential of the fluid will be discussed in more detail in Section
8.2). However, the same chemical may not necessarily meet these two objectives. For example, a pour
point depressant may reduce the pour point below ambient temperature by reducing the viscosities in the
system. From a wax deposition perspective, however, reduced viscosities may actually increase the rates
of wax deposition in the system (recall from Section 8.1.2.3 that wax deposition rate is inversely
proportional to viscosity). Therefore, if the production fluid in question has both a wax deposition and a
gel formation problem, the recommended paraffin inhibitor from the chemical vendors should ensure that
both issues are addressed.
8.1.3 Prevention
Wax deposition prevention is typically accomplished through thermal control of the system. This includes
providing sufficient insulation to keep steady state operation above the WAT. Thermal control can also
be maintained via active heating through hot fluid circulation (bundles) or electrical heating.
8.1.4 Mitigation
In the event wax deposition has occurred in the system, a number of means are available for removing the
wax deposit from the wax wall. Typical means of wax deposition remediation are:
• Pigging – this method involves pigging the entire length of the looped subsea tiebacks (which
may require shutting down the system). This is the most common remediation method for
deepwater systems after wax deposition has occurred. This is because pigging removes the wax
faster than chemicals can dissolve the deposits and may be more economical than active heating.
Nonetheless, if pigging is used to remediate a wax deposit, additional topsides equipment will be
required and there may be topsides liquids handling problems when the pig returns to the host
facility. Additionally, temporary loss of production or drop in production is a potential drawback
of using routine pigging to remediate wax deposits.
• Hot oil circulation – this method involves circulating hot condensate at a temperature sufficient to
melt the wax deposit (which may require shutting down production). The melting point of the
wax deposit will vary depending how long deposition has occurred, but the melting point of the
fluid is typically at least 10°C higher than the WAT of the fluid. Therefore, the discharge
temperature has to be warm enough and the flowrate fast enough to ensure that the circulating
fluid arrives above the melting point of the deposit. Hot oil circulation works best for systems
with a reasonable level of passive insulation and relatively short subsea tiebacks. If the levels of
insulation on the tiebacks are too low or the tieback distances are too long, significant topsides
equipment (heaters, pumps, etc.) will be required to ensure the “hot oil” returns above the melting
point of the wax deposit.
• Chemical addition – the use of continuous paraffin inhibition (either downhole or at the wellhead
tree) to reduce the rate of wax deposition in the subsea tiebacks. Paraffin inhibition is discussed
in more detail in Section 8.1.2.5.
• Active heating (direct/indirect) – electrically induced heat is applied to the area surrounding the
wax deposit (if location is known). This is typically only an option if an electrically heated
pipeline has been designed, as localized heat input is difficult for conventional systems,
particularly in subsea environments. Other heat-input systems (i.e. Petrobras’ SGN exothermic
reaction systems) are available for more specific remediation requirements.
tubing can access the deposit. Coiled tubing is used to inject a chemical solution (either toluene
or xylene) into the tieback to dissolve the wax deposit. Coiled tubing effective lengths are
increasing within the industry, capable of 1-5 miles, depending on the application/geometry
8.2 WAX GELATION

In addition to wax deposition, wax gelation is another flow assurance challenge caused by highly
paraffinic fluids. Gel formation occurs when oil or condensate is at a temperature below its WAT (known
as the pour point) and wax crystals interact to form a matrix structure that may extend throughout the
entire fluid.
From a flow assurance perspective, the primary concern with wax gelation is not whether or not the fluid
falls below the pour point and gel formation occurs, but whether or not the resulting gel can flow during
normal operation (in other words, if the viscosity of the fluid becomes excessive) or if the gel can be
“broken” after a shutdown. If the fluid is left to cool to seabed conditions during shutdown, the fluid gel
strength may be such that allowing the fluid to gel may result in the complete loss of various parts of the
subsea system. The gel strength of the fluid can be scaled up to the required restart pressure of full size
pipelines using the simplified equation below (which assumes the gel strength is constant throughout the
gel plug and the entire plug will yield simultaneously):
∆P = 4τL/D
where:
τ: Yield Strength (Pa)
L: flowline length (m)
D: flowline ID (m)
∆P: restart pressure (Pa)
The following sections address some of the specific risks, testing required to quantify wax gelation, and
prevention/remediation techniques.
8.2.1 Risk
The following are some common risks associated with paraffin wax gelation:
• Production fluid may gel if allowed to cool in wells and flowlines. However, the presence of
light ends in the production fluid has a dramatic effect on reducing the pour point/yield strength.
Additionally, a significant cross section of the well/flowline has to be filled with oil/condensate in
order for gel formation to block the well/flowline.
• If production fluid cools in the well/flowlines and gels it will have to be mechanically removed,
and this presents risks of well /flowline loss.
• Gel will potentially occur in topsides oil/condensate storage areas, interfering with processing and
potentially requiring additional topsides equipment.
• Production fluid may gel if allowed to cool in export pipelines. This gelling behavior may be
practically irreversible, and can lead to loss of the export pipeline.
• Dead fluid displacement during shutdown may interfere as a hydrate prevention means because
the required pressure during restart may be excessive due to gel formation. Therefore, diesel or
water may be required to displace the lines during shutdown, which may lead to additional
topsides equipment/cost.
8.2.2 Testing
There currently are no quality commercially available models available to predict the pour point and gel
strength of the production fluid. Therefore, as was the case with wax deposition, quality laboratory
measurements are required to understand the degree to which a fluid may have a gel formation problem.
When performing gel formation measurements, the field sampling and laboratory handling precautions
discussed for waxing potential measurements should be followed to ensure quality gel formation results.
In addition, because gel formation is typically a problem during shutdown, the laboratory measurements
performed should try to match the conditions in the field as closely as possible. Because the gel
formation measurements can vary significantly depending upon the pre-treatment method used to perform
the laboratory testing, this means that the following parts of the laboratory tests should match field
conditions as closely as possible:
1. Pre-treatment temperature of 80°C to erase the “thermal history” of the sample and make it more
representative of reservoir conditions
2. Shear rate/temperature prior to cooling down the fluid
3. Cooldown rate during shutdown
4. Ambient temperature hold time prior to test
There are currently two primary laboratory tests that are performed to evaluate the gel formation of the
fluid: pour point (Section 8.2.2.1) and gel strength (Section 8.2.2.2).
8.2.2.1 Pour Point

The pour point is defined as the lowest temperature at which the crude oil can be poured under force of
gravity. The industry standard pour point measurement is defined by the IP 15 or ASTM D97 methods,
which requires approximately 40 mL of sample and should be completed with two samples in parallel.
These methods are very simple and follow the following basic procedure:
1. The sample is warmed to temperatures above the pour point (the standard method calls for a pre-
treatment temperature of 45°C, but a pre-treatment temperature of 80°C should be used as
discussed in Section 8.2.2).
2. When the fluid temperature is cooled down to 45°C, the sample is transferred to a clear sample
cylinder that is then placed into a 24°C temperature bath. The sample is then allowed to rapidly
cool and a thermometer placed in the sample cylinder monitors the fluid temperature.
3. As the fluid temperature decreases, the sample cylinder is removed from the temperature bath in
3°C increments. Each time the sample is removed from the bath, it is “turned horizontal” to
visually inspect if the fluid has stopped moving.
4. The pour point is defined as 3°C above the point in which the fluid visually stops moving when it
is removed from the temperature bath.
5. If the pour point of the fluid hasn’t been reached by the time the fluid temperature drops to 27°C,
the sample is then moved to a 0°C bath. If the pour point of the fluid hasn’t been reached when
the fluid temperature drops to 9°C, the sample is then moved to a –18°C bath.
Clearly, the procedure to measure the pour point of the fluid is a crude method that may or may not match
field conditions (the published accuracy of the measurement is ±3°F). Therefore, the results from a
standard pour point measurement should be used with extreme caution. If the results from the
measurement indicate that the pour point of the fluid will be greater than ambient temperature, additional
testing which more closely reflects actual system operating conditions (including the parameters listed in
Section 8.2.2) should be completed to determine the extent of the problem.
If the standard pour point measurement indicates that the dead oil pour point will be greater than ambient
seabed temperatures, live oil pour point measurements should be completed over the range of pressures
expected in the system (live oil pour point measurements can either be completed in a modified PVT cell
or a pressurized viscometer). Similar to the WAT, the pour point will reduce as pressure is added to the
system and additional light ends are dissolved into solution. The effect of light end dissolution on the
pour point is illustrated in Figure 0-24. In this example case, the ambient seabed temperature is
approximately 4°C. Therefore, when the pressure in the system is greater than 200 bara, the pour point of
the fluid will be less than ambient seabed temperature (assumed to be the minimum temperature
throughout the system). Depending upon the operating and shut-in pressures in the system, gel formation
in this case may be avoided by simply keeping the system at elevated pressure.
Figure 0-24: Live Pour Point for Production Fluid

8.2.2.2 Yield Strength
If pour point measurements indicate that gel formation is likely for the production fluid at temperatures
above the minimum ambient seabed temperature, yield strength (also referred to gel strength)
measurements are required to determine the extent of the gel formation problem. Yield strength
measurements can be completed by either a viscometer or a flowloop, but the basic procedure calls for
allowing gel formation to occur and then breaking the gel to determine its yield strength. Before the gel is
broken in the measurement, the following general procedure is followed:
1. The fluid is sheared at temperatures above the pour point (to reflect steady state operation in the
system).
2. After shearing, the fluid is cooled from an elevated temperature to ambient seabed temperature.
The cooling rate in the measurement matches the cooling rate estimated in the field (based upon
the likely heat transfer properties of the system).
3. After the fluid is cooled to ambient seabed temperature, the fluid is held at constant temperature
for a specified amount of time. The longer the fluid is held at constant temperature, the higher the
yield strength of the fluid will be.
4. At the desired time, the gel is broken by either rotating a vane in a viscometer or by pumping
fluid through the flowloop. Note that the result from the measurement will vary greatly
depending upon how quickly the gel is broken. Therefore, the rate at which the gel is broken
should be agreed upon with the laboratory prior to the completion of the measurement.
Because yield strength measurements must match actual system operating conditions as closely as
possible and must also ensure that the gel matrix is not disturbed during the process of the measurement,
these measurements can be very complicated. To ensure the highest quality results, the procedures used
to perform the measurements should be clearly understood prior to starting the measurements. As
discussed in Section 8.2.2, the results of the measurements can vary significantly depending upon the
steps used to complete the measurements so care should be taken in the measurements and the results
should be used with caution. Additionally, the design criteria to ensure gel formation does not occur
should be taken into consideration prior to completing the measurement. For example, if the subsea
system is going to be designed assuming the production flowlines can always be restarted after a
shutdown duration of 48 hours, then the yield strength measurements should be completed after a hold
time of 48 hours to ensure the laboratory measurements provide the most stringent restart pressure
requirements.
In general, it is preferred that gel strength measurement be completed in flowloops because the results
more accurately correlate with field conditions, are generally less conservative than viscometer
measurements, and some flowloops can accommodate live conditions. However, flowloop yield strength
measurements typically require large sample volumes (~2 liters or more per test depending upon the
diameter of the flowloops), whereas viscometer measurements require significantly less sample volume
(~50 mL or more per test, depending upon the specific viscometer used in the analysis). As a point of
reference, an example flowloop used for gel strength measurements is illustrated in the picture below.
If flowloop yield strength measurements are completed, the results from the measurement will look
similar to Figure 0-25. In the case illustrated, the restart pressure associated with the flowloop was 0.41
bara, which corresponded to a yield strength for the fluid of 89 Pa (based upon the equation previously
presented in Section 8.2).
0.45
Peak ∆P = 0.41 bara (ττ = 89 Pa)
0.4
0.35
Restart Pressure (bara)
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Time (sec)
Figure 0-25: Yield Strength for Production Fluid

As is the case with other waxing potential measurements, the majority of yield strength measurements are
completed at stock tank conditions, but the measurements can also be completed at live conditions (in a
flowloop apparatus only) to illustrate the impact of light-end dissolution on the yield strength of the fluid.
Example live yield strength measurements are illustrated in Figure 0-26 in which the yield strength of the
fluid reduces from 40 Pa at stock tank conditions to 5 Pa at 100 bara. In general, live gel strength
measurements provide a more realistic understanding of the actual gel strengths at system operating
conditions. However, the disadvantage of live measurements is that it can be difficult to maintain a
homogeneous pressurized sample for the duration of time that is required to complete the measurement.
45
40
35
30
Gel Strength (Pa)
25
20
15
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
Pressure (bara)
Figure 0-26: Live Yield Strength for Production Fluid

As noted in previous sections, the important issue with gel formation is not whether or not gel formation
occurs, but whether or not the system can be restarted after gel formation occurs. Therefore, the reported
yield strength can be correlated to actual operating conditions based upon the same restart pressure
equation that was presented in Section 8.2. As a point of reference, the yield strength of the fluid exactly
at the pour point is approximately 0.1 Pa. As discussed previously, the restart pressure equation is
conservative in that it assumes:
1. A completely oil/condensate filled line
2. The gel strength is constant throughout the gel plug
3. The entire plug will yield simultaneously
As most subsea production lines are operating multiphase rather than single phase, the restart pressure
calculation can significantly over predict the required restart pressure in the system. For example, Figure
0-27 illustrates a case in which a subsea system has been shutdown and the fluid temperatures in the
flowline are cooling down to the pour point. As illustrated in the liquid holdup curve that is included on
the plot (the solid blue line), a relatively small portion of the flowline is liquid-filled and will require gel
“breaking” upon restart. Unless the line is completely liquid filled, the production fluids during restart
will likely flow over the sections of line that are partially liquid filled (gradually warming up the gel),
rather than have to “break” them. Thus, when performing restart pressure calculations, only the portions
of the system that are completely liquid filled should be taken into consideration or the restart pressure
will greatly over predict the pressure required to restart the system.
Figure 0-27: Cooldown to Gel Formation

Another important feature illustrated in Figure 0-27 is how to define the cooldown time to gel formation
conditions. In the case illustrated, if the cooldown time to gel formation conditions is defined as the point
in which any portion of the flowline drops below the pour point of the fluid, the cooldown time would be
defined as 16 hours. However, the sections that cool most quickly are completely gas-filled and will
therefore not form a gel when those sections of the flowline cool below the pour point. Therefore, a more
accurate representation of the cooldown time to gel formation conditions is the time for the sections that
are mostly liquid filled (50% liquid or greater) to cooldown to the pour point, which in this case is 24+
hours.
8.2.2.3 Pour Point Depressants (PPD)/Paraffin Inhibitors

If gel formation is expected to occur in the system, continuous inhibition with Pour Point Depressants
(PPDs) may ensure that gel formation does not occur in the system during normal operation or during
shutdown. However, as the chemical structure of PPDs is effectively the same as paraffin inhibitors,
laboratory testing will need to be completed to evaluate the effectiveness and required dosage rate for the
vendor recommended chemical. As discussed in Section 8.1.2.5, two basic types of paraffin inhibitors
exist (crystal modifiers and wax dispersants) and these inhibitors should be injected above the WAT of
the fluid to ensure wax crystal formation has started to occur which would interfere with the wax crystal
inhibition.
As also discussed in Section 8.1.2.5, the inhibitors recommended by the chemical vendors should be
tested independently to verify their effectiveness (using either the pour point or gel strength test).
Additionally, the interaction between the reduction of the pour point/gel strength and the impact on wax
deposition should be carefully evaluated in the laboratory to ensure that the selected chemical reduces
both the pour point/gel strength and wax deposition rates in the system.
Lastly, as noted in Section 3.3.2, it is worth noting that care should be taken to ensure that all gel
formation laboratory testing matches the conditions in the field as closely as possible. For example, if the
gel strength of the fluid is measured with and without inhibitor, the shut-in duration of the test should be
carefully considered to reflect the range of realistic shut-in times expected for the system. This is a
critical parameter as the gel strength of the fluid will vary somewhat over time and may increase
dramatically depending on which paraffin inhibitor is used in the system. This is illustrated in Figure
0-28 for a case in which the gel strength of the fluid remained relatively constant between 1 and 60 days
for one vendor’s recommended paraffin inhibitor, while the gel strength increased by approximately 15
times between 1 and 60 days for another vendor’s recommended paraffin inhibitor.
9
Chemical #1 - Recommended Dosage Rate
8
Chemical #2 - Recommended Dosage Rate
7 Chemical #1 - 2 X Recommended Dosage

Rate
6
Yield Stress (Pa)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Elapsed Days
Figure 0-28: Yield (Gel) Strength vs. Time (Different Inhibitors)

8.2.3 Prevention
The prevention of gel formation is typically accomplished through one of three options:
• Thermal control – this includes providing sufficient insulation to keep steady state operation
above the pour point, while also providing sufficient cooldown time in the event of an unplanned
shutdown to displace the fluids from the system. Thermal control can also be maintained via
active heating through hot fluid circulation (bundles) or electrical heating.
• Pressure control – this includes maintaining sufficient pressure in the system to ensure the live
fluid pour point/gel strength is acceptable at the minimum ambient temperature. However, this
method may not be desirable as it may conflict with the hydrate management strategy for the
system (which will likely aim to have the lowest possible pressures rather than high pressures).
• Inhibitors (PPDs) – depending upon the specific fluid properties of the production fluid,
chemicals may be injected continuously to reduce the gel strength of the fluid to acceptable
levels. Provided the chemicals are injected at the required injection rate, through the use of
inhibitors, no actions should be required in the event of an unplanned shutdown.
8.2.4 Mitigation
In the event gel formation has occurred in the system, typical means of gel formation remediation are:
• Pressurization - slowly increase the pressure to the maximum line safety limit. This may require
additional pumping capacity. Given sufficient time, the fluid will move; however, sufficient time
may range from a few hours to an infinite amount of time. If line taps are added at various points
along the lines, additional pressure can be added to the system in order to break the gel.
• Active heating (direct/indirect) – electrically induced heat is applied to the area surrounding the
gel plug (if location is known). This is typically only an option if an electrically heated pipeline
has been designed, as localized heat input is difficult for conventional systems, particularly in
subsea environments. Other heat-input systems (i.e. Petrobras’ SGN exothermic reaction
systems) are available for more specific remediation requirements.
tubing can access the deposit. Coiled tubing effective lengths are increasing within the industry,
capable of 1-5 miles, depending on the application/geometry
CHAPTER 9 : ASPHALTENE PREDICTION AND REMEDIATION

9.1 ASPHALTENES
Asphaltenes are a high molecular weight compound made up of polyaromatic and heterocyclic aromatic
rings, which are typically present in black oil systems. Asphaltenes are relatively insoluble in solvents
such as n-heptane and n-pentane. In most cases, the asphaltenes are stable in the crude oils. However,
the flow assurance risk arises when the asphaltenes become unstable. Asphaltene stability is typically
driven by pressure effects (i.e. de-stabilization may occur in areas where a large pressure drop is taken –
wellbore, choke, etc.), but may also become unstable with the addition of certain chemicals (acids,
completion fluids, etc). Asphaltenes are responsible for adding most of the color to crude oils. Black oils
usually contain the highest asphaltene concentrations.
All oils contain asphaltenes, but asphaltenes do not deposit from all oils. Deposition occurs when the
colloidal suspension is disrupted. This can occur as a result several phenomena. The asphaltene
molecules (A) are at the center surrounded by resins (R). The resins are surrounded by aromatics (a), and
the complex is surrounded by the bulk fluid composed mainly of saturates (S). Figure 0-29 illustrates an
example of the SARA structure for asphaltene suspension
S
a
R
A
Figure 0-29: Asphaltenes – Suspension Structure

The key issue with asphaltenes is more related to deposition, rather than the molecules being unstable.
When asphaltenes reach the “flocculation point”, the molecules will come out of solution. These tar-like
molecules are often transported with the bulk fluid and will not likely cause any operational upsets. If
sufficient molecules are present in restricted flowpath areas (i.e. wellhead, choke, etc), then there is a risk
that the molecules will deposit and block the line, restricting production. Asphaltenes tend to be sticky in
nature, making them difficult to remove from surfaces. Asphaltenes also tend to stabilize emulsions,
making oil/water separation at the processing facilities more difficult.
Asphaltene deposition can occur as a result of:
• Pressure change
• Mixing incompatible crudes (if a stream rich in asphaltenes, but also containing sufficient resins
to keep the asphaltenes in solution is mixed with a stream very low in resin content, asphaltenes
may deposit)
• Gas lift (decreases solubility of asphaltenes in remaining oil)
• Temperature increase (stabilizing effect of resins occurs through polar interactions. This
mechanism is weakened by heat in the same way that emulsions are weakened by heating.)
• Stripping of liquids carried over into compressors
• Acidizing
• CO2 flooding
• Shear effects (SARA complexes that hold asphaltenes in suspension are large and bulky and can
be disrupted by shear forces)
Asphaltene solutions are stabilized by higher pressures. Asphaltene typically deposits between the
reservoir pressure and the bubble point. The explanation for this behavior is that the density of light
saturates changes more rapidly as a function of pressure than does the density of resins. As a result the
concentration of resins is effectively reduced as the pressure decrease. Once the bubble point is reached,
these light saturates preferentially flash and the concentration of resin in the liquid rises. Hence, below
the bubble point the stability of asphaltene suspensions increase. Overall system modeling from the
reservoir to the separator should be done to determine the pressure profiles along the flowpath of the
fluid. If the fluid crosses over the bubble point in the wellbore or at the subsea equipment, then additional
analysis/measurements may be required to assess the severity of any asphaltene-related issues.
9.1.1 Risk
With the exception of some very heavy tar sands in Canada, asphaltene problems in most offshore
developments are relatively rare. Some of the risks associated with asphaltene flocculation/deposition
are:
• Deposition in wellbore tubing, reducing hydraulic capacity of the well
• Erosion/wear on subsea components, especially chokes
• Emulsion stability increase, making oil/water separation more difficult
• Reservoir impairment (permeability loss)
• Fouling of compressors and other system in gas service (due to oil carryover in separators)
• Unknown effect on wax deposition/gel formation, with a likely increase in wax deposition due to
formation of nucleation points
The primary risk associated with asphaltenes is that flocculation is not reversible. The deposition of
asphaltenes is typically not reversible. For instance, if a pressure drop causes asphaltenes to deposit, re-
pressurizing the system will not typically result in the asphaltene being re-suspended in the bulk fluid.
Unlike waxes, which crystallize out of solution and can usually be melted with heat, asphaltenes have no
melting point and cannot typically be remediated via heating.
9.1.2 Testing
Testing cannot be any more accurate that the quality of the sampling supports. The sample must be
obtained at reservoir or wellbore conditions. Samples obtained at the surface may already have deposited
asphaltenes. Sampling should be performed upstream of the expected problem area. Since deposition
often occurs above the bubble point sampling must often be done at reservoir conditions. The sample
must be maintained above the bubble point; phase change prior to testing must be avoided. This requires
special sampling systems. A sample obtained at reservoir temperature and pressure will usually cool
when raised to the surface. Cooling results in a decrease in pressure. Check containers for lost deposited
solids after testing. Account for asphaltenes deposited in the sample container.
There are no standard design/testing methods to address asphaltenes. Current research work is focused on
improving screening studies to look at the likelihood of asphaltene-related problems. From the PVT
analysis, SARA screening tests will often determine the amount of asphaltene components presents (wt
%). This test in itself does not determine asphaltene-related risk, but it can be an early indication of
problems.
Various tests are available to determine asphaltene content, including IP-143, ASTM D-893, ASTM D-
2007, and UOP 99. These involve extracting asphaltenes from the oil via use of a solvent such as heptane
or pentane. The asphaltene composition of a stream is not reliable indication of deposition tendency.
Streams high in asphaltene composition may not yield deposits. Typically, if asphaltenes are present in
the SARA analysis, a lower value is poses a higher risk than a higher value. The higher asphaltene
contents tend to be more stable than the lower concentrations. If the SARA analysis indicates likelihood
for asphaltenes, additional screening tests should be considered.
The most basic screening tool available is the deBoer Plot. Generated by Shell, the deBoer plot quickly
allows the operator to determine, based on the in-situ crude oil density and the degree of under-saturation
in the reservoir, the likelihood of asphaltene flocculation. Figure 0-30 gives an example of the deBoer
Plot.
10000
Sample 1
9000 Sample 2
Severe
Sample 3 Problem Slight
Sample 4
Reservoir pressure - Saturation pressure (psia)
8000 Problem
Sample 5
Sample 6
7000
Sample 7
Sample 8
6000 Sample 9
Sample 10
5000
4000
No
3000 Problem
2000
1000
0
400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
In-situ crude density (kg/m³)
Figure 0-30: Asphaltenes – deBoer Plot

The deBoer plot shows that fluids which exist in the reservoir at pressures much higher than the bubble
point are at a much higher risk for asphaltene-related problems than those that are closer to the bubble
point in the reservoir.
If the deBoer plot indicates that the asphaltene region is falls into one of the ‘Risk’ categories, additional
fluid testing is recommended. A more detailed laboratory test would be to determine the asphaltene onset
pressure (AOP), based on a controlled pressure (isothermal) reduction to monitor asphaltene propensity.
This test requires a live oil sample obtained above the bubble point. Using visual inspection, the amount
of light transmitted through a test cell is measured. As the pressure is reduced, asphaltenes will reach a
point where they come out of solution, greatly reducing the light transmittance. This point is defined as
the Asphaltene Onset Pressure (AOP). Figure 0-31 illustrates a laboratory example of the test results.
3.5E-05
3.0E-05
4000
2.5E-05 ps i
10000
ps i
2.0E-05
13000
3000 ps i 7000 ps i
1.5E-05 ps i
1.0E-05
5.0E-06
AOP a t 108°F = 3000 ps i
0.0E+00
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Figure 0-31: Asphaltenes – AOP Test Results

There are no industry-wide accepted asphaltene deposition models that allow prediction of deposition rate
as a function of system pressure. However, work is currently being done at the university level to
incorporate research efforts into commercially available software codes (i.e. InfoChem’s Multiflash
program)
9.1.3 Prevention/Mitigation
Asphaltene flocculation/deposition cannot be controlled by thermal means. Thus, flowline insulation or
other common flow assurance-related techniques are not applicable. The majority of feasible asphaltene
prevention/mitigation alternatives involve chemical inhibition. These may include:
• Asphaltene dispersant injected continuously in the wellbore, typically downhole
o Provision for periodic aromatic solvent (xylene) soak in the wellbore
o Provision for coiled tubing intervention in the wellbore
• Ensure chemical compatibility amongst all chemicals injected into the reservoir and/or tubing
• Minimizing agitation and shear forces in susceptible areas
• For onshore systems, physical remediation via wellbore drill-out or regular cleaning programs is
typical. However, for subsea wells, this would prove to be inefficient and economically unviable.
CHAPTER 10 : PIGGING
10. PIGGING
In gas/condensate systems, there are three primary reasons for sphering (pigging) operations:
• Batch corrosion inhibitor mixing
• Liquid management
• Wax removal
Due to the compressibility of the gas, the sphere is prone to periods of “starting and stopping” along the
pipeline route, depending on gas velocity, topography, and liquid holdup. Dynamic simulations should be
conducted to ensure that the pig does not become “stuck” in the pipeline.
Typical factors to consider when performing sphering calculations are:
• Sphere velocity (must consider physical limitations/integrity of sphere)
• Sphere by-pass impacts (will determine liquid outlet rates)
• Inlet pressure (impacted by velocity, liquid holdup, by-pass)
• Gas/liquid arrival rates (typically, liquid arrives as a large slug, posing liquid handling issues)
• Surge volume requirements at pipeline outlet
Figure 10-1 through Figure 10-4 illustrate sphering results from dynamic simulations. The plots illustrate
the pressure impact at the inlet, the pig velocity, and liquid outlet rate. Again, the liquid tends to arrive as
a single large slug, rather than several smaller slugs, due to the compressibility of the gas in the pipeline.
1170
1165
1160
PIG RECEIVED
1155
Inlet Pressure (psia)
1150
1145
1140
1135
1130
1125
1120
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Time (hours)
Figure 10-1: Inlet Pressure vs. Time (Sphering)

400000
350000
100 MMSCFD
300000
150 MMSCFD
Outlet Liquid Rate (bbl/day)
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Time (hours)
Figure 10-2: Liquid Outlet Flowrate vs. Time (Sphering)
Liquid Holdup
80000
70000
100 MMSCFD
60000
150 MMSCFD
Liquid Holdup (bbl)
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80
Time (hours)
Figure 10-3: Liquid Holdup vs. Time (Sphering)

20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
Pig Velocity (m/s)
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
PIG RECEIVED
2
1
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Time (hours)
Figure 10-4: Sphere Velocity vs. Time (Sphering)

Note from the liquid outlet rates that the liquid rate will likely drop to zero immediately following receipt
of the sphere. This is due to the fact that the pipeline is operating in a non-equilibrium state in terms of
liquid inventory. After sphering, the liquid will accumulate in the pipeline, rather than be carried to the
pipeline outlet, until an equilibrium condition is reached. Once reached, liquid will once again flow from
the pipeline outlet.
If the liquid arrival rates at the pipeline outlet are too high, the sphering frequency may need to be
increased. By increasing sphering frequency, the amount of liquid accumulation between sphering runs
decreases, reducing liquid arrival rates. Or, use of a by-pass sphere may be required. By-pass spheres
allow some portion of the liquid to “slip” by the sphere, thus not removing the entire liquid inventory.
Pigging specifications should be verified with the pig vendor in terms of maximum allowable velocity.
For batch corrosion inhibitor operations, a slower velocity (1-2 m/s) is recommended to ensure efficient
mixing/contact. For sphering operations, the pig velocity will be dictated by the production rate, but may
need to be limited due to mechanical constraints on the pig itself. For wax removal, typical pig velocities
of ~1 m/s are recommended for efficient wax scraping.
For wax removal operations consideration should be given to using a liquid, such as MEG or dead
condensate, to drive the pig. This gives much better control of the pig, especially should the pig become
stuck and significant differential pressure is need to unstuck it.

Flow Assurance Training Course-1 Underlined (IOGPT)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Flow Assurance Training Course-1 Underlined (IOGPT)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IOGPT Flow Assurance Training page 1

AJIT KUMAR, GGM(P)

OMPRAKASH PAL, DGM(CHEMISTRY),HEAD

CHAPTER -2 : FLOW ASSURANCE ISSUES AND STANDARD TERMS

When do you need a bundle?

BE: Liquid Film Volume Fraction

VL: Average Liquid Film Velocity (m/s)

Typical Catenary Profile

FWHP: Flowing Wellhead Pressure

• Hydrates can form in gas, gas-condensate and black oil systems.

Hydrate Formation Conditions

240 AMBIENT TEMPERATURE

20 HYDRATE EQUILIBRIUM TEMPERATURE

Pig Launcher: Process equipment that launches a pig

Finger-Type Slug Catcher

Vessel-Type Slug Catcher

Hydrate Formation Conditions

Chapter 3: Fluid properties & Phase determination

50 50 BAR - 1.63 bbl/mmscf

Figure 0-1: Phase Equilibria

Table 0-2: Condensate/Gas Ratio Summary

Figure 0-2: Phase Equilibria

3.2.6 GAS/OIL RATIO (GOR)

3.2.8 WAX PROPERTIES

3.2.9 HYDRATE INHIBITOR

Chapter – 4: Fluid flow analysis for single phase & multiphase

INCREASE LINE SIZE

Figure 3-3: Hydraulic Pipeline Design – Logic Diagram

• Frictional pressure drop

Wellhead Pressure vs. Flowrate

Figure 0-4: Pressure Drop vs. Flowrate (High Velocity)

Figure 0-5: Pressure Drop vs. Flowrate (Low Velocity)

Figure 0-6: Liquid Holdup vs. Flowrate (Line Size)

Figure 0-7: Liquid Holdup vs. Flowrate (CGR/WGR)

Figure 0-8: Liquid Holdup vs. Flowrate

55 INLET FLOWRATE = 60 MMSCFD

20 MIDLINE TIE-IN = 50 MMSCFD

Figure 0-9: Temperature Profile

Chapter 5 : SLUGGING - PREDICTION AND MANAGEMENT

Figure 0-10: Flow Regime Map

5.2.1 Hydrodynamic Slugging

Figure 0-11: Hydrodynamic Slugging Example

Figure 0-12: Terrain Slugging Example

Figure 0-13: Terrain Slugging Cycles

• Growth of slug is possible in the upward section

CHAPTER -6 : SURGE ANALYSIS

Figure 0-1: Schematic (Water Injection – Surge Analysis)

Figure 0-3: Pressure Wave Propagation (Water Injection – Surge Analysis)

Table 0-1: Maximum Pressures (Water Injection – Surge Analysis)

Chapter – 7 : Hydrate formation and prevention

• Hydrate formation in subsea equipment (tress, manifolds, valves, jumpers) is particularly

Hydrate Dissociation Curve Hydrate Formation Curve

450 Field 1, Predicted

Figure 0-6: Hydrate Conditions – Actual vs. Predicted

7.1.3.2 Water Impacts

Figure 0-7: Hydrate Conditions – Water Salinity

Figure 0-8: Dehydration Specifications

Figure 0-9: Hydrate Conditions – Thermodynamic Inhibitor Effects

500 Experiemental - 25wt% MeOH

Prediction - 25wt% MeOH

Experiemental - 35wt% MeOH

Figure 0-10: Hydrate Conditions – Thermodynamic Inhibitor Effects