Flow Assurance Challenges in field developments

Introduction

Although the energy demand is growing worldwide, the existing onshore and shallow
water reserves are fast depleting. This has forced operating companies to look at deeper
water, where success has been achieved in a few areas. However, as we move in deeper
waters the production of oil and gas becomes more difficult predominantly due to low sea
bed temperature, higher hydrostatic head and long distances of flow involved. Flow
Assurance starts playing a very major role in field development planning and selection of
appropriate concept.

Flow Assurance Issues – Shallow Vs Deepwater

The basis of design and concept selection changes completely as one moves from shallow
water to deeper waters. The near freezing temperatures at Seabed and high flowing
pressures in the risers and flowlines added to high external hydrostatic pressures create
extremely favourable environments for solids deposition like Hydrates, paraffins etc. The
system design must address these issues from a fresh perspective. Where as, structural
and economic issues play primary role in shallow waters, decision like dry tree vs. wet
tree (subsea tie-back, tieback distances) etc. influence the field development in deep
water. The riser rather than the flow line dominates the overall hydraulics and
thermodynamic performance of the system. An increased liquid column height in the
riser, a greater potential energy change and an enhanced Joule Thomson effect together,
result in significant temperature and pressure drops across deep water risers as against a
shallow water riser. Added to this insulation costs rise steeply in deepwater and any form
of intervention in the event of failure becomes prohibitively expensive.

What is Flow Assurance?

Flow Assurance can be defined as the ability to produce fluids economically from the
reservoir to a production facility, over the life of a field in any environment. It is a
rigorous engineering process that works with an objective to maximize production by
ensuring unrestricted production flow path through out the field life with lifecycle costs
at minimum.

Need for Flow Assurance

Offshore oil comes from the ground into deepwater facilities, risers, subsea wellheads,
and flowlines at high temperatures but then is cooled by deep water at low temperatures
(typically near 40°F (4.4°C), at about 2000 ft depth) once it is in the subsea pipeline. This
can cause deposition of waxy substances and precipitation of water leading to Hydrate
formation and Corrosion, both of which can jeopardize Flow and System integrity and
consequently, ongoing operations. Literature points out that in Campos Basin, problems
associated with flow assurance still account for production losses of approximately 1.3%.

Typical trouble makers for Flow Assurance can be classified as follows:

Hydrates :Hydrates are icy crystalline compounds formed by the contact of hydrate
forming gases like methane, ethane, propane, CO2, H2S and liquid water at very low
temperatures and high pressure. Hydrate formation during normal operations, following
shut-ins and during start-up can lead to large production losses and tricky and costly
intervention problems

Paraffin/Wax: Waxes are high molecular weight, highly saturated organic substances.
The formation of wax crystals depends significantly on temperature change. Paraffin
waxes gel when cooled and deposit on the cold pipe wall surface, gradually choking off
the flow through the pipeline.

Asphaltenes: Asphaltenes are high molecular weight aromatic organic substances that
are soluble in toluene but are precipitated by alkanes (n-heptane/n-pentane). Asphaltenes
remain in dissolved in colloidal suspension under high pressure and temperature
conditions of reservoir but are destabilized by changes in temperature and pressure due to
primary depletion and start precipitating in reservoir.
Scales: Solid build-up, especially at wellbore tubing, due to chemistry of produced water.

Erosion: Wearing out of the tubing, pipelines and flowline walls due to solid particles
such as sand or due to liquid impingement at high fluid velocities.

Corrosion: Wearing out of flowline thickness due to the chemistry of produced fluids.

Slugging: The phenomena caused by instabilities of gas and liquid interface and liquid
sweep-out by gas inertial effects.

Emulsion/ Viscosity : Oil & water mixture that causes excessive pressure losses.

These solids have the potential to deposit any where from the near wellbore and
perforation to well bore, topside surface facilities and pipelines. Depending upon the
specific fluid properties, hydrodynamic and heat transfer characteristics of a given field
development system, the pressure and temperature PT path may intersect one or all three
elements of hydrocarbon solid formation namely asphaltene, wax and hydrate and its
flow path from reservoir to facility as shown in Figure1.

Liquid

Hydrate Wax Asphaltene

Pressure (psia)

Vapor-Liquid

Temperature (oC)

Figure-1
 The areas encompassed by Flow Assurance can be depicted with the help of this chart:

ROLE OF FLOW ASSURANCE FROM RESERVOIR TO RECEPTION FACILITIES

GEO PHYSICAL EXPLORATION

GEOLOGICAL EXPLOITATION THROUGH

DRILLING / PRODUCTION TESTING
RESERVOIR PROFILE GENERATION

FIELD DEVELOPMENT STUDIES THROUGH CSR AND FEED

FLOW ASSURANCE STUDIES THAT DECIDES DESIGN OF

Wellheads & Tree systems
Intervention
Down hole Systems
Systems

Manifolds Templates Riser Systems

Subsea or Surface Processing

Connection Systems Control Systems

Flowlines & Umbilicals

Subsea Tieback
FPS

To Shore Existing Facility

Flow Assurance : Key issues

Development of reliable guidelines for design and operation of systems for mitigation of
these flow hazards is crucial. This can be done only through extensive analysis and flow
assurance modeling. Key considerations for design and operational basis for flow
assurance include reservoir characteristics and production profiles, produced fluids
properties and behavior over the field life, operating strategies, and other system
variables. Other points to be kept in mind include local and regional conditions and other
issues that influence the economics of environmental conditions and the accessibility of
the wells for service. Regional considerations could include availability of service
industry to the location and cost and time of mobilization.

The key objectives that must be considered for Flow assurance are:

 Ensure that the passage of flow through tubings and pipeline, is clear without any
blockage. This involves mainly preventing and controlling the deposition of
hydrates, waxes, asphaltenes, mineral scales, and solids (sands). The deposits can
progressively block the fluid flow and fill up process vessels and tanks. Excessive
deposits can interfere with the operation of valves and instrumentation.
 Control the transportation conditions and fluid behavior to achieve the most cost-
effective way of operation. For example, excessive foaming and emulsification
can increase the energy and chemical demand while reducing the production
throughput and the sales value of the produced fluids. These, therefore, result in
an increased cost of production and decreased revenues.

Important system parameters established as part of this system design include flow
diameters (tubing and flowlines), maximum and minimum production/flow rates,
insulation (tubing, flowlines, wellheads, trees, and manifolds), chemical injection and
storage requirements, flow blockage intervention needs, strategies, and techniques,
host facility requirements (flow receivers, fluids handling, pigging, blockage
prevention/ intervention/ remediation capability, etc.), and capital / operating costs.

Achieving Flow Assurance

Flow assurance is achieved through assessment of fluid characteristics, management of

fluid flow and solid deposition from operational point of view through proper monitoring
and prediction of system behaviour under transient and steady state flow and finally
taking a suitable preventive and remedial measures. This is illustrated in Figure 2.
 Thermal/Thermodynamic Chemical Mechanical
Passive system Active For hydrates For
system wax/paraffin
P Pipe-in-pipe Electric Dehydration
heating
R
Dispersants
Buried pipe Hot fluid
E
circulation
V Thermodynamic
External Exothermic
inhibitors Pigging
E coated pipe process
Crystal
Synthetic Kinetic
N modifiers
jacketed pipe inhibitors
T

N
R Electric Pigging
heating
M
Solvents
Hot fluid
E
circulation
D Exothermic Coiled tubing
process Dissociation
I
Microbes
De-pressurization
A

Flow assurance can be effectively managed following the steps of prediction, prevention,
monitoring, intervention, and improvement:
Process of Flow Assurance Modeling and Design

The flow assurance design process studies the fluid characteristics to ensure
uninterrupted production by ensuring that there is no blockage on account of solid
deposition (like wax, asphaltenes, hydrates) and other problematic issues like slugging
erosion / corrosion, scaling, sand etc are covered.

The Flow Assurance engineer seeks answers to the following questions:

 Is the reservoir fluid likely to exhibit solid deposition; in the well, in the pipeline,
during processing?
 Will the situation change owing to the presence of; formation water, injection gas, co-
mingled streams?
 How can the deposition be prevented at minimum cost?
 What is the minimum input information required for modeling?
A standard flow assurance process consists of the following steps to answer the above
questions:

 Obtain fluid samples and perform fluids analysis for PVT properties. Run wax and
asphaltene screening tests.
 Develop hydrate stability curves and methanol / kinetic inhibitor dosing requirements
 Construct a thermal-hydraulic model of the well(s) and generate flowing wellhead
temperature and pressures for a range of production conditions. Also run well bore
temperature transient studies
 Model riser cool-down as a function of riser base temperature. Utilize information to
determine required system insulation properties.
 Construct steady state flow line models and use to compute riser base temperatures
and boarding temperatures and pressures
 Perform transient analysis on blow down, start-up and shut down and warm up
processes
 Utilize flow assurance results together with solids control strategies as input into
system design and operation procedures
To eliminate and/or mitigate these flow assurance problems, various design solutions
have to be incorporated, including combination of thermal, mechanical and/or chemical
techniques. Chemical inhibition is commonly used in conjunction with the thermal
methods of hydrate and wax prevention.

Chemical Methods

The traditional method of preventing wax or hydrate formation is by dosing the

wellstream with anti-freeze chemicals such as methanol and glycol, the former being the
most commonly used. The chemicals function as dispersants and kinetic inhibitors (which
impede the formation of hydrates and waxes) or as crystal modifiers (which prevent their
agglomeration).

Thermal Methods

The primary aim of thermal methods is to maintain the wellstream temperature above the
thresholds for hydrates formation (typically 15-25OC) and/or wax deposition (typically 20
-40OC).

The principal methods are :

 The application of insulating materials to subsea pipeline and hardware to

prevent heat loss from the well stream.
 Heating flowlines, by means of the circulation of hot water or by electric
heating systems. (to maximize heat efficiency, insulation is typically incorporated
in heated lines).
 Pipeline burial to take advantage of the insulation provided by seabed soils.

Mechanical Methods

Mechanical methods of clearing blockages from pipelines rely either on coiled tubing or
on ‘pigging’. Producers use mechanical means to keep pipelines free of solid
accumulations. These include insulated and/or heated tubing and a variety of pigging
devices, which fit the diameter of the pipe and scrape the pipe walls as they are pumped
through the pipe. Pigs are usually inadequate or uneconomical, unless used in conjunction
with a chemical treatment program.

Flow Assurance Through Technologies Integration

Subsea-tiebacks

Whereas dry trees provide easier drilling and access for well interventions, they become
susceptible to hydrate formation as we move deeper, especially after shut-down due to
increased shut-in pressures. Also dry tree risers in ultradeep water systems require more
complex and costly insulation systems. The total cost differential between dry and wet
tree systems is generally small in the 1200m to 1800m water depth range, but strongly
favours wet trees beyond 1800m. That is probably the reason that 70% of deepwater
completions as on date are on subsea tieback with existing or new infrastructure facilities.
A combination of wet trees with advanced subsea technologies has become a very
attractive bargain. Also for commercial exploitation of marginal and deepwater fields,
development through sub-sea tiebacks to existing host facilities becomes an attractive
option

Subsea and Downhole Multiphase Flow Metering(MFM). Multiphase Flow Metering

(MFM) avoids the need for a dedicated test line and allows metering of the produced
stream before it is commingled with production from other fields. MFM is easier with
lower Gas Void Fractions, lower potential for hydrates, scale or asphaltene formation,
and higher density contrast between oil and water. Canyon Express project is the deepest
producing field at 7210feet comprising of development of three field operated by three
different operators (Aconcagua by TotalFina Elf, Camden Hills By Marathon and King’s
peak by BP) flowing through a common multiphase pipeline to shallow water platform.
Subsea multiphase meters have been used to determine production from individual wells
as multiple fields have been commingled in a single flowline. Operation and maintenance
of the tie-back line is shared by the three operators thus making the project economical
for all operators.
Downhole MFM appears best suited for intelligent wells, which makes measurements of
downhole flow, and/or reservoir conditions (pressure/temperature) thereby enabling
surveillance in real time. They also have the ability to remotely control zones by on/off
control or choking. Nakika, the deepest field is expected to come onstream in the current
year using a intelligent well and multiphase flow meter.

The advantages of MFM can be combined with the following technologies that enhance
the feasibility of a deepwater or marginal field development.

Subsea and Downhole Separation:

This technology which is under development stage promises to improve vertical lift to the
surface, reduces the processing load on the topside facilities, allows use of simple
flowline networks, and provides less-severe slugging. It also helps prevent corrosion,
formation of hydrates and unstable emulsions, and asphaltenes deposition. Thus, many
flow-assurance issues will be eased by the introduction of sub-sea and downhole
separation, coupled with MFM to optimize field recovery.

Multiphase Pumping:

Longer tie-back distances can be achieved as a result of the improvements in flow

assurance and the addition of energy (pumping) to the well stream enabling it to flow
over longer distances. Improved Flow Assurance is derived from the addition of pressure
multiphase pumps. Subsea-systems have produced using reservoir pressure over flowline
distances of up to 50 km in length, however this is most unusual and in practice few
flowlines exceed 20 kms. The attractions of increasing this distance are considerable, and
could lead to the exploitation of many reservoirs which are currently too small or too
isolated for economic development. They have been successfully used in Ceiba field,
Equatorial Guiena.
Conclusions:

To achieve successful field development, it is necessary to ensure that all issues relating
to flow assurance have been covered in detail during the design state. This would require
a thorough understanding of the solids deposition. The operating guidelines could be
summarized as

 Avoid formation of solids – wax, asphaltenes or hydrates.

 Do not allow the system to enter a pressure/temperature region where hydrates are
stable
 Prevent wax deposition in the well bore
 Remove wax from the flow line by regular pigging
 Design to inhibit and remove asphaltenes, wax and hydrates
 Design provisions for suitable remediation measures

The capital expenditure needs to be balanced with risks associated with flow assurance
and the willingness of the operator to take these risks. Most flow assurance designs
would be either “under-engineered” or “over-engineered” as there is no “right” solution.
There would be many opinions as to what is the right solution. Hence, it is desirable to
reduce the levels of subjectivity in design by quantifying the levels of risk by following a
defined unique flow assurance process based on the needs of each project as each project
is unique and requires specific project strategies for optimum development.

References:

1. A.K.M.Jamaluddin, J.Nighswander, N.Joshi: “A Systematic Approach in

Deepwater Flow Assurance Fluid Characterization”, SPE 71546
2. J.D.Hudson, L.A.Dykhno, S.E.Lorimer, W.Schoppa, R.J.Wilkens/Shell
International Exploration and Production, Inc., “Flow Assurance for Subsea
Wells”, OTC 11968
3. Michael P. Pausche, BHP Billiton Petroleum (Americas) Inc.; Jefferson L.Creek,
Chevron; Mark A Stair, Mark A Stair and Associates: “Typhoon Project: Flow
Assurance Issues – How They were identified and Resolved”, OTC 14053
4. David B.L.Walker and Norman D. McMullen, BP, “The Challenges of Deepwater
Flow Assurance: One Company’s Perspective”, OTC 13075
5. K.Minami, A.P.A Kurban, C.N.Khalil and C.Kuchpil, PETROBRAS, “Ensuring
Flow and Production in Deepwater Environments”, OTC 11035
6. Ron K Berger, Manatee, Norman D.McMullen, BP, “Lessons learned from
Troika’s Flow Assurance Challenges”, OTC 13074