SFD-CTE-SAPF1-G08-00003 rev R01

Document No. SFD-CTE-SAPF1-G08-00003 Rev.
R01
Document Title Final Report Page 2 of 107
ADDITIONAL APPROVAL / REVISION HISTORY TABLE
Party Name Sign Date
Revision Philosophy
All documents for review will be issued at R01 as required, with subsequent R02….
If the document is for information, it will also be issued as R01.
All revisions Issued for Review / approval will be issued at A01, with subsequent A02, A03, etc as
required.
All revisions approved for design will be issued at D01, with subsequent D02, D03, etc as required.
Documents approved for Construction will be issued at C01, C02, and C03 respectively.
Documents or drawings revised as “As built” will be issued as Z01, Z02 Z03 etc.
Narrative sections revised from previous approved issues are to be noted in the table below and/or
highlighted in the RH margin (using the appropriate revision status) thus: | A02
Previous revision highlighting to be removed at subsequent issues.
Drawings/diagrams revised from previous approved issues are highlighted by 'clouding' the affected
areas and by the use of a triangle containing the revision status.
Revision History
Revision Date of issue Reason for change

No.
Seplat doc SFD-CTE-SAPF1-G08-00003 Final Report
Security Classification: Restricted
This Document is Controlled Electronically and Uncontrolled if Printed

Page2 of 107
Confidential – Do Not Disclose Without Authorization © Copyright Genesis North America - All Rights Reserved
Technip USA, Inc. d/b/a Genesis North America TBPE Firm Reg. No. F-3030
Document No. SFD-CTE-SAPF1-G08-00003 Rev. R01
RECORD OF AMENDMENT
It is certified that the amendments listed below have been incorporated in this copy of the publication.
AMDT AMENDED PARAGRAPH

DESCRIPTION OF CHANGES
NO. SECTION NO.

Page4 of 107
HOLDS STATUS SHEET

This revision has the following HOLDs
PARAGRAPH
SECTION DESCRIPTION OF HOLD
NO.

Page5 of 107
Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS/DEFINITIONS .............................................................................................13
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...............................................................................................14
1.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................14
1.2 Sapele Flowstation Existing Configuration .........................................................14
1.3 Debottlenecking Study Conclusions ...................................................................15
2.0 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................18
2.1 Background........................................................................................................18
2.2 Objective............................................................................................................18
2.3 Study Scope ......................................................................................................18
2.4 Study Execution .................................................................................................19
3.0 STUDY BASIS AND APPROACH ................................................................................20
3.1 Study Basis........................................................................................................20
3.1.1 Production Forecast ...............................................................................20
3.1.2 Water Cut forecast .................................................................................20
3.1.3 Oil production composition .....................................................................20
3.1.4 Sapele Flowstation Configuration ...........................................................21
3.1.5 Sapele Flowstation Pressure Profile (on site records) ............................22
3.1.6 Sapele Flow Station Flow Diagram.........................................................22
4.0 INLET MANIFOLD / HEADERS ....................................................................................24
4.1.1 Description and assessment Parameters ...............................................24
4.1.2 Results ...................................................................................................24
4.1.3 Analysis..................................................................................................29
4.1.4 Recommendation ...................................................................................30
5.0 SEPARATORS .............................................................................................................31
5.1 Assessment Method ..........................................................................................31
5.1.1 Liquid Handling Capacity........................................................................31
5.1.2 Gas Handling Capacity...........................................................................32
5.1.3 Nozzle Assessment Criteria....................................................................32
5.1.4 Control Valves ........................................................................................32

Page6 of 107
5.2 XHP Separator V-105 ........................................................................................32

5.2.2 Results ...................................................................................................34
5.2.3 Analysis..................................................................................................35
5.3 HP Separators, V-102/202 .................................................................................36
5.3.2 Results ...................................................................................................37
5.3.3 Analysis..................................................................................................39
5.4 LP Separator, V-103/203 ...................................................................................40
5.4.2 Results ...................................................................................................41
5.4.3 Analysis – Liquid Handling .....................................................................43
5.4.4 Analysis – Gas Handling ........................................................................43
5.4.5 Recommendation ...................................................................................44
5.5 Surge Vessels, V-104/204 .................................................................................44
5.5.2 Results ...................................................................................................46
5.5.3 Analysis..................................................................................................48
5.5.4 Recommendation ...................................................................................49
6.0 OIL EXPORT SYSTEM .................................................................................................50
6.1 Oil Export pumps ...............................................................................................50
6.1.1 Description and Assessment Parameters ...............................................50
6.1.2 Calculation Results – Amukpe LTF in operation .....................................52
6.1.3 Calculation Results – Amukpe LTF Bypassed ........................................54
6.1.4 Analysis..................................................................................................58
6.1.5 Recommendations .................................................................................60
6.2 Oil metering .......................................................................................................60
6.2.2 Results ...................................................................................................61
6.2.3 Analysis..................................................................................................62
7.0 FLARE SYSTEM...........................................................................................................63
7.1 Relief Valves......................................................................................................63

Page7 of 107
7.1.1 Description and Assessment Parameters. ..............................................63

7.1.2 Results ...................................................................................................63
7.1.3 Analysis..................................................................................................66
7.2 Flare Radiation ..................................................................................................68
7.2.2 Results ...................................................................................................69
7.2.3 Analysis..................................................................................................73
7.3 Flare Header System Analysis (“Flarenet” Modelling) ........................................74
7.3.2 Results ...................................................................................................76
7.3.3 Analysis..................................................................................................78
7.3.4 Flare Knockout Drum..............................................................................80
7.4 Flare System Recommendations .......................................................................81
7.4.1 Relief Systems on Manifolds ..................................................................81
7.4.2 Relief Systems on Surge Vessels (V-104, V-204)...................................83
7.4.3 Relief Systems on LP separators (V-103, V-203, V-202) ........................84
8.0 COMPRESSOR UNIT (GAS HANDLING).....................................................................85
8.1 HP compressor unit ...........................................................................................85
8.2 LP compressor unit ............................................................................................85
8.3 PSV ...................................................................................................................85
8.4 System Bottleneck Analysis ...............................................................................86
8.4.1 Results ...................................................................................................91
9.0 CONTROL VALVES .....................................................................................................92
9.1 Description and Assessment..............................................................................92
9.2 Analysis .............................................................................................................92
9.3 Results...............................................................................................................94
10.0 OVERALL CAPACITY ..................................................................................................95
10.1 Discussion – Future Expansion..........................................................................98
10.2 Shutdown Requirements....................................................................................98

Page8 of 107
11.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................99

12.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................................................................101
13.0 REFERENCES............................................................................................................103
14.0 APPENDIX A – LONG LEAD ITEMS ..........................................................................104
15.0 APPENDIX B – CALCULATIONS...............................................................................106
16.0 APPENDIX C – SITE VISIT REPORT .........................................................................107

Page9 of 107
Figures
Figure 1-1. Extra Capacity from Sapele Flowstation (Amukpe-LTF online)................................16
Figure 3-1. Process flow diagram of current plant .....................................................................23
Figure 4-1. XHP Manifold Capacity (Erosional Velocity)............................................................26
Figure 4-2. HP Manifold Max Capacity (Erosional Velocity) ......................................................27
Figure 4-3. LP Manifold Max Capacity (Erosional Velocity) .......................................................28
Figure 4-4. LP Header Pressure Drop (bar) ..............................................................................29
Figure 5-1. XHP Horizontal vessel, V-105 .................................................................................33
Figure 5-2. On site XHP Separator V-105 .................................................................................33
Figure 5-3. XHP Separator V-105 Operation Envelope .............................................................35
Figure 5-4. HP Separator, V-102/202........................................................................................36
Figure 5-5. On site HP Separator 2, V-202................................................................................37
Figure 5-6. HP Separator V-102/202 Operating Envelope.........................................................39
Figure 5-7. LP Separator V-103/203 .........................................................................................40
Figure 5-8. On site LP separator 2, V-203.................................................................................41
Figure 5-9. LP separator V-103/203 Operating Envelope..........................................................43
Figure 5-10. Surge Vessel, V-104/204 ......................................................................................45
Figure 5-11. On site Surge vessels V-104/204.........................................................................46
Figure 5-12. Surge Drum V-104/204 Operating Envelope .........................................................48
Figure 6-1. Export system Operating Envelope. Amukpe LTF in operation. ..............................53
Figure 6-2. System Operating Envelope, LTF in Operation, pipeline remediated ......................54
Figure 6-3. Export system Operating Envelope, LTF bypassed.................................................56
Figure 6-4. Export System Operating Envelope. LTF Bypassed. Line Remediated ...................57
Figure 6-5. NPSHa vs NPSHr ...................................................................................................58
Figure 6-6. Metering capacity when Amukpe LTF is in operation ..............................................61
Figure 6-7. Metering capacity when Amukpe LTF is bypassed..................................................61
Figure 7-1. Sapele flowstation PSV's capacity ..........................................................................65

Page10 of 107
Figure 7-2- Vapour Flowrate vs. Distance for the allowable thermal radiation level ...................70
Figure 7-3 Radiation for different vapour flow rates at different distances .................................71
Figure 7-4 Total flaring Flowrate vs. Distance for the allowable thermal radiation ....................72
Figure 7-5 Radiation for different total flaring flow rates at different distances ...........................73
Figure 7-6. Sapele Flowstation Flarenet model .........................................................................75
Figure 7-7. Existing LP Manifold Flare System..........................................................................81
Figure 7-8. Modifications recommended for LP header and LP manifold PSVs tailpipes...........82
Figure 7-9. New LP manifold relief system configuration...........................................................82
Figure 7-10. New Surge Vessel relief system configuration ......................................................83
Figure 7-11. New LP separator relief system configuration .......................................................84
Figure 8-1. Pressure drop across each fitting in the separator section ......................................87
Figure 8-2. Pressure drop across each fitting in the header section ..........................................88
Figure 8-3. LP compressor capacity based on suction pressure ...............................................89
Figure 8-4. LP compressor capacity, with Debottlenecking. ......................................................90
Figure 10-1. Liquid Capacity Bottlenecks at Sapele Flowstation ...............................................95
Figure 10-2. Extra Capacity from Sapele Flowstation (Amukpe LTF Bypassed)........................96
Figure 10-3. Extra Capacity from Sapele Flowstation (Amukpe-LTF online)..............................97

Page11 of 107
Tables
Table 3-1. Gross Production Forecast.......................................................................................20
Table 3-2. Water Cut Forecast ..................................................................................................20
Table 4-1. Inlet Manifolds Calculation Summary .......................................................................24
Table 6-1. Oil Export Pump Detail-Model Ref Sulzer 4x8x10.5B ...............................................50
Table 6-2. Current pipeline vs Remediated Pipeline..................................................................51
Table 6-3. Summary of Oil Export System Capacities ...............................................................59
Table 7-1. Sapele Flowstation Relief Valve Detail .....................................................................63
Table 7-2. Base Case. PSV rated capacity vs 68,000 BPD.......................................................64
Table 7-3. Max Production Case. PSV rated capacity vs 82,000BPD production ......................66
Table 7-4 Recommended design total radiation ........................................................................68
Table 7-5 Flarenet summary .....................................................................................................76
Table 7-6. XHP and HP Relief systems (82,000 BPD) ..............................................................77
Table 7-7. LP Relief System (82,000 BPD) ...............................................................................77
Table 7-8 LP Manifold Relief for 82,000BPD.............................................................................82
Table 7-9 Surge Vessel Relief for 82,000BPD...........................................................................83
Table 7-10 LP Separator Relief for 82,000BPD.........................................................................84
Table 8-1. Compressor unit PSVs .............................................................................................86
Table 9-1. Sapele Flowstation Control Valves ...........................................................................92
Table 9-2. Compressor Station Control Valves..........................................................................93
Table 11-1. Sapele export pipeline capacity summary ..............................................................99
Table 14-1. Long Lead Item List..............................................................................................104

Page12 of 107
ABBREVIATIONS/DEFINITIONS
Term Definition
API American Petroleum Institute
BPD Barrel of oil per day
BWPD Barrel of Water Per Day
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
CITHP Closed In Tubing Head Pressure
DCS Distributed Control System
GOR Gas Oil Ratio
HP High Pressure
HYSYS Proprietary Simulation Tool
LCV Level Control Valve
LP Low Pressure
LTF Liquid Treatment Facility
MAOP Maximum Allowable Operating Pressure
MMSCFD Million standard cubic feet of gas per day
NA Not Applicable
NGC Nigerian Gas Company
NPSHa Net positive suction head available
NPSHr Net positive suction head required
P&ID Piping and Instrumentation Diagram
PCV Pressure Control Valve
PFD Process Flow Diagram
PVT Pressure, Volume, Temperature
PSV Pressure Safety Valve
SEPLAT Seplat Petroleum Development Company
SG Specific Gravity
SPDC Shell Petroleum Development Company
XHP Extra High Pressure

Page13 of 107
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Introduction
Sapele flowstation receives and treats the fluids and associated gas coming from the
Sapele Deep, Sapele Shallow and Ovhor fields. The Sapele flowstation plant was
commissioned in 1972 with an installed nameplate capacity of 60,000BPD. Current
gross production is about 47,000BPD.
The execution of the Sapele Field Development Plan is expected to increase production
from the Sapele and Ovhor reservoirs. Well fluids from third party facilities (Okweke
field) are also expected to be routed to the flowstation for treatment. Production
forecasts show that the installed capacity of the Sapele flowstation will be exceeded with
the contributions from these developments.
This additional production will come in phases, and it is anticipated that the first phase
will increase the potential flowstation throughput to about 86,000 BPD in 2015.
The debottlenecking study has the following objectives:
 Establish equipment and system constraints within the Sapele Flowstation to

determine the maximum achievable production capacity from the existing
flowstation
 Identify soft, medium and hard constraints and propose solutions to increase the
capacity of the Sapele Flowstation to achieve the maximum production capacity
in the phase 1 development plan.
 Produce a summary scope of work for debottlenecking modifications.
1.2 Sapele Flowstation Existing Configuration

The Sapele Flowstation originally consisted of two separation trains with a nameplate
capacity of 30,000BPD each.
Wells are aligned to different headers depending on the arrival pressure: XHP, HP and
LP headers (extra high pressure, high pressure and low pressure respectively).
There is one XHP separator in current operation, one HP separator V-102 (V-202 is not
utilised) and two LP Separators in operation. The liquid stream is sent to the Surge
vessels and pumped to Amukpe manifold via two export pumps at the moment. No water
separation is carried out at Sapele: a mixed oil and water liquid export stream is sent to
Amukpe LTF for water separation and water disposal.
Based on the original design of the plant, the separated gas stream was routed to the
compressor station operated by the Nigerian Gas Company (NGC), however due to

Page14 of 107
compressor unreliability and operational issues, at the moment most of the gas is being
flared.
The LTF (Liquid Treatment Facility) operational mode in the Amukpe Station affects the
processing capacity of the Sapele Flowstation. This debottlenecking study will look into
this two operational modes:
1. Amukpe LTF station is in operation
2. Amukpe LTF is bypassed and the Sapele export pipeline discharges at a higher
backpressure.
1.3 Debottlenecking Study Conclusions

The maximum capacity from the Sapele flowstation is dependent on the operation of the
Amukpe LTF. This Amukpe LTF mode determines the backpressure from the pipeline at
Sapele, which is a hard constraint on the system.
 If the Amukpe LTF is operational, the pipeline limits the flow from Sapele to
78-81,000BPD.
 If the Amukpe LTF is bypassed, the pipeline backpressure limits the flow from
Sapele to 58-60,000BPD (current pipeline). This capacity could be increased to
67,000 BPD if the pitted sections of the pipeline are remediated and its design
pressure increased to 66 barg.
The mode of operation of the Amukpe LTF affects the maximum production from Sapele
by 20,000 BPD (current pipeline) or 14,000 BPD if the pipeline is remediated.
It should be possible to debottleneck the existing surface facilities at the Sapele
flowstation to achieve a production up to the pipeline capacity limit of 81,000BPD.
The current mode of operation of the Sapele Flowstation is different from the original
design. The majority of the wells are aligned to the LP manifold and LP separators. Most
of the new wells are LP wells. The LP separators are currently overloaded. As part of the
debottlenecking scope, the LP separator capacity needs to be increased. This can be
achieved by realigning redundant HP Separator V-202 to LP Separator duty and
installing additional piping from the LP manifold to the LP separators.
The flowstation was built in the early 1970s. The current design of the overpressure
protection system does not comply with current industry standards (API 521) at current
production rates. The current installed relief system will not protect the LP Separators
and Surge Vessels from overpressure. As part of the debottlenecking scope, the relief

Page15 of 107
and flare system needs to be modified. (If no debottlenecking is carried out, the relief
system will still need to be modified).
One key bottleneck is the Surge Vessels, V-104, and V-204. These are operating with
high inlet nozzle velocities. Using standard vessel sizing evaluation methods, these
vessels have a combined capacity of 61,000BPD; however it may be possible to expand
the capacity by retrofitting internals. It is recommended that a computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) study be carried out to determine the capacity of the current vessels:
and if the vessels are a bottleneck, to determine if vessel internals can be retrofitted to
increase the capacity.
In the oil export system a fourth oil export pump has already been purchased by Seplat;
an additional metering run will be required to be purchased.
Figure 1-1. Extra Capacity from Sapele Flowstation (Amukpe-LTF online)
Pipeline capacity

Page16 of 107
In summary, there are several improvements that need to be made to the Sapele
flowstation facilities to debottleneck the production capacity to match the pipeline limit of
81,000BPD. These are shown in Figure 1-1.
This study will recommend that the Sapele flowstation be debottlenecked up to the
maximum pipeline capacity of 81,000BPD. It will also recommend that the uptime of the
Amukpe LTF and its water disposal system be reviewed as that has a significant impact
on the production achievable from Sapele.
A more comprehensive list of recommendations is given in section 12.0.

Page17 of 107
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background
Sapele field is located about 40 km north of Warri in OML 41, and was discovered by the
original operator Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC) in October 1969. The
flowstation was commissioned in 1972 with an installed capacity of 60,000 BPD. The
facility receives and treats well fluids from Sapele Deep, Sapele Shallow and Ovhor
Fields. Current gross production from the flowstation is about 47,000 BPD.
The execution of the Sapele Field Development Plan is expected to increase production
from the Sapele and Ovhor reservoirs. Well fluids from third party facilities (Okweke
field) are also expected to be routed to the Sapele flowstation for treatment. Production
forecasts show that the installed capacity of the Sapele flowstation will be exceeded with
the contributions from these developments.
This additional production will come in phases, and it is anticipated that the first phase
will increase the flowstation throughput to about 86,000 BPD in 2015.
2.2 Objective
SEPLAT intends to execute a debottlenecking project to enable the facility originally
designed for 60,000 BPD to handle the approximately 86.000BPD predicted for 2015.
The debottlenecking study has the following objectives:
 Establish equipment and system constraints within the Sapele Flowstation;

 Identify soft and medium constrains and propose solutions to increase Sapele
Flowstation capacity
 Summary a scope of work for the modifications
2.3 Study Scope

The following items of equipment have been evaluated as part of this debottlenecking
study:
 Inlet Manifolds/Headers (XHP, HP and LP)

 XHP, HP and LP Separator;
 Surge Vessels
 Export lines and Export pumps
 Metering
 Flare network;
 Flare KO Vessel;

Page18 of 107
 PSVs.
 Control Valves.
 Compressor system (Gas handling system).
Out of this scope of work are the following equipment and systems that have not been
evaluated:
 Test manifold/header.
 Test separator.
 Fuel Gas system.
 Utilities System.
2.4 Study Execution

The study has been executed in three (3) phases
1. Information Request. An information request was submitted to Seplat. It outlined
the data required for completion of the capacity assessment. Seplat submitted
data including as built P&IDs, Data Sheets, PVT report, Pipesim model, well test
record, isometrics, flare tip datasheet and drawing, etc
2. Site Data collection. Due to incompleteness of some of the information provided
by Seplat, Crestech went for a site visit on the 11th of December for 2 days to
collect and verify some information. See Ref [3] Site visit report.
3. Capacity Assessment. With the available information, the capacity assessment
was performed by Genesis Oil& Gas Consultants. Where needed assumption
have been made to complete the study and it is noted accordingly.

Page19 of 107
3.0 STUDY BASIS AND APPROACH

3.1 Study Basis
Key basis data is presented in the following section and references provided where
appropriate
3.1.1 Production Forecast
From the study basis report [Ref 1]
Table 3-1. Gross Production Forecast
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
TRANCHES
GROSS (BPD)
NFA 20,298 21,313 22,379 23,497 24,672 25,906
Sapele Infill +Workovers 2,162 3,954 3,013 5,274 5,331 8,276
Sapele Shallow Phase 1
Sapele Shallow Phase 2 8,355 21,772 43,278 51,945 49,374 41,626
Ovhor to Sapele 30,750 32,288 33,902 35,597 37,377 39,246
Oghareki – Okwefe 0 6,500 6,500 16,000 16,000 16,000
Total 61,565 85,827 109,072 132,313 132,754 131,054
3.1.2 Water Cut forecast

Table 3-2. Water Cut Forecast
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

TRANCHES
Water Cut (%)
NFA 47 57 65 71 76 81
Sapele Infill + Workovers 100 61 16.9 14.9 20 51
Sapele Shallow Phase 2 100 76 81 82 82 80
Ovhor to Sapele 45 55 64 71 76 81
Oghareki - Okwefe 0 31 31 29 29 29
Overall 55 59.3 67.5 67.9 70.52 72.3
3.1.3 Oil production composition

Oil production composition has been extracted from the different PVT reports. According
to Seplat info the wells are associated to different Reservoirs and aligned to the different
headers. See Study Basis [Ref 1] and Heat and Material balance document [Ref 2] for

Page20 of 107
the fluid composition and properties for different headers entering Sapele Flowstation.
Heat and Material balance has been generated for the purpose of extracting the stream
composition and properties. The flowrate would be different and changing based on the
specific case and option selected.
3.1.4 Sapele Flowstation Configuration
Production from Sapele and Ovhor fields as well as future third parties production will be
split between XHP, HP and LP headers.
The plant configuration is 2x100% trains. Three headers enter the flowstation, XHP
header routes fluid to one XHP separator, HP header routes fluid to two HP separators
and LP header routes fluid to two LP separators.
The liquids from XHP separator are routed to the only operational HP separator (V-102),
the other HP separator (V-202) is currently offline. Liquids from HP separator (V-102)
are routed to both LP separators V-103 and V-203. Genesis has assumed that both HP
separators are in operation for the HYSYS simulation. Ref [2]
Liquids from the XHP, HP and LP separators are routed to the Surge Vessels (V-104
and V-204)
Liquid from surge vessels is routed to the pump suction header that feeds 3 export
pumps, two operational and one standby.
Gas from XHP is routed to Gas Lift Manifold via 105-PCV-001 and/or 105-PCV-002. If
needed this gas can be routed to flare via 100-PCV-125 or to the compressor station.
Gas from HP Separators is routed to the HP Gas Header. From there it is sent to the
Flare system via dedicated 100-PCV-120. A T branch line is sent to the compressor HP
station.
Gas from LP Separators is routed to the LP Gas Header. This gas can be split and
routed to both the flare system and/or LP compressor station. It is confirmed by Seplat
that most of this gas currently is being flared. P&ID C-201-G04-0011-001 is not showing
this line to the flare and shows LP compressor as the only destination. Genesis has
assumed that there is a line connecting the LP Gas header to the Flare system.
Gas from Surge Vessel is routed to the Flare via dedicated 100-PCV-010.

Page21 of 107
3.1.5 Sapele Flowstation Pressure Profile (on site records)
3.1.5.1 Separators
Vessels Operating Pressure, Temperature
barg (psig) °C (°F)
XHP Separator (V-105) 48 (696.2) 26.1 (79)
HP Separator (V-102/V-202) 10 (145.0) 26.1 (79)
LP Separator (V-103/V-203) 3.5 (50.8) 20.0 (68)
Surge Vessel (V-104/V-204) 1 (14.5) 20.0 (68)
3.1.5.2 Export Pumps
Service Total Flow (BPD) Discharge Pressure

barg (psig)
LTF in operation 47,000 18 (261)
LTF bypassed 47,000 38 (551)
3.1.6 Sapele Flow Station Flow Diagram

The operational configuration of the Sapele Flow Station has changed since the original
flowstation was built in the 1970s: most of the wells are currently aligned to the LP
header. This has increased the gross throughput through the LP manifold to the two LP
Separators. HP wells are aligned to one HP Separator, V-102, resulting in V-202
currently being off line. XHP separator V-105 has a low throughput as there is only one
well aligned to the XHP header. Seplat potential future plans are to isolate the XHP
separator and use a compressor unit to generate the required gas lift at the desired
pressure. Figure 3-1. Process flow diagram of current plantbelow shows the current
plant configuration. The HP Separator V-202 is isolated and offline. There are 3 export
pumps on site operating at the moment following (n+1) sparing philosophy; with a 4 th
pump already purchased to be installed. Both Surge Vessels are in operation.

Page22 of 107
Figure 3-1. Process flow diagram of current plant

Page23 of 107
4.0 INLET MANIFOLD / HEADERS

4.1.1 Description and assessment Parameters
The limiting capacity of the inlet headers, XHP, HP and LP, within the Sapele
Flowstation has been established based on erosional velocity constraints and pressure
drop.
Erosional velocity has been calculated using the same formula used for the Nozzle
Assessment Criteria presented in Section 5.1.3
Maximum suggested erosional velocity (Vmax) is given by
ܿ
‫ݒ‬௠ ௔௫ =
ඥߩ
ρ is fluid density (kg/m3) and c is a constant.

c = 122 in SI Units (equivalent to c=100 in US units)
Based on API 14 E, for carbon steel material and solids free.
4.1.2 Results
Table 4-1 summarises the current velocity versus the maximum velocity recommended
in two-phase flow lines.
Table 4-1. Inlet Manifolds Calculation Summary
Mass Current Max

Density DP/100m
Size Flow Velocity Velocity
(kg/m3) (bar)
(kg/h) (m/s) (m/s)
XHP
10” 19,477 311.57 0.37 6.91 0.003
Header
HP
8” 29,993 101.51 2.79 12.11 0.11
Header
LP
8” 384,119 60.91 59.46 15.63 8.9
Header

Page24 of 107
Following graphics Figure 4-1, Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 represent the maximum liquid and gas
capacity of the headers based on the maximum allowable erosional velocity.

Page25 of 107
Figure 4-1. XHP Manifold Capacity (Erosional Velocity)
40
XHP Gas Capacity

35
30
25
Gas (MMSCFD)
XHP Liquid Capacity

20
15
10
XHP operating
0
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
Liquids (BPD)

Page26 of 107
Figure 4-2. HP Manifold Max Capacity (Erosional Velocity)
40
35
30
25
HP Liquid Capacity
Gas (MMSCFD)
20
15
HP Gas capacity
10
5
HP operating
0
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
Liquids (BPD)

Page27 of 107
Figure 4-3. LP Manifold Max Capacity (Erosional Velocity)
40.00
35.00
30.00
25.00 LP Liquid Capacity LP operating

Gas (MMSCFD)
20.00
15.00
10.00
LP Gas Capacity
5.00
0.00
0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000
Liquids (BPD)
Figure 4-4 below shows the total pressure drop of the LP header line for different
throughputs. The pressure drop is evaluated from the tee at the LP manifold to the inlet
of the separator.

Page28 of 107
Figure 4-4. LP Header Pressure Drop (bar)
7
Operating Point
6 at 2015 Forecast
Pressure drop (bar)
5
Current Operating
4 Point
0
15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 50,000 55,000 60,000 65,000 70,000
Liquids ( BPD)
4.1.3 Analysis
XHP and HP inlet headers are not a concern, due to the low number of wells lined up to
these headers. The mass flow is relatively low for the size of the headers, as a result,
low erosional velocity and pressure drop are experienced across the line. There is free
capacity in these headers.
LP Inlet Header has a high erosional velocity and pressure drop.
– Pressure drop is 4.5 bar at current production of 47,000BPD, expected to
increase at higher throughputs
– This would put excessive backpressure on wells (6.6 bar additional pressure at
60,000BPD)

Page29 of 107
This is an understandable finding: compared to the original design, most of the wells at
the Sapele flowstation are aligned to the LP manifold.
In summary, the existing LP manifold/header is overloaded with high pressure drop and
high erosional velocities. Adding additional wells/production to the LP header is not
recommended.
As part of the debottlenecking, additional LP headers are recommended along the length
of the LP manifold. This would reduce the velocity (and the pressure drop) along each
section of the LP manifold and the LP headers. As well as allowing for future expansion,
running 3 LP headers would reduce the backpressure on the existing wells and enhance
current production.
With a total Sapele throughput of 82,000 BPD and 3 LP headers; the flow through each
LP header would be 27,300 BPD and the pressure drop would be 2 bar. This is a
reduction in pressure on the existing wells of 2.5 bar, which would be expected to
enhance production.
With a total Sapele throughput of 60,000 BPD and 3 LP headers; the flow through each
LP header would be 20,000 BPD and the pressure drop would be 1 bar. This is a
reduction in pressure on the existing wells of 3.5 bar, which would be expected to
enhance production.
In summary, installing 2 additional LP headers from the LP manifold to the separators is
recommended not only as a debottlenecking exercise to free up capacity for new wells
but is also recommended to enhance production from existing LP wells.
The easiest configuration would be to run one new 8” header from the LP manifold to
V-202**; one new 8” LP header to either V-103 or V-203 and reconfigure the existing LP
header to feed only one of V-203 or V-103.
4.1.4 Recommendation
– Install two new 8” LP headers from the manifold to V-202 and V-103 and
reconfigure the existing 8” LP header to feed to V-203 only. This will dedicate a
separate 8” header line to each of V-103, V-203, V-202.
** Note: V-202 is the unused HP separator, which is recommended to be reallocated to
LP Separator service, see section 5.4 below.

Page30 of 107
5.0 SEPARATORS
5.1 Assessment Method
The following has been assessed for each separator based on SHELL DEP 31.22.05.11-Gen
[Ref 4] :
 Liquid handling capacity (flow rate corresponding to residence time);

 Gas handling capacity (flow rate corresponding to Vmax);
 Inlet, gas outlet and liquid outlet nozzle capacity (see criteria below);
 Inlet and liquid outlet nozzle erosion limit;
 LCV and PCV capacity;
Relief capacity has been considered separately and is discussed in section 8.3.
5.1.1 Liquid Handling Capacity
Separator dimensions are taken as indicated in the datasheets provided by Seplat.
However the liquid level set points for control, alarm and trip functionality are not
specified. The set points and the hold-up times and capacities are calculated based on
the Shell DEP criteria [Ref 4] for stablishing liquid level control in a 2 phase separator .
Horizontal Vessels
 Required liquid hold up time: LALL to LAL: 5mins (for action outside the control
room)
 Required liquid hold up time LAL to LAH: 3mins (on total product outflow for
separator trains)
 Required liquid hold up time LAH to LAHH: 5mins (for action outside the control
room)
Vertical Vessels
 Required liquid hold up time: LALL to LAL: 5mins (for action outside the control
room)
 Required liquid hold up time LAL to LAH: 10mins (on total product outflow for
separator trains)
 Required liquid hold up time LAH to LAHH: 5mins (for action outside the control
room)

Page31 of 107
5.1.2 Gas Handling Capacity

Separator shall be large enough to handle the gas flow rate under the most severe
process conditions.
Q,max = QG,maxඥ ߩீȀሺߩ௅ି ߩீ )
AG,min = Qmax / λmax

Where λmax is the maximum allowable gas load factor
AG,min the minimum required vessel cross sectional area for gas flow and
QG,max is the highest envisaged gas flow rate.
5.1.3 Nozzle Assessment Criteria
The following nozzle criteria have been applied:
 Inlet Nozzle (No Inlet Device) : 1400 Pa (Based on Shell DEP 31.22.05.11)
 Gas Outlet Nozzle : 4500 Pa (Based on Shell DEP 31.22.05.11)
 Liquid Outlet Nozzle : 3m/s (In line with general liquid velocity criteria)
 Inlet Nozzle and liquid Outlet Nozzle Erosion Velocity: use the method of API RP
14E (see equation in Section 4.1.1)
5.1.4 Control Valves

See Section CONTROL VALVES9.0 Control Valves
5.2 XHP Separator V-105

5.2.1.1 XHP Operating point
 Normal Vapour Flow 1.96 MMSCFD
 Normal Liquid Flow 2978.8 BPD
 GLR 657.45 SCF/bbl
5.2.1.2 XHP Separator Dimensions

 Vessel Head Ellipsoidal
 Diameter (OD) 1676 mm

Page32 of 107
 Length 6096mm
 Thickness 38.1mm
Figure 5-1. XHP Horizontal vessel, V-105
Figure 5-2. On site XHP Separator V-105

Page33 of 107
5.2.2 Results
5.2.2.1 Liquid Holdup Capacity and Response Times
Action Outside Control Room

Liquid Hold Up Capacity
Required Hold Up (s) Actual (s)
Liquid Hold Up Capacity (LAH to

300 294
LAHH)
Liquid Hold Up Capacity (NLL to LAH) 90 338
Liquid Hold Up Capacity (LAL to NLL) 90 314
Liquid Hold Up Capacity (LALL to LAL) 300 233
Note: the above control bands are based on assumed level settings and are indicative
only. The total hold-up time LALL to LAHH conforms to the Shell DEP recommendations.
5.2.2.2 Vapour Handling
Min required CSA (m2) Actual Available CSA (m2)
Vapour Handling Capacity 3.01E-02 0.83
5.2.2.3 Inlet Nozzle Capacity
Max Momentum, rhov2

Momentum, rhov2 (kg/s2)
(kg/s2)
Inlet Nozzle Capacity 1000 18
5.2.2.4 Liquid Outlet Nozzle
Max Velocity (m/s) Velocity (m/s)
Liquid Outlet Nozzle 1 0.17

Page34 of 107
5.2.2.5 Vapour Outlet Nozzle
Max Momentum, rhov2

(kg/s2)
Vapour Outlet Nozzle 5625 2.36
Figure 5-3. XHP Separator V-105 Operation Envelope
Vapour outlet nozzle: 96

60
Vapour Handling Capacity
50
(LALL to LAL) Liquid Hold Up (2 mins)
40
Liquid Outlet Nozzle

Gas (MMSCFD)
Inlet nozzle
30
20
22,424
Inlet Nozzle (Vapour)
10
Operating Point
0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000
Liquids (BPD)
5.2.3 Analysis
The operating envelope for the XHP shows a Gas handling capacity of 52MMSCFD and
a liquid capacity based on the liquid outlet nozzle of ~18000BPD.
Current operating point is within the limits of gas and liquid handling capacity.

Page35 of 107
5.3 HP Separators, V-102/202

5.3.1.1 HP Operating point
 Normal Liquid Flow 3728.14 BPD
5.3.1.2 HP Separator Dimensions

 Length 6096mm
 Thickness 31 mm ( As per drawing C-201-Z14-0005-001)
Figure 5-4. HP Separator, V-102/202

Page36 of 107
Figure 5-5. On site HP Separator 2, V-202
5.3.2 Results
5.3.2.1 Limiting Factor


300 219
LAHH)
Liquid Hold Up Capacity (LAH to NLL) 90 189
only. The total hold-up time LALL to LAHH conforms to the Shell DEP recommendations.

Page37 of 107
Vapour Handling Capacity 4.72E-02 0.75
Max Momentum, rhov2

(kg/s2)
Max Momentum, rhov2

(kg/s2)

Page38 of 107
Figure 5-6. HP Separator V-102/202 Operating Envelope
30
Vapour outlet nozzle

25
Vapour Handling
Capacity
20
LALL to LAL Liquid Hold Up (2 mins)

LALL to LAL Liquid Hold Up (5mins)
Gas (MMSCFD)

Inlet Nozzle (liquids)
15
10
5
Operating Point
0
0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000
Liquids (BPD)
5.3.3 Analysis
The operating envelope for the HP Separator shows a Gas handling capacity of
21MMSCFD and a liquid capacity based on the liquid inlet nozzle of ~7000BPD.
Current operating point is within the limits of gas and liquid handling capacity.

Page39 of 107
5.4 LP Separator, V-103/203

5.4.1.1 LP Operating point
 Normal Liquid Flow 23,500 BPD (per vessel)
5.4.1.2 LP Separator Dimensions

 Length 6096mm
 Thickness Unknown mm (assumed the same as HP

Separator)
Figure 5-7. LP Separator V-103/203

Page40 of 107
Figure 5-8. On site LP separator 2, V-203
5.4.2 Results


300 24
LAHH)
only. The available response time is significantly less than the 90s or 300s
recommended. This would result in a high probability of low or high level trips; for non-
steady operations.

Page41 of 107
Vapour Handling Capacity 0.65 0.75
Max Momentum, rhov2

(kg/s2)
Max Momentum, rhov2

(kg/s2)

Page42 of 107
Figure 5-9. LP separator V-103/203 Operating Envelope
LALL to LAL Liquid Hold Up (5mins)

18
Vapour outlet nozzle

16
Vapour Handling
14 Capacity
12
Operating Point
LALL to LAL Liquid Hold Up (2 mins)
Gas (MMSCFD)
10

2
0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
Liquids (BPD)
5.4.3 Analysis – Liquid Handling

The LP Separators V-103/V-203 currently are undersized for liquid handling for the
current gross liquid throughput of 47,000BPD (23,500BPD per separator). They are also
undersized for the original nameplate capacity of 30,000 BPD. Although nozzle velocities
and response times are “soft constraints”, given that V-103/V-203 are running beyond
the maximum recommended capacity at the moment, increasing the throughput beyond
60,000 BPD is not recommended.
5.4.4 Analysis – Gas Handling
The LP Separators V-103/V-203 currently exceed the recommended inlet nozzle
velocities and momentum criterion. These are soft constraints, although there is a
possibility of excess mist formation.
The gas handling limit of 13 MMscf/d per separator is a harder constraint – this governs
the ability of the separator to separate gas and liquid. With two LP separators on-line,

Page43 of 107
the current operating point is 11.3 MMscf/d per separator. There is capacity for
2x1.7MMscfd = 3.4MMscf/d of additional gas capacity.
HP Separator V-202 is currently not used and is of identical size and design pressure to
V-103/V-203. Re-piping the inlet and outlet of V-202 to reconfigure it to LP Separator
duty is highly recommended. The proposed additional wells for the Sapele flowstation
are mostly LP wells. Moreover, the new wells will be gas lifted. With V202 realigned to
LP service, the total vapour handling capacity between the three separators V-202
/V-103/V-203 is 39MMscf/d; the current gas throughput 22.6MMscf/d. This would allow
16.4MMscf/d of additional lift gas.
In summary, reallocating V202 to LP service will not only give increased liquid handling
capability but also allow for a significantly higher flow of additional lift gas (16.4 MMscf/d
vs 3.4 MMscf/d).
It is also recommended that two new LP headers (three in total, one 8” header to each
LP separator) are installed if the full gas lift capacity is to be utilized (see section 4.1.4).
HP Separator V-202 is currently offline. This should be reconfigured as a third LP
Separator, both to maximize liquid handling capacity and to allow for 16.4 MMscf/d of
additional lift gas.
5.5 Surge Vessels, V-104/204

5.5.1.1 LP Operating point
 Normal Liquid Flow 23,500 BPD
5.5.1.2 LP Separator Dimensions

 Length (T-T) 6096mm
 Thickness Unknown mm

Page44 of 107
Figure 5-10. Surge Vessel, V-104/204

Page45 of 107
Figure 5-11. On site Surge vessels V-104/204
5.5.2 Results


300 89
LAHH)
only. The available response time is significantly less than the 300s recommended. This
would result in a high probability of low or high level trips; for non-steady operations.

Page46 of 107
Vapour Handling Capacity 0.03 7.15
Max Momentum, rhov2

(kg/s2)
Max Momentum, rhov2

(kg/s2)

Page47 of 107
Figure 5-12. Surge Drum V-104/204 Operating Envelope
Vapour outlet nozzle:75

Vapour handling capacity: 49
5
4.5

4

3.5

3
Gas (MMSCFD)
2.5
1.5
0.5 Operating Point

0
0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000
Liquids (BPD)
5.5.3 Analysis
It is concluded that the inlet nozzles on the Surge Vessels are undersized for current flowrates;
the response time is also very low for local operation (not from a centralised control room). This
would lead to a risk of overfilling from downstream upsets such as oil export pump trips. The
inlet nozzle criteria is exceeded which may lead to liquid mist formation and excess droplet
carryover.
These are soft constraints, a hard constraint is the liquid outlet nozzle criterion: high velocities in
the liquid outlet could lead to vortexing and vapour carryunder to the oil export pumps. Vapour
carryunder to the oil export pumps is a known cause of pump cavitation leading to impeller
damage. This could happen at lower velocities if the liquid level in V-104/204 was low.
The original nameplate design for V-104/204 was 30,000BPD; the highest flowrate through one
surge vessel in actual service was reported as 30,500BPD.

Page48 of 107
The Surge Vessels are a key unit operation for the Sapele flowstation and cannot be bypassed,
this would limit the maximum production through Sapele.
For the purposes of this debottlenecking exercise, the maximum capacity of V-104/204 is taken
as 30,500BPD per vessel; 61,000BPD combined. This is proven in operational service although
it is significantly above some of the “soft constraints” in vessel capacity calculations.
It may be possible to fit internals (for example, a vortex breaker) to V-104/204 which would allow
a higher production than 30,500BPD per vessel. It is recommended that this be examined by a
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) study which would do a detailed 3-dimensional model of the
vessel; examine which flowrates would lead to vapour carryunder and if a vortex breaker or
other internal would allow operation at higher flowrates.
 The Surge Vessels V-104/204 are a bottleneck for the overall Sapele flowstation
production and would limit flow through the flowstation to 61,000BPD (both online).
 A computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis is recommended to determine if

V-104/204 can be operated at higher flowrates; and if not, if vessel internals can be
fitted to improve the capacity.

Page49 of 107
6.0 OIL EXPORT SYSTEM

6.1 Oil Export pumps
6.1.1 Description and Assessment Parameters
The existing Sapele Flowstation export pumps are comprised of four gas engine driven
pumps (P-2, P-4, P-6, P-X). The purchase of a 4th pump for the site has been confirmed
by Seplat, but no Datasheet has been provided. It is assumed to be identical to P-2. This
would allow up to three pumps to be operated in parallel and have one as a standby (3
out of 4 configuration).
Pump details for existing pumps are summarized in Table 6-1 below.
Table 6-1. Oil Export Pump Detail-Model Ref Sulzer 4x8x10.5B
Oil Export Pump Unit P-2/4/6
Pump model - 4x8x10.5B MSD-D 9(11) Stage
Engine Speed rpm 1656-2650
Rated Flow m3/h 102.92
Differential Head at rated capacity m 739.8
Efficiency at rated capacity % 74 @1cst
No of stages - 11
ISO gross kW 372
Gearbox Power kW 295
When exporting the liquids from Sapele flowstation to Amukpe LTF, there are two
different operational scenarios that need to be considered. It has been reported that
Amukpe LTF has operational problems due to the availability of the water injection wells.
In this event, the Amukpe LTF plant is bypassed and the export pumps at Sapele have
to operate at a higher pressure to feed the oil into the pipeline system that connects to
the Forcados terminal.
The pipeline from Sapele to Amukpe was derated by the previous operator to 55 barg,
with a high pressure trip at Sapele set at 45 barg. Seplat have carried out intelligent

Page50 of 107
pigging of the Sapele export pipeline and have confirmed that part of the pipeline is
pitted. Seplat are considering repairing the pitted section of the pipeline which would
enable the maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) to be raised to 66 barg.
Two separate pipeline conditions have been reviewed: current pipeline (MAOP 55 barg)
and “remediated” pipeline (66 barg).
Table 6-2. Current pipeline vs Remediated Pipeline
High Pressure Trip PSV Set Pressure

MAOP (Barg)
(Barg) (Barg)
Pipeline (current) 45 50 55
Pipeline remediated 54 60 66
Note that the high pressure trip setpoint of 54 barg is an assumption based on a similar
percentage below MAOP to the existing pipeline.
The permutations reviewed in the debottlenecking study were:

Operational Scenario
1. Sapele Flowstation exporting to Amukpe with LTF in operation
2. Sapele Flowstation exporting to Amukpe Header, LTF bypassed
Pipeline MAOP
1. Current pipeline (MAOP 55 barg)
2. Remediated Pipeline (MAOP 66 barg)
Pumps Online
1. Two pumps running in parallel (three installed, one standby)
2. Three pumps running in parallel (Fourth pump installed, one standby)
.The limiting criteria to define the operating envelope of the export system is
 Pump head curve at maximum rpm
 High Pressure Trip to protect pipeline
 Maximum power produced by motor installed on pump
 Maximum power rating of the gearbox installed on the pump

Page51 of 107
 Pump net positive suction head required (NPSHr) versus NPSH available
(NPSHa) at higher flows in each pump suction line
Pump curves and NPSH curves were supplied by the pump vendor, Sulzer. As-built
datasheets for the pumps were supplied by Seplat. It is notable that the maximum power
rating for the gas engine driving the pumps is rated at 372kW whereas the gearbox is
rated at 295kW. The gearbox is therefore the limiting constraint for the maximum power
able to be supplied to each oil export pump.
The roughness of the pipe walls will affect the pressure drop between Sapele and
Amukpe. Two different pipe roughnesses have been investigated: 0.06mm (roughness
used in the Pipesim model supplied by Seplat for the pipeline network) and 0.15mm.
There is limited data to back-calibrate the actual pipeline roughness: the pipeline is
known to be pitted and would be expected to have a roughness greater than that for new
pipe (0.05mm).
For the two operational scenarios, pipeline system curves were generated to show
required discharge pressure at Sapele versus flowrate for two different pipe
roughnesses. These system curves were superimposed on the pump curves to identify
which constraint was hit first: pipeline high pressure trip, pump curve or gearbox power
limit.
6.1.2 Calculation Results – Amukpe LTF in operation

Figure 6-1 and Figure 6-2 show the Sapele oil export system operating envelope when
the Amukpe LTF is in operation. The Amukpe LTF has an operating pressure of 0.5Barg,
which is the outlet pressure from the Sapele-Amukpe pipeline. The discharge pressure
at Sapele (inlet pressure to the pipeline) is relatively low compared to the case where the
Amukpe LTF is bypassed (see Figure 6-3 and Figure 6-4).
Figure 6-1 shows the operating envelope for the existing pipeline and Figure 6-2 shows
the pipeline remediated to have a MAOP of 66 barg and a high pressure trip at Sapele of
54 barg. The two figures are identical except for the lines showing the pipeline design
pressure and trip setpoint.
With two pumps online, the limiting factor is the maximum flow permissible through the
pump, limited by power towards the end of the pump curve and the gearbox power
constraint.

Page52 of 107
With three pumps online, the gearbox power again limits the maximum flow: the power
line from the pump curve intersects the pipeline system curve at 78,000 to 81,000BPD
(dependent on pipeline roughness).
In both cases with the Amukpe LTF operational, the discharge pressure at Sapele is
below the current pipeline trip setpoint of 45 barg, so remediated the pipeline would not
permit a higher export flowrate (although it would increase the margin between the
operating pressure and the trip setpoint and reduce the likelihood of spurious trips).
Figure 6-1. Export system Operating Envelope. Amukpe LTF in operation.
With LTF in Operation, Line not repaired

850
800
750
700
P Trip
650
600 Max Design P
550
Relief P
500
Head (m)
450 Gearbox 2 pumps

400 Gearbox 3 pumps
350
Roughness 0.15
300
250 Op. Point Roughness 0.06
200 2 ppumps 2650rpm
150
3 pumps 2650rpm
100
50
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
Liquid FLow (BPD)
With the pipeline remediated (see Figure 6-2) the capacity is constrained by the three
pumps so there is no change in capacity. There is marginal benefit in adding a fourth
pump online with the pipeline remediated: the system curve is steep at this point and is
constrained by the pipeline high pressure trip.

Page53 of 107
Figure 6-2. System Operating Envelope, LTF in Operation, pipeline remediated
With LTF in Operation, line repaired

850.00
800.00
750.00
700.00
650.00 P Trip
600.00 Max Design P
550.00 Relief P
500.00 Gearbox 2 pumps
Head (m)
450.00
Gearbox 3 pumps
400.00
Roughness 0.15
350.00
Roughness 0.06
300.00
250.00 Op. Point 2 ppumps 2650rpm
200.00 3 pumps 2650rpm

150.00
100.00
50.00
0.00
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
Liquid FLow (BPD)
6.1.3 Calculation Results – Amukpe LTF Bypassed

Figure 6-3 and Figure 6-4 show the Sapele oil export system operating envelope when
the Amukpe LTF is not in operation and is bypassed. The manifold at Amukpe now
operates at the built-up backpressure from the downstream pipeline and is higher than
20 barg (depending on flow).
Figure 6-3 shows the operating envelope for the existing pipeline and Figure 6-4 shows
the pipeline remediated to have a MAOP of 66 barg and a high pressure trip at Sapele of
54 barg. The two figures are identical except for the lines showing the pipeline design
pressure and trip setpoint.
With two pumps online, the gearbox power again limits the maximum flow: the power
line from the pump curve intersects the pipeline system curve at 53,000BPD.

Page54 of 107
With three pumps online, the constraint on maximum capacity is not the pump (or
gearbox power); it is the design pressure of the pipeline. For the current pipeline with a
trip set at 45 barg, the built-up backpressure from the pipeline is at 45 barg at flows of
58,000 to 60,000BPD (depending on pipeline roughness).
If the pipeline is remediated and has a trip set at 54 barg, the constraint is again the high
pressure trip setpoint: in this case the pressure would limit the flows to 65,000 to
67,000BPD.
In summary, if Amukpe LTF is not operational and is bypassed, the capacity of the
current pipeline is reduced from a maximum of 81,000BPD to a maximum of
60,000BPD.
If the pipeline is remediated to have a MAOP of 66 barg, there is no impact if the
Amukpe LTF is operational, but if Amukpe LTF is bypassed, the capacity is now a
maximum of 67,000BPD.

Page55 of 107
Figure 6-3. Export system Operating Envelope, LTF bypassed.
LTF Bypassed, line not repaired

1000
950
900
850
800
750 roughness 0.05
700
650 Roughness 0.15
600
P Trip
550
Head (m)
500 Max Design P

450 Op. Point
Relief P
400
350 2 pumps 2650rpm
300
250 3 pumps 2650rpm
200
Gearbox 2 pumps
150
100 Gearbox 3pumps
50
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
Liquid Flow (BPD)

Page56 of 107
Figure 6-4. Export System Operating Envelope. LTF Bypassed. Line Remediated
LTF Bypassed Line repaired

1000
950
900
850
800
750
700 roughness 0.05
650
Roughness 0.15
600
550
Head (m)
P Trip
500 Op. Point
450 Max Design P
400
Relief P
350
300 2 pumps 2650rpm
250
200 3 pumps 2650rpm
150
Gearbox 2 pumps
100
50 Gearbox 3pumps
0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
Liquid Flow (BPD)
6.1.3.1 NPSHa vs NPSHr

NPSHr curves were supplied by Sulzer for different pump speeds and plotted against the
NPSHa system curve for different flowrates (see Figure 6-5). Each pump has a 8”
suction line and is supplied from a 16” header. Most of the pressure drop in the pump
suction system is in the 8” line and not in the common 16” line; hence adding an
additional pump would have negligible impact on the NPSHa.
From Figure 6-5, no pump suction NPSH problems are expected: this is not a constraint
on oil export flowrates from Sapele.

Page57 of 107
Figure 6-5. NPSHa vs NPSHr
3
2.8
2.6 2650rpm
2.4
1656rpm
2.2
1822rpm
2
1.8 1987rpm
NPSHr (m)
1.6
2153rpm
1.4
2319rpm
1.2
1 2484rpm
0.8 NPSHa
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
FLow (m3/h)
6.1.4 Analysis
1) When Amukpe LTF is in operation:
 If 2 pumps are running in parallel, the power rating on the pump gearbox is
limiting the maximum oil export capacity to 55,000BPD.
 If 3 pumps are running in parallel, the backpressure from the pipeline will build-up
until the Pump Gearbox power rating is reached. This gives a maximum export
capacity of 78,000BPD to 81,000BPD depending on pipeline roughness.
 As the pumps gearbox becomes the limiting factor before the built-up
backpressure reaches the pipeline high pressure trip setpoint, remediating the
pipeline to increase the pipeline MAOP will not have an impact on the maximum
oil export capacity of Sapele if Amukpe LTF is online.

Page58 of 107
2) When the Amukpe LTF is bypassed, the pipeline backpressure and system operation
is very different:
 If 2 pumps are running in parallel, the power rating on the pump gearbox is
limiting the maximum oil export capacity to 53,000BPD. The pumps will hit the
power limit before the pipeline high pressure trip is reached.
 If 3 pumps are running in parallel, the built-up backpressure from the pipeline
reaches the high pressure trip setpoint of 45barg at a flowrate of 58,000BPD to
60,000BPD depending on pipeline roughness.
 If 3 pumps are running in parallel and Amukpe LTF is bypassed, remediating the
pitted section of the pipeline to increase the MAOP to 66 barg will result in an
increase in pipeline capacity. In this case, the built-up backpressure will reach
the maximum gearbox power constraint before the pipeline high pressure trip
setpoint is reached. The maximum oil export capacity from Sapele would be
65,000BPD to 67,000BPD depending on pipeline roughness.
NPSH of the pump does not represent any constraints for the export capacity. Each
pump has its own suction line which is rated for the end-of-pump-curve flowrate.
Table 6-3. Summary of Oil Export System Capacities
Maximum Oil Export Maximum Oil Export

Flowrate with Two Flowrate with Three Pumps
Pumps Running (BPD) Running (BPD)
Amukpe LTF in Operation 55,000 78,000 – 81,000
Amukpe LTF in Operation,

55,000 78,000 – 81,000
pipeline remediated
Amukpe LTF Bypassed 53,000 58,000 – 60,000
Amukpe LTF Bypassed,

53,000 65,000 – 67,000
pipeline remediated

Page59 of 107
6.1.5 Recommendations
 Seplat have purchased a fourth oil export pump for the Sapele flowstation. This
needs to be installed to have three pumps running with one standby. The
addition of a third operational pump is essential to maximising the capacity of the
Sapele oil export system and needs to be installed with the other debottlenecking
modifications in this report.
 With a third oil export pump operational, the uptime of the Amukpe LTF has a
significant impact on the Sapele oil export system capacity. Production is
reduced from ~80,000BPD to 60,000BPD when the Amukpe LTF is not-
operational and has to be bypassed. It is recommended to review the causes and
frequency of Amukpe LTF outages.
 The roughness of the pipeline affects the maximum capacity by about 2,000BPD
if roughness is reduced from 0.15 to 0.06. It is recommended that pipeline
pressure drop information from the existing operation be collected and analysed
before and after the latest intelligent pigging/pipeline cleaning campaign. If there
is a reduction in pipeline pressure drop after the pipeline was cleaned,
consideration could be made to a regular pipeline cleaning pig operation to
minimise the pipeline roughness.
 If the pipeline is remediated and the MAOP increased, a pipeline hydraulic study
is recommended to advise the correct setting of the high pressure trip.
6.2 Oil metering

The Sapele Flowstation oil export metering skid is comprised of three parallel metering lines.
One of the metering stations is spared for calibration purposes. (Configuration is n+1). The
maximum design capacity of the each metering line is 33.950BPD according to vendor model
specifications
Metering Specifications:
Vendor: FMC Technologies
Model: Smith Meter 6” Steel Model G6
Continuous Rating: 3.75l/min (33.950BPD)
Meter Gearing: One barrel per revolution of meter calibrator output shaft

Page60 of 107
6.2.2 Results
Figure 6-6. Metering capacity when Amukpe LTF is in operation
110000
100000
90000
80000 pumps capacity
Oil Net Flow (BPD)
70000
metering capacity
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
2 pumps/2metering 3 pumps/3metering
Figure 6-7. Metering capacity when Amukpe LTF is bypassed
110000
100000
90000
80000
pumps capacity
Oil Net Flow (BPD)
70000
60000 metering capacity
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
2 pumps/2metering 3 pumps/3metering

Page61 of 107
6.2.3 Analysis
The capacity constraints for the oil export metering are as follows
 2 metering in operation results in a maximum capacity of;

2 x 33950 = 67900BPD
 3 metering In operation results in a maximum capacity of;

3 x 33950 = 101850 BPD
When three pumps are running in parallel and the Amukpe LTF is in operation, then
three metering skids are needed to match the export capacity of 81,000BPD (max
capacity). For the other cases, 2 metering runs are sufficient.

Page62 of 107
7.0 FLARE SYSTEM

7.1 Relief Valves
7.1.1 Description and Assessment Parameters.
Each separator has a dedicated relief valve as well as the surge drums. In addition,
three supplementary relief valves are located on the XHP, HP and LP back pressure
headers (one on each header). Details of all relief valves are presented in Table 7-1.
Table 7-1. Sapele Flowstation Relief Valve Detail

Existing Body
Set Pressure Existing Orifice
Tag Service Manufacturer size
(barg) (cm2)
105-RV-001 XHP Separator 48.9 Crosby 4”x6” 23.225 (M)
102-RV-001 HP separator1 15.56 Crosby 4”x6” 23.225 (M)
202-RV-001 HP separator 2 15.86 Crosby 4”x6” 23.225 (M)
103-RV-001 LP separator 1 15.86 Crosby 4”x6” 23.225 (M)
203-RV-001 LP separator 2 15.86 Crosby 4”x6” 23.225 (M)
104-RV-001 Surge vessel 1 2.76 Crosby 3”x4” 11.858 (K)
204-RV-001 Surge vessel 2 2.76 Crosby 3”x4” 11.858 (K)
100-RV-133 Pump P-2 Discharge 76 Crosby 3”x4” 5.064 (H)
100-RV-134 Pump P-4 Discharge 50.33 Crosby 3”x4” 5.064 (H)
100-RV-135 Pump P-6 Discharge 76 Crosby 3”x4” 5.064 (H)
100-RV-001 HP 1 manifold 86.18 Crosby 3”x4” 5.064 (H)
100-RV-003 LP manifold 86.18 Crosby 2”x3” 5.064 (H)
100-RV-004 XHP manifold 86.18 Crosby 2”x3” 5.064 (H)
7.1.2 Results
Two different cases have been studied as result of the capacities that have come out
from previous calculation presented in this final report.
1) The base case shows the relief system when the Sapele flowstation is processing
68,000BPD. This is the forecast production for end of 2014. See Ref [2]

Page63 of 107
2) The Max Capacity case is based on maximum export capacity with 3 pumps in
operation, 82,000BPD. [Ref 2]
Following table represents the current relieving flow with 68,000BPD of gross production against
the rated capacity of the existing PSVs.
Table 7-2. Base Case. PSV rated capacity vs 68,000 BPD
Existing Orifice Relieving flow Rated capacity

Name Service % capacity used
(cm2) (kg/h) (kg/h)
105-RV-001 XHP Separator 23.225 (M) 1.95E+04 1.75E+05 11.1
102-RV-001 HP separator1 23.225 (M) 2.38E+04 6.52E+04 36.6
202-RV-001 HP separator 2 23.225 (M) 2.38E+04 8.60E+04 27.7
103-RV-001 LP separator 1 23.225 (M) 2.14E+05 9.17E+04 233.9
203-RV-001 LP separator 2 23.225 (M) 2.14E+05 9.62E+04 222.8
104-RV-001 Surge vessel 1 11.858 (K) 2.01E+05 4.32E+04 465.2
204-RV-001 Surge vessel 2 11.858 (K) 2.01E+05 4.32E+04 465.2
100-RV-133 Pump P-2 Discharge 5.064 (H) 1.34E+05 1.84E+05 72.9
100-RV-001 HP 1 manifold 5.064 (H) 3.00E+04 8.19E+04 36.6
100-RV-003 LP manifold 5.064 (H) 3.84E+05 9.45E+04 406.6
100-RV-004 XHP manifold 5.064 (H) 1.95E+04 7.20E+04 27.0

Page64 of 107
Figure 7-1. Sapele flowstation PSV's capacity
65000
60000
55000
50000
Gross Relieving Capacity (BPD*)
45000
40000
35000
Max capacity
30000
Existing load
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
XHP HP LP Surge Pump HP1 LP manifold XHP
Separator separator separator vessel manifold manifold
*Note: mass flow has been converted to BPD for a better understanding.
It can be highlighted that the LP system (manifold and LP separators) together with the
Surge drums PSV’s are undersized for the current production at Sapele flowstation. This
is a safety risk and requires special attention.
The same calculations were made in order to evaluate the existing PSV system when
higher gross production is received at Sapele (82,000BPD). The Table 7-3. Max
Production Case. PSV rated capacity vs 82,000BPD productionshows the orifice size
needed to handle the new relief scenario.

Page65 of 107
Table 7-3. Max Production Case. PSV rated capacity vs 82,000BPD production
Calculated
Existing Orifice Relieving flow Rated capacity
Name Service Orifice
(cm2) (kg/h) (kg/h)
(cm2)
105-RV-001 XHP Separator 3.149 23.225(M) 2.39E+04 1.76E+05
102-RV-001 HP separator1 10.41 23.225(M) 2.92E+04 6.51E+04
202-RV-001 HP separator 2 10.41 23.225(M) 2.92E+04 6.51E+04

91680 (for M)
66.54 23.225(M)
103-RV-001 LP separator 1 2.63E+05 2.814E+005 (for
(required Q)
Q)
91680 (for M)
66.54 23.225(M)
203-RV-001 LP separator 2 2.63E+05 2.814E+005 (for
(required Q)
Q)
67.58 11.858(K) 4.321E4 (for K)
104-RV-001 Surge vessel 1 2.46E+05
(required Q) 2.598E5 (for Q)
67.58 11.858(K) 4.321E4 (for K)
204-RV-001 Surge vessel 2 2.46E+05
(required Q) 2.598E5 (for Q)
Pump P-2
100-RV-133 4.537 5.064(H) 1.64E+05 1.83E+05
Discharge
Pump P-4
100-RV-134 4.537 5.064(H) 1.64E+05 1.83E+05
Discharge
Pump P-6
100-RV-135 4.537 5.064(H) 1.64E+05 1.83E+05
Discharge
100-RV-001 HP 1 manifold 2.244 5.064(H) 3.67E+04 8.19E+04
5.064(H) 9.444E+4 (for H)
100-RV-003 LP manifold 25.23 4.71E+05
(required N) 5.222E+5(for N)
100-RV-004 XHP manifold 1.677 5.064(H) 2.39E+04 7.20E+04
7.1.3 Analysis
• XHP separator and manifold, HP separator and manifold, pump PSVs are not of
concern.
• LP Manifold relief capacity is 14,700 BPD equivalent.
– Currently this is not a concern as the wells with CITHP over 1250 psig only make
up 22% of LP production (8,950 BPD gross).
– Concern is the future production with new LP wells with higher CITHP
• LP Separator installed relief capacity is 14,300 BPD equivalent per separator.
– This is a concern both for current operation (23,500 BPD per LP separator) as
well as future debottlenecking.

Page66 of 107
– In the event of a full flow relief event trying to relieve through the undersized
PSV, the expected pressure in the LP separators is 170% of the design pressure
– There is a high level trip (LZAHH) but this is off the same instrument as the level
controller, hence failure of this level transmitter could both cause the
overpressure event as well as disable the high level trip (“common mode
failure”).
– There is an independent high pressure trip (PZAHH) which is the current
protection on the LP separators
• Surge Vessel installed relief capacity is 7,200 BPD equivalent per surge vessel
– This is also a concern for current operation (23,500 BPD per surge vessel) as
well as future debottlenecking.
– In the event of a full flow relief event trying to relieve through the undersized
PSV, the expected pressure in the surge vessel is 320% of design pressure.
– System is currently protected only by the high level trips 104-LZA-001 and 204-
LZA-001
– At current flow rates, holdup time is low. There is a high risk of overfilling from
downstream upsets.
Permanent Solution:
 Install new PSVs in LP separator V-103/203 and Surge Drums V104/204
 Review if new PSVs need to be installed to protect the LP manifold (see 7.3.3).
Temporary (interim) Recommendations
 The LP separators are protected solely by the high pressure trip and the Surge
Vessels solely by a high level trip. The maintenance and last function test of
these instruments must be checked as a priority action.
 Perform wall thickness analysis on surge vessels and confirm burst pressure
(“fitness for service”). Evaluate if expected overpressure would rupture
V-104/V-204.
 Perform a risk assessment: determine if it is acceptable to operate the facility at

full production for the time period before the new PSVs are installed. The

Page67 of 107
overpressure protection is provided solely by the high pressure trip (LP

separators) or high level trip (Surge Vessels). This would not be acceptable as a
permanent solution but may be acceptable for the limited time period until the
new PSVs are installed. If the risk is too high, production could be reduced to a
rate such that the overpressure risk is acceptable, for example design pressure is
exceeded but vessel would not rupture.
7.2 Flare Radiation

The thermal radiation from a flare stack is calculated based on API 521 [Ref 5]. The
allowable radiation level is a function of the length of exposure. Table 7-4 shows the total
radiation level limits based on API. This limit includes the solar radiation intensity.
The intensity of solar radiation is in the range of 0.79 -1.04 KW/m2 (250-330 Btu/hr.ft2).
For the purpose of this study and to be more conservative, the value of 1.04 Kw/m2 is
considered.
The Table 7-4 Recommended design total radiation presents recommended design total
radiation levels for personnel. The extent and use of personal protective equipment may
be considered as a practical way of extending the times of exposure beyond those listed.
In most cases, equipment and buildings can tolerate higher degrees of heat density than
those defined for personnel.
Table 7-4 Recommended design total radiation

Page68 of 107
To calculate the flare radiation, two cases are considered:
 Vapour only:
Flare load is considered to be all vapour. Any carryover liquid gets separated
in flare knock out drum. The radiation is calculated based on different
predicted associated gas flow rate from year 2014-2019.
The flare thermal radiation level is calculated based on API 521 [Ref 5]
 Vapour and Liquid :

It is assumed that in addition to the vapour flow to the flare stack, total net oil
production is routed to the flare stack. During an upset, the surge vessel
might overflow and 100% liquid carryover might enter to the flare knock out
drum. As the flare knock out drum has not enough hold up time for all this
liquid, it overflows to the flare stack.
The crude oil will catch fire in the flare and fall to ground creating a pool fire.
The diameter of the pool fire depends on the liquid flowrate and the mass
burning rate of the liquid: the pool fire will spread until the rate of burning of
oil equals the rate of oil coming from the flare and feeding the fire.
The flare thermal radiation level for the liquid is calculated based on the paper Thermal
Radiation from Large Pool Fires [Ref 6].
7.2.2 Results
7.2.2.1 Vapour only flare load
Figure 7-2 Represents the relation between the vapour flow rate and the distance from
the centre of the flame where the thermal radiation level is at the limit of 4.73 KW/m2
(1500 Btu/hr. ft2) and 6.31 Kw/m2 (2000 Btu/hr.ft2).

Page69 of 107
Figure 7-2- Vapour Flowrate vs. Distance for the allowable thermal radiation level
90
80
Distance From Center of Flame ( m)
70
60
50
K=4.73 KW/m2
40 K=6.31 KW/m2
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Vapor Flowrate ( MMSCFD)
Figure 7-3 represents the thermal radiation for different vapour flow rates at different
distances. The maximum allowable thermal radiation to generate this plot is assumed to
be 4.73 Kw/m2.

Page70 of 107
Figure 7-3 Radiation for different vapour flow rates at different distances
25.00
20.00
D=35 m
D=50 m
Radiation ( K-KW/m2)
15.00
D=70 m
D=90 m
10.00
D=110 m
D=130 m
5.00 D=160 m
K= 4.73 KW/m
0.00
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
7.2.2.2 Vapour and liquid flare load
To generate these two plots, the thermal radiation level from both vapour and liquid is
considered. However, for the purpose of comparison, the x-Axis is only showing the
vapour flow rate.
Figure 7-4 represents the distance from the centre of the flame at the allowable thermal
radiation limit of 4.73 and 6.31 Kw/m2 for the vapour and liquid flaring.

Page71 of 107
Figure 7-4 Total flaring Flowrate vs. Distance for the allowable thermal radiation
100.00
90.00
80.00
Distance From Center of Flame ( m)
70.00
60.00 K=4.73
KW/m2
50.00
K=6.31
40.00 KW/m2
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
0 20 40 60 80 100
Figure 7-5 represents the thermal radiation for different total flaring flow rates at different
distances. The maximum allowable thermal radiation to generate this plot is assumed to
be 4.73 Kw/m2.

Page72 of 107
Figure 7-5 Radiation for different total flaring flow rates at different distances
30.00
25.00
D=35 m
20.00
Radiation ( K-KW/m2)
D=50 m
D=70 m
15.00
D=90 m
D=110 m
10.00
D=130 m
5.00 D=160 m
K= 4.73 KW/m
0.00
20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
7.2.3 Analysis
For this study, it is assumed that the maximum allowable radiation limit including the
solar radiation is 4.73 Kw/m2.
During the peak associated gas of 82 MMCFD and net oil production flowrate of 42,389
BPD, the sterile area which needs to be blocked off for the personnel to enter is:
 81 m for Vapour only flare load
 95.23 m for vapour and liquid flare load

The closest equipment to the flare stack, the flare knock out drum, is 150 m away from
the stack. Therefore, no problem and damage is expected to any of the equipment due
to the flare radiation.
Figure 7-3 and Figure 7-5 indicate the effect of radiation in a larger or smaller blocked off
zone for each production rate.
In summary, radiation from the flare is not expected to limit the maximum production
through the Sapele flowstation.

Page73 of 107
7.3 Flare Header System Analysis (“Flarenet” Modelling)

A more detailed analysis of the flare system has been carried out by simulating in
Flarenet the flare headers, subheaders and PSVs at a gross production rate of:
 68,000 BPD, Ref[2]

For 2015 the Sapele forecast gross production is 86,000BPD. The debottleneck study
has identified a maximum capacity of ~82,000BPD, which is limited by the pipeline even
if all the recommended modifications are implemented. Hence, in order to find out if the
new flare system with the modifications is able to relief the necessary flow when
production in Sapele is higher, a new simulation of the flare system incorporating the
findings and recommendations of base case is run in Flarenet.
 82.000BPD, Maximum gross production.

During the site visit, a set of isometrics were collected in order to provide a more
accurate flare system study.
Flarenet output will be:
 Headers, sub-headers and tail pipes size checking based on:

o Mach criteria of < 0.35 for 2 phase flow
o Rhov2 < 150,000
o Noise of < 100 dB. (typical for brownfield plants)
o Slug Flow
 Flare Knockout drum size checking

The relief load and the orifice size for each PSV has been taken from the governing
relief scenario reported for each valve from the Safety Relief Valve Datasheet (Doc nr
ASB-NET-SAPF1-H02-00071-Z01)

Page74 of 107
Figure 7-6. Sapele Flowstation Flarenet model

Page75 of 107
7.3.2 Results
7.3.2.1 Scenario 68,000BPD
Table 7-5 below represents current relieving flows at the production rate of 68,000BPD
Table 7-5 Flarenet summary

Rated
Calculated MABP Relieving
System RV Flow Design violations
BP (barg) (barg) Flow (kg/h)
(kg/h)
XHP Sep 105-RV-001 0.26 4.9 16,700 175,000 No
HP Sep #1 102-RV-001 0.34 1.6 22,800 65,200 Slug Flow in 10” hdr (0.1Mach)
HP Sep #2 202-RV-001 0.31 1.6 22,800 86,000 Slug Flow in 10” hdr (0.1Mach)
Slug Flow in subhdr (0.1Mach);
XHP Man 100-RV-004 1.83 8.6 16,700 72,000
0.64 Mach in 3”/4” sections
Slug Flow in tail (0.66Mach) &
subhdr (0.5Mach);
HP Man 100-RV-001 0.99 8.6 29,200 81,900
0.66 Mach in 3”/4” sections
Relieving flow must be < Rated

LP Sep 1 103-RV-001 - 1.7 212,000 91700 Flow

Surge
104-RV-001 - 0.28 207,000 43200 Flow
Vessel 1
LP Manifold 100-RV-003 - 8.6 379,000 94500 Flow
Note: MABP = Maximum allowable back pressure, 10% for conventional PSVs.
7.3.2.2 Scenario 82,000BPD

From the 68,000BPD studied case, it is concluded that the XHP and HP relief systems
and manifolds are capable of handling the current production that the Sapele flowstation
is handling. To verify that the XHP and HP systems are capable of handling 82,000BPD,
a new simulation was run. The results are showing that there is no problem with these
two systems. See Table 7-6 below.

Page76 of 107
Table 7-6. XHP and HP Relief systems (82,000 BPD)

Relieving
Calculated MABP Rated Flow
System RV Flow Design violations
BP (barg) (barg) (kg/h)
(kg/h)
XHP
105-RV-001 0.5 1.6 23,860 175,000 No
Sep
HP Sep
102-RV-001 0.52 4.9 29,180 65,200 Slug Flow (0.14) at tailpipe
#1
XHP
100-RV-004 0.28 1.6 23,860 72,000 Slug Flow (0.17) at tailpipe
Man
HP Man 100-RV-001 0.27 8.6 36,740 81,900 Slug Flow (0.26) at tailpipe
However the LP system was a bottleneck for the base case of 68,000BPD.
Recommendations to modify the system are given in this report (See section 7.4) and
have been applied in the new simulation. See Table 7-7. LP Relief System for results.
Table 7-7. LP Relief System (82,000 BPD)

Relieving
Relieving
Calculated MABP Flow
System RV Flow New Design violations
BP (barg) (barg) Existing
RV (kg/h)
RV (kg/h)
Slug Flow (0.32) at Existing 10” Tailpipe
109,500 per
LP 100-RV- Slug Flow (0.32) at Existing 16” Header
1.36/1.47 8.6 83,200 PSV.
Manifold 003 Slug Flow (0.30) at New 12” Tailpipe
2 needed
Slug Flow (0.39) at Existing Tailpipe
Slug Flow (0.27) at Existing Header
103-RV-
LP Sep 1 0.6/0.9 1.6 91,700 135,100 Slug Flow (0.34) at New Tailpipe
001
Slug Flow (0.39) at New Header

Slug Flow (0.20) at Existing 16” Header
Surge 104-RV- to FKO
0.03/0.06 0.27 40,000 206,262
Vessel 1 001 Slug Flow (0.16) at New Tailpipe

Page77 of 107
7.3.3 Analysis
Three systems (Surge Vessels, LP Separators, LP Manifold) were found incapable of
relieving the required flow through the existing conventional relief valves. Two different
options were investigated for the installation of new relief valves:
1. The existing PSV (conventional type) is kept in operation and a new PSV
(conventional or balanced bellow type) is added in parallel. Both PSVs have the
same set point and their combined relieving rate provide the required relieving
rate for the system;
2. The existing PSV is isolated/replaced and a new PSV (conventional or balanced
bellow) is added to relieve the total required relieving rate;
The new PSV may be connected to the existing or a new header.
See Section 7.4 for more data.
Scenario 68,000BPD
 For HP Separator 1 and 2 and the XHP manifold, the model shows several instances
of possible Slug flow in the PSV tailpipes and/or flare header, although these occur
at relatively low relieving velocities.
 The HP manifold PSV has a high back pressure, it requires a change in the tailpipe
size from 3” to 4”, as well as the removal of the 6”x4” reducer in the downstream
header (see Figure 7-8).
 The PSVs on the LP manifold, LP separators and Surge Vessels are undersized.
Scenario 82,000BPD
 For XHP Separator, HP Separator # 1 and XHP and the HP manifold, the model
shows several instances of possible Slug flow in the PSV tailpipes and/or flare
header, although these occur at relatively low relieving velocities.
 The Surge Vessels are modelled with a new PSV installed in parallel with the
existing PSV. In this case, the model also shows several instances of possible slug
flow, although these occur at relatively low relieving velocities.
 For the new plant configuration where V202 is reconfigured to LP Separator service
giving three LP separators in operation, it is still necessary to add a new PSV in
parallel with the existing PSVs on the LP Separators. In this case, the model also
shows several instances of possible slug flow, at the existing tailpipes and headers
as well as in the new tailpipes and headers

Page78 of 107
 For the case that all the new wells to be tied into the LP manifold have a closed in
tubing head pressure in excess of the PSV setpoint (1250 psig); two new PSVs will
be required in parallel to the existing PSV 100RV003. Modifications are required to
the tailpipe of the existing PSV 100RV003 as well as to the downstream header that
relieves the manifold PSVs (see Figure 7-9).
Note: if the new wells to be connected to the LP Manifold are sub-hydrostatic or the
CITHP is less than 1250psig and the maximum gas lift pressure is less than
1250psig; the installed PSV capacity on the LP manifold is adequate and no new
PSVs are required. It is still necessary to remove the bottleneck in the flare system,
see Figure 7-8.
Other Findings on Existing Flare System

The Sapele flowstation was installed in the early 1970s and the flare system does not
comply with the latest version of the industry standard, API 521. In particular, the
following are concerns:
 There are no spare PSVs installed, and no locked open isolation is provided on
the flare network to allow isolation and maintenance of a single PSV (for example
after spurious opening). Hence any PSV maintenance requires a total shutdown
of the Sapele flowstation.
 The setpoint of the PSV on the XHP Separator (48.9 barg) is too close to the
normal operating pressure (48 barg, as per site visit records) for the existing
relief valve which is a conventional type. This would lead to a high likelihood of
spurious opening.
 Under the latest version of API 521 [Ref 5], PSV tailpipes and the flare header
should be sized for the “PSV rated flow” (the maximum flow able to be flowed
through the installed orifice size) not the calculated relieving flow.
 The existing flare header does not slope down to the flare knockout drum. It
contains low lying pockets that will in time accumulate liquid. These liquid slugs
may increase the system backpressure and obstruct the relieving flow. Liquid
slugs in any flare network also have the potential to be pushed at high velocity
during the relieving event, with the risk of liquid hammer and damage of the
pipework.

Page79 of 107
It is recommended that a piping review be carried out on the existing flare header
to confirm that the pipe supports are suitable for the reaction forces developed by
liquid slugs.
7.3.4 Flare Knockout Drum
The Flare KO Drum on the Sapele flowstation has a limited liquid holdup and would be
expected to fill up with liquid very quickly, crude oil would then be sent to the flare. A
sensitivity case was run on the Flarenet model to simulate the header system operating
in two-phase all the way to the flare tip; that is the operator is not able to shutdown
production before the flare KO drum fills full of liquid.
The effect of this increased backpressure was simulated by removing the drum from the
Flarenet model; results obtained are marginally worse than the results obtained with the
drum in operation. In summary, although it is not ideal, the increased backpressure was
not predicted to have an effect on the PSV relieving capacity.
N2
N3 J4
2100
N1
N4
291
600
M1
259
J 3A
J1A
487 360
J1B
J2A
350
360
N5
J2B 190
150 N6
60
549
J3A
N8
N7
280
Implicit in this modelling method was that the relieving event was assumed to be high
velocity and flow straight through the flare KO drum. The worst possible event would be
a low velocity release filling up the flare KO drum so that it was liquid full, followed by a
high velocity relieving event. There is no high level alarm or trip on the flare KO drum 46-
S-100, only a start for the air-driven pumps 46-P-100A/B.

Page80 of 107
7.4 Flare System Recommendations

7.4.1 Relief Systems on Manifolds
In all cases, the following is recommended (see Figure 7-8):
 Increase the existing 4” section to 6”, for common sub-header 6”-PL-0001; thus
eliminating reducer 6”x4”;
 Replace enlargement 4”x16” with gradual enlargements in common sub-header

6”-PL-0001, to prevent sudden pressure drop and high relieving velocities;
 Increase of existing 3” tail section to 4” and6”, for HP and LP tail pipes

respectively; to allow full flow relief within design constraints.
In addition, if the new LP wells have a CITHP above 1250 psig, or the maximum gas
lift pressure is above 1250psig; two new additional PSVs will be needed on the LP
manifold (Conventional, K-orifice, Rated Flow of 221,200 kg/hr). The new PSVs will
be connected to a new 16” header which ties into the 16” header section (see Figure
7-9).
Figure 7-7. Existing LP Manifold Flare System

Page81 of 107
Figure 7-8. Modifications recommended for LP header and LP manifold PSVs

tailpipes
New 6" Sub-Header 6" x 10" 16" Header
4" 3" 6" 3"
100-RV-001 100-RV-002 100-RV-003 100-RV-004
Figure 7-9. New LP manifold relief system configuration
New 10" Sub-Header 10" x 16" 16" Header
6" 3" 6"

10"
100-RV-001 100-RV-002 100-RV-003 100-RV-004
Table 7-8 LP Manifold Relief for 82,000BPD

Relieving Flow
Existing Relieving Flow
Calc BP MABP New RV 100
RV RV 100 Design Violations
(barg) (barg) (1) & (2)
included? (kg/h)
(kg/h)
Slug Flow (0.32) at Existing 10”
Tailpipe
109,500/
Yes 1.31/1.47 8.6 83,200 Slug Flow (0.32) at Existing 16”
---
Header
Slug Flow (0.30) at New 12” Tailpipe

Page82 of 107
7.4.2 Relief Systems on Surge Vessels (V-104, V-204)

The following is recommended:
 Install a new PSV (Conventional, Q-orifice, rated flow of 260,000 kg/hr) on each
surge vessel in parallel with the existing PSVs. The new PSVs will have a new 10”
tailpipe and then a new 12” header which is routed to slope towards FKO drum with
no pockets, and is connected to 16”-PG-0047-11440 line on spare blind flange.
Figure 7-10. New Surge Vessel relief system configuration
Connected to Spare Flange
New 12" Header 16"-PG-0047-11440
Existing 10" Header

FKO
New RV 104
RV 104
New Tailpipe
Tailpipe
Surge #1
Table 7-9 Surge Vessel Relief for 82,000BPD

Relieving
Relieving Flow
Existing RV Calc BP MABP Flow
New RV 104/204 Design Violations
included? (barg) (barg) RV 104/204
(kg/h)
(kg/h)
Slug Flow (0.20) at Existing 16”
Yes 0.03/0.06 0.27 40,000 206,262 Header to FKO
Slug Flow (0.16) at New Tailpipe

Page83 of 107
7.4.3 Relief Systems on LP separators (V-103, V-203, V-202)

The following is recommended:
 Install a new PSV (Conventional, P-orifice, Rated Flow of 162,500 kg/hr) on each
separator to operate in parallel with the existing PSVs. The new PSVs will have a
new 10” tailpipe connected to a new 12” header.
Figure 7-11. New LP separator relief system configuration
Connected to Spare Flange
New 12" Header 16"-PG-0047-11440

P-20
Existing 10" Header

FKO
New RV 103
RV 103
New Tailpipe
Tailpipe
LP Separator
Table 7-10 LP Separator Relief for 82,000BPD

Existing Relieving Flow Relieving Flow
Calc BP MABP
RV RV 103 New RV 103 Design Violations
(barg) (barg)
included? (kg/h) (kg/h)
Slug Flow (0.27) at Existing Header
Yes 0.6 / 0.9 1.6 40,000 135,100
Slug Flow (0.34) at New Tailpipe

Page84 of 107
8.0 COMPRESSOR UNIT (GAS HANDLING)
8.1 HP compressor unit

There are two HP trains with a capacity of 5MMSCFD each. Total maximum capacity for
HP is 10MMSCFD
The HP compressor unit has not been included in this study since it will not be a
bottleneck due to the small amount of HP gas going to the HP compressor.
8.2 LP compressor unit

LP compressor has a configuration of 4 trains. Currently there are 2 trains running with a
gas flow of 2.5MMSCFD through each train. The design capacity of each train is
4MMSCFD. Total nameplate capacity of the LP compressor is 16MMSCFD.
Seplat has reported problems with the compressors operability. This compressors are
operated by NGC (Nigerian Gas Company)
Due to the existing problems, Sapele flowstation is currently utilizing the compressors
only for 5 MMSCFD of the gas and the rest is being flared.
The LP system has been split into two sub-systems to facilitate the calculation of the
pressure drop across the LP line when there are two and/or three LP separators on line.
1) LP line going from the LP separator to the HP header
2) LP header going to the compressor station
8.3 PSV
Following Table 8-1. Compressor unit PSVssummarizes all the PSVs in the compressor
unit and relieving flows. Since the compressor unit is operated by NGC, Seplat did not
provide the PSV datasheets, hence the existing orifice sizes need to be confirmed by
Seplat.

Page85 of 107
Table 8-1. Compressor unit PSVs

Possible
Existing Relievi
Calculated Orifice Rated
Required Body Size ng
Tag Service Orifice based on Comments capacity
Size From flow
(cm2) valve body (kg/h)
P&ID (kg/h)
size
LP inlet gas
Size J seems
PSV 60 suction 2.451 3.245 (G) 3"X4" J, K, L 2810 3720
OK
scrubber
HP inlet gas
Size J seems
PSV 70 suction 2.643 3.245 (G) 3"X4" J, K, L 2892 3552
OK
scrubber
LP Undersized
2676
compressor Required
PSV 100 2.08 3.245 (G) 1-1/2"X2" F 2810 (assuming
1st stage orifice size is
F orifice)
discharge G
LP
compressor Size F
PSV 101 1.263 1.980 (F) 1-1/2"X2" F 2810 4405.00
2nd stage seems OK
discharge
V-110 LP Seplat
compressor 1-1/2"X2- should
PSV 110 2.451 3.245 (G) F, G 2810 3720.00
suction 1/2" confirm that
scrubber the size is G
HP
2"X1" Assuming
compressor Size D
PSV 500 0.62 0.709(D) (seems 1" X 2" 1446 1694.00
2nd stage seems OK
wrong) D,E
discharge
HP
2"X1" Assuming
compressor Size D
PSV 501 0.62 0.709(D) (seems 1" X 2" 1446 1694.00
1st stage seems OK
wrong) D,E
discharge
HP
compressor Size G
PSV 530 2.404 3.245 (G) 2"X3" G, H, J 2892 3859.00
suction seems OK
scrubber
6"X4" Assuming
pipeline Size F 5.70E
PSV 800 1.696 1.980 (F) (seems 4" X 6" 6656.00
separator seems OK +03
wrong) M, N, P
8.4 System Bottleneck Analysis
The performance of a reciprocating compressor is directly affected by the suction pressure. For
a given speed, reciprocating compressors are a “fixed volumetric throughput” machine: a lower
density of the gas at the suction will result in a reduction in the overall mass flow capacity (and
capacity in MMscf/d). The power required by a reciprocating compressor is higher at lower
suction pressures (i.e. higher compression ratios).
A lower suction pressure at the LP compressors will result in a lower mass flow capacity; there
is a constraint on minimum operating pressure due to maximum motor power.
The pressure drop from the Sapele flowstation to the LP compression at the NGC compressor
station has a significant impact on the compressor performance: this is analysed below.

Page86 of 107
Figure 8-1. Pressure drop across each fitting in the separator section
4.5
4
No carry over
3.5
Pressure drop across (psi)
1% liquid carryover
3
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
Reducer Tee Flow element Tee Enlarger Valve
Name of fittings
Figure 8-1 depicts the pressure drop on the outlet of each LP Separator, before the gas
comingles to flow to the compressor station.
The flow element (103-F-0001) represents a high Pressure Drop in the line. This
calculation is made for one LP line. It is assumed that the LP separator 2 has the same
pressure drop across the line.

Page87 of 107
Figure 8-2. Pressure drop across each fitting in the header section
0.8
0.7
0.6
Pressure drop across (bar)
0.5
Dry Gas
Wet Gas (1% carryover)

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
Flow Ball valve Control Check valve Reducer Ball valve Enlarger Ball valve
element valve
Name of fittings
In the common LP header, going from the LP separators to the compressor station, the
Control Valve 100-PCV-186, represents the fitting with the higher pressure drop in the
line. Figure 8-2 is based on the control valve being fully open; it is “best case”.

Page88 of 107
Figure 8-3. LP compressor capacity based on suction pressure
4 Suction Pressure
(dry gas)
Suction Pressure
3.5
(wet gas, 1%
carryover)
LP compressor suction pressure, Barg
Suction Pressure
3 (wet gas, 2%
carryover)
Compressor
Capacity (1 train
2.5 online)
Compressor
Capacity (2 trains
2 online)
Comopressor
Capacity (3 trains
online)
1.5 Compressor
Capacity (4 trains
online)
1 Maximum Power
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Total flow to LP gas compressor, MMSCFD
Figure 8-3. LP compressor capacity based on suction pressureshows system curves for
the operation of the LP compressors. The horizontal line shows the minimum suction
pressure of the LP compressors before they trip out on high power. The angled lines
show the flows through 1, 2, 3, 4 compressors online: the flow through each compressor
in MMscfd increases with suction pressure.
The curves show the arrival pressure at the LP compressor suctions: as the flowrate
increases, the system pressure drop increases and the LP compressor suction pressure
is reduced.
The LP Separators V-103/V-203 are known to be running with high velocities in the inlet
nozzles and some mist carryover could occur into the gas outlets. The effect of liquid
mist carryover into the line to the LP compressors is examined in Figure 8-3. With 1-2%
mist carryover and 4 compressors running, the compressors would operate only 0.1 bar

Page89 of 107
above the power limit suction pressure; hence there is a high likelihood of tripping on
high power. Operation with 2 or 3 LP compressors online would give a larger margin.
Figure 8-4. LP compressor capacity, with Debottlenecking.
Suction Pressure (dry

3.5 gas)
Suction Pressure (wet

gas, 1% carryover)
LP compressor suction pressure, barg
3
Suction Pressure (wet
gas, 2% carryover)
Compressor Capacity
2.5
(1 train online)
Compressor Capacity
(2 trains online)
2
Comopressor Capacity
(3 trains online)
1.5 Compressor Capacity

(4 trains online)
Maximum Power
1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Using 3rd separator
Total flow to LP gas compressor, MMSCFD and 33% bigger
control valve
Figure 8-4 shows a debottlenecked case: V-202 is converted to LP service and 100-
PCV-186 is replaced with a larger valve with CV over 1000. The pressure drop from the
LP Separators to the LP compressors is significantly reduced. For 4 compressors
running, there is now over 1 bar margin between the power constraint/trip suction

Page90 of 107
pressure and the operating pressure. This would allow margin for mist carryover or
operating pressure fluctuations.
.
8.4.1 Results
The LP compressors are currently operating close to the low suction pressure limits of
the compressors and any mist carryover would be expected to lead to tripping on low
pressure. The control valve 100-PCV-186 at the Sapele flowstation is an identified
bottleneck. Replacing this PCV and its associated reducers and expanders would
remove one of the major bottlenecks, realigning V202 to LP Separator service would
also reduce some of the pressure drop to the LP compressors.
Both of these modifications should allow the compressor station to operate with 4
compressors online with less risk of tripping.
 Replace 8” Control Valve 100-PCV-186 with a larger valve of CV greater than
1000 (10” or 12” valve); replace the reducers and expanders associated with the
current 100-PCV-186
 Reduce the gas flow through each LP Separator by realigning non-utilised HP

Separator V-202 to LP Separator duty.

Page91 of 107
9.0 CONTROL VALVES

9.1 Description and Assessment
A capacity check was evaluated on the control valves on the Sapele flowstation
Comparing the installed Cv of the existing valves to the calculated Cv at the current
flows will give a picture of the valves capacities and its usage.
Existing control valves datasheets are available, however the Cv values were not
specified and it has been taken from vendor catalogues. In order to calculate the current
Cv of the control valves the Masoneilan sizing equation has been used.
9.2 Analysis
Table 9-1. Sapele Flowstation Control Valves
Valve
Required Installed
Tag Service Service Size Comment
Cv Cv
(inches)
Fischer - Valve ET Actuator 667 - 3in
XHP (Equal %). Total XHP gas flow of
105-PCV-001 Gas 3 15 136
separator 1.958 MMSCFD. Assume valve dP
0.5bar
Fischer - Valve ET Actuator 657 - 1in
XHP (Equal %). Total XHP gas flow of
105-PCV-002 BYPASS 1 15 17.2
separator 1.958 MMSCFD. Assume valve dP
0.5bar
XHP Fischer - Valve ET Actuator 667 - 3in
105-LCV-001 liquid 3 3.8 136
separator (Equal %)
Masoneilan - Valve 10124 Actuator -
HP
102-LCV-001 liquid 6 21 450 37 - 6in (Oil). All HP liquids. Assume
separator
only one HP Separator in operation
HP Masoneilan - Valve 10124 Actuator -
202-LCV-001 liquid 6 N/A 450
separator 37 - 6in (Oil)
LP Masoneilan - Valve 10124 Actuator -
103-LCV-001 liquid 6 155 450
Separator 37 - 6in (Oil)
LP Masoneilan - Valve 10134 Actuator -
203-LCV-001 liquid 6 155 450
Separator 37 - 6in (Oil)
Surge
Masoneilan - Mintork II - Valve 37310
100-PCV-010 Gas Vessel Gas 6 28 1330
Actuator- 33 - 6in
to FKO
HP Gas to
100-PCV-120 Gas Flare KO 6 19 450
37 - 6in. All gas to Flare
vessel
XHP Gas
37 - 4in- (Equal %). All gas to flare.
100-PCV-125 Gas to Flare KO 4 2.9 195
Total XHP gas flow of 1.958
vessel
MMSCFD
XHP Gas Masoneilan - Camplex II - Valve
100-PCV-196 Gas header to 6 4.1 500 35202 Actuator - 35 - 6in. All gas to
NGC compression

Page92 of 107
Valve
Required Installed
Tag Service Service Size Comment
Cv Cv
(inches)
LP Gas Masoneilan - Camplex II - Valve
100-PCV-186 Gas header to 8 1000 850 35202 Actuator - 35 - 8in. Current gas
NGC flow of 2.371 MMSCFD
HP Gas Masoneilan - Camplex II - Valve
100-PCV-181 Gas header to 6 67 500 35202 Actuator - 35 - 6in. Current gas
NGC flow of 2.629 MMSCFD
Table 9-2. Compressor Station Control Valves

Valve
Size Required Installed
Tag Service Service (inches) Cv Cv Comment
Assume 6" Equal % Fischer
XHP Gas to valve. All XHP gas to
100-PCV-009 Gas metering 6 4.4 394 metering
HP Gas to valve. Current gas flow of
100-PCV-002 Gas metering 6 68 394 2.629 MMSCFD
LP Gas to valve. Current gas flow of
PCV-006 Gas metering 8 99 818 2.371 MMSCFD
HP inlet gas There is minimal liquid
suction condensation expected for
LCV-70 Liquid scrubber 2 N/A the HP compressor train
LP inlet gas Assume 2" Equal % Fischer
suction valve. Assume 1% liquid
LCV-60 Liquid scrubber 2 6.1 59.7 carry over LP Separator
HP Gas There is minimal liquid
compression condensation expected for
LCV-530 Liquid unit 1 N/A the HP compressor train
LP Gas All liquids assumed to be
compression removed in LP Inlet gas
LCV-110 Liquid unit 1 N/A suction scrubber
LP Gas All liquids assumed to be
compression removed in LP Inlet gas
LCV-130 Liquid Unit 1 N/A suction scrubber
Assume all XHP gas to
pipeline separator, no liquid
carry over LP Separator.
Pipeline Assume 2" Equal % Fischer
LCV-800 Liquid Separator 2 <1 59.7 valve
Condensate carry over LP Separator.
Flash Assume 2" Equal % Fischer
LCV-50 Liquid Separator 2 <1 59.7 valve
Condensate carry over LP Separator.
Flash Assume 2" Equal % Fischer
PCV-50 Gas Separator 2 <1 59.7 valve

Page93 of 107
9.3 Results
Only one control valve, 100-PCV-186, has been identified as a bottleneck (see detailed
analysis in section 8.2). This is corroborated by the site visit report, where no control
valves were observed operating at or close to 100% open (which is a good indication of
an undersized control valve).
Also of note is that the installed control valve on V-202, the non-utilised HP Separator
has the same CV as that installed on the LP Separators V-103 and V-203; this means
that the control valve does not have to be replaced as part of the proposed realignment
of V-202 to LP Separator Service.
In summary, with the exception of 100-PCV-186, the installed control valve sizes are
appropriate for the equipment that they were designed for.

Page94 of 107
10.0 OVERALL CAPACITY

The liquid capacity bottlenecks on the Sapele flowstation are shown in Figure 10-1. The
mode of operation of the Amukpe LTF has a significant impact on the capacity
achievable by debottlenecking Sapele, and these two modes of operation are shown in
Figure 10-2 and Figure 10-3.
Figure 10-1. Liquid Capacity Bottlenecks at Sapele Flowstation
100,000
90,000
2015 production target
80,000
70,000
Gross Liquid Capacity (BPD)
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
LP LP header Oil export Pipeline Pipeline Surge Vessel Remediated Metering One V202 as LP Pipeline Two Metering
Separators pumps (2 of) (Amukpe (Amukpe nameplate Pipeline (LTF Runs (2 additional Separator (Amukpe additional Runs (3
(2of) (with LTF LTF (with PSVs bypass) online) LP Header (3xLP) LTF online, 3 LP Headers online)
PSVs bypassed, 3 bypassed, 3 upgraded)? pumps)
upgraded) pumps) pumps, line
repaired)
Hard constraints
Soft Constraints

Page95 of 107
Figure 10-2. Extra Capacity from Sapele Flowstation (Amukpe LTF Bypassed)
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000 Line remediated

Gross Liquid Capacity (BPD)
Existing pipeline limit

60,000
remediated
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Current system (with V202 as 3rd LP Separator Additional oil export Revamp surge vessel
PSVs upgraded) with dedicated LP Header pump
The current system is operating off the original design point: the majority of wells are
aligned to the LP Manifold and LP Separators. The existing LP Separators are currently
overloaded. 47,000BPD has been shown as the nominal capacity of the existing system.
Realigning V-202 to LP Separator service will overcome this bottleneck and increase
capacity to 53,000BPD, the limits of two oil export pumps. If a fourth pump is installed to
allow 3 operating, then capacity would increase to 58-60,000 BPD; which is the limits of
the Sapele-Amukpe pipeline with Amukpe LTF bypassed.
If the pipeline is remediated to increase its MAOP and the surge vessel is revamped with
a vortex breaker (CFD study to confirm); the maximum possible capacity of the Sapele
flowstation with the Amukpe LTF bypassed would be 65-67,000 BPD. This is restricted
by the built-up backpressure from the pipeline.

Page96 of 107
Figure 10-3. Extra Capacity from Sapele Flowstation (Amukpe-LTF online)
Existing pipeline limit

remediated
The current system is operating off the original design point: the majority of wells are
aligned to the LP Manifold and LP Separators. The existing LP Separators are currently
overloaded. 47,000BPD has been shown as the nominal capacity of the existing system.
Realigning V-202 to LP Separator service will overcome this bottleneck and increase
capacity to 55,000BPD, the limits of two oil export pumps. If a fourth pump is installed to
allow 3 operating, then capacity would increase to 61,000 BPD; which is the proven
capacity of the two Surge Vessels. Revamping the surge vessels by a vortex breaker
(CFD study to confirm) would increase the capacity to 67,900 BPD; the capacity of 2
metering runs. The final bottleneck reached before the pipeline capacity limit of 78-
81,000BPD is the LP header capacity; adding a third LP header would increase capacity
to the pipeline limit.
In summary, if the Amukpe LTF is operating, there is scope to increase the production
from the Sapele flowstation to 78-81,000 BPD; but there are several modifications
required to achieve this.

Page97 of 107
 Add additional PSVs with new sections of flare header
 Realign V202 to LP Separator service
 Install the already purchased fourth oil export pump.
 Revamp the surge vessels with new internals (CFD study to confirm)
 Add two new 8” LP headers from the LP manifold to the LP separators
 Add a fourth metering run to allow three metering runs to be operational
10.1 Discussion – Future Expansion

The operation of the Amukpe LTF has an impact on the maximum capacity of the
Sapele-Amukpe export pipeline. Under the best case (Amukpe LTF is online), the
maximum capacity of the Sapele flowstation and its export system will be limited to
81,000BPD.
This is less than the production profile for Sapele future production in the basis of
design. Even if a new separation train is added at Sapele, the pipeline will limit
production to circa 81,000 BPD. Adding an additional oil export pump (4 online) will be of
limited benefit as pipeline capacity is constrained by the pipeline high pressure trip; even
if the pipeline is remediated (Figure 6-2).
For overall production from Sapele of over 100,000 BPD; an additional export route is
required as well as an additional separation train. A sub-surface study should be carried
out by Seplat to determine if an additional export pipeline is required from Sapele to
Amukpe for water disposal at Amukpe; or if water separation should be carried out at
Sapele and water injected local to Sapele.
10.2 Shutdown Requirements

A full plant shutdown and purging of hydrocarbon inventory in the Sapele flowstation will
be required to enable the tie-in of the new flare header to the flare KO vessel.
The following vessels will require tie-ins during this shutdown:
– V103, V104, V202, V203, V204
The LP manifold will require three tie-ins during this shutdown.
Pipe runs can be installed ahead of the shutdown, but a several day shutdown will be
required. Purging for the tie-ins, especially the flare, is main driver.

Page98 of 107
11.0 CONCLUSIONS
The maximum capacity from the Sapele flowstation is dependent on the operation of the
Amukpe LTF. This determines the backpressure from the pipeline, which is the
constraint on current operation.
 If the Amukpe LTF is operational, the pipeline limits the flow from Sapele to
78-81,000BPD.
 If the Amukpe LTF is bypassed, the pipeline backpressure limits the flow from
Sapele to 58-60,000BPD (current pipeline), with an increase to 67,000 BPD if
the pitted section of the pipeline is remediated and its MAOP increased to 66
barg.
If the Amukpe LTF is bypassed, the maximum production from Sapele is reduced by
20,000 BPD (current pipeline) or by 14,000 BPD if the pipeline is remediated.
Table 11-1. Sapele export pipeline capacity summary
Amukpe Pipeline No. Of Oil

LTF Capacity Export pumps Constraint Pipeline Status
operational? (BPD) running
Pump power rating

55,000 2 pumps Current
(gearbox)
LTF Online
Pump power rating
(gearbox)
Pump power rating

(gearbox)
LTF
Bypassed 60,000 3 pumps Pipeline HP trip Current
67,000 3 pumps Pipeline HP trip Remediated
*Table is based on a pipe wall roughness of 0.06mm. If roughness of the pipe is 0.15, export
capacity is reduced by ~2,000BPD.

Page99 of 107
The current mode of operation of the Sapele Flowstation is different from the original
design. The majority of the wells are aligned to the LP manifold and LP separators. Most
of the new wells are LP wells. The LP separators are currently overloaded. As part of the
debottlenecking scope, the LP separator capacity needs to be increased.
The flowstation was built in the early 1970s. The current design of the overpressure
protection system does not comply with current industry standards (API 521) at current
production rates. The current installed relief system will not protect the LP Separators
and Surge Vessels from overpressure. As part of the debottlenecking scope, the relief
and flare system needs to be modified. (If no debottlenecking is carried out, the relief
system will still need to be modified).
There is scope to debottleneck the surface facilities of the Sapele flowstation up to the
81,000BPD capacity of the export pipeline (based on Amukpe LTF being operational).
One key bottleneck is the Surge Vessels: V-104, V-204. These are operating with high
inlet nozzle velocities. It is recommended that a computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
study be carried out to determine the capacity of the current vessels: and if the vessels
are a bottleneck, to determine if vessel internals can be retrofitted to increase the
capacity.
This study will recommend that the Sapele flowstation be debottlenecked up to the
maximum pipeline capacity of 81,000BPD. It will also recommend that the uptime of the
Amukpe LTF be reviewed as that has a significant impact on production from Sapele.

Page100 of 107
12.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are made to debottleneck production at Sapele to a maximum

of 81,000BPD:
1. Perform a reliability/downtime assessment of the Amukpe LTF and water disposal
facilities to maximise the uptime of the Amukpe LTF. This has a significant impact on
Sapele production.
2. Realign the existing non-utilised HP Separator V-202 to LP Separator service:
a. Install a new 8" header from the LP manifold to the inlet of V202, install a
crossover from the liquid outlet of V202 to the surge vessels and install a
crossover from the gas outlet to the LP gas header.
3. Increase the oil export pump and metering capacity:
a. Install the purchased fourth oil export pump to allow the system to operate
with three export pumps on-line and one standby.
b. Install an additional metering run in the oil export metering skid.
4. Increase the installed pressure relief and flare capacity (see section 7.4):
a. Install additional PSVs on V-202, V-103, V-203, V-104, V-204 with new
tailpipes installed to a new 16” flare header.
b. Replace the 6” bottleneck in the flare header from the HP and LP manifold
PSVs.
c. Install two additional manifold PSVs (HOLD)
5. Removed the bottleneck in the 6”/8” single line from the LP manifold to the LP
Separators:
a. Install a new 8” line to V-202 (see above).
b. Install a new 8” line to V-203 and reallocate the existing line to feed V-103
only.
6. Perform a CFD analysis of the Surge Vessels and, if required, install vortex breakers
or other internals to uprate the capacity to 41,000BPD per vessel.
7. Review operating data for the Sapele-Amukpe pipeline before and after the cleaning
pigging campaign carried out for the pipeline intelligent pigging inspection runs. This
is to determine if pipeline pressure drop (and capacity) can be improved by regular
pipeline cleaning pig runs.

Page101 of 107
8. Order the long lead items listed in Table 14-1.

9. A complete shutdown will be required for the Sapele flowstation to enable the tie-ins
to be made. This is expected to last several days, determined by the requirement to
purge the flare. A detailed shutdown planning study is recommended to minimise the
downtime required.
The following integrity recommendations are made for Sapele:
1. Review the pipe supports in the flare header to confirm the system can withstand the
reaction forces from liquid slugs in the flare system.
2. The existing PSVs on the surge vessels and LP separators are not sized for the
current liquid production rate of 47,000 BPD. The following is recommended until the
new PSVs can be installed:
a. Ensure that the current trip instrumentation is functional and has been tested
(see section 7.1.4).
b. Carry out a risk assessment to determine if it is acceptable to operate the
facility at full production for the time period before the new PSVs are installed;
relying solely on the high pressure or high level trip (see section 7.1.4.)
3. Seplat are intending to remediate the Sapele-Amukpe pipeline to increase the MAOP
to 66 barg. A hydraulic review is recommended to assess the new PSV and high
pressure trip settings for the oil export system: this is to determine the maximum trip
setting that would safeguard the restored pipeline.
4. A review should be made of the CITHP and maximum lift gas pressure for the new
wells that are proposed to be tied in to the LP manifold. This will determine if
additional PSV capacity is required on the LP manifold or if the maximum pressure
from the new wells is below the PSV set pressure (see 7.3.3).
The following recommendations are made for field development planning beyond the 81,000
BPD achievable by debottlenecking:
1. With sub-surface, carry out a study to determine if water disposal should take place
at Amukpe or local to Sapele. This will determine if an additional pipeline to Amukpe
is required for flows above 81,000BPD or if water disposal local to Sapele is the
preferred option.
2. If water disposal at Sapele is being considered, additional vessels will be required in
the current separation train for dewatering: there is insufficient residence time in the
LP separators to install weir plates for dewatering.

Page102 of 107
13.0 REFERENCES
1. Study Basis. Sapele Flowstation Debottlenecking Study. SFD-CTE-SAPF1-G08-
00001
2. Heat and Material Balance. Sapele Flowstation Debottlenecking Study. SFD-CTE-
SAPF1-G13-00001
3. Site visit report. EC038132-000-RT-0000-0003
4. SHELL DEP 31.22.05.11-Gen
5. API STD 521 Pressure Relieving and Depressuring Systems, Sixth Edition, January
2014.
6. Thermal Radiation from Large Pool Fires, Kevin B. McGrattan, Howard R. Baum,
Anthony Hamins, Fire Safety Engineering Division, Building and Fire Research
Laboratory, Nov. 2000, US Dept. of Commerce
7. API 14E, Recommended Practice for Design and Installation of Offshore Production
Platform Piping Systems, Fifth Edition, October 1991, Reaffirmed, January 2013.

Page103 of 107
14.0 APPENDIX A – LONG LEAD ITEMS
The table below shows a list of identified long lead piping and instrument items which are part of the
recommended debottlenecking scope.
Table 14-1. Long Lead Item List
PSVs
Flange Flange Set Pressure
Tag (hold 1) Description Size
Sizes Class (psig)
100-RV-005
4" x 6" 600# x 150# L orifice 1250 psig
Additional PSVs on LP
manifold (hold 3)
100-RV-006 4" x 6" 600# x 150# L orifice 1250 psig
Additional PSV on 241 psig
202-RV-002 4" x 6" 300# x 150# P orifice
V-202 (note 4)
203-RV-002 4" x 6" 300# x 150# P orifice
V-203 (note 4)
103-RV-002 4" x 6" 300# x 150# P orifice
V-103 (note 4)
104-RV-002 6" x 8" 300# x 150# Q orifice
V-104 (note 5)
204-RV-002 6" x 8" 300# x 150# Q orifice
V-204 (note 5)
Control Valves
Flange Flange
Tag Description Size Duty Notes
Sizes Class
1. Air fail
Replace PCV on LP line 10" closed
100-PCV-186 150# CV>=1000
to LP compression (hold 2) 2. Equal %
characteristic
ESD Valves
Flange Flange Design
Tag (hold 1) Description
Sizes Class pressure
ESD Valve on new LP
202-XZV-100 8" 600# 1250psig Air fail closed
header to V202
ESD Valve on new LP
103-XZV-100 8" 600# 1250psig Air fail closed
header to V103
Metering Run
See discussion in section 6.2.

Page104 of 107
Notes to Table 14-1
1. Use existing ESDV 100-XZV-104 on existing line to V203, two new ESDVs required for V103 and V202
2. V202 HP separator 2 being reconfigured to LP duty.
3. LCV on V202 is same size as LCVs on V103, V203; so only new valve is inlet ESDV.
4. Second PSV on pressure vessel set at 105% of design pressure (241 psig), existing PCV set at 100%
of design pressure (230 psig).
5. Second PSV on pressure vessel set at 105% of design pressure (42 psig), existing PCV set at 100% of
design pressure (40 psig).
6. All new PSVs are conventional relief valves.
HOLDS
1. Tag no. to be confirmed by detailed design contractor
2. Flange size to be confirmed by control valve vendor; either 10" or 12" required.
3. Need for new PSVs on LP manifold to be confirmed

Page105 of 107
15.0 APPENDIX B – CALCULATIONS

Calculations used to generate the graphs in this report will be included with the final
version of this report.

Page106 of 107
16.0 APPENDIX C – SITE VISIT REPORT

The site visit report will be included with the final version of this report.

Page107 of 107

SFD-CTE-SAPF1-G08-00003 rev R01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

SFD-CTE-SAPF1-G08-00003 rev R01

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

SFD-CTE-SAPF1-G08-00003 rev R01

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Document No. SFD-CTE-SAPF1-G08-00003 Rev.

Document Title Final Report Page 2 of 107

ADDITIONAL APPROVAL / REVISION HISTORY TABLE

Party Name Sign Date

Revision Date of issue Reason for change

Seplat doc SFD-CTE-SAPF1-G08-00003 Final Report

Security Classification: Restricted

This Document is Controlled Electronically and Uncontrolled if Printed

Document Title Final Report Page 4 of 107

AMDT AMENDED PARAGRAPH

Seplat doc SFD-CTE-SAPF1-G08-00003 Final Report

Security Classification: Restricted

This Document is Controlled Electronically and Uncontrolled if Printed

Document Title Final Report Page 5 of 107

HOLDS STATUS SHEET

Seplat doc SFD-CTE-SAPF1-G08-00003 Final Report

Security Classification: Restricted

This Document is Controlled Electronically and Uncontrolled if Printed

Document Title Final Report Page 6 of 107

Security Classification: Restricted

This Document is Controlled Electronically and Uncontrolled if Printed

Document Title Final Report Page 7 of 107

5.2 XHP Separator V-105 ........................................................................................32

Security Classification: Restricted

This Document is Controlled Electronically and Uncontrolled if Printed

Document Title Final Report Page 8 of 107

7.1.1 Description and Assessment Parameters. ..............................................63

Security Classification: Restricted

This Document is Controlled Electronically and Uncontrolled if Printed

Document Title Final Report Page 9 of 107

11.0 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................99

Seplat doc SFD-CTE-SAPF1-G08-00003 Final Report

Security Classification: Restricted

This Document is Controlled Electronically and Uncontrolled if Printed

Document Title Final Report Page 10 of 107

Security Classification: Restricted

This Document is Controlled Electronically and Uncontrolled if Printed

Document Title Final Report Page 11 of 107

Seplat doc SFD-CTE-SAPF1-G08-00003 Final Report

Security Classification: Restricted

This Document is Controlled Electronically and Uncontrolled if Printed

Document Title Final Report Page 12 of 107

Seplat doc SFD-CTE-SAPF1-G08-00003 Final Report

Security Classification: Restricted

This Document is Controlled Electronically and Uncontrolled if Printed

Document Title Final Report Page 13 of 107

Security Classification: Restricted

This Document is Controlled Electronically and Uncontrolled if Printed

Document Title Final Report Page 14 of 107

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

 Establish equipment and system constraints within the Sapele Flowstation to

1.2 Sapele Flowstation Existing Configuration

Security Classification: Restricted

This Document is Controlled Electronically and Uncontrolled if Printed

Document Title Final Report Page 15 of 107

1.3 Debottlenecking Study Conclusions

Seplat doc SFD-CTE-SAPF1-G08-00003 Final Report

Security Classification: Restricted

This Document is Controlled Electronically and Uncontrolled if Printed