IBP1345_12

PARAFFIN DISPERSANT APPLICATION FOR CLEANING

SUBSEA FLOWLINES IN THE DEEPWATER GULF OF
MEXICO COTTONWOOD DEVELOPMENT
David Jennings1, Jake White2, Oje Pogoson3, Dalmo Barros4,
Kartik Ramachandran5, George Bonin6, Paulo Waltrich7,
Farid Shecaira8, Claudio Ziglio9
Copyright 2012, Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute - IBP
This Technical Paper was prepared for presentation at the Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012, held between September, 17-
20, 2012, in Rio de Janeiro. This Technical Paper was selected for presentation by the Technical Committee of the event according to
the information contained in the final paper submitted by the author(s). The organizers are not supposed to translate or correct the
submitted papers. The material as it is presented, does not necessarily represent Brazilian Petroleum, Gas and Biofuels Institute’
opinion, or that of its Members or Representatives. Authors consent to the publication of this Technical Paper in the Rio Oil & Gas
Expo and Conference 2012 Proceedings.

Abstract
This paper discusses a paraffin dispersant (in seawater) application to clean paraffin deposition from a severely
restricted 17.4-mile dual subsea flowline system in the Gulf of Mexico Cottonwood development. In principle,
dispersant treatments are simple processes requiring effective dispersant packages and agitation to break-up and disperse
deposition. Dispersants have been used onshore for treating wax deposition for decades. Implementation of a treatment
in a long deepwater production system, however, poses numerous challenges. The Cottonwood application was one of
the first ever deepwater dispersant applications. The application was designed in four separate phases: pre-treatment
displacement for hydrate protection, dispersant treatment for paraffin deposition removal, pigging sequence for final
flowline cleaning, and post-treatment displacement for hydrate protection. In addition, considerable job planning was
performed to ensure the application was executed in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. Two dynamically
positioned marine vessels were used for pumping fluids and capturing returns. The application was extremely successful
in restoring the deepwater flowlines back to near pre-production state. Final pigging operations confirmed the flowlines
were cleaned of all restrictions. Significant paraffin deposition was removed in the application. Approximately 900
bbls of paraffin sludge was recovered from the 4000 bbl internal volume flowline loop. Furthermore, the application
was completed with zero discharge of fluids. The application provided significant value for the Cottonwood
development. It allowed production from wells to be brought on-line at a higher capacity, thereby generating increased
revenue. It also allowed resumption of routine pigging operations. As such, the Cottonwood dispersant application
illustrates that with proper planning and execution, paraffin dispersant treatments can be highly effective solutions for
cleaning paraffin-restricted deepwater flowlines.

1. Introduction
Cottonwood Development & Production History
Cottonwood is a deepwater subsea development in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) operated by Petrobras. It is
located at a water depth of ~2200 feet in Gardens Banks Block 244. The development consists of three wells connected
to 17.4 mile, 6-inch nominal diameter parallel dual flow lines tied-back to an Enterprise platform located in shallow
water in East Cameron Block 373. A jumper connecting the flowline PLETs (pipeline end terminals) allows pigging of
the flowlines. The internal volume of the 4.8 inch internal diameter (ID) flowline loop is approximately 4000 bbls.
Figure 1 illustrates the subsea flowline layout of the Cottonwood development. Two of the Cottonwood wells produce
from a gas-condensate reservoir and the third produces from a heavy-oil bearing reservoir. Initial field production was
from the gas-condensate reservoir wells. The heavy-oil reservoir well was shut-in for early field life. It was brought on-
line shortly after the dispersant cleaning application discussed in this paper. The condensate is a high paraffin (wax)
content fluid with a high wax deposition rate in the flowlines. The flow assurance concerns about wax deposition were
identified in the initial field design [1] and a wax deposition control strategy was developed and implemented at the start

______________________________
1 6
Ph.D. Chemical Engineer - BAKER HUGHES Superintendent – PETROBRAS AMERICA
2 7
B.S. Chemical Engineer – BAKER HUGHES M.S. Mechanical Engineer – PETROBRAS AMERICA
3 8
HDipl. Petroleum Engineer – BAKER HUGHES Ph.D. Petroleum Engineer – PETROBRAS AMERICA
4 9
M.S. Petroleum Engineer – PETROBRAS AMERICA Ph.D. Chemist – PETROBRAS CENPES
5
M.S. Petroleum Engineer – PETROBRAS AMERICA
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

of production in February 2007. The wax control strategy was to use pigging in conjunction with continuous paraffin
inhibitor application to reduce the pigging frequency.

Figure 1: Cottonwood Field Subsea Layout.

In December 2007, however, an aggressively-sized pig was stuck during a pig-run. The pig was stuck
approximately midway in the East return flowline along with a significant obstruction of paraffin ahead of the pig (see
Figure 1). The obstruction completely eliminated production through half the dual flowline system. All production was
subsequently diverted through the unobstructed West flowline. This hindered both production and the ability to carry-
out the wax control strategy. Without pigging capabilities, complete control of wax deposition was not possible. The
paraffin inhibitor itself was not able to completely prevent deposition and overtime the West flowline became restricted
with wax deposition. Periodic solvent soak treatments were applied to keep the flowline operational [2]. Replacement
of the flowline was too cost-prohibitive to consider.

Through a persistent effort over the following two years though, the pig was dislodged in February 2010 [2].
Various procedures to dislodge the pig (alternating line pressurization, Micro Annular Pressure Pulse process, Subsea
Umbilical Resonance Energy process) were attempted but not successful outright. The procedures were believed,
however, to have contributed to the final breakthrough of the obstruction which came from maintaining a continual
controlled pressurization from the wellhead with a solvent driving fluid over the years. Although the removal of the pig
opened the potential for resumption of production through the East flowline, the need to clean the wax deposition
existed. The severe deposition present in the flowlines not only restricted production but also prohibited resumption of
pigging operations since pigging in severely deposited flowlines is very risky toward sticking a pig. As a result,
methods for cleaning the flowlines were sought following opening the East flowline. The use of a paraffin dispersant
treatment (in seawater) was chosen to clean the flowlines. In cold temperatures (such as deepwater), dispersants can
actually carry more paraffin than even the best solvents can dissolve. As such, the dispersant treatment was selected as
the best option for cleaning the flowlines.

Dispersants and Applications in Deepwater

Paraffin dispersants are chemicals used for the removal of paraffin deposition [3]. Dispersants are available for
dispersing paraffin in hydrocarbon-based or aqueous fluids. Dispersants are, however, more effective and commonly
used for dispersing paraffin in aqueous fluids. The aqueous fluids used in the dispersant treatments usually depend on
the source water available at the application site. For onshore applications, produced water or nearby non-formation
damaging brines are often used. For offshore applications, seawater is the most practical source. Commercial
dispersant products consist of a package of surfactants and other chemicals for penetrating, breaking-up, and dispersing
deposition. In addition, the dispersants must also keep the removed deposition well dispersed and water-wet such that it
does not stick and re-deposit elsewhere. As equally important as the dispersant chemistry package, is agitation for
providing the necessary contact and interaction between the dispersant and deposition. Hence, some means for pumping
the dispersant to vigorously contact the deposition is often needed. Without adequate agitation, dispersant treatments
will not be effective. In principle, dispersant treatments are not too different than cleaning in an electric dishwasher. Of
course, agitation from spray jets and mixers in dishwaters (and added heating) is not available in the field. Also for field
applications, the dispersant must clean and “carry” more material (deposition) than required of a dishwasher detergent.

Paraffin dispersants have been used onshore for decades for removal of wax deposition from locations ranging
from the near-wellbore to storage tanks [4 - 5]. Offshore paraffin applications have been more limited and primarily
restricted to a few applications cleaning shallow-water subsea flowlines. In deepwater, dispersant applications are a
relatively new concept. To our knowledge there have been only two previous deepwater subsea flowline dispersant
2
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

cleaning applications – one of which was publicly documented [6]. The Cottonwood application was however, in many
ways, more comprehensive than the other applications.

In deepwater production systems, paraffin deposition is common. Seafloor temperatures are cold (~4°C) and,
as such, wax deposition occurs to some extent in most deepwater production system with subsea flowlines of notable
distance. When dealing with production of crude oils (or condensates) having appreciable wax-contents, if not
controlled, wax deposition can overtime restrict the flowline and limit production. Limited production, of course, means
reduced revenue. Hence it is imperative to control wax deposition for crude oils (or condensates) with moderate to
heavy paraffin deposition tendencies. Pigging is the most common method to control wax deposition in deepwater
flowlines. Most deepwater production systems are designed with dual flowline loops to allow pigging. Insulation and
paraffin inhibitors are also used to reduce deposition. Often these are in used conjunction with pigging. For pigging to
be effective, it must be performed regularly. If deposition becomes too great, there exists a large risk of sticking the pig
in the flowline. Pigging operations are typically designed around having a regular schedule of pigging after deposition
builds to a prescribed level; usually a few millimeters of deposition build-up.

For remediating severely restricted deepwater flowlines, dispersants are actually one of the better remediation
options. As mentioned, pigging has a significant risk of plugging flowlines when deposition levels are large. With
severely restricted flowlines, the risk is high despite even using a progressive program of starting with smaller diameter
pigs and slowly increasing the pig diameter. Solvents also have significant limitations in deepwater flowlines. Solvents
perform well at moderate and hot temperatures. In cold environments, however, solvents lose effectiveness since wax
solubility in even the best solvents becomes limited at cold temperatures. At low deepwater seafloor temperatures,
dispersants actually can remove and “carry” more paraffin than solvents can dissolve.

Although paraffin dispersant treatments are a good option for cleaning deepwater flowlines, implementing a
dispersant treatment in a long deepwater production system poses several challenges. First, a means for pumping the
dispersant and seawater is required such that adequate contact and agitation between the dispersant and deposition
occurs. Again, without adequate agitation, dispersant treatments will not be effective. Therefore completely plugged
flowlines or flowlines so severely restricted in which adequate flow across the deposition cannot be obtained are not
suitable candidates for dispersant treatments. To achieve proper contact and agitation, pressure pumping services are
needed. If the pumping cannot be performed from host facilities, then pressure pumping services must be supplied from
dedicated marine vessels. Second, equipment and facilities are required to capture and adequately dispose of the
paraffin deposition recovered from the application. If dealing with long tie-backs, the amount of recovered paraffin /
paraffin sludge can be substantial; in thousands of barrels. Third, the potential for hydrate formation must be addressed
in deepwater systems. Operations are likely to be in the hydrate region with the cold temperatures, high pressures, and
presence of water and gas. Fourth, though not exclusive to deepwater systems, it is imperative that applications are
executed in a safe and environmentally responsible manner. Potential complexities with rigging-up marine vessels and
equipment offshore make safety planning more involved.

Dispersant Testing and Recommendation

Procedure
Selection of dispersants is typically performed with bottle (or flask) testing. In bottle testing, weighed amounts
of deposits are placed in a bottle along with the source water and dispersant(s). The deposit may be coated on the glass
or placed as larger sample pieces (sphere-shaped, cylinder-shaped, etc) in the dispersant-water mixture. The samples are
then agitated to obtain paraffin break-up and dispersion. The dispersant package that results in the best break-up and
dispersion of the deposit, while maintaining a water-wet bottle, is considered to be the best choice. Other factors such as
ease of separation of the paraffin dispersion, water quality, and propensity to foam may also be considered.

For the Cottonwood application, dispersant testing was performed at both the Baker Hughes and Petrobras
CENPES laboratories. Each helped in planning the treatment design. Discussed here is testing at the Baker Hughes
laboratories. Initially a series of qualitative tests were performed to screen various dispersant chemistries to select the
more effective products for further, more in-depth quantitative testing. The subsequent quantitative testing focused on
examining the effects of dispersant concentration, hydrate inhibitor, and wax deposit loading on the more promising
products to provide a final treatment recommendation. The deposit used for testing was actual wax deposition from the
Cottonwood flowline obtained from pigging returns. It was a hard, sticky deposit. High Temperature Gas
Chromatography analysis revealed the deposit contained n-paraffin waxes with chain lengths ranging from
approximately C26 to C70+. A 1.4 wt. % ratio of deposit to dispersant / synthetic seawater mixture was used in the
majority of testing. The deposit was formed into a sphere and placed with the seawater and dispersant into a 1-oz bottle.
The deposit / dispersant / seawater mixture was then placed on a mechanical shaker for ~100 minutes. Afterwards the
3
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

bottles were removed and dispersant performance evaluated. A few tests were run at room temperature. The majority of
tests were performed at 0°C though to simulate near deepwater conditions. In these tests, bottles were placed in small
individual ice bathes which were placed on the shaker. The initial qualitative tests relied on visual observations to
assess the break-up and dispersion of paraffin deposits. In the quantitative testing, the amount of deposition break-up
was determined using a filtering procedure. The deposit / dispersant / seawater mixture was poured through a 275
micron mesh-screen filter. The retained deposit on the screen was weighed following a rinse and dry procedure. From
the weight difference between the initial deposit charge and screen retain, a percent paraffin break-up was calculated.

Results
Figure 2 shows an initial screening test of a variety of products (A - F) performed at room temperature. Note in
the tests with products D and F, little to no break-up in the wax deposit occurred. The wax deposit (formed into a
sphere) is approximately unchanged from the state in which it was initially added to the bottle. Product F did not even
extract entrained crude oil from the deposit. In addition to poor deposit break-up, product D also yielded dirty water. In
contrast, products A, B, C, and E had significant break-up of the paraffin deposit. Although the amount of un-dispersed
larger deposit pieces (hidden in the top dispersant / deposit slurry layer) can not be readily distinguished in the picture,
some hint in the amount of break-up can be ascertained from the thickness of the dispersant / deposit slurry layer. The
thicker layers have more dispersed deposit.

Figure 2: Initial Screening of Products.

Confirmed in subsequent testing, Product B was selected as the best performing product for the Cottonwood
clean-up application. Figures 3 and 4 show the performance of Product B in the product evaluation testing. Figure 3
shows the effect of dispersant concentration on performance in testing at 0°C. As the concentration of Product B was
increased in the seawater, the amount of deposit break-up increased and the deposition was better dispersed and water-
wet. In these series of tests, Product B provided significant deposit break-up ranging from 28 to 88 wt. %. At
dispersant concentrations of 5 wt. % and greater, the amount of break-up was more than 50 %. Figure 4 shows the effect
of wax loading on performance in testing at 0°C with tests having 10 wt. % dispersant. As the amount of wax present
increased (relative to the amount of dispersant / seawater), the percentage of paraffin deposit break-up decreased.
However, the total amount of wax dispersed or the loading in the dispersant / seawater mixture increased. It increased
until a limit in the amount of wax deposit the mixture could carry was reached. Figure 4 actually is a good illustration of
how a dispersant can “carry” significantly more paraffin than solvents dissolve at low temperatures. In Figure 4, Product
B can be seen to approach a limit of “carrying” approximately 1.5 wt. % deposition in the seawater. At 0°C, long chain
wax solubility in the best solvents is less than 0.05 wt. % [7]. Even when accounting for the fact that actual wax
deposits do not consist entirely of long chain waxes (but include a significant amount of entrained crude oil), there is
still an order of magnitude difference here between solvent solubility and the dispersant carrying power.

Figure 3: Product B Dispersant Test Results on Cottonwood Paraffin Deposit at 0°C.

4
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

Figure 4: Performance of Product B on Cottonwood Paraffin Deposit with Increasing Deposit Charge.

Overall the laboratory testing revealed that Product B performed well at removing and dispersing the
Cottonwood paraffin deposition into seawater. Furthermore, the dispersed deposit / dispersant slurry separated fairly
readily from seawater after stopping agitation which would aid separation and collection of the deposition during the
application. The almost complete separation of the dispersant (with the deposit) from the seawater does preclude reuse
of the dispersant during the application though.

Effect of Hydrate Inhibitor

With the cold temperatures, high pressures, and presence of gas in the flowlines, the need for protection against
hydrates existed either before or during pumping seawater into the flowlines. One method to protect against hydrates is
the addition of a thermodynamic hydrate inhibitor (methanol, monoethylene glycol (MEG), etc..) to the seawater to
prevent hydrate formation. Unfortunately, the presence of thermodynamic hydrate inhibitors was found to adversely
affect the performance of the dispersants. At lower dispersant concentrations, the dispersants were found to interact
with the hydrate inhibitor and not the deposit. At higher concentrations (around 10 wt. % dispersant) good paraffin
deposit break-up was obtained with some products. However, the performance dropped dramatically with dispersant
concentrations below 10 wt. %. As a result, it was decided that hydrate protection would be handled in separate phases
of the treatment and not be included in the dispersant cleaning package.

2. Treatment Planning
The treatment was planned over the course of approximately four months from May to August 2010 with many
contributions from various personnel from Petrobras, Baker Hughes, and Cetco. It was necessary, in fact, that the
application planning be completed within this timeframe as constraints existed on the window of opportunity to perform
the application. Sea conditions in the GOM during the fall and winter are unfavorable for performing the operations
from the marine vessels required for the application. The treatment was designed in four phases. Two phases were
related to the actual flowline cleaning - a dispersant treatment and a hydraulic pigging operation. The other two phases
were for handling hydrate concerns before and after the flowline cleaning. Following the treatment, an additional phase
for de-watering the flowlines prior to production restart was also needed. De-watering the flowlines was necessary as
the pressure from the existing producing wells was considered not sufficient to displace the flowlines completely filled
with the seawater / hydrate inhibitor mixture. Below is a discussion covering: rig-up requirements, the four treatment
phases, the de-watering phase, safety / environmental considerations, and the comprehensive work plan review.

Rig Up
For the application, two dynamically positioned marine vessels were required to be located within 80 feet of the
platform and each other. As both vessels were fitted with similar dynamic positioning equipment, they had the
capability to synchronize their positioning systems between themselves and the fixed platform location. The marine
vessels were to be used for transporting, pumping, receiving, separating, and storing returns. The stimulation vessel was
to provide pumping for the seawater / hydrate inhibitor flowline displacements, the dispersant treatment, and the
hydraulic pigging. It was capable of pumping at rates up to 7 bpm and mixing the dispersant or hydrate inhibitor with
seawater to required concentrations during the various phases. The fluids handling vessel was to be equipped with five
500-bbl tanks topside. Three were planned as primary tanks for waste collection, one for gas separation from incoming
three phase flow (during initial portion of operation), and another for reserve. The tanks were to be vented to flare. The
primary collection tanks were to be filled batch-wise with the more dense seawater to be drained from the bottom,
filtered, and recycled to the stimulation vessel after appropriate settling time for separation of the seawater from the

5
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

dispersant and paraffin deposition. After unloading seawater from the tanks, additional volume would be available to
allow cycling back to refill collection tanks - until the tanks were predominately full with dispersant and deposit.

The vessels were connected to the flowlines through manifolds attached to the pig receiver and launcher on the
platform. The stimulation vessel was set-up to pump through the West flowline and the fluids handling vessel was set-
up to receive returns from the East flowline. Capabilities to reverse the flowpath existed through connections between
the manifolds, particularly in the event a stuck pig needed to be dislodged. An underwater transfer line allowed for
recycling pumped seawater between the vessels. All pressure piping and pumping manifold equipment were assigned a
maximum pressure limit of 3000 psi which was below the maximum allowable pressure limit for the flowlines and the
pig launcher and receiver. In order to guarantee that this pressure would not be exceeded, a pressure relief valve set at
3000 psi was installed in-line.

Phase 1: Initial Displacement of Flowlines for Hydrate Protection

As mentioned the potential existed for hydrate formation in the dispersant treatment, if not accounted for in the
application procedures. The displacement of the flowlines with seawater / MEG mixture was chosen as the procedure to
prevent hydrates from jeopardizing the treatment. A concentration of 44 wt. % MEG was required in the seawater.
Adding the displacement stage, however, added extra cost to the application both from the extra job time and chemical
cost for the MEG. To minimize the MEG cost, the seawater / MEG mixture from the initial displacement of the
flowlines was to be captured and stored for re-use in Phase 4. Unfortunately, less expensive displacement options were
not possible for various reasons. For example, use of methanol as the hydrate inhibitor was deemed unsuitable as issues
existed with transport on the stimulation vessel due to the large quantities and low flash point. Also material
compatibility issues existed with storage in the internal storage tanks of the fluids handling vessel. Other alternatives of
displacing the flowline with dead crude oil or diesel were also not feasible. These had advantages of potential re-sale
into the platform export line to partially recover cost. Unfortunately, no source of dead crude oil was available and
limitations existed in placing refined petroleum products, such as diesel, in the export pipeline. As a result, MEG was
the only viable option. It has a higher flash point than methanol and did not have the material compatibility issues.
Approximately one flowline volume (4000 bbls) of the MEG / seawater mixture was planned to be pumped.

The time for Phase 1 would depend on the flowrates achievable while staying below the 3000 psi pressure
limit. It was anticipated that the MEG / Seawater flowline displacement would take 1 - 2 days. The initial flowline
displacement would provide pre-cleaning baseline information for monitoring the dispersant’s deposition removal. A
specially developed simplified single-phase hydrodynamic model was developed to assess the application progress using
flowrate, flowline pressure, and fluid physical property data. Details are given in the companion paper [2].

Phase 2: Dispersant Treatment

The West flowline was the most significantly restricted with wax deposition. It had approximately two years of
production with the high wax-content Cottonwood condensate without any pigging after the East flowline was blocked.
Calculations using production data with a commercial multiphase flow simulator determined the state of the West and
East flowlines were equivalent to flowlines with 2.2 and 2.7 inch IDs, respectively. Similar calculations when the
flowlines were relatively new yielded equivalent IDs of 4.7 inches and 4.2 inches. Actual deposition is not uniform in
flowlines though. The greatest amount of deposition occurs where the largest driving force for deposition exists. No
deposition occurs when a temperature differential does not exist between production fluids and the flowline wall
temperature. For the Cottonwood flowlines, the greatest region of deposition was downstream of the wellheads and near
the PLETs. Much further downstream in the flowlines, no temperature differential and deposition existed in a
significant portion of the flowlines - with the exception near the riser base where a temperature differential was re-
established. With the West flowline more restricted, it was decided that the dispersant treatment would be pumped from
the West to East flowlines to immediately attack the West flowline deposition.

One concern was whether the dispersant treatment would dislodge too much deposition initially and cause a
plugging hazard in the PLET jumper. The PLET jumper was a special concern due to a smaller diameter and likelihood
of having significant deposition in this region of the flowline loop. Some initial discussion was carried out on
potentially alternating pumping from west to east to alternately clean the risers and regions downstream of the PLETs
before attacking the deposition nearest the PLETs. It was decided though that such a scheme was too complex and a
simpler straight West to East flowline pumping approach was better. Instead, to help mitigate plugging concerns in the
initial treatment stage, a less aggressive, lower 5 % dispersant concentration with seawater was planned for the start.

One downside with the straight West to East flowline pumping was that returns from the treatment would not
be available to help assess performance until the dispersant passed through the entire flowline loop. It was anticipated
6
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

that obtaining initial returns could take between 1 - 2 days depending on the pumping rates achievable. This was the
major unknown in the treatment planning. The pumping rates would not only affect the time for the application, but
would also dictate the amount of agitation and therefore influence the performance. Although assessment of the
treatment performance would rely heavily on capturing and analyzing fluid returns, it was not the only means for
assessing the treatment. The specially developed single phase hydrodynamic model was planned to provide an
indication of performance prior to receiving returns using flowrate and pressure drop data. From the hydrodynamic
model, equivalent flowline IDs would be continually calculated as the application progressed overtime.

From the laboratory testing, there was high confidence that the dispersant would perform well. In fact, in many
ways the conditions for the actual Cottonwood application were more favorable than the laboratory test conditions. In
particular, the contact time would be significantly greater as the pumping of the dispersant treatment phase was
anticipated to be carried-out over a period of a few days. The advantage of the large contact time would, however, be
mitigated somewhat as the dispersant traveling through a large portion of the flowline loop would be effectively
“saturated” after cleaning the initial deposition contacted. Another slight benefit in performance in the actual
application would be with having warmer fluid temperatures in the flowlines than used in the laboratory testing. The
temperature would be significantly warmer in the shallower regions near the platform and in the risers, while the deeper
regions near the PLETS would be only a few degrees warmer.

For the dispersant treatment, after establishing confidence that no plugging hazards existed, the plan was to
pump at as high rates as possible. This not only would increase agitation to aid the dispersant performance, but perhaps
more importantly, would reduce the total job time thereby reducing the total treatment cost. Returns would be
monitored to assess the performance and make adjustments in the pumping and dispersant concentration as deemed
appropriate. 750 bbls of dispersant were ordered for the application. Although the amount was believed to be more
than would be required, it was felt that it was better to have excess dispersant on-hand rather than running short during
the application. Additional dispersant would not be able to be delivered on-site during the application should supplies
be exhausted. Since the dispersant was the key component for removing the paraffin deposition, the best chance for
maximizing overall job success lay with not compromising on the dispersant. Further, note that the dispersant cost was a
smaller portion of the total application cost. The expense for the marine vessels for pumping and fluid handling would
account for the majority of the application cost and these expenses would be related to the actual job time.

Phase 3: Hydraulic Pigging Procedure

The pigging program plan was to use a progressive pigging procedure beginning with smaller diameter pigs
progressing to larger diameters - ultimately equating to full flowline diameter. Criss-crossed pigs with various densities
and swabs were planned for the pigging phase. The ultimate decision on the pigging program would be decided on-site
based on input from the performance of the dispersant treatment and results from each proceeding pig run. Initial pig
size was anticipated to be 2-inch diameter. A pill of dispersant was planned to be applied in front of pig launches to aid
removal and suspension of scrapped deposition. With the exception of the last pig, the pigs were to be pushed with
seawater. The last pig was to be pushed with the seawater / MEG mixture.

Phase 4: Displacement of Flowlines for Hydrate Protection

As the final phase prior to product restart was dewatering the flowlines with gas, it was necessary to displace
the untreated seawater in the flowlines used in the pigging operations due to hydrate concerns. As mentioned, the
seawater / MEG mixture used in the initial flowline displacement was to be stored in the fluids handling vessel and
reused to push the final pig to displace untreated seawater used in prior pig runs. A pill of pure MEG was also planned
for the final portion of the flowline displacement as a buffer in front of the leading edge of gas in the de-watering phase.

De- Watering Flowlines for Production Restart

Following completion of Phase 4, the cleaning application would be complete and the stimulation vessel would
be released. The dewatering was to be handled by the Petrobras Operations team on the platform. Natural gas from
production to the Enterprise platform (from other fields) was planned to push a final pig to aid efficiently displacing the
seawater / MEG used in the Phase 4. The fluids handling vessel would still be required to catch the seawater / MEG
fluid returns prior to restarting production. It would be released offsite following the flowline dewatering.

Safety and Environmental Considerations

Safety and environmental consideration were a major focus for all parties involved in this operation, especially
since this project was scheduled to commence only two months after the onset of a major GOM disaster. Strict
expectations were established requiring zero discharge of fluids and the need for a safe operation. Both spill prevention
measures and response plans for handling any spills were developed. All potential risks associated with the operation
7
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

were carefully reviewed through established risk assessment processes. Risk mitigation plans were documented
accordingly. Examples of risk assessments conducted were: (1) rig-up of vessel to vessel hose, (2) transfer of fluids
between marine vessels, (3) transfer of seawater / MEG mixture, (4) dynamic positioning preparation by marine vessels,
(5) rig-up of equipment on the platform, (6) rig-up of hoses between marine vessels and the platform, (7) fluid
separation and filtration on fluids handling vessel, (8) handling of entrained gas in flowline fluid returns, and (9)
communications.

Associated process documents and standard operating procedures from Petrobras, Baker Hughes, and Cetco
were reviewed in order to generate a safe work plan. The safe work plan provided a detailed procedure showing
execution steps and milestones expected at the end of every treatment phase, process drawings to show expected fluid
flow paths, PID drawings for the pigging manifold, PID drawings for filtration equipment, risk assessment documents
associated with each critical operation, chemical MSDSs, and list of chemical volumes and concentrations. In addition
since this was a 24-hour operation, it was very important to insure that an adequate number of experienced personnel
were available to work on each shift and personnel were well-rested prior to commencing shifts.

Work Plan Review

Planning for this project required that detailed steps on every operation be documented and reviewed by all
involved parties which included Petrobras, Enterpise, Baker Hughes, and Cetco. With four different parties involved, it
was important to minimize the possibility of miscommunication or error. Thus a work plan was drafted and the
document was put under careful review. The work plan was written by Baker Hughes and the reviews were conducted
by Petrobras, Enterprise, and Cetco. The reviews resulted in many action items for recommended operational /
procedural changes, clarification of operational steps, risk identification / mitigation, and logistic requests / support. In
total, nine major work plan revisions were made before the final document was approved by Petrobras and Enterprise.

3. Treatment Execution
The former Baker Hughes HR Hughes stimulation vessel was used for transporting, mixing, and pumping
chemicals with seawater. The Edison Chouest Corcovado work boat was used for filtering and capturing returns. It also
transported the MEG and stored the seawater / MEG mixture used in the Phase 1 flowline displacement. On September
8, 2010 the vessels departed Port Fourchon, LA for the application. On September 9, the vessels were rigged-up on-site
and the application started. On September 16, the stimulation vessel was released after completion of the four cleaning
phases and operations turned over to Petrobras America for dewatering the flowlines. The dewatering was completed
the following day on September 17 and the fluids handling vessel was released. After 9 days, the entire operation was
completed and ready for production restart. Figure 5 shows the stimulation and fluid handling marine vessels rigged-up
onsite next to the platform. Figure 6 shows topside layout of the stimulation vessel with the chemical storage tanks,
mixing tanks, pumps, and transfer lines. Figure 7 shows the topside of the fluids handling vessel with the on-deck
collection tanks, filter units, and flare vents.

Figure 5: Marine Vessels On-Site Rigged-up to the Platform.

8
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

Figure 6: Topside of Stimulation Vessel. Figure 7: Topside of Fluids Handling Vessel.

Phase 1: Displacement of Flowlines for Hydrate Protection

Phase 1 started at 02:29 hours on September 9. Fortunately, the achievable pumping rates were higher than
anticipated in the application planning. The implication was the entire application could be completed in less time than
expected. The pumping rate generally ranged between 3.2 and 4 bpm throughout the majority of the displacement phase
with the 44 wt. % MEG in seawater. After pumping 3488 bbls, traces of MEG were detected in the returns. Note prior
to detecting traces MEG, all production was processed (and sold) at the platform. Afterwards, flow was diverted to and
collected in the fluids handling vessel. At 20:30 hours, pumping was stopped (after 3602 bbls) and the displacement
phase completed. Equivalent flowline IDs of 3.5 inches were calculated from the hydrodynamic model at the end of the
seawater / MEG displacement for each of the flowlines.

Phase 2: Dispersant Treatment

The dispersant treatment phase began on September 9 at 20:44 hours with a 5 wt. % dispersant / seawater
mixture pumped at an initial rate of 2.5 bpm. The pump rate was increased to 3.5 and 5.0 bpm over the next ~20 hours.
Trace returns of the dispersant were seen after pumping ~3700 bbl of dispersant / seawater. After getting dispersant
returns, the pump rate was further increased to 6.0 bpm, but pumping was briefly shutdown soon thereafter to deal with a
rupture line on the fluids handling vessel. Afterwards, the pump rate was reduced to ~5.0 bpm. It was later reduced to
~3 bpm for foaming issues as the tanks filled near the end portion of the dispersant treatment (discussed below).

During the initial stage of Phase 2 no indication of troubles with possible plugging in the PLET jumper was
noted. Also throughout the dispersant treatment the hydrodynamic modeling showed a gradual increase in the ID of
both flowlines providing indication that the dispersant treatment was working. With the onset of the dispersant returns,
it could be further seen that the dispersant was removing significant paraffin deposition from the flowlines. Figures 8 –
12 show pictures of return samples received at the fluids handling vessel. The samples are full-flow side-stream samples
captured in 6-oz prescription bottles. Figure 8 shows two samples captured prior to receiving dispersant returns. Hence,
these samples are strictly seawater / MEG displacement from the flowlines. Although some residual crude oil can be
seen in the two bottles, no significant paraffin deposit is present. In contrast, Figure 9 shows two samples taken after
dispersant returns were occurring. Solid paraffin is clearly visible in the samples. Similarly, Figure 10 shows examples
of some large chunks (~ ½ inch diameter) seen in the initial returns. Note, the pictures in Figures 8 – 10 were taken days
after the treatment in which significant time had passed for complete separation of hydrocarbon (deposit & dispersant)
and seawater. Initially the incoming returns consisted of the paraffin deposit being dispersed within the dispersant /
seawater flow which had a chocolate milk type appearance as shown in Figure 11. Figure 11 is a picture of a sample
minutes after being captured. Note the condensation on the outside of bottle resulting from the cold return.

Similarly in the return tanks, large amounts of paraffin deposition were accumulating. A sample from one of
the return tanks collected in a quart bottle is shown in Figure 12. Note the relatively-hard, solid nature of the sample.
This is a result of the settling and compaction of the previously dispersed deposit removed from the flowline. HTGC
analyses on multiple samples from the dispersant treatment and pigging operations (discussed below) revealed that all
the samples analyzed were very similar to each other, as well as, similar to the sample used in the dispersant screening.

9
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

Figure 8: Returns from Seawater / Figure 9: Returns from Dispersant Figure 10: Samples of Large
MEG Flowline Displacement Treatment Removing Paraffin Paraffin Deposit Chunks Seen in
Removing Some Residual Crude Oil. Deposition. Initial Returns.

Figure 11: Return from Dispersant Treatment Shortly Figure 12: Paraffin Deposit Collected from a
after Sampling - Prior to Seawater Settling-Out. Return Tank.

For the Phase 2 dispersant treatment, a total of 9520 bbls of dispersant / seawater were pumped. This included
an initial 8403 bbls with 5 wt. % dispersant followed by a final 1117 bbls with 7.5 wt. % dispersant. This amounted to
approximately 2-1/3 flowline volumes in which ~508 bbls were dispersant. An additional 168 bbls of dispersant were
later used in the pigging phase. Following the dispersant treatment, pure seawater was pumped at varying flow rates to
displace the dispersant / seawater in the flowline, as well as, to assess the effectiveness of the dispersant. Approximately
4375 bbls of the seawater were pumped.

The main challenge in the application was with foaming in the return tanks. The foaming became problematic
as the return tanks filled and the retention time available for the foam to break decreased. As a result, the pumping rate
was decreased from 5 to 3 bpm to provide extra time for foam breaking. This rate change was made after 8400 bbls
were pumped. No defoamer products were brought on-site nor was defoamer available on the platform. Although
laboratory testing did not indicate a foaming propensity, it was an oversight not to have defoamer on-site. A low dosage
defoamer application should have eliminated the foaming issue. At the time of lowering the pump rate, the amount of
paraffin observed in the returns had decreased significantly. In response, the dispersant concentration was increased to
7.5 wt. % in attempt to remove as much paraffin as possible prior to moving into the pigging phase.

The dispersant performed very well at removing the paraffin deposition. In addition to capturing significant
paraffin deposition in the tanks, the hydrodynamic modeling calculated equivalent flowline IDs of ~4.6 inches at the end
of the dispersant treatment. The gas separation and “reserve” tanks were actually put into service as the three primary
tanks were filled and required additional retention time for seawater and foam separation. Four full tanks (~3/4
capacity) were actually transferred into the hull of the fluids handling vessel at 05:20 hours on September 14. This was
during the pigging operation to free storage space for capturing fluid returns from the pigging operation. The hull
10
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

transfer accounted for ~1500 bbls of which the majority was paraffin deposition and dispersant as the tanks were drained
of the most of the free seawater. Approximately 510 bbls of this total were dispersant. It is estimated that ~900 bbls
were paraffin sludge. It was not possible to determine the exact amount of paraffin deposit in the sludge as it was not
feasible to examine the tank contents for a precise estimate of the actual paraffin deposit / dispersant / seawater content
in the tanks. However, a large portion of the 900 bbl estimate should be actual deposit as the seawater separates readily
easily and the dispersant has been factored out of the estimate. Returns captured after the hull transfer contained only
small amounts of paraffin deposition (see Phase 3 below).

Phase 3: Hydraulic Pigging Procedure

In Phase 3, a total of six pig runs were made. The first pig launch was a 2-inch LDCC (low-density crisscross)
pig with a 3-inch swab. It was pushed with seawater at a rate of ~5 bpm with the exception of a brief ½ hour shutdown
to reverse flow to clear some obstruction at the manifold / fluids handling vessel. This was hold-over from the
dispersant phase as the 2-inch pig was only a quarter distance through the flowline loop at this stage. The pig reached
the pig catcher in pieces, bringing about one gallon of paraffin deposit. The second pig launch was a 3-inch LDCC pig
with a 4-inch swab. It was again necessary to reverse flow to clear some obstruction at the manifold / fluids handling
vessel as the 3-inch pig neared the pig receiver. The reverse flow was pumped with 10 wt. % dispersant to aid clearing
the manifold and lines. Again the 3-inch pig reached the pig catcher in pieces with about one gallon of paraffin deposit.
The third pig launch was a 4-inch LDCC pig with a 4-inch swab. It was pushed the initial three quarters through the
flowline loop with seawater and the final quarter with 5 wt. % dispersant / seawater to prepare for subsequent full
flowline diameter pigs. Some pressure spiking was observed as the pig reached the pig receiver, but no reverse flow
pumping was needed. Compacted relatively hard paraffin reached the manifold of the treatment equipment and was
captured at the pig catcher; however the pig was again destroyed, probably at the catcher metal net. The fourth pig
launch was a 5-inch LDCC pig with a 5-inch swab. It, like the next following pig, was also pushed the initial three
quarters through the loop with seawater and the final quarter with 5 wt. % dispersant / seawater. Approximately 16
gallons of soft paraffin was returned. The fifth pig launch was a 5-inch MDCC (medium-density crisscross) pig with a
5-inch swab and the sixth pig launch was a 5.125-inch MDCC pig with a lateral metal scraper. The sixth pig round was
pushed with sea water / MEG mixture. Both the fifth and sixth pigs only returned small volumes of paraffin to the pig
catcher confirming the flowlines had been nearly completely cleaned of paraffin deposition.

Figure 14 shows pictures of deposition from the first and third pig runs in comparison to deposition removed
from the dispersant Phase (taken from a return storage tank on the fluids handling vessel). As mentioned, analyses of
multiple deposit samples were all very similar.

Figure 14: Comparison of Cottonwood Paraffin Deposit Removed at Different Phases during Application.

Phase 4: Displacement of Flowlines for Hydrate Protection

Phase 4 flowline displacement commenced at 01:35 hours on September 16 with the 44 wt. % MEG in
seawater captured from Phase 1 pushing the last pig run. After 3188 bbls were pumped, the MEG concentration was
increased to 72 wt. % until 3762 bbls were pumped. At this point, 46 bbls of pure MEG followed by 67 bbls of 72 wt.
% MEG in seawater were pumped. At 14:07 hours on September 16, Phase 4 was stopped and the cleaning application
completed. The entire cleaning treatment lasted approximately 7-1/2 days. As mentioned following completion of
Phase 4, operations were turned over to Petrobras on the platform for the de-watering of the flowlines which was
completed the following day on September 17.

11
 Rio Oil & Gas Expo and Conference 2012

4. Lessons Learnt
The biggest difficulty encountered during the operation was the foaming in the separation tanks. This restricted
pumping rates during the dispersant cleaning phase, yet likely could have been prevented with application of a low
dosage of defoamer. Hence, the lesson learned for future applications was to be prepared to treat fluid returns for
unexpected fluid separation issues (foaming, emulsion, etc.). A source of various treating chemistries should be on-site.

Another lesson learnt was that logistics planning after the actual flowline cleaning operation should be carefully
reviewed. On this operation, a delay in offloading waste and equipment was encountered that prevented releasing the
fluids handling vessel which added extra expense. On the fluids handling vessel, the tanks were welded on the deck and
could not be removed as quickly as planned. Potential fire hazards prevented welds on the equipment to be cut with a
welding torch due to fume levels from paraffin and pipe cleaning solvents. Fastening the tanks and equipment with
chains or other temporary locks would facilitate removal. In a related note, pumps and tank cleaning equipment should
be fully ready at the dock to clean vessel tanks. The pumps should have the capacity to remove large volumes of fluids
at a high rate, as to reduce the time needed for discharging waste fluid.

5. Conclusion
The Cottonwood dispersant application was one of the first dispersant applications for cleaning deepwater
subsea flowlines restricted with paraffin deposition. Considerable planning and teamwork went into executing the
application. It was extremely successful in restoring the severely restricted 17.4 mile dual flowline loop back to near
pre-production state. Final pigging operations confirmed the flowlines were cleaned of all restrictions. Approximately
900 bbls of paraffin sludge were removed from the flowlines. The application provided significant value for the
Cottonwood development. It allowed production from wells to be brought on-line at a higher capacity, thereby
generating increased revenue. It also allowed resumption of routine pigging operations. Furthermore, the application
was executed in a safe and environmentally responsible manner with zero discharge of fluids. As such, the Cottonwood
dispersant application illustrates that with proper planning and execution, paraffin dispersant treatments are a viable
solution for deepwater paraffin-restricted flowline remediation.

6. Acknowledgements
The Cottonwood dispersant application would not have been possible without contributions and teamwork from
many individuals from Baker Hughes, Petrobras, and CetCo. In particular, the authors would like to acknowledge the
efforts of significant contributors: Gee Williams made some of the initial proposals for using a dispersant treatment and
was instrumental in getting the application started. Mike Newberry provided valuable advice in planning the phases of
the application. Tudor Ionescu was instrumental in planning the hydrate prevention strategy. Kirk Langford designed
and supported the pigging program. Shane Istre handled management and planning for the fluids handling. Rodney
Martin provided on-site support on the marine vessels. Mike Rothernberger, Winston Lyons, and David Tureau helped
in the smooth operation of the application on the platform side. Alan McDill and Alvaro Tutia handled a multitude of
project planning and contract details. Baker Hughes Manufacturing went through special efforts to expedite the
manufacture and delivery of the dispersant on a tight schedule following receipt of contract. And finally, the crews of
the HR Hughes and Corcovado performed exceptionally well in executing the treatment.

7. References
[1] Alwazzan, A.; Utgard, M.; Barros, D. “Design Challenges Due to Wax on a Fast-Track Deepwater Project”,
OTC19160, 2008 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, May 5 - 8, 2008.
[2] Shecaira, F.; Barros, D.; Ramachandran, K.; Bonin, G.; Waltrich, P.; Jennings, D.; Newberry, M.; and Ziglio, C.
“The Cottonwood Field Case History: the Pig/Paraffin Obstruction of a Long Subsea, Deepwater Tie-Back and its
Successful Remediation”, SPE146156, 2011 SPE ATCE, Denver, Colorado, October 30 – November 2, 2011.
[3] Jennings D. W.; Yin, R.; Weispfennig, K.; and Newberry, M. "Tratamento de Problemas Parafinicos com Agentes
Quimicos na Producao de Petroleo", IBP18904, Rio Oil & Gas Conference 2004, Rio de Janeiro, October 4 - 7, 2004.
[4] Newberry, M. E.; Addison, G. E.; and Barker, K. M. “Paraffin Control in the Northern Michigan Niagaran Reef
Trend”, SPE12320, 1983 SPE Eastern Regional Meeting, Champion, Pennsylvania, November 9 – 11, 1983.
[5] Barker, K. M.; Lambert, P. F.; and Newberry, M. E. “Paraffin Removal Treatments Using Cold Produced Water”,
SPE55800, 1999 SPE Rocky Mountain Regional Meeting, Gillette, Wyoming, May 15 - 18, 1999.
[6] Poole, G.; Brock, G.; Szymczak, S.; and Casey, G. “Successful Pipeline Clean-Out–Lessons Learned from Cleaning
Paraffin Blockage from a Deepwater Pipeline”, SPE115658, 2008 SPE ATCE, Denver, Colorado, Sept. 17-24, 2008.
[7] Jennings, D. W. and Weispfennig, K. “Experimental Solubility Data of Various n-Alkane Waxes: Effects of Alkane
Chain Length, Alkane Odd Versus Even Carbon Number Structures, and Solvent Chemistry on Solublity”, Fluid Phase
Equilibria, 227 (2005) 27 – 35.

12