Copyright 2004, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., 36 May 2004.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference or officers. Electronic reproduction,
distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print
is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The
abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was
presented.

Abstract
Significant part of the Brazilian oil reserves is located in ultra-
deepwater fields (WD > 1500 m). In this scenario, flow
assurance plays a crucial role due to the existing high
pressures and low temperatures.
This paper focuses on the strategies concerning flow
assurance issues for the near future. These strategies are
strongly based on our specific field experiences as well as on
the foreseeable technological scenario. The future, as treated
in this work, refers to the short and mid-term future and not to
the prospective long term one. Thus, it will mainly discuss
current R&D in flow assurance activities to tackle existing
problems and the ones foreseen for the discoveries already
in development.
In order to facilitate the understanding of our vision, a
brief summary about todays flow assurance issues is
presented. Currently, the main flow assurance concerns are
related to hydrate formation and wax deposition. Accordingly,
design criteria and operational procedures to avoid these
problems are briefly described.
There is also an increasing concern about heavy and extra-
heavy oil production, since a relevant part of recent offshore
discoveries involves this type of oil.
Among the initiatives that are being taken aiming at
optimizing flow assurance design in the near future, one
can mention:
- rheology of heavy oil and water in oil emulsion;
- heavy oil multiphase flow (gas-liquid) simulation;
- hydrate slurry transportability;
- improvements on wax deposition modeling; and
- improvements on heat management.

Introduction
Flow Assurance has been a relevant theme to field
development teams in Brazil, since the mid 80s, with the
discovery of Albacora and Marlim fields, both in deepwater.
The pilot production systems for these fields were based on
the use of Floating Production Units (FPU), subsea wells,
flexible flowlines, gas lift as artificial lift method, and
waterflood as the Enhanced Oil Recovery Method (EOR)
(Figure 1). Due to high heat losses in multiphase flow, the wax
deposition in the flowlines was severe, especially in Albacora,
becoming, at that time, the main challenge to overcome. The
application of corrective techniques, especially Nitrogen
Generating System (SGN), an exothermal chemical reaction
method to dissolve wax deposits, and round-trip cleaning pigs,
has been decisive for the operational continuity of these pilot
production systems
(1)
. Nevertheless, cost-benefit analyses
showed that preventive solutions would present a better
economic result for the following development phases of these
fields, as well as for other new deepwater fields. Such analyses
also took into account the potential of hydrate issues in the
multiphase flowlines.
Therefore, more strict design criteria regarding flow
assurance were adopted since then. Currently, the main flow
assurance issues are still wax deposition and hydrate blockage.
Accordingly, for steady-state condition, keeping the
wellstream temperature above the wax appearance temperature
(WAT) and outside the hydrate equilibrium envelope became
a demand. This is accomplished by an appropriate subsea
layout combined with insulated flowlines. Even if the
wellstream temperature is designed to stay above the WAT,
flowlines are usually designed to be piggable. For hydrate
control in shut-in condition, the insulation is installed to
provide enough cooldown time to allow operational
procedures to be executed before well restart, such as fluids
displacement by diesel or alcohol injection in subsea trees and
manifolds. Surprisingly, so far, the main problem related to
hydrate blockage, during normal production operation, is in
gas lift injection lines, because most of deepwater oils present
some non-plugging properties.
More recently, due to the increase of the offshore heavy oil
reserves, significant investment in R&D has been made to
assure maximum future throughput from these fields. In this
sense, special attention is given to the investigation of the
water in oil emulsion and its impact in the viscosity of the
produced fluid.

Campos Basin Operational Experience
In this section the occurrences of wax and hydrate are
described from a historical point of view.


OTC 16687
A Perspective View of Flow Assurance in Deepwater Fields in Brazil
R.M.T. Camargo, Petrobras; M.A.L. Gonalves, Petrobras; J.R.T. Montesanti, Petrobras; C.A.B.R. Cardoso, Petrobras;
and K. Minami, Petrobras
2 OTC 16687
Early days. In the early 90s, the main problems in deepwater
production operations (WD > 300 m) were wax buildup in
flowlines and risers of sattelite wells. The early deepwater
systems, due to their pioneer characteristic, were not properly
designed to deal with the phenomenon.
Typically a non-insulated 5 km flowline would incur in
noticeable wellstream flowrate decrease in two to three
months period. Once flowrate decreased significantly, SGN
operations were required to melt down the wax deposits along
the flowlines. In extreme cases, a complete plug up of
flowlines was also observed. To partially mitigate the
problem, in addition to SGN system, devices that were
retrofitted in existing subsea trees and flowlines were
introduced to allow round-trip pigging operations.
A few cases of flowline plugging have been reported, but
thanks to the use of flexible lines, it was possible to retrieve
the plugged flowlines, to clean them ashore, and to reuse
them elsewhere.
Hydrate blockages were not very common then and when
they occurred they were mainly in gas export pipelines,
because of poor performance of dehydration plants. Injection
of ethanol to prevent buildup and depressurization to melt
plugs were the main mitigation methods.

End of the 90s. Petrobras is already operating several
deepwater fields in the range of 1,000 m WD.
In this scenario, plugging caused by hydrates start to pop
up here and there. They were mainly due to small amount of
unwashed water left in flowlines and subsea equipment during
completion and tie-in of new wells. Melting them down was
possible using workover rigs, circulation of fluids, injection of
alcohols, and depressurization, operations sometimes very
costly. A huge effort was then made to implement new
operational procedures and to train operational teams.
Production losses caused by wax deposition have
decreased substantially, mainly because subsea layouts were
better designed and all new satellite wells and subsea
manifolds were equipped to be round pigged.
Water cuts of deepwater fields start increasing, reaching
levels thought to be troublesome for hydrate formation.
Despite this, no blockage has been observed in flowlines in
continuous multiphase production mode, some of them even
running well within the hydrate stable region. The ethanol
injection systems put in place as contingency was seldom
used. Even wells under long shut-ins had little problems to be
put back in production, without special care. It starts to
become clear that Campos Basin crude oil had tendency not
to plug.
Petrobras starts applying heat insulated flexible flowlines
in fields more prone for wax and hydrate formation. By this
time, prices of insulated flowlines became closer to those
without heat insulation, thus widening their use.

New century. Wax problems are seldom reported, because
most of flowlines and risers operate above WAT. Hydrate
problems, on the other hand, increased, due to higher water
depth and operating pressures.
In spite of the increase in hydrate blockage cases, no
multiphase flowline, in steady state condition, experienced
hydrate plug to date. A few cases of hydrate tiny stones in the
pig catcher are reported now and then. Water cuts as high as
90% associated with non-plugging cases of wells, even during
shut-in and start-up, are observed.
The increase in hydrate occurrences is usually related to
gas lift injection lines (due to higher operating pressures) and
subsea tree caps, in which hydrate blocks prevented them to be
released during workover operations. SGN system is
sometimes used to warm the tree cap region to melt the
hydrates accumulated underneath. Hydrates from gas lift lines
are melted by simple depressurization.
As could be seen in this section, although several key
elements are there to create tough flow assurance problems,
Petrobras managed to operate step by step, helped by the flow
assurance friendly fluids and a very flexible subsea
production system.

Current Design Criteria
Although other flow assurance aspects are considered in our
design criteria, hydrates and wax are the ones that deserve a
special consideration. Due to the existing low temperatures in
the sea bottom, the widespread use of subsea wells and the
adoption of waterflood as EOR, the risk of blockages
is augmented.

Hydrate Design Criteria. The design criteria for subsea oil
production systems regarding hydrates are organized in three
aspects: prediction, prevention and remediation.
Concerning prediction, the dissociation curve is calculated
considering the gas composition at separator conditions. This
is a conservative criterion, since gas composition at the
separator is richer in heavier hydrocarbon components than
elsewhere, and thus more prone to stabilize hydrate. Some
crude oils present the ability to transport hydrate particles as a
slurry, and also to delay hydrate formation. Therefore,
laboratory tests are required to verify if an oil presents
blockage tendency or not, before proper design can be done.
These laboratory tests are still in R&D phase and are described
in the next sections. The oil classification will govern the
prevention requirements that will, of course, be more strict for
oil presenting blockage tendency. Finally, there are also some
guidelines concerning how to obtain the thermal-hydraulic
performance, either for steady state and transient flow.
For prevention, the design criteria take into account heat
retention, heat addition, pressure control, fluid removal and
thermodynamic inhibition.
The principal is heat retention through appropriate heat
insulation layers. Flowlines, risers and subsea equipment must
present an insulation level that complies with different criteria
depending on the oil characteristics. For systems handling
non-plugging oils, an insulation level is required that keeps the
fluids pressure and temperature outside of the hydrate
envelope during steady state flow and provides a cool down
time of, at least, two hours before entering the hydrate
envelope after a shut-in. For systems coping with plugging
oils, the cool down time requirement increases from two to
eigth hours. The cool down time can be used for
depressurizing the line or to replace the fluids inside the
production line.
Heat addition to the trapped fluids is also a possibility, but
so far, we do not have any systems equipped with it. One of
OTC 16687 3
the on-going projects aims at installing an electrically heated
pipe-in-pipe (PIP) flowline in Roncador field by 2007.
Concerning pressure control, it is recommended to design
topsides facilities to be able to blow down, simultaneously, the
production lines of at least four wells within a period of two
hours. Similarly, for fluid removal purposes, topsides facilities
shall be designed to permit the replacement of produced fluids
from flowlines of six wells within a period of four hours.
Diesel is usually the fluid used for this purpose. If the amount
of diesel required for this operation exceeds the available
volume stored in the FPU, then alternative methods must be
considered (e.g. replace produced fluids by lift gas).
Injection of thermodynamic inhibitors such as methanol or
ethanol is seen with restriction. Preliminary laboratory tests
suggested that the their injection in the subsea tree during
shut-in could be not really effective, since it is not easy to
promote adequate mixing between the inhibitor and segregated
water
(2)
. Thus, thermodynamic inhibition is considered only as
contingency for prevention. Accordingly, we do not make
provision of large thermodynamic inhibitor stocks in the FPU.
For the same reason, there is no need for large inhibitor
pumping capacities and subsea umbilicals.
Finally, for remediation purpose, it is recommended to
assure that there will be enough surface areas available, on the
FPU topsides, to receive the equipment for blockage location
and for eventual operations of riser depressurization through
coil tubing.

Wax Design Criteria. Wax design criteria are also organized
in the three aspects mentioned earlier: prediction, prevention
and remediation.
A number of characterization tests are performed in order
to predict the potential for an oil to present wax deposition
problems: WAT (obtained by Differential Scanning
Calorimeter - DSC), pour point, wax content, yield stress,
static simulation of organic deposition (cold finger method)
and wax solubility as a function of temperature. The results
are interpreted in a qualitative way, comparing the data
obtained with similar data from fields already on stream with
known potential for wax problems. Typically, there is an
excellent agreement between our prediction about the potential
for an oil to present wax deposition problems and the future
field behavior.
There is a number of Joint Industry Projects (JIP) in
progress aiming at developing a deposition modeling tool that
could predict wax deposition in pipes. The results achieved by
some of them are even already commercially available.
Nevertheless, predictions obtained through these models are
not satisfactory and tend to overpredict wax deposition.
For prevention, the methods considered are heat retention,
heat addition and chemical inhibition. Once again the priority
is given to heat retention through appropriate heat insulation.
The requirement is to assure flowing temperatures at least 3C
above the WAT. Pigging is also considered as a prevention
tool for critical cases in which it is not feasible to keep fluid
temperature in the required level. Alternatively, chemical
inhibition can also be considered in this case.
For remediation purpose the requirements are the same as
for hydrate: topsides surface areas should be made available to
receive the equipment for blockage location and for eventual
operations through coil tubing.

Flow Assurance Issues for the Near Future
One of the challenges foreseen for the near future is an
increasing exploitation of heavy oil fields (API < 20) in deep
and ultra-deep water. The physical properties of heavy oils are
considerably different from those of lighter crudes, common in
offshore fields elsewhere. These differences generate higher
pressure losses and lower production rates, and lead to the
need for the development of new technologies to enable the
production of such oils, especially when located at deepwater
fields. Heavy oil flow assurance will certainly bring new
challenges to be tackled in order to enhance their
economical feasibility.
Another concern is the increase in water production of
mature fields. So far, the oils we have been producing from
deepwater fields present anti-agglomerant properties that
avoid flowlines blockage by hydrate. Nevertheless, some
questions are still waiting to be answered. Will these oils be
able to avoid hydrate blockage even for higher water contents?
What is the water content limit above which hydrate problems
are expected? How to determine this water content limit?
What to do when this limit is exceeded? While these
questions are not fully answered, our guidelines still call for
giving preference for using remedial-friendly system,
characterized by FPU with individual and short tie-backs of
gas lifted wells. Should hydrate blockage form, usually it is
possible to melt it down by depressurization using the gas lift
line as the blow-down line.

Heavy Oil and Water in Oil Emulsion. The main differences
concerning fluid flow in pipes between heavy and light oils are
in viscosity, gravity and pour point. The first two make the
heavy oil flow through pipelines more difficult than for light
oils. Higher viscosity means higher pressure drop, thus more
powerful artificial lift methods and export pumps and also
pipelines with larger diameter and higher pressure rating.
Some heavy oils may also present non-Newtonian behavior
that must be taken into account during the design. The higher
the oil gravity, the higher is the pressure gradient in the
upward sections such as the wellbore and the riser. This
becomes even more remarkable when the reservoir is located
in deepwater. Finally, the pour point can add flow assurance
concerns in case of cold start-up of pipelines or wells.
The ordinary approach to obtain oil viscosity is to perform
lab measurements in dead oil samples at different temperatures
and to calculate live oil viscosities through black oil
correlations. This procedure is sometimes not adequate for
heavy crudes, for several reasons. First, it is harder to obtain
good representative samples of heavy crude from the
exploratory wells to be characterized in the lab. Second, most
of the empirical correlations were developed based on light or
medium grade crude data at high temperatures, typical for
reservoir conditions and onshore applications. When applied
to seabed temperatures and for heavier crudes, the correlations
will not likely perform as well.
The behavior of emulsion is another important concern for
heavy oil production. Emulsion is a dispersion of a liquid
phase within another and it is generated when the fluids are
4 OTC 16687
mixed under shear, presenting non-Newtonian behavior. In
heavy oil reservoirs the water production usually starts in the
early stage of the field life. Thus, the knowledge of emulsion
behavior is very important for the design of the production
system. The apparent viscosity of the emulsion is related to
several variables such as fluids composition, shear stress,
temperature profile and shearing period. Emulsions may also
present shear-thinning behavior. Another issue still not well
understood is the emulsion inversion point or the limit above
which free water starts to appear. This impacts not only the
fluid viscosity, but also brings more flow assurance concerns,
since the risk of hydrate blockage increases with the presence
of free water. The inversion point is related with oil and water
compositions, but also depends on the flowing conditions from
the wellbore to the FPU.
Most of the previous works related to multiphase flow in
pipes (gas-liquid) dealt with water or low viscosity oil as the
liquid phase. If the liquid phase presents high viscosity, this
could change the multiphase flow patterns and consequently
impact mainly the holdup of vertical flow, changing the
gravitational gradient in wellbores and risers. Even the
mechanistic models for two-phase flow based on the
conservation laws (mass, momentum and energy) require
closure relationships that were obtained from lab data, usually
from water or a low viscosity Newtonian fluid as the liquid
phase. For the horizontal slug flow for instance, as shown in
Figure 2 (picture taken in an experimental setup of Campinas
State University), one can notice that the bubble shape with
viscous liquid is slightly different, with the nose displaced
towards the center of the pipeline, in spite of the liquid
velocity. This does not happen with low viscosity gas-liquid
flow and it highlights the need for the development of
multiphase fluid flow models more suitable for viscous fluids.
Several R&D projects are underway to investigate viscous
effects on multiphase flow and rheology of heavy oil and
water in oil emulsion, with the collaboration of Brazilian
universities. It comprises small-scale lab analysis and large
scale and high pressure tests performed at a field scale flow
loop (Figure 3). This flow loop is able to handle natural gas
and heavy oil in conditions similar to the ones found in field
operation (flowrates, temperatures, pipe lengths
and diameters).
Another alternative under study is the core annular flow.
The water is added to the oil stream in an annular flow pattern
so the oil is kept at the center of the pipeline while the water is
in contact with the pipe walls. The resulting pressure drop is
almost the same as if only water were flowing, and as low as
1000 times less than for the transported oil. This technology
has already been successfully applied for oil export pipelines
by the industry. We are trying to expand it to be used in
offshore production systems (including wellbore, pipelines
and risers) also in the presence of gas phase.
There are other techniques being considered for pressure
drop reduction, such as dilution and O/W inverted emulsion.

Hydrate Slurry Transportability. Some crude oils present
the ability to transport hydrate particles as a slurry, preventing
pipeline blockage. It is well established that polar compounds
contained in crude oils, such as asphaltenes, stabilize W/O
emulsions. Moreover, they are also suspected to endow the oil
with anti-agglomerant properties concerning hydrate
(3)
, as well
as to delay hydrate formation
(4,5)
.
As seen above, our design criteria concerning hydrate
depend on oils blockage tendency. Thus, we are currently
working on a R&D project aiming at establishing a set of
laboratory tests that could assess oil tendency to form hydrate
blockage or not. Of course, this set of tests is still far from
being a complete and totally reliable procedure. Nevertheless,
it is believed to help design teams by giving them a good
qualitative idea of oil characteristics concerning
hydrate transportability.
The tests usually performed are shortly described below.
They include (i) the analysis of oils tendency to form stable
W/O emulsions; (ii) the maximum water content the oil can
assimilate as an emulsion and emulsions inversion point (if
existent); (iii) the comparison between rheological behaviors
of W/O emulsion and hydrate suspension; (iv) hydrate
suspensions tendency to block a stirred cell; and (v) oils
influence on the wettability of hydrate particles.
The formation of a stable emulsion is seen as a necessary
condition for the oil to present good hydrate transportation
properties. Once established that a certain oil does form stable
W/O emulsions, it is important to assess the water content
limit below which the emulsion will still be stable. This is
performed in the lab by testing model emulsions created from
the crude under test. The maximum water content the oil can
assimilate as an emulsion and emulsions inversion point are
also obtained during the same lab setup.
Strong agglomeration between hydrate particles mainly
occurs during the hydrate formation phase. Once all the water
is converted into hydrate, there are no more agglomeration
forces that could lead to pipeline blockage. If the oil presents
strong anti-agglomerant properties, this agglomeration process
can be very limited during hydrate crystalization. It is
expected that the higher the agglomeration between hydrate
particles (during hydrate formation process), the higher will be
the increase in the viscosity of the hydrate suspension when
compared to the viscosity of the pre-existent W/O emulsion
(6)
.
Thus, the comparison between rheological behaviors of W/O
emulsion and hydrate suspension can be quantitatively related
to the agglomeration that took place in the test. Figure 4 shows
the rheogram obtained for the test of an oil from a field in the
development phase, in which the increase in hydrate
suspension viscosity is not very high when compared to the
W/O emulsion viscosity. The same experimental run is used to
simulate shut-in (no stirring)/restart conditions and hydrate
suspensions tendency to block the rheometer after a shut-in.
Wettability properties of hydrate particles during the
formation process seem to be the dominating factor
concerning agglomeration and, therefore, plug formation
(6)
.
Thus, a collaborating program involving IFP, Petrobras and
Total is currently underway to seek a way to assess oils
influence on the wettability of hydrate crystal.
If the results obtained in the laboratory tests mentioned
above are not sufficient or not reliable enough to define oils
blockage tendency by hydrate, it is always possible to resort to
the employment of testing the oil in hydrate flow loops.
Nevertheless, this is not very convenient due to the logistics
involved (there are only few labs in the world performing
OTC 16687 5
these tests and large quantities of oil are demanded) which
contrast with the usual urgency for the results.
It is important to stress that all these laboratory tests are
still in a R&D phase. So their results are continuously
analysed in comparison with field data in order to confirm
their reliance and improve their accuracy.

Improvements on Wax Deposition Modeling. Slow buildup
of wax layers in pipelines and flowlines is caused by the
solidification of the paraffinic fractions due to cold seabed
temperatures. The deposition rate depends mainly on the crude
oil characteristics, the heat flux through the pipeline and the
shear stress at the wall. There are several R&D efforts around
the globe that aim at increasing the knowledge about this
phenomenon and at improving the methods for prediction.
Among other initiatives we can mention Paraffin Deposition
JIP, lead by University of Tulsa, as well as the Flow
Assurance: Wax and Hydrates JIP, lead by
Heriot-Watt University.
Our internal efforts are directed towards identification of
the main mechanisms of wax deposition through a
visualization process, a project conducted with a Brazilian
university. There are also some in-house initiatives dealing
with this subject: improvement on both static and dynamic
cold finger methods, comparative analysis between different
wax deposition computational simulators and use of laboratory
analysis tools. Computational simulators require the settlement
of oil components up to, at least, C50 fraction and of the
normal paraffin fractions; high temperature gas
chromatography shall be used to obtain this.
Besides the problem of wax deposition some waxy oils
may present pour point at temperatures above the typical value
at seabed (4 C). If this happens there is a risk of difficulties
for starting-up the pipelines, after the crude oil reaches the
equilibrium temperature. Such situation may require heating of
the pipeline prior to its start-up. In order to address this issue,
rheology techniques are under development to allow the
prediction of the required pressure for pipeline start-up at a
given temperature.
A new challenge for the near future is the wax deposition
in long export subsea pipelines with large diameter. Although
they are designed to operate above the WAT in steady flow,
after a long shutdown, they may be subjected to slow warm-up
periods during which there will be some wax deposition. Even
if the deposit thickness is anticipated to be very thin, it can
correspond to a large amount of wax due to the large length
and diameter of the pipeline.

Heat Management - Insulation. In order to obtain risers and
flowlines with good heat insulation at low cost, it is important
to maintain a constant and proactive relationship with the
suppliers. Service companies are continuously trying to meet
the increasing demand for better insulations as well as the
demand for deeper waters and larger diameters.
Regarding insulation, the main program is the one studying
the application of a PIP configuration. A project was created
with the goal of technically and economically studying the
application of this concept in deep and ultra-deep water.
Considering the current fields and new discoveries, with water
depth reaching 2500 m, this configuration is analyzed on its
many aspects: manufacturing, installation method, carrier,
insulation and pipe materials, structural aspects and special
topics such as water stoppers and buckling arrestors. These
studies are applied to both flowlines and risers.

Heating Management Heat Addition. Flexible, rigid and
pipe-in-pipe subsea pipelines, with a heating process, either by
electricity or by hot water, are some of the options to add heat
to the produced fluids.
One application of heated subsea flowline is being carried
out within PROCAP-3000 program, targeting for a six
kilometers long production flowline in waterdepth of 1,900 m.
This project will employ a subsea ESP as the artificial lift
method and the flowline will be an electrically heated pipe-in-
pipe (Figure 5). The electrical power will be delivered to the
lift system during normal operation and to the flowline during
shut-in and restart. A subsea power cable and an electrical
switch module are being developed specially for this
application, which will allow either the subsea ESP operation
or the heat addition to the system. Besides the flowline, the
subsea tree and the jumper will also be electrically heated.

Other Initiatives. We are also involved in a number of other
initiatives aiming at minimising flow assurance drawbacks in
deepwater developments. In this section some of them will be
shortly described: dual diameter pigs, subsea gas-liquid
separation system and plug location and removal methods.
The development of deepwater fields in the early 90s,
caused a shift on the typical design for production flowline
diameter from 4 to 6, due to well higher flowrates. The
typical tieback for a subsea well also included a smaller inside
diameter gas lift flowline. Some wells required 2.5 gas lift
flowlines. In these cases the round-trip pigging (2.5x 6) was
only possible with low density foam pigs. However, in wells
with higher potential of wax deposition, pigs with better
scrapping capability were demanded, leading to the
installation of a 4 gas lift flowline instead. However the
commercially available 4x 6 dual diameter pigs tested did
not present good performance in the field. Fortunately, in most
fields, especially in those of heavier oil (lower paraffin
content), a medium density 6 foam pig, able to circulate in
the 4x 6 circuit, presented acceptable performance for
wax control.
For fields with harder wax deposits, the medium density
foam pigs are not appropriate, and design and construction of
new 4 x 6 dual diameter pigs are being worked with pig
manufacturers. This project is still under prototype
performance testing in a pig flow loop. Figure 6 shows one of
the first prototypes tested.
Another project comprises the installation of a subsea
system able to separate produced water of satellite wells at
seafloor (Figure 7). Even though its main goal is the increase
in liquid handling capacity of the FPUs, a side benefit of such
system is the improvement of the wellstream due to the
reduction of hydrate formation risk and reduction of viscosity
of the produced fluid. It is still in the conceptual phase but the
ultimate goal is to have a prototype to be installed in one the
Campos Basin deepwater fields.
Although several techniques can be applied to mitigate
wax and hydrate plugging potentials, it is not possible to
6 OTC 16687
completely eliminate the risk of eventual blockages in
deepwater production. Thus, it is important to develop special
techniques and tools for blockage location and remediation in
subsea pipelines
(7)
. Two methods to locate blockage are
currently in use. They are based on: (i) the detection of
pressure pulses echoes reflected at the blockage and (ii) the
detection of the pipeline diameter variation as a function of the
pipeline pressure.
The blockage removal methods can involve heating,
chemical solvents, mechanical tools, depressurization, etc. The
selection of the most appropriate technique will depend on the
specificity of the blockage. Some of these methods have been
successfully put in practice in Brazil. As examples, two
unusual cases can be mentioned. A hydrate plug located below
a tree-cap of a deep water subsea well was removed by
external heating performed by a tailor-made SGN
formulation
(8)
. In the other case, a severe hydrate blockage
occurred in the flowline and tree valves of a subsea water
injection well during a long shutdown. The remediation was
only possible with water removal from the riser (to lower
hydrostatic head and hence pressure) by nitrogen injection
through a coil tubing introduced in the riser
(9)
.

Conclusions
This paper presents a perspective view of flow assurance in
deepwater fields, based on the description of the main R&D
projects currently conducted. This perspective view is strongly
based on our specific field experience and it is applicable in
our scenario foreseen for the near future.
The approach Petrobras has taken in Campos Basin differs
significantly from the ones taken by other companies, also
operating in deepwaters elsewhere. The explanation for the
differences is related to the fluids encountered in Campos
Basin and the adoption of more flexible subsea production
systems that can better cope with flow assurance
related problems.
The increase in deepwater heavy oil fields production is a
point to be emphasized about the future scenario, bringing
with it all the problems expected from producing and
transporting fluids of much higher viscosities.
From the analysis of the flow assurance projects described
in the paper, it is possible to conclude that our general strategy
related to this subject presents a fair equilibrium between
fundamental research and technological development. The
research oriented to understand the more fundamental aspects
of the phenomena related to flow assurance issues is usually
performed through international JIPs or through collaborations
with universities. On the other hand, projects aiming at
technological developments or at technological adaptations to
our particular scenario are usually performed in close
collaboration with suppliers and service companies.
Finally, we are confident that flow assurance problems
depicted in the short and mid-term scenarios of this paper will
be properly addressed by Petrobras, based on its accumulated
field experiences and its intense research and development
effort, boosted by the contribution from the national and
international scientific community, equipment manufacturers,
suppliers, service companies and also from other operators.


Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Petrobras for giving
permission to publish this paper. The authors also thank fellow
workers Mauricio Werneck de Figueiredo and Mauro Luiz
Lopes Euphmio, who have provided valuable contributions to
this work.

References
1. Cardoso, C.B., Alves, I.N., Ribeiro, G.S.: Management of Flow
Assurance Constraints, OTC 15222, Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, USA, 2003.
2. Freitas, A.M., Neves, G.B.M., Vanegas, J.W., Oliveira,
G.P.H.A., Minami, K.: A Study of the Mixing Behavior of
Thermodynamic Inhibitors and Water in Pipes for Roncador
Field, Deep Offshore Technology Conference, Rio de Janeiro,
Brazil, 2001.
3. Leporcher, E., Peytavy, J.L., Mollier, Y., Sjblom, J.:
Multiphase Transportation: Hydrate Plugging Prevention
Through Crude Oil Natural Surfactants, Proceedings of the
Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans,
USA. SPE 49172, 1998.
4. Sinquin, A., Bredzinsky, X., Beunat, V.: Kinetic of Hydrates
Formation: Influence of Crude Oils, Proceedings of the Annual
Technical Conference and Exhibition, New Orleans, USA. SPE
71543, 2001.
5. Sinquin, A., Miao, M., Beunat, V., Jussaume, L.: Kinetic of
Hydrates Formation: Influence of Crude oils - part 2,
Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Gas
Hydrates, Yokohama, Japan, 2002.
6. Camargo R., Palermo T.: Rheological Properties of Hydrate
Suspensions in an Asphaltenic Crude Oil, Proceedings of the
Fourth International Conference on Gas Hydrates, Yokohama,
Japan, 2002.
7. Kuchpil, C., Gonalves, M.A.L., Marques, L.C.C., Soares, R.F.:
Blockage Location and Remediation in Deepwater Pipelines
and Equipment, Deep Offshore Technology, New Orleans,
USA, 2002.
8. Marques, L.C.C., Pedroso, C.A., Paixo, L.C.A., New Flow
Assurance Solutions to Work Out Hydrate and Paraffin
Blockage Problems in Deepwaters, OTC 15190, Offshore
Technology Conference, Houston, USA, 2003.
9. Freitas, A.M., Lobo, A.C., Cardoso, C.B.: Hydrate Blockages
in Flowlines and Subsea Equipment in Campos Basin, OTC
14257, Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, USA, 2002.

Metric Conversion Factors
m x 3.2808 E+00 = ft
m x 3.937 E+01 = inch
T(C) x 1.8 E+00 = T(F)-32


OTC 16687 7


















Figure 1: Example of a typical subsea development strategy.
















Figure 2: Comparison between gas bubble shapes for water and
water-glycerine as the liquid phase.



















Figure 3: Experimental flow loop at Atalaia.

















Figure 4: Rheological behavior comparison between W/O
emulsion and hydrate suspension. P = 90 kgf/cm
2
. T = 4C. The
relative viscosity is the ratio between dispersion viscosity and
oil viscosity.



















Figure 5: Electrally heated PIP and subsea ESP project.

















Figure 6: One of the first prototypes of 4x 6 dual diameter pigs
tested in the pig flow loop.

Eletro-
Optical
Hidraulic
Insulated Riser
ESP Power Cable
Electrically Heated PIP
Electrical Switch
Module
Flying Leads
Electrically Heated
Rigid Jumper
Flying leads
ESP
Horizontal
Xmas Tree

Oil Export
Gas Export
Control
Umbilicals
FPU
Production Well
WCT
Gas Lift
Manifold
Insulated
Flexible Jumper
Insulated
Flexible Jumper
Average Distance = 5 to 10 km
PLET
Vertical Connexion
Insulated
Gas Lift Flowline
Insulated
Production Flowline
Oil Export
Gas Export
Control
Umbilicals
FPU
Production Well
WCT
Gas Lift
Manifold
Insulated
Flexible Jumper
Insulated
Flexible Jumper
Average Distance = 5 to 10 km
PLET
Vertical Connexion
Insulated
Gas Lift Flowline
Insulated
Production Flowline
RJS-359 BSW30 (RS100)
T cte 4C e taxa transio 10 1/s
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
taxa (1/s)
v
i
s
c
o
s
i
d
a
d
e

r
e
l
a
t
i
v
a

(
c
P
)
emulso suspenso
Shear rate (s
-1
)
R
e
l
a
t
i
v
e

V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y

Emulsion Suspension
8 OTC 16687

Figure 7: Water-oil separation subsea system.


W-O SEPARATION
SUBSEA SYSTEM
WATER INJECTION
OIL+GAS
PRODUCER

water
oil
gas
wellstream
INJECTOR