OLGA Simulation Flow Assurance

I. Purposes of simulation:

1. Determining pipeline sizing to reach maximum pressure inlet and minimum insulation thickness
to reach minimum outlet temperature pipeline
2. Severe slugging possibility in the riser
3. Mitigation for slug

II. Simulation Description:

It is reported that a well in offshore has contained hydrocarbon with composition below :
Composition in mole% at
80 bara
62 °C

Total Vapor Liquid Aqueous

H2O 17.764 0.342 0.216 99.869
N2 0.016 0.058 0.008 0
CO2 1.012 1.847 1.03 0.032
C1 32.314 81.866 26.224 0.09
C2 6.292 8.158 7.473 0.007
C3 5.288 3.727 7.233 0.002
iC4 1.76 0.787 2.545 0
nC4 3.652 1.328 5.373 0
iC5 1.637 0.358 2.48 0
nC5 2.114 0.395 3.224 0
C6 3.578 0.35 5.553 0
C7 16.038 0.766 25.139 0
C8 2.977 0.002 4.71 0
C9 0.391 0.008 0.617 0
C10-C13 1.31 0.007 2.07 0
C14-C17 0.98 0 1.55 0
C18-C20 0.569 0 0.9 0
C21-C24 0.59 0 0.933 0
C25-C29 0.533 0 0.843 0
C30-C34 0.37 0 0.586 0
C35-C41 0.337 0 0.534 0
C42-C52 0.28 0 0.443 0
C53-C80 0.199 0 0.315 0

Figure. 1 Component Characterization using PVTSim

The Data above has been simulated using PVTSim with PR Penelope Equation of State. C9+ component
will be characterized spontaneously and traces some pseudo components after characterizing.
 Flash to
80 bara
62 °C

Total Vapor Liquid Aqueous

Mole% 100 19.2 63.21 17.59
Weight% 100 6.57 88.27 5.16
Volume 146.31 294.13 136.89 18.73 cm³/mol
Volume% 100 38.61 59.14 2.25
Density 0.4195 0.0714 0.626 0.9622 g/cm³
Z Factor 0.42 0.8444 0.393 0.0538
Molecular Weight 61.37 21 85.7 18.02
Enthalpy -18445.9 769 -17807.1 -41725.8 J/mol
Entropy -47.46 -25.25 -36.61 -110.73 J/mol C
Heat Capacity (Cp) 152.85 56.86 201.88 81.44 J/mol C
Heat Capacity (Cv) 125.36 37.6 171.11 56.74 J/mol C
Kappa (Cp/Cv) 1.219 1.512 1.18 1.435
JT Coefficient 0.3936 -0.0346 -0.0162 C/bara
Velocity of Sound 387.3 769.1 2747.6 m/s
Viscosity 0.0146 0.3248 0.4561 cP
Thermal Conductivity 43.768 146.551 661.752 mW/m C
Surface Tension 5.607 5.607 mN/m

Figure. 2 Component Flash for condition pressure 80 bara and temperature 62oC from PVT Sim

To determine pipeline size, it is given that maximum pressure inlet from well stream is 80 bara. So the
given pipeline size has to assure well stream inlet pressure below from 80 bara. The temperature
topside given minimum is 27o C. Initial data are provided below :

Wellhead Water Depth : 255 m Topside horizontal pipe = 100 m, 4” pipe, Wall
Thk=7,5 mm no insulation
Platform Location from wellhead = 4,3 km Pipe Roughness= 0.028 mm
Deck production height = 30 m Pressure Outet = 50 bara
Riser = 4” pipe, Wall Thk = 7,5 mm, insulation Thk Flow rate = 15 kg/s (for pipeline size), 5 kg/s ( for
= 20 mm, length = 300 m insulation thickness)
Pipeline = 4” pipe, Wall Thk = 7,5 mm, insulation Temperature ambient = 6 oC
Thk = 20 mm length = 4,3 km
Wellhead Temperature = 62oC (constant) Heat Transfer Tambient = 6,5 W/m2.C

While the property of Pipeline and insulation are given below :

Material Density (kg/m3) Speciif Heat (J/kg.K Thermal

Conductivity(W/m.K)
Steel 7850 500 50
Insulation 1000 1500 0.135

Below is to describe the geometry and length of each pipeline from wellhead to topside platform.
 Figure. 3 Pipeline Geometry from Wellhead to Topside Platform

III. Simulation Results :

1. Pipeline Sizing

With 15 kg/s for maximum flowrate from wellhead given to calculate pipeline sizing and used
parametric study, we can achieve which pipeline size assure below 80 bara maximum inlet pressure
from the wellhead. The variables taken for the parametric study are 3-inch, 4-inch, 6-inch, and 8-inch of
pipe with PIPE-1 to be experimental location decided. The chosen size based on the cost-effective and
graphic below are 6” pipe since this pipe can assure pressure inlet below 80 bara while 3-inch and 4-inch
pipe are higher than allowable pressure.

Figure. 3 Pressure vs Time Plotted for Each Pipe Size Using OLGA Parametric Study
 2. Insulation Thickness

Meanwhile, the given flowrate to predict minimum insulation thickness must be a minimum flow rate of
wellhead which is 5 kg/s. The minimum outlet temperature to reach topside conditions must not below
27oC to avoid wax formation. Parametric study variables chosen are 20 mm, 30 mm, 35 mm, and 40 mm
insulation thickness with PIPE-3 to be experimental location decided. For the given variable, the most
cost-effective and efficient to handle temperature drop is 35 mm insulation thickness.

Figured. 4 Temperature vs Time Plotted for Insulation Thickness Size Using OLGA Parametric Study

3. Severe Slugging Possibility in Riser

Using parametric study with flowrate variables taken are 5 kg/s, 10 kg/s, 15 kg/s positioned within
PIPE-2 ( pipeline riser). Slugging happened in riser area and described within flow regime vs length pipe
plotted in Fig. 5/6/7 below,

Figured. 5 Flow Regime vs Length Pipe Plotted for 5 kg/s

 Figured. 6 Flow Regime vs Length Pipe Plotted for 10 kg/s

Figured. 7 Flow Regime vs Length Pipe Plotted for 15 kg/s

All of the figures showed slugging graphic phenomenon within PIPE-5 because of depth difference for
about 5 m and PIPE-2 which is riser area positioned from 3400 m until 4300 m length pipe. The graphic
below can clearly describe how the slugging phenomenon showed in PIPE-5 and PIPE-2. The 5 kg/s flow
rate performed oscillatory flow liquid plotted vs time while the other flow rate didn’t show an oscillatory
flow liquid in the meantime.

Figured. 8 Total Liquid Flow vs Time Plotted for PIPE-5 for All Flow Rate
 Figured. 9 Total Liquid Flow vs Time Plotted for PIPE-2 for All Flow Rate

4. Slug Mitigation

Slug mitigation can be done by performing a topside choke valve, increasing flow rate of fluid
(production ramp-up), and injecting gas at the bottom of riser. While performing topside choke valve,
the parametric study variables used are the valve opening variation starting from 10%, 4%, 2%, and 1.8%
of full cross-sectional area. From total liquid flow (QLT) out of topside vs time plotted below, compare
each opening results. From Fig.10 below, it showed an oscillatory performance for 10% and 4% of valve
openings which should be avoided. Taking a look for the two variables remaining in Fig.11, only 1.8% did
an oscillatory performance while 2% did great results. Then, 2% valve opening would be suited to
perform topside choke valve other than the three remainings.

Figured. 10 Total Liquid Flow vs Time Plotted for PIPE-3 for All Valve Openings

Figured. 11 Total Liquid Flow vs Time Plotted for PIPE-3 for 2%, and 1.8% Openings
Topside choke valve pressure outlet must be plotted vs time to check upon pressure outlet PIPE-3 result
to the separator. Both for 10% and 4% did an oscillatory performance while the others didn’t.

Figured. 12 Pressure Outlet Trend Plot for Each Opening

The second steps for slug mitigation by increasing flow rate of fluid or ramp-up rate over source time
with the given flow rate variables are 5 kg/s, 10 kg/s, and 15 kg/s. For each total liquid flowrate plotted
vs time both in Fig.13 using parametric study and Fig.14 using ramp-up overt time. It showed that 5 kg/s
did an oscillatory performance while the two flow rates showed great performances.

Figured. 13 Increasing Flow Rate Using Parametric Study

Figured. 14 Ramp-Up Flow Rate Over Time

The third is injecting gas from the bottom of riser. The riser itself located in PIPE-2 with the given gas
flow rate variables are 1 kg/s, 2 kg/s, and 3 kg/s using parametric study. From Fig. 15 below, these three
flow rates did an oscillatory performance in the first hour but after that, 3 kg/s showed great result
among two others. So the chosen gas flow rate to mitigate slug is 3 kg/s.

Figured. 15 Gas Injection Flow Rates Parametric Study