Polymer

Polymer Liners for Pipelines
The Cost and Benefits of Polymer Liners in Subsea Pipeline Applications
Swagelining Ltd.
th
14 May 2010
Swagelining Ltd.
Cost-Benefits of Polymer Liners in Subsea Pipelines

A Report Prepared by
Atkins
On Behalf of
Swagelining Ltd.
Atkins Ltd Swagelining Ltd

6 Golden Square 1 Aurora Avenue
Aberdeen Queens Quay
AB10 1RD Clydebank
G81 1BF
Tel: 01224 264365 Tel: 0845 1803444
Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 1

Issue Date: 14 May 2010
Swagelining Ltd.
DOCUMENT ISSUE CONTROL SHEET
Swagelining Ltd

Document History
Issue Date Purpose Rev Prepared Checked
1 12 March Initial issue to client for 0 S. McIntyre K. Neal

2010 comment.
2 26 April Client comments 1 S. McIntyre S. Booth

2010 incorporated.
3 11 May For Issue 2 S. McIntyre S. Booth

2010
4 14 May For issue 3 S. McIntyre S. Booth

2010
Notice
This report has been produced by Atkins for Swagelining Ltd for the specific purpose of illustrating the
cost and benefits of polymer liners in subsea pipeline applications and is only suitable for use in
connection therewith. The report may not be used by any other party or for any other purpose
without Atkins' express written permission. Atkins accepts no responsibility or liability for any
unauthorised use or reliance upon any of the contents of this report.

Swagelining Ltd.
Contents
Section Page
1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................6
2. Polymer Liner Technology......................................................................................................7

2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................7
2.2 Liner Selection ...........................................................................................................................7
2.3 Liner Insertion and Compatibility with Laybarge Systems .........................................................8
2.4 Operational Impacts of Lined Systems ......................................................................................9
3. Example Pipeline for Cost-Benefit Analysis .......................................................................10
3.1 Pipeline Design and Materials Options....................................................................................10
3.2 Lining........................................................................................................................................12
3.3 Installation ................................................................................................................................12
3.4 Venting in Hydrocarbon Applications.......................................................................................13
4. Liners in Water Injection Applications.................................................................................14
4.1 Benefits ....................................................................................................................................14
4.2 Capital Cost Estimates.............................................................................................................15
4.3 Operational Costs ....................................................................................................................17
5. Hydrocarbon Applications....................................................................................................21
5.1 Benefits ....................................................................................................................................21
5.2 Capital Cost Estimates.............................................................................................................22
5.3 Operational Costs ....................................................................................................................24
6. Conclusions............................................................................................................................26
7. References..............................................................................................................................28

Swagelining Ltd.
Executive Summary
This report was commissioned by Swagelining Ltd to investigate the costs and benefits of polymer
liners in water injection and hydrocarbon flowline applications. The study was based on a
representative example of a subsea flowline development comprising a 10-inch pipeline between 5km
and 15km long.
A number of pipeline materials were selected for analysis. For water injection service the comparison
was based on the relative advantages and disadvantages of polyethylene lined pipe against carbon
steel with a 6mm corrosion allowance, whereas for hydrocarbon service the comparison was between
metallurgically bonded CRA/carbon steel pipe, solid super duplex and polyethylene and PVDF lined
pipes.
‘As installed’ costs were estimated based on the S-lay and reel lay methods of installation. Details of
the cost and productivity assumptions used in the analysis are presented.
The study assumed that installation contractors would maintain their normal profit margin when
offering polymer lined pipelines, but that assumption can be challenged as a lined product is more
highly engineered. Also in hydrocarbon applications, where significant cost savings are indicated,
there will be commercial tension over how the indicated savings might be distributed through the
value chain.
The report concludes that polymer lined pipe offers significant benefits, but that the benefits depend
on the application.
Water Injection Service
In water injection service, polymer liners bring benefits of reliability and energy efficiency. These
benefits allow more water to be injected and therefore more oil to be recovered over a given period of
time (compared with a carbon steel pipeline with a 6mm corrosion allowance).
In effect, the liner can increase the value of an oilfield. In the study, increases of 4% in the amount of
water injected were indicated from power savings alone and where - as in many operational oilfields -
there is a linear relationship between water injected and oil produced, corresponding productivity
improvements arise.
These benefits can be achieved for the same capital cost as a 6mm corrosion allowance. Whilst the
materials cost of a 10-inch diameter, 300bar PE lined pipeline is about £200/m (as a lined composite
unit) and the cost of the same pipe with the 6mm corrosion allowance is £179/m, the additional
materials cost is compensated by the improved productivity enjoyed by welding thinner pipes, and the
installed cost works out to be the same.
Lined water injection pipes can be installed by S-lay methods, but for the short and relatively small
diameter pipelines addressed in this study the large mobilisation costs of an S-lay barge mean that
reel-lay is most competitive.
Hydrocarbon Service
In hydrocarbon service the benefits of polymer liners are significant capital cost savings.
As the range of fluids and operating conditions in ‘hydrocarbon service’ is very wide, it is necessary to
compare a range of materials to give some sense of a cost-performance curve rather than a side-by-
side comparison of two options as was possible with water injection service.
Two corrosion resistant alloy and two polymer liner options were considered, and they were selected
to span a wide range of operating conditions and fluids.
The alloy options were solid super duplex and metallurgically bonded Inconel 625 clad pipe, and the
polymer liner options were PE and PVDF.

Swagelining Ltd.
The performance of the alloy options is differentiated by their corrosion resistance (625 alloy has
highest performance at highest cost) whereas the performance of the polymers is differentiated by
their temperature limits (PE to 60°C and PVDF to 130°C).
A comparison was therefore possible between the costs of a plain carbon steel pipe with corrosion
allowance for relatively benign service, through to Inconel 625 clad for very aggressive service, and to
overlay these costs with the polymer lined alternatives.
Polyethylene is not necessarily a direct analogue to the super duplex alloy case, as PE can be used
in very aggressive fluids provided the temperature is not too high. But the PVDF liner is probably
analogous to the 625 alloy case as a high operating temperature is implied.
A PVDF lined pipe has an installed cost of half that of the alloy 625 clad alternative; and where the
service temperature is suitable for polyethylene (typically up to 60°C), savings of 40% are indicated
against solid super duplex.
Where the service temperature is high and a PVDF liner is required, but the alternative metallic option
is super duplex, savings of 25% are indicated.
Polymer liners always show significant savings against alloy options in this study.
Interestingly, the study suggests that a 10km long PVDF lined pipe installed by S-lay would be
cheaper than a solid super duplex pipe installed by reeling, even with the high S-lay barge
mobilisation cost. Liners therefore have the potential to disrupt the current competitive positioning of
reel and S-lay systems for aggressive hydrocarbon service.
Other materials options are available to those considered in the study, for example pipes that are
mechanically lined (as opposed to metallurgically bonded) with corrosion resistant alloys. These may
offer lower material costs than solid super duplex (for example a 316L lined pipe of this size might
cost £3,100/tonne as opposed to the £9,300/tonne used for super duplex) but welding productivity
would still be significantly reduced and questions remain as to whether this type of pipe can be
successfully reeled at this size.
Whilst polymer liner technology is established in water injection applications installed by reeling, it has
yet to be deployed in a hydrocarbon application subsea because methods of venting the liner were
not available until recently. Technology development by Technip with their Safetyliner method of
venting, and by Swagelining Ltd with their LinerVent™ method of venting and LinerBridge method of
field jointing has removed many of the barriers. The competitive benefits of polymer liners are now
available to subsea pipeline projects facing challenging materials choices due to aggressive fluids or
process conditions.

Swagelining Ltd.
1. Introduction
The aim of this document is to inform the pipeline engineering community of the costs and benefits of
polymer liners in subsea pipeline applications within the Oil and Gas industry.
The report was commissioned by Swagelining Ltd with the intention that it might be widely
disseminated to facilitate informed discussion of plastic lining technology by reference to a number of
illustrative examples, specifically subsea pipelines for water injection and hydrocarbon service.
The report is based on representative examples of pipeline design scenarios that most subsea
pipeline engineers should recognise. However, the reader will recognise that given the site-specific
design requirements and cost elements, it is impossible to do other than broadly outline the main
parameters in a report such as this.
It is hoped that, despite these limitations, the document provides a robust platform from which project
teams may evaluate the potential for polymer liners within their particular project.

Swagelining Ltd.
2. Polymer Liner Technology

2.1 Introduction
Polymer liners have been used in above-ground pipelines for many years, and the first lined pipe
appeared in the USA in the late 1940’s using a material called Saran (PVDC). Since then, a whole
lined-pipe industry has developed for refinery and chemical works applications.
The design and specification of these pipes and fittings is regulated by ASTM F423, F546, F491,
F492, F781 and F599, covering a range of liner materials including PTFE, FEP, PVDF, PP, PFA and
PVDC.
Some of the main suppliers are listed below and their websites are worth visiting for a wider
appreciation of the capabilities of various plastic liners.
www.resistoflex.com
www.fusibond.com
Unfortunately, there are a number of limitations to adopting this technology in subsea pipelines. The
pipes are short (6m), they are joined by flanges rather than welding, they have lower pressure ratings
than is typically required, and critically they have an arrangement for venting the micro-annulus
between the liner and host pipe that comprises a small hole through the external steel carrier pipe,
which is unsuitable for subsea use.
The vent hole is necessary to prevent the build-up of high pressure gas between the liner and steel
that can lead to liner collapse when the pipeline is depressurised. The permeated gas is an inevitable
consequence of the fact that all polymers are permeable (particularly to small molecules). Whilst a
small hole on the outside of a low pressure pipe above ground might be acceptable within a chemical
works site, clearly that would be unacceptable subsea where water pressure would always be able to
act on the liner.
The venting problem has delayed the use of liners in gaseous applications subsea, but recent
innovations have solved that challenge (of which more later) but unhindered by that difficulty, the
lining of water injection pipelines has now become established as a ‘base case’ with many operators.
The first polymer lined subsea pipeline was installed in 1994 for Shell in the Brent South field, and
many hundreds of km have been installed since without a single failure in service.
Whilst there have been no operational failures, there have been instances where the pipeline or liner
was damaged on installation through a failure to recognise the implications of working with non-
metallic materials. For example, excess heating during welding or field coating, and weld repair
practices that did not take account of the liner or CRA overlay in the area of the liner termination
system. The presence of the liner does have implications for the installation process and strong
production controls and QC process are required.
The finding that no lined WI pipeline has failed in service contrasts strongly with the findings of a Joint
Industry Project in 1997 into Groove Corrosion in water injection pipelines [Ref1] which reported that
of the 23 water injection lines included in the study, only one had survived for 15 years and that the
average corrosion rate suffered by the eight flowlines that had already failed was 1.7mm/yr. Nine of
the lines that were still in service were experiencing corrosion rates in excess of 1.7mm/yr.
The Groove Corrosion JIP has not been updated (and perhaps it should be) but its conclusions are
clear – an unlined water injection pipeline carries a high risk of premature failure.
2.2 Liner Selection

A range of polymers are suitable as liner materials, each with its own cost and performance
characteristic. Indeed, their number grows all the time as new polymers and manufacturing

Swagelining Ltd.
processes are invented that change the cost/performance equation. However, only a limited number
of polymers are extruded as pipe, so that whilst high-volume applications such as polyethylene
domestic gas and water pipes can be produced very cost effectively, engineering grade polymers are
produced in smaller volumes and command a higher margin. Consequently, there is a significant
step-up in price from selecting a commodity liner such as PE to an engineering grade such as PVDF.
Although a number of liner materials are available, the selection process can be simplified into a
number of generic applications following the practice applied to flexible pipe material selection. The
two materials used in this study are presented in Table 2.1 below.
Material Property Application
Polyethylene Commodity polymer. Cost indexed to price of Oil. Hydrocarbon, water

(PE) This study has used £2/kg (as pipe, ex works). injection and produced
Widely selected for WI service. Many grades water injection.
available. High density PE100 preferred for Temperature capability up
mechanical performance, but medium density also to 60°C to 65°C.
used if price differential exists in local market.
Considerable experience of inserting liners over great
lengths (>1km).
Polyvinylidene A high-temperature engineering polymer. Costs 12 Hydrocarbon applications

fluoride to 15 times more than PE resin (by mass). £15/kg up to 130°C
(PVDF) (as resin) used in this study. Extrusion cost to make
pipe assumed to be £65/m in this study. Note
3 3
density is 1770kg/m , whilst PE is 960kg/m . Limited
experience of inserting liners other than over short
lengths (individual pipes).
Table 2.1 – Liner Choices
Note that the information provided in the table above is indicative only. Prices and performance
characteristics depend very much on service requirements, local market conditions, required service
life and other factors.
Those readers familiar with flexible pipe product will also notice that one of the major polymer options
in that application, PA11, has not been evaluated in this study. Whilst PA11 is suitable as a liner, the
objective of this study was to describe a fairly general range of costs and performance. As PA11
provides an intermediate level of cost and performance it was decided not to evaluate that specific
material choice for this study.
In order to simplify the available choices, this report has used only two potential liner materials that
span the cost-performance envelope. This report considers PE100 (water and low temperature
hydrocarbon applications) and PVDF (high temperature hydrocarbon applications) only.
2.3 Liner Insertion and Compatibility with Laybarge Systems

It is important that the liner selected is compatible with the method of installation. For example, if
reeling is to be used, then it is desirable to be able to weld the liner into great lengths and
Swagelining™ it into position. However if the S-lay method is to be used, the speed of making-up the
joint is critical, as well as its tolerance to the heat of welding and coating application.
The materials presented in Table 2.1 above are compatible with the methods of installation discussed
in this document, subject to the limitations pointed out in the table.

Swagelining Ltd.
2.4 Operational Impacts of Lined Systems

2.4.1 Long-Term In Place Behaviour
One of the advantages of polymer liners is that the performance functions of the liner are separated
from that of the host pipe. The host pipe performs the structural and pressure containment functions,
whilst the liner provides the necessary corrosion resistance and acts as a barrier only.
This is distinct from flexible pipe, where the polymer is responsible for pressure containment, and its
service life therefore determines the safe operating limits of the system.
Traditionally, in flexible pipe applications, the ‘life’ of a polymer is defined by the degradation of a
basket of material properties over time. Typically a target residual value of 50% of the original is
used. For example, ‘life’ may be determined as the point at which the tensile strength of the polymer
declines to 50% of its ‘as new’ value. However, with lined systems, as the liner is not part of the
pressure containment system, its strength is not a key performance property, so it may be possible to
define its life by consideration of other criteria.
For the purposes of this report, the practice used in the flexible pipe industry has been adopted, which
means that the polymers have been conservatively selected, and it may be possible to substitute
lower cost materials over a wider performance envelope than has been suggested in this study.
Although the liner is not part of the pressure containment system, it is subject to certain loads. These
are principally caused by the liner’s expansion and contraction in accordance with the fluctuation in
pipeline temperature. Where the liner is free to move, the movement must not result in the host pipe
being exposed to the process fluid, and where the liner is locked in place, the locking system must be
®
sufficiently robust to withstand the applied load. The Weldlink locking system has been
demonstrated to be stronger than the liner.
Durability of the liner to erosion processes is sometimes a requirement. Whilst this is a complex
mechanism, for the purposes of this report it is helpful to note that slurry pipelines are often lined with
PE to enhance their operational lives.
2.4.2 Integrity Management

As the liner acts as a barrier to conventional intelligent pig inspection, the focus of integrity
management in lined pipes becomes assurance that the liner continues to work, rather than a focus
on the steel host and its potential corrosion processes.
Assurance is provided by type qualification, in the same way as flexible pipe, but calliper or camera
pigs could also be used to verify condition if it was a particular concern. The inspection vehicle would
need to be carefully selected to ensure that none of its metallic components can gouge or contact the
liner.
As was noted previously, liners can offer better abrasion resistance than steel (because the liner
absorbs the energy of the particle impact), but they can be vulnerable to cutting, such as might occur
if a metallic part of the pig was to drag along the liner.
The integrity assurance for lined pipes therefore rests with type testing and track record, supported by
internal visual or other types of inspection as required. Conventional intelligent pig inspection of the
carbon steel host is a challenge that remains to be addressed.

Swagelining Ltd.
3. Example Pipeline for Cost-Benefit Analysis

The cost of a lined system comprises three major components; the cost of materials, the cost of
fabricating the lined pipe assembly, and the cost of installation. Each of these components are
discussed below.
Throughout this report, where a benefit of enhanced oil production is indicated, its value is assumed
to be $70/bbl.
3.1 Pipeline Design and Materials Options

In order to develop a cost comparison between lining and accepted metallic materials a typical design
has been developed. The main characteristics of the design are presented in Table 3.1 overleaf.

Swagelining Ltd.
Property Requirement Cost Discussion
Outside 10.75-inch Determined by weight. Representative of subsea tieback developments for both water injection and
diameter hydrocarbon service.
Material Carbon Steel £1,300 per tonne. Every-day pipeline steel. Corrosion allowance to suit (see wall thickness,
API 5L grade X65 below). ‘Base case’.
Super Duplex £9,300 per tonne. Suited to raw water injection service and most hydrocarbon service. Suitable for
UNS S32760 reeling.
625 clad £12,400 per tonne Very high corrosion resistance for high temperature hydrocarbon applications.
Wall Carbon Steel Assumed seamless. HFI offers Determined by pressure, using design factor of 72%. Nearest API standard wall
thickness potential cost savings for lower above the minimum requirement was selected. 6mm corrosion allowance
pressure systems. selected for unlined applications. No corrosion allowance in lined applications.
Super Duplex Availability is limited relative to Determined by pressure. Higher strength allows thinner wall than carbon steel
carbon steel options. at same pressure. No corrosion allowance.
625 clad Cladding included in pressure containment calculation.

3
Liner PE100, 9.8mm thick £13.40/m + £2/m transport PE density 960kg/m
3
PVDF, 8mm thick £217.44/m + £5/m transport PVDF density 1,770kg/m
Insertion £88/m for reel lay Where the pipeline is reeled, the liner can be inserted in great lengths. When
the pipeline is installed by S-lay the liner is inserted in double-joints onshore.
£146/m for S lay
This is less efficient and consequently more expensive. Also, personnel are
required on the laybarge to insert the LinerBridge jointing system.
Venting system (where £50/m Whilst two methods of venting are currently available, in order to simplify the
required) study, a common cost of £50/m has been assumed.
Length 5 to 15km
Stability Stability achieved by Not included This cost is independent of whether the pipeline is lined or not, so not included
self-weight. Not here. However it is noted that trenching is likely to be required in certain
trenched. environments.
Table 3.1 – Example Pipeline Design Parameters

Swagelining Ltd.
3.2 Lining
The method of lining considered for this study is Swagelining™. The process involves pulling an
initially slightly over-sized liner through a reducing die, so that when the pull load is removed, it reverts
to be a tight fit. Further details can be obtained at www.swagelining.com.
The process has been designed to be carried out ‘in the field’, so the lining process is usually
integrated into the pipeline construction process at the spooling yard. However where the ‘S’ lay
method of pipeline installation is to be used, the same technique can be applied to pre-line individual
pipes or double joints at any time prior to their delivery to the laybarge.
This study has assumed that the cost of inserting the liner is £75/m irrespective of length, including
mobilisation, butt fusion welding the liner and inserting it.
After insertion, the liner must be locked in place. The cost of the locking device (in this case
®
Weldlink ) has been spread over the length of the lined sections, and this was assumed to cost an
additional £13/m.
3.3 Installation
Two methods of installation have been considered; Reeling and S lay. They have very different cost
structures and commercial drivers, but for the purposes of this study a simplified model has been
used.
Note that for the installation element ‘cost’ means to the ultimate client, i.e. includes profit,
management overheads etc of the supply chain.
3.3.1 Reeling
The competitive advantage of reeling arises from the fact that the pipeline is constructed on land, and
then reeled onto the installation vessel before sailing to the field and unreeling into place. The
majority of the labour is land-based, so the installation vessel can be smaller than the equivalent S lay
barge.
The cost parameters used in the cost model are as set out in the table below.
Work scope Cost
Mobilisations 8 days at full laybarge day rate. Includes transit to and from site
and lay initiation.
Spool base operations £1,800/tonne weld, NDE, coat

Lining costs as in section 3.2.
Vessel day rate £200,000 per day
Vessel productivity 40km/day
Other Overhead and other costs including survey, engineering, tie-in and
c ommissioning and weather and unallocated contingency were
included. Certain of these elements are taken as percentages of
the value of the project, so their sum varies from case to case.
Table 3.2 – Reel Installation Cost Elements

Swagelining Ltd.
Although Reel lay is probably the installation method of choice for the types of pipe used in this
example, a parallel analysis using an S lay barge was also made.
3.3.1 ‘S’ Lay

The cost parameters used in the cost model are as set out in the table below.
Work scope Cost
Mobilisations 10 days at full laybarge day rate. Includes transit to and from site
and lay initiation.
Vessel day rate £500,000 per day
Vessel productivity 2.0 km/day super duplex

3.0 km/day with plastic lined pipe (slightly slowed relative to C.S. by
LinerBridge fitting between double joints)
3.5 km/day carbon steel pipe (irrespective of thickness)
Other Overhead and other costs including survey, engineering, tie-in and
commissioning and weather and unallocated contingency were
included. Certain of these elements are taken as percentages of
the value of the project, so their sum varies from case to case.
Table 3.3 – ‘S’ Lay Installation Cost Elements
3.4 Venting in Hydrocarbon Applications

All polymers are permeable to some extent, which means that small molecules in particular such as
methane, carbon dioxide and water vapour will eventually find their way to the micro-annulus between
the liner and its host pipe. That volume is normally tiny but with repeated pressurisation and
depressurisation cycles, sufficient gas can eventually accumulate in localised areas of sufficient
volume to collapse and possibly damage the liner when the pipeline is depressurised.
This internal collapse phenomenon was investigated by the COREL JIP and found to pose a real
threat, so mitigation options were subsequently investigated in a later phase of the same JIP.
The JIP investigated two methods of venting. One method provides venting through the use of
grooves formed in the outside of the liner (known as Safetyliner) and the other comprised a series of
perforations in the liner itself. The perforated liner concept has been improved by the development of
Linervent™, which inserts a baffle that further reduces the contact of the fluid with the host pipe.
The Safetyliner concept relies on the permeated gasses being transported through the grooves to an
end fitting, where the gas passes into a spare umbilical core for venting to the surface. The use of
Safetyliner subsea is believed to be exclusive to Technip. It has been used in landline applications,
but not yet subsea.
A key advantage of LinerVent™ is its simplicity, as gas accumulated behind the liner is vented directly
back into the pipeline. Testing as part of the COREL JIP demonstrated that it works but it has not
been deployed in the field to date.
In the cost models that follow, the venting system was assigned a cost of £50/m, irrespective of which
venting system was to be employed.

Swagelining Ltd.
4. Liners in Water Injection Applications

4.1 Benefits
Polymer lined water injection pipelines increase the value of an oilfield. They do this by both
increasing production and recoverable reserves by allowing more water to be injected, and thus more
oil to be recovered in a given period of time. The ability to deliver more water arises from dramatically
improved pipeline reliability and improved hydraulic efficiency. Simply put, the system will run for
longer and the available pump horsepower will go further than for a carbon steel system.
There are other benefits including reduced weight (the liner has a lower density than the steel
corrosion allowance it substitutes) which can be critical in certain circumstances (such as floating
facilities and SCRs) and more pipe can be carried on a reel, but these are circumstance specific and
have not been evaluated in this report.
The reliability improvements are delivered through corrosion resistance.
There has not been a single failure of a lined water injection pipeline in operation to date yet the
premature failure of unlined systems is commonplace (typically within 7 years service).
As there is often a direct relationship between the quantity of water injected and the quantity of oil
recovered, the production lost whilst a pipeline is replaced can often be considerable. For example, if
a water injection pipeline is responsible for 10mbd of oil production; its loss would represent a drop in
income of $700,000 per day (current typical oil price being $70/bbl.) As will be shown, this potential
impact can be avoided at no cost.
More speculative potential benefits include the potential for ‘raw water’ injection.
The potential for raw water injection is probably best illustrated when a water injection capacity
increase is contemplated from a floating production system. The de-aeration systems on FPSO’s are
often the key constraint on the vessel but if the subsea facilities including the pipeline, tree and
wellhead and injection tubing are corrosion resistant, then the de-aeration requirement can be relaxed
and the capacity upgrade delivered by additional pumping only. Much less space and weight is
consumed than the treatment vessels that might otherwise have been required (assuming the
reservoir can tolerate the change in water chemistry). Given a highly resistant system, it may even be
possible to introduce well treatments into the injection water without having to work-over the well
using a drill rig or other intervention vessel.

Swagelining Ltd.
4.2 Capital Cost Estimates

The cost of a lined system comprises three major components; the cost of materials, the cost of
fabricating the lined pipe assembly and the cost of installation. Each of these components can be
affected in a number of ways that are best illustrated by reference to the example presented in
Section 3.
Figure 4.1 – Materials Costs for 10-inch Water Injection Pipe (to be installed by Reeling)
Figure 4.1 shows the materials cost components of a water injection pipeline covering a range of
operating pressures and materials choices. Note that the ‘carbon steel with PE liner’ includes the cost
®
of the liner, its welding into long lengths, insertion, and the Weldlink locking system. The data are
not completely uniform and linear because the wall thickness selected for each pressure case has
been ‘rounded up’ to the nearest available API standard.
A PE lined pipe designed for 300bar costs £200/m whereas the 6mm corrosion allowance case costs
£179/m (10% less).
In terms of materials costs, the corrosion allowance appears slightly cheaper than the liner that might
replace it (by 10% to 25% depending on the case being considered). However to complete the
picture it is necessary to consider installation costs.

Swagelining Ltd.
18
16
14
Cost (£M)
12
Carbon Steel with PE Liner
10 Carbon Steel with 6mm C.A
6
5 7 9 11 13 15
Length of Pipeline (Km)
Figure 4.2 – Cost of a 350bar Water Injection Pipeline Installed by Reeling

Figure 4.2 above compares the installed cost of a PE lined 350bar water injection pipeline, with its
equivalent carbon steel design with a 6mm corrosion allowance. As can be seen, their installed costs
are identical, except for the 15km case, when the unlined pipeline’s weight exceeds the laybarge reel
capacity and the pipeline must be installed in two parts. The increased cost is caused by the reel
vessel returning to base for the second load of pipe.
The chart shows that the 10% to 25% lower materials cost enjoyed by employing a corrosion
allowance is recovered when using a liner by the improved productivity of the spool base (as less
welding has to be done there). Weld geometry is such that even a small change in wall thickness can
lead to considerable changes in the volume of weld metal that must be deposited, and therefore the
time required to complete a weld. In this case, the lined pipes are typically 25% thinner than their
corrosion allowance equivalents and the productivity gain compensates for the additional cost of the
liner.
Note that the cost estimates presented all assume that the installation contractor who is responsible
for the overall delivery of the project will seek the same profit margin from a lined pipe project as an
unlined project (i.e. that his profit is related to the cost of the work). This assumption may be
reasonable in the current market but it is readily challenged. For example, the contractor may feel
that the liner introduces some new risk that will (initially at least) carry some premium, or he may feel
that as a more engineered product, there is more ‘added value’ attributable to his efforts. If his normal
profit expectation is £2M he might well feel that £4M is more appropriate for a lined project, in which
case the above curves should be lifted by the appropriate amount (in this case, a 10km lined pipe
would cost £14M rather than the £12M currently indicated).
For the cases considered here, a PE lined pipe costs the same as its carbon steel equivalent with a
6mm corrosion allowance.
A reference case using the S lay method of installation was also considered. Its results are presented
in Figure 4.3 overleaf.

Swagelining Ltd.
22
20
18
16
Cost (£M)
14
Carbon Steel with PE Liner
12 Carbon Steel with 6mm C.A
10
6
5 7 9 11 13 15
Figure 4.3 – Installed Cost of a 350bar Water Injection Pipeline Installed by S-lay
In contrast with reeling, where the liner had no effect on cost, Figure 4.3 shows that the S-lay barge is
disadvantaged by the liner. Firstly materials costs are higher because of the LinerBridge™ field
jointing system, as well as the necessary preparation of the liner ends, but the barge’s productivity is
also reduced by the need to insert the LinerBridge™ during line-up. A development opportunity for
LinerBridge™ is therefore to provide a jointing system that is sufficiently quick to implement that it
allows the productivity gain achieved from reduced welding time from having no corrosion allowance
to benefit overall laybarge productivity.
The S-lay barge is much more expensive than reeling for short pipelines because of the high
mobilisation costs of the barge and it is uncompetitive overall in the scenarios considered here for
water injection applications.
4.3 Operational Costs

The operational costs of a water injection system comprises three elements, the cost of maintenance
of the plant, the cost of energy to power the plant and the cost of chemicals to treat the water.
The author is not aware of a published analysis of these costs, so what follows is an analysis of what
indirect data has been obtained or calculated directly where possible.
4.3.1 The Cost of Maintenance

A water injection system offshore starts with a water winning system. This is usually a system of
caissons and pumps that take water from some distance below sea level and lift it into the treatment
system. Often the water winning system provides water to a number of other platform functions such
as cooling, so it is designed to be a high availability system. The maintenance cost of this part of the
water injection system is unlikely to be affected by whether the pipeline is lined or not, so it has not
been evaluated here.
The water winning system passes water into the treatment plant where it is filtered, de-aerated,
chemically treated, and then pumped to injection pressure.
Filtration normally occurs in two stages; coarse filtration to 50µm and fine filtration to 5µm. The
maintenance cost of this system is determined by the water quality, and the operational requirements
of back-flushing and filter replacement; their largest overall impact is probably on the occasions when

Swagelining Ltd.
they block and are bypassed (to maintain production) so that unfiltered water passes into the flowline
system. This practice creates environments within the pipeline that are ideal for SRB infestation.
Filtration is likely to be required, even if the flowline is lined but its operational reliability will no longer
be critical to the reliability of the pipeline.
De-aeration is designed to reduce the level of dissolved oxygen from typically 8ppm (parts per million)
to <50ppb (parts per billion) and 10ppb is often targeted. The aim is to reduce the oxygen corrosion
potential of the water and the process requires a large process vessel (up to 200tonnes liquid filled).
A vacuum de-aeration package would normally use a two stage positive displacement vacuum pump,
and given the critical nature of their duty, two 100% pumps are usually required. In a fully lined
system, the corrosion threat would have been removed so de-aeration may no longer be required,
which would provide a potential capital and operational cost saving.
It should be noted that whilst the process plant may be protected by the liner, there may be reservoir
issues that prevent oxygenated water being used, and these would have to be researched before the
‘raw water’ injection proposed here could be implemented.
The water pressure out of the treatment system is boosted to provide sufficient NPSH to the main
injection pumps and the water is then passed to the main water injection pumps where its pressure is
increased substantially prior to entering the pipeline.
Pipeline maintenance costs comprise internal and in-water inspections. These are undertaken
periodically (say every 5 years) and each such exercise might cost several hundred thousand pounds.
These costs are insignificant relative to the consequences of failure, and for the purposes of this
study, the costs of inspecting a lined and unlined system can be treated as equal.
4.3.2 The Cost of Power

The injection pumps are usually the most expensive and longest lead items in a water injection
system. They are also the most vulnerable to mal-operation, for example from insufficient water or
lack of NPSH. Their cost, size and weight often inhibit the installation of a spare. The sparing strategy
is unlikely to be affected by fitting a liner in the flowline, but the smoothness of the liner results in a
power saving as illustrated in Figure 4.4.
2,500
7,000
Powe r Consumed by Pipeline (kW)
Cost of power consumed (£k pa)
2,000 6,000
5,000
1,500
4,000
PE Lined
1,000 3,000
6mm CA
2,000 Super Duplex
500
1,000
- -
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Throughput (mbd)
Figure 4.4 – Energy Costs for Water Injection Pumps

Figure 4.4 shows the estimated costs of the energy consumed by the injection pumps only (i.e. not
including water winning system, vacuum or booster pumps) for various designs of water injection
flowline, 15km long, assuming the cost of energy offshore is 34p/kWh.

Swagelining Ltd.
The 10-inch pipeline used in this study would probably be designed to transport water at 3m/s to
5m/s, so a capacity of 70mbd would be typical (velocity of 3.5m/s in the lined pipeline).
Figure 4.4 shows that a CRA pipeline has the lowest energy cost because it is smooth throughout its
life (0.05mm roughness used here) and it has a larger bore; it is made of high strength material and
does not have a corrosion allowance or liner. In the example shown in Figure 4.4 its energy cost
would be £1.4m pa.
The pipeline with the corrosion allowance is most expensive to operate, as the corrosion allowance
reduces the available bore and it is very rough (0.5mm roughness used here as recommended by
Norsok Standard P-001). After some time in operation, this pipeline would have an energy cost of
£3.3m pa.
The PE lined pipe remains smooth throughout its life (0.003 mm roughness used here, knocked-down
from the ‘as-new’ property of 0.00152mm) and this smoothness compensates for the reduction in bore
caused by the liner. The cost of the energy required to operate at 70mbd in this example would be
£2.2m pa, a saving of £1.1m pa or about 7% of the capital cost per annum.
Cost savings are one thing but for water injection, energy efficiency offers an opportunity to do
something useful with the saving – pump more water.
This is illustrated in Figure 4.5 as seen below.
45%
Proportion WI Power used by PL (%)
40%
35%
30%
25%
PE Lined
20%
15% 6mm CA
10% Super Duplex

5%
0%
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Throughput (mbd)
Figure 4.5 – The Proportion of WI System Power Consumed by the Pipeline

(Total system power at 70mbd and 350bar is 4.5MW)
Figure 4.5 shows that if the plant was operating at 70mbd, some 10% of the available power would be
consumed by a smooth super duplex pipeline but 25% of the available power would be consumed by
a corroded pipeline with 6mm corrosion allowance. The PE lined pipe consumes 9% less system
power than the carbon steel pipe at this point and that horsepower could have been used to inject
more water.
As Figure 4.5 shows, the relationship between power and flowrate is not linear and the resistance of
the reservoir and pump characteristics have not been modelled, so 9% more power does not
necessarily mean 9% more water but even if the outcome is 4% more water, for many systems that
will mean 4% more oil.
If the production supported by this example water injection system was five barrels of water to one
barrel of oil, then the 4% gain anticipated yields $14m more revenue pa (based on $70/bbl) - achieved
for the same capital cost as the carbon steel option.

Swagelining Ltd.
4.3.3 The Cost of Chemical Treatments

Typical chemicals used in water injection treatments include biocides and scale and corrosion
inhibitors. The chemicals deliver benefits to the downstream infrastructure such as the wells and
even the reservoir itself, so fitting a liner does not necessarily remove the need for a chemical
treatment.
One reference in the public domain stated that the water injection system on Magnus, which has a
capacity of 160mbd, consumed $150k of biocide chemicals alone in 2002. Given the minor nature of
this cost relative to the other figures discussed in this report, we conclude that reducing the cost of
chemical treatments is unlikely to be a strong motivator for selecting plastic liners. It is however
important to note that biocides are by definition toxic; they are eventually produced back to the
surface with the oil and whenever water is separated and discharged to the environment, the residual
chemical dissolved in the water is also released. The cost of the chemical treatment should also
therefore properly include the maintenance of the injection plant, the logistical train that keeps it
operational and the cost to the environment and safety of the personnel involved. Such a study is
beyond the scope of this report but there may be situations in which a liner can act to reduce these
costs.

Swagelining Ltd.
5. Hydrocarbon Applications
5.1 Benefits
The benefits of polymer lined production pipelines are similar to lined water injection pipelines – they
increase the value of an oilfield by providing a more reliable transportation service but more than this,
they can offer substantial cost savings.
Due to the very wide range of possible fluids and process conditions, it is difficult to make cost
comparisons between metallic solutions and polymer lined solutions, but it is interesting to reflect on
the differing cost-performance characteristics of these two families of materials. For metallic
materials, cost is determined in large part by the corrosivity of the fluid; the higher the required
corrosion resistance, the higher the alloying requirement for very expensive materials such as nickel.
This contrasts with polymers, where operating temperature dominates the selection process and the
chemistry of the fluid is less of a concern. Corrosivity is often dependant on temperature but where a
very corrosive fluid is transported at moderate temperature, a low-cost polymer may be suitable. This
feature would also allow a pipeline to be lined with a cheaper polymer, once the temperature of the
fluids had reduced suitably.
Two polymer liner examples have been selected in the analysis that follows. A PE liner might be
suitable for a low-temperature hydrocarbon fluid (<60°C) and a PVDF case is presented for
temperatures up to 130°C.
Due to the high cost of CRA materials, a number of innovative manufacturing technologies have
developed that offer metallic solutions at optimised cost. These include a technique whereby a thin
CRA liner is inserted into a carbon steel pipe (mechanically lined). In this way, the thickness of
expensive alloy is minimised. This technique is particularly effective as the pipe diameter and
thickness increases, as the proportion of material in the liner reduces relative to the total mass of the
lined pipe. Questions remain as to whether such pipes are qualified for installation by reeling, so they
have not been considered further for this study. The study therefore considered solid super duplex
and metallurgically bonded Inconel 625 clad pipes as the two metallic options.
Secondary benefits of polymer liners in hydrocarbon applications include improved thermal
performance and lower weight. The lower weight arises because liners have a lower density than
steel substitutes, whilst the improved thermal performance arises in a number of ways.
Firstly, the liner is a good insulator and it is in intimate contact with the fluid, which is where insulation
should be for maximum efficiency. The liner therefore reduces the heat loss from the pipeline (so less
insulation is required for the same U value) but importantly, the steel temperature is also reduced.
The lower host pipe temperature has a number of benefits including a lower buckling force. If the
buckling potential for the pipeline is reduced, there can be considerable cost savings in reduced
buckle mitigation measures, but these have not been evaluated in this study.
As well as having a low thermal conductivity, polymers have low density. These two parameters plus
specific heat capacity can be combined to form a parameter known as ‘thermal diffusivity’, which is a
measure of how quickly a material warms-up. Polymers have low thermal diffusivity, which means
they absorb heat slowly. Consequently, the liner absorbs little heat from the fluid as production starts
to flow which may make the pipeline easier to start-up. In some cases this is an important
consideration but no benefit has been assigned in this case.
Liners also have the potential to change a number of aspects of the flow assurance challenge.
Potential benefits that are claimed (but not assessed for this report) include a tendency to limit the
build-up of waxes (presumably due to a weak bond between the liner and wax, allowing deposits to
be removed) and the potential for incorporating flow modifying features such as ‘riblets’ to further
reduce friction losses.

Swagelining Ltd.
Finally, as corrosion is no longer a concern, corrosion inhibitor chemicals need no longer be injected
subsea. The umbilical can be simplified, as can the manifold at which the chemicals are injected.
5.2 Capital Cost Estimates

The materials costs for a range of design solutions are presented in Figure 5.1.
1,600
1,400
400 bar
1,200
1,000 250 bar

400 Bar Metallurgically Clad 625
Cost Per Metre (£/m)
800 Super Duplex

250 Bar C.S. with Vented PVDF Liner
600 400 Bar
C.S. with Vented PE Liner
400 400 Bar
250 Bar 400 Bar Carbon Steel with 6mm C.A
200
250 Bar
0 250 Bar
10 15 20 25 30
Wall Thickness (mm)
Figure 5.1 – Materials Costs for Aggressive Hydrocarbon Use

Note that in Figure 5.1, the lined pipe cost includes the host pipe, its liner, the cost of insertion, the
termination system and the venting system at the prices indicated in Table 3.1.
The cost of a 250 bar pipeline using 625 clad pipe is £1000/m, more than twice the most expensive
lined option (PVDF at £444/m)
The cost of super duplex pipe for the same system is £660/m, or one and a half times that of the
PVDF lined pipe, and at higher pressures the saving is even greater. At 400 bar the PVDF lined pipe
costs half that of solid super duplex.
The cost of the materials is only part of the story. What really matters is the installed cost, and here
there is a further advantage in favour of lined pipe from improved welding productivity. The
productivity of the laybarge (or stalk fabrication site) is estimated to be twice what is possible whilst
welding CRA.
The as-installed cost of a lined hydrocarbon system is shown overleaf in Figure 5.2.

Swagelining Ltd.
35
30
Metallurgically Clad 625
25
Super Duplex
Cost (£M)
20 C.S. with Vented PVDF Liner
15 C.S. with Vented PE Liner
Carbon Steel with C.A

10
S-Lay PVDF Lined (For

5 Reference)
5 7 9 11 13 15
Figure 5.2 – Cost of a 350bar Hydrocarbon Pipeline Installed by Reeling

A 10km long PVDF lined pipe is estimated to cost £15m whereas the Inconel 625 clad equivalent
costs nearly twice that amount at £28m.
The PE lined pipe offers a 40% saving on the cost of solid super duplex, saving £7.6M, and although
PVDF is much more expensive, it too offers significant capital savings of 25% or £5.2M against super
duplex on a 10km pipeline.
Note again that the cost estimates all assume that the installation contractor will seek the same profit
margin from a lined pipe project as an unlined project. In the case of the water injection pipeline, any
increase in margin by the contractor would lead to an increase in the pipeline cost, but in this case the
savings indicated are substantial, so there is a built-in tension as to how the indicated saving should
be appropriated between the client and the supply chain. This study has assumed that the lion’s
share of cost savings will pass to the client and therefore that they are bearing any additional risks.
There has not been a lined hydrocarbon pipeline installed subsea to date, so there is undoubtedly
some risk in the early projects that has not been accounted for in these cost estimates. If the
contractor perceives a significant risk and if the contract requires him to bear that risk, then he may
well charge a significant premium.
A comparison with installation by S-lay was also made. The results are presented in Figure 5.3
overleaf.

Swagelining Ltd.
35
30
25
Cost (£M)
Super Duplex
20
Super Duplex (Reel Lay)
15 C.S. with Vented PVDF Liner

C.S. with Vented PE Liner
10
5
5 7 9 11 13 15
Figure 5.3 - Cost of a 350bar Hydrocarbon Pipeline Installed by S-lay

Figure 5.3 shows that the S-lay method is more expensive than reeling using solid super duplex, but
that it is competitive against reeling, even for short pipelines, when a polymer lined alternative is
offered. Where a PE liner can be offered against a solid super duplex reeled pipe, the S-lay barge
competes head-to-head at 5km, makes savings of 15% (£3M) at 10km, and makes savings of 25%
(£7m) at 15km.
Where a PVDF liner is required, the S-lay barge becomes competitive against reeled solid super
duplex at 9km, with a 10% (£3m) saving at 15km.
The above analysis suggests that an S-lay contractor may be able to compete against a reel lay
contractor by offering a polymer liner against the reel contractor’s solid super duplex. If the S-lay
contractor in question believed he could improve on the mobilisation costs and productivity
assumptions made in this study he may be able to offer a compelling case for small diameter, highly
engineered pipelines around 10km in length – a market from which he is currently excluded.
As the strain imposed on pipes during S-lay is modest in comparison with reeling, S-lay contractors
can offer metallically lined pipe with a range of intermediate liner cost / corrosion resistance
parameters (which are not analysed here). However, it has been found that the bi-metallic weld and
NDE procedures that such systems entail significantly slow laybarge productivity. Furthermore,
current design practice is not to take benefit from the metallic liner when calculating the pressure
capacity of the pipe. The metallic liner is therefore treated in the same way as a polymer liner, and
even though the polymer may be thicker, its low density, low material cost and low insertion cost
should make it competitive even against these ‘cost optimised’ metallic options.
5.3 Operational Costs

The operational cost of production flowlines includes the cost of maintenance and the cost of
chemical treatments. These are obviously site specific but certain general guidance can be
presented.
There may be capital cost savings by simplifying the subsea equipment (as corrosion inhibitor is not
required) but the operational saving in chemicals is unlikely to be significant in the context of this
report.

Swagelining Ltd.
Maintenance costs should be equivalent to CRA pipelines, although as noted previously the integrity
management focus for lined systems is on demonstrating the integrity of the liner, so different types of
inspection pigs will need to be deployed if required by the Pipeline Integrity Management Scheme.
It is also instructive to consider the hydraulic performance of lined production flowlines as presented
in Figure 5.4 below.
140.0
120.0
Head Loss in Pipeline (bar)
100.0
80.0
6mm CA
60.0 9.8mm PE Lined
8mm PVDF lined
40.0
Super Duplex
20.0
-
30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Throughput (mbd)
Figure 5.4 – The Hydraulic Performance of a 15km, 10-inch Oil Flowline

As can be seen above, there are significant differences in performance. Super duplex is most
efficient because it has the thinnest wall and is assumed to remain smooth through life. The carbon
steel with 6mm corrosion allowance is least efficient as it is assumed to have a roughness of 0.5mm
in operation (in accordance with recommendations of NORSOK Standard P-001.)
The liner offers less benefit than it did in water injection service because the oil assumed here
(Ekofisk) has a viscosity of 10cP. In viscous fluids, internal losses dominate more than friction with
the pipe wall and bore becomes more important than surface finish.
The difference between the two lined cases is due to the superior mechanical properties of PVDF
allowing a somewhat thinner liner than the PE used in this example.
At 70mbd, a PVDF lined pipeline will show a 12bar higher arrival pressure than a carbon steel
equivalent and 30bar lower arrival pressure than a super duplex equivalent.
Although the pipeline will be sized to be suitable for a certain flow capacity when new, the head lost in
the system can be important as pressure declines in the reservoir. Pressure boosting (by mechanical
means or gas lift) is expensive and in this scenario every bar of natural pressure helps maintain
production.

Swagelining Ltd.
6. Conclusions
The costs and benefits of polymer liners in representative water injection and hydrocarbon flowlines
have been investigated. Their respective advantages and disadvantages have been summarised in
Tables 7.1-7.2 below for Water Injection and Hydrocarbon service respectively.
Advantages Disadvantages
Capital - No impact. Other

Lined and unlined pipe have the same cost. Lack of qualified field jointing system for S-lay
Potential secondary savings through reduction in restricts competition in market place.
water treatment specification and weight savings . Presence of the liner introduces another
construction step and fabrication risk.
Operational – Same cost, more Revenue
Higher Recoverable Reserves

Lined pipe is more reliable (no single failure of a
lined water injection flowline in service. Unlined
systems commonly fail within 7 years).
Reliability means more water injected and hence
more oil recovered in a given period of time.
Replacement costs avoided.
Higher Hydrocarbon Production

Lined pipe is more energy efficient than corroded
carbon steel. The energy thus saved can be
spent on pumping more water and enhancing
recovery.
No Corrosion
Potential for ‘raw water’ injection or relaxation of
water quality standards for further capital and
operational cost savings.
Weight
The liner is lighter than the corrosion allowance it
replaces. More liner can be installed where reel
barge is weight limited.
Stresses in riser hang-off systems can be
reduced in floating production system risers (both
SCR type and free-standing riser towers).
Table 6.1 – Advantages and Disadvantages of Polymer Liners in Water Injection Applications

Swagelining Ltd.
Advantages Disadvantages
Capital - Significant savings Technical Maturity
A PVDF lined pipe 10km long costs half that of A polymer lined system has yet to be installed
the equivalent Inconel 625 clad pipeline installed subsea. Qualification testing may be required.
by reeling. Technip claim that their lined pipe product is
qualified but have not yet been able to attract a
Where temperatures are lower, lower cost PE
buyer. This suggests some reluctance on the part
liners become suitable, and here PE lined pipe is of potential clients to adopt new technology.
60% of the cost of solid super duplex, giving a
saving of £7.6M over a 10km pipeline.
A PVDF lined pipe offers 25% savings against
super duplex (£5.2M saving for a 10km pipeline).
Potential secondary capital savings on reduced
buckle mitigation costs, as pipe wall will be cooler
with a liner.
Availability Head Loss

Carbon steel linepipe and polymer liners are more The liner reduces the pipe bore which has a
readily available than CRA linepipe. Projects can significant impact when transporting viscous fluids
be delivered more quickly. such as oil. This analysis indicates a 30bar higher
head loss at 70mbd than a solid super duplex
pipe, but this is still 12bar better than the carbon
steel equivalent.
Weight
Sometimes weight is a key constraint. The liner
may weigh less than the corrosion allowance it
replaces.
Laybarge Competitive Pressure
Polymer lined pipe installed by S-lay barge is
competitive against solid super duplex installed
by reeling. This has the potential to disrupt the
current competitive balance between these two
lay methods, leading to a reduction in cost.
Table 6.2 – Advantages and Disadvantages of Polymer Liners in Hydrocarbon Applications

Swagelining Ltd.
7. References
1. ‘Groove Corrosion in Water Injection Lines – survey results and analysis’, A report produced for
members of the ‘Failure of Water Injection Lines JIP, by AEA Technology, Report No AEAT-
1907, July 1997.

6 Golden Square
Aberdeen
AB10 1RD
Telephone: 01224 264365
email: info@atkinsglobal.com
www.atkinsglobal.com
© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise

The Atkins logo, the 'open A' device, 'Carbon Critical Design'
and the strapline 'Plan Design Enable' are trademarks
of Atkins Limited, a WS Atkins plc company

Polymer

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Polymer

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Polymer Liners for Pipelines

The Cost and Benefits of Polymer Liners in Subsea Pipeline Applications

Polymer Liners for Pipelines

Atkins Ltd Swagelining Ltd

Tel: 01224 264365 Tel: 0845 1803444

Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 1

DOCUMENT ISSUE CONTROL SHEET

Polymer Liners for Pipelines

Issue Date Purpose Rev Prepared Checked

1 12 March Initial issue to client for 0 S. McIntyre K. Neal

2 26 April Client comments 1 S. McIntyre S. Booth

3 11 May For Issue 2 S. McIntyre S. Booth

4 14 May For issue 3 S. McIntyre S. Booth

Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 2

2. Polymer Liner Technology......................................................................................................7

Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 3

Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 4

Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 5

Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 6

2. Polymer Liner Technology

2.2 Liner Selection

Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 7

Material Property Application

Polyethylene Commodity polymer. Cost indexed to price of Oil. Hydrocarbon, water

Polyvinylidene A high-temperature engineering polymer. Costs 12 Hydrocarbon applications

2.3 Liner Insertion and Compatibility with Laybarge Systems

Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 8

2.4 Operational Impacts of Lined Systems

2.4.2 Integrity Management

Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 9

3. Example Pipeline for Cost-Benefit Analysis

3.1 Pipeline Design and Materials Options

Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 10

Property Requirement Cost Discussion

625 clad Cladding included in pressure containment calculation.

Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 11

Work scope Cost

Spool base operations £1,800/tonne weld, NDE, coat

Vessel day rate £200,000 per day

Vessel productivity 40km/day

Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 12

3.3.1 ‘S’ Lay

Work scope Cost

Vessel day rate £500,000 per day

Vessel productivity 2.0 km/day super duplex

3.4 Venting in Hydrocarbon Applications

Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 13

4. Liners in Water Injection Applications

Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 14

4.2 Capital Cost Estimates

Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 15

10 Carbon Steel with 6mm C.A

Length of Pipeline (Km)

Figure 4.2 – Cost of a 350bar Water Injection Pipeline Installed by Reeling

Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 16

Length of Pipeline (Km)

4.3 Operational Costs

4.3.1 The Cost of Maintenance

Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 17

4.3.2 The Cost of Power

Cost of power consumed (£k pa)

Figure 4.4 – Energy Costs for Water Injection Pumps

Report No: 5092013/RP01/Rev3 Page 18