2007-6031-2J-0007 Rev H Re-AFD Pipeline Hydraulic Analysis - Approved

Cuu Long Joint Operating Company
Su Tu Trang LTPTP - Wellhead Platform and Pipeline

Engineering, Transportation and Installation
DOCUMENT TITLE: PIPELINE HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007
Rev. H Page 2 of 166

REVISION RECORD SHEET

No. Rev. No. Content of Revision Date of Revision
1 A Issued for Comments 22 Sept 10
2 B Re-Issued for Comments 29 Oct 10

Previous document number was 2007-6031-2J -7107.
Revised to incorporate CLJ OC comments.

3 C Re-Issued for Comments 24 Dec 10
4 D Issued for Approval 09 Feb 11
5 E Approved for Design 24 Feb 11
6 F Approved for Design 05 Apr 11

Revised to incorporate CLJ OC comments. Note 2 of
Page 28 of 160 was revised.

7 G Approved for Design 25 May 11
8 H Approved for Design 25 Jul 11

Revised to incorporate change in anti-corrosion coating
from FBE to 3LPP.

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 8
2.1 Summary ................................................................................................................................................ 8
2.2 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 12
3. PIPELINE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 13
3.1 Platform Data ........................................................................................................................................ 13
3.2 Pipeline, Expansion Loops, Expansion Loop Tie-Ins and Riser Details .............................................. 13
3.2.1 Pipeline and External Coating Data ..................................................................................................... 14
3.3 Operating Conditions ............................................................................................................................ 16
3.4 Environmental Conditions .................................................................................................................... 19
3.5 Fluid Composition ................................................................................................................................. 21
3.6 Fluid Densities ...................................................................................................................................... 25
4. BASIS OF STUDY ................................................................................................................................. 27
4.1 Scope of Model ..................................................................................................................................... 27
4.2 Pipeline ................................................................................................................................................. 27
5. ANALYSIS RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 29
5.1 Boundary of Insulation .......................................................................................................................... 29
5.2 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 29
5.3 Conclusions .......................................................................................................................................... 33
6. REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................... 37

APPENDIX A STEADY STATE SIMULATION PLOTS

APPENDIX B OLGA SOFTWARE

APPENDIX C ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 3LPP AND 5LPP COATING APPLIED CASE

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

NOTATION

5LPP 5 Layer Polypropylene
BBL Barrel
BOPD Barrels of Oil Per Day
BWPD Barrels of Water Per Day
CA Corrosion Allowance
CD Chart Datum
COJ Centre of J acket
CPP Central Production Platform
CLJ OC Cuu Long J oint Operating Company
DP Design Pressure
EOS Equation of State
FBE Fusion Bonded Epoxy
FPSO Floating Production Storage and Offloading Vessel
FSO Floating Storage and Offloading Vessel
KP Kilopost
LAT Lowest Astronomical Tide
LIQC Total Liquid Content in Branch (m
3
)
LTPTP Long Term Production Test Program
MSL Mean Sea Level
MMscfd Million Standard Cubic Feet Per Day
NSEC Nippon Steel Engineering Corporation
OILC Total Oil Content in Branch (m
3
)
OP Operating Pressure
P
IN
Inlet Pressure
P
OUT
Outlet Pressure
Q
GST
Source Gas Vol. Flow at Std. Conditions
Q
OST
Source Oil Vol. Flow at Std. Conditions
Q
WST
Source Water Vol. Flow at Std. Conditions
T
IN
Inlet Temperature
T
OUT
Outlet Temperature
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

U
G
Gas Velocity
U
L
Liquid Velocity
WATC Total Water Content in Branch (m
3
)
WGS World Geodetic System
WHCP Well Head Control Panel

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

1. INTRODUCTION

This report has been prepared for Cuu Long J oint Operating Company (CLJ OC) as part of the
Detailed Engineering design project for the development of the Su Tu Trang field in Block 15-1
located offshore the Socialist Republic of Vietnam.

As part of the development of the Block 15-1, CLJ OC intends to install a Long Term Production
Test Program (LTPTP) wellhead platform, pipeline and other associated facilities for the Su Tu
Trang field as well as send production from the Su Tu Trang LTPTP to the CPP at Su Tu Vang.

The overall development concept consists of the following components:

A LTPTP platform located in the Su Tu Trang field;
Modifications and tie-ins to the CPP at Su Tu Vang;
A three phase, insulated 12 pipeline from the LTPTP to the CPP.

The pipeline riser at the CPP has been pre-installed.

This document presents the hydraulic analysis (steady state) performed for the 12 production
line from the LTPTP to the CPP, the associated expansion loop tie-ins and risers at LTPTP and
CPP. Refer to Figure 1 below.

Note:
1. For 3LPP coating applied case instead of FBE coating, refer to Appendix C.

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

Figure 1 Overall Field Layout of Block 15-1 Field Development

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

2. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

2.1 Summary

The hydraulic analysis simulation was performed for the following pipeline:

- 12 pipeline from LTPTP to CPP

The objectives of the steady state hydraulic analysis are as follows:

- Determine the boundary between non-insulated (FBE) and insulated (5LPP) coating
application based on the temperature decay (Preparatory Case).

Temperature greater than 140C =0.75 mm FBE with concrete coating (non-
insulated)
Temperature less than 140C =36 mm 5LPP with concrete coating (insulated)

- Verify the proposed size of the 12 LTPTP pipeline by determining the inlet pressure, P
IN

and justify that:

P
IN
is less than the design pressure (DP) of 86 barg (Case A1)
P
IN
is less than the nominal operating pressure (OP) of 37.9 barg (Case A2)

- For pipeline capacity verification, P
IN
is to be less than 36.4 barg (Case A2).

- Give conservative temperature decay for pipe wall thickness verification (Case A3)

- Predict fluid behaviour including the following under various operating conditions (Cases
B1, B2, C1 to C21):

1) The temperature and pressure profiles.
2) The fluid velocities.
3) The liquid hold-up.

The steady state hydraulic analysis was performed for a total of 27 cases, as described in the
following paragraph.

Preparatory Case Study based on non-insulated pipeline (FBE with concrete coating)
maximum flow rate, maximum inlet temperature, maximum
ambient temperature (seawater and air), half-buried.

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

Based on the insulation boundary, the following 26 cases were calculated.

Case A1 - to generate the temperature and pressure profiles for mechanical design.

Case A2 - to verify the pipeline flow capacity of 50 MMscfd.

- based on maximum flow rate, inlet temperature of 101C, maximum ambient
temperature, half- buried.

Case A3 - to generate the temperature and pressure profiles considering a fully insulated
pipeline (5LPP with concrete coating).

- based on maximum flow rate, inlet temperature of 150C, maximum ambient
temperature, half-buried.

Case B1 - performed to determine the temperature profile during low gas flow rate.

- based on minimum flow rate, inlet temperature of 83.4C, minimum ambient
temperature, half-buried.

Case B2 - similar to Case B1, considering unburied pipeline.

In addition to these cases, Cases C1 to C21 were performed to study the behaviour of the fluid
under various operating conditions. Cases C1 to C12 considered the inlet of the pipeline at
LTPTP to receive flow from 1 well, while Cases C13 to C21 considered flow received from 3
wells.

The summary of the 27 cases is presented in the following table:


DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

Table 2.1-2 Summary of Analysis Cases

Units
Maximum Flow Cases Low Flow Cases
Varying Flow Cases
Flow from 1 Well
Prep
Case
A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
Inlet Temperature C 150 150 101 150 83.4 83.4 136 123.5 97.8 57.4 143.3 134.1 111.7 69.3
Inlet Temperature F 302 302 213.8 302 182.1 182.1 276.8 254.3 208 135.4 289.9 273.4 233 156.8
Outlet Temperature C 29.2 79.5 51.1 88.4 19.6 19.5 42.9 31.3 26.1 26.6 68.3 50.3 29.0 25.8
Inlet Pressure
calculated in analysis
BarG 33.1 37.5 33.6 38.7 11.3 11.3 30.5 19.1 12.4 12.5 34.4 20.9 12.7 11.5
Total Gas Flowrate MMscfd 50 10 50 30 15 5 50 30 15 5
Condensate Content bbl / MMscf 150
Water Content bbl / MMscf 100 0 50
Coating -
FBE &
Concrete
only
FBE & 5LPP as
designed
5LPP &
Concrete
FBE (Corrosion Coating) and 5LPP (Thermal Insulation) and Concrete Coating As Designed
Burial Condition - Half Buried Unburied Half-Buried
Downstream Pressure
at CPP
psig 135 (9.31 BarG)

Cases
Input
Parameters


DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

Table 2.1-2 Summary of Analysis Cases (Continued)

Units
Varying Flow Cases
Flow from 1 Well Flow from 3 Wells
C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21
Inlet Temperature C 147.3 140.9 121.1 79.5 102.2 83.4 57.4 115.6 97.5 69.3 123.9 107.9 79.5
Inlet Temperature F 297.1 285.6 250 175.1 216 182.1 135.4 240 207.5 156.8 255 226.2 175.1
Outlet Temperature C 76.0 59.9 32.8 26.0 35.4 28.2 25.9 51.5 35.9 26.7 61.0 43.2 28.1
Inlet Pressure
calculated in analysis
BarG 37.4 22.5 13.1 11.5 29.4 18.6 12.3 32.3 19.7 12.5 35.3 21.1 12.9
Total Gas Flowrate MMscfd 50 30 15 5 50 30 15 50 30 15 50 30 15
Water Content bbl / MMscf 100 0 50 100
Coating - FBE (Corrosion Coating) and 5LPP (Thermal Insulation) and Concrete Coating As Designed
Burial Condition - Half-Buried
Downstream Pressure
at CPP

Cases
Input
Parameters

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

2.2 Conclusions

The following conclusions are drawn from the steady state analysis:

- The pipe size proposed is acceptable.

- The point at which the temperature is 140 C along the pipeline model has been
determined to be at KP 0.247 along the actual pipeline route with reference to the
Pipeline Routing Layout, Dwg. No. 2007-6031-2I-0002. This basis determined the
extent of the pipeline coatings for the analysis of Cases A1 to A2, B1, B2 and Cases C1
to C21. The section from KP 0 to KP 0.247 will be coated with 0.75mm FBE (corrosion
coating) and 58mm concrete (weight coating) while KP 0.247 to the end of the pipeline
will be coated with 36 mm 5LPP (thermal insulation) and 58 mm concrete (18,535m) as
described in Section 3.2.1.

- The objectives listed below are determined for each case

Inlet pressure, P
IN

Temperature and pressure profiles at maximum and minimum flow
Fluid velocities
Liquid hold-up

- For capacity verification case (Case A2), the inlet pressure determined for the pipeline is
33.6 barg and this is less than 36.4 barg. For all the other cases, the maximum inlet
pressure required for the pipeline is 37.9 barg and is within the design pressure limit and
nominal operating pressure of 86 barg and 37.9 barg respectively.

- From, Appendix B of "Process Basis of Design" (Ref. 4), the WAT (Wax Appearance
Temperature) is relatively high, ranging from 34 deg C to 50 deg C. On the other hand,
the calculated arriving temperature at Su Tu Vang (STV) CPP is lower than 34 deg C in
several cases with low flow rates. It should be, therefore, noted that there would be
certain limit of low flow rate in order to avoid wax appearance during operation.

Note:
1. In 3LPP coating applied case instead of FBE coating, the point at which the
temperature is 140
o
C along the pipeline model has been determined to be at KP
0.687 along the actual pipeline route. Refer to Appendix C for details.

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

3. PIPELINE SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

3.1 Platform Data

The coordinates of the platforms are given below.

Table 3.1-1 Platform Coordinates
S/No Location Remarks
Reference
Point
Coordinates
Easting (m) Northing (m)
1 LTPTP Proposed COJ 867,000 1,130,700
2 CPP Installed COJ 868,051 1,149,400

Note:
1. The coordinates are given in Universal Transverse Mercator (UTM) system based on the
WGS 84 Geodetic Datum, Grid Zone 48 with Central Meridian 105 E.
2. COJ : Centre of J acket

3.2 Pipeline, Expansion Loops, Expansion Loop Tie-Ins and Riser Details

The pipeline, expansion loops, riser details considered for the cases are tabulated in Table 3.2-
1.

Table 3.2-1 Pipeline, Expansion Loops, Expansion Loop Tie-Ins and Riser Data
Parameter Units
Cases
Prep. Case
Study
A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 C1 to C21
Pipe Outer Diameter mm 323.85
Pipeline/Riser Wall
Thickness
mm
9.5
Expansion Loop,
Expansion Loop Tie-ins
Wall Thickness
mm
12.7
Material Grade - API 5L X65
Pipe Wall Roughness mm 0.045
Thermal
Insulation/Corrosion
Coating
mm
0.75 (FBE)
36 (5LPP)
Weight Coating mm 49 (Expansion Loop, Expansion Loop Tie-Ins)
58 (Pipeline)
Burial Status - Half-Buried Unburied Half-Buried

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

3.2.1 Pipeline and External Coating Data

The external coating data are presented in Table 3.2-2.

Table 3.2-2 Pipeline and External Coating Data
External Coating Data
Su Tu Trang EPS to Su Tu Vang CPP
Prep
Case
Cases A1 to A2,
B1,B2 and
C1 to C21
A3

Riser at LTPTP
Corrosion Coating
- Material FBE 5LPP
- Thickness (mm) 0.75 36
Expansion Loop Tie-In
at LTPTP
Corrosion Coating
- Material FBE 5LPP
Weight Coating
- Material Concrete
- Thickness (mm) 49
Pipeline
KP 0 to KP 0.247 along
pipeline route
(2)

Corrosion / Thermal Insulation Coating
- Material FBE 5LPP
Weight Coating
- Material Concrete
- Thickness (mm) 58
KP 0.247 along pipeline
route to pipeline end
(2)

- Material FBE 5LPP
Weight Coating
- Material Concrete
- Thickness (mm) 58

Cold End
Expansion Loop Tie-In
at CPP
Corrosion Coating
- Material FBE 5LPP
Weight Coating
- Material Concrete
- Thickness (mm) 49
Riser at CPP
Corrosion Coating
- Material FBE 5LPP
Hot End

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

The following figure presents a schematic of the 12 riser and pipeline system between LTPTP
and CPP.
Figure 3.1: General Riser and Pipeline Model Configuration

Notes:
1. The lengths of expansion loops have been considered in the modeling of the 12" pipeline
(from LTPTP to CPP).
2. The pipeline is to be heat insulated in addition to concrete weight coating. The insulation
coating (5LPP) is, however, applicable only up to 140C while the pipeline design
temperature is 150C. Therefore, the 5LPP coating shall be applied starting at the point
along the pipeline where the fluid temperature is 140C towards CPP.
It was determined from the results of the Preparatory Case that the maximum
operating temperature of 150C at the pipeline inlet will drop to 140C at KP 0.687
along pipeline route. Hence, 3LPP coating in the pipeline starts at KP 0 to KP 0.687, and
5LPP coating applies for the pipeline downstream of KP 0.687.
3. Expansion loops will have provision to avoid being buried into the seabed. The effect of
unburied loops on hydraulic analysis results, however, is negligible and therefore not
considered in the model on OLGA.

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

The pipe wall and the external coating material thermal properties used are given in Table 3.2-3.

Table 3.2-3 Material Thermal Properties
Material Density (kg/m
3
)
Thermal Conductivity
(W/m-K)
Heat Capacity
(J/kg-K)
Steel Pipe 7850 50 500
5LPP 760 0.185 2000
FBE 1450 0.3 1500
Concrete 3040 1.74 419
Riser Splash Zone Coating 1907 0.2 2000

3.3 Operating Conditions

Steady state analysis is performed for all cases. Table 3.3-1 summarizes the pressure,
temperature and flow rates that were specified for each of the constant flow cases.


DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

Table 3.3-1 Operating Conditions (Pressure, Temperature) and Flow Rates

Units
Maximum Flow Cases Low Flow Cases
Varying Flow Cases
Flow from 1 Well
Prep
Case
A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 C7 C8
Inlet Temperature C 150 150 101 150 83.4 83.4 136 123.5 97.8 57.4 143.3 134.1 111.7 69.3
Inlet Temperature F 302 302 213.8 302 182.1 182.1 276.8 254.3 208 135.4 289.9 273.4 233 156.8
Outlet Temperature C
To be determined in analysis
Inlet Pressure BarG
Total Gas Flowrate MMscfd 50 10 50 30 15 5 50 30 15 5
Water Content bbl / MMscf 100 0 50
Coating -
FBE &
Concrete
only
FBE & 5LPP as
designed
5LPP &
Concrete
FBE (Corrosion Coating) and 5LPP (Thermal Insulation) and Concrete Coating As Designed
Burial Condition - Half Buried Unburied Half-Buried
Downstream Pressure
at CPP

Cases
Input
Parameters


DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

Table 3.3-1 Operating Conditions (Pressure, Temperature) and Flow Rates (Continued)

Units
Varying Flow Cases
Flow from 1 Well Flow from 3 Wells
C9 C10 C11 C12 C13 C14 C15 C16 C17 C18 C19 C20 C21
Inlet Temperature C 147.3 140.9 121.1 79.5 102.2 83.4 57.4 115.6 97.5 69.3 123.9 107.9 79.5
Inlet Temperature F 297.1 285.6 250 175.1 216 182.1 135.4 240 207.5 156.8 255 226.2 175.1
Outlet Temperature C
To be determined in analysis
Inlet Pressure BarG
Total Gas Flowrate MMscfd 50 30 15 5 50 30 15 50 30 15 50 30 15
Water Content bbl / MMscf 100 0 50 100
Coating - FBE (Corrosion Coating) and 5LPP (Thermal Insulation) and Concrete Coating As Designed
Burial Condition - Half-Buried
Downstream Pressure
at CPP
Cases
Input
Parameters

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

3.4 Environmental Conditions

The following figure shows the application of the air and seawater velocities and temperatures
considered in the hydraulic analysis.

Figure 3.4.1: Application of Velocities and Temperatures at LTPTP

Figure 3.4.2 Application of Velocities and Temperatures at CPP

Water Depth
= 50 m
WD = 16.7m
WD = 33.4m
WD = 50m
Bottom
Mid-Depth
Surface
Ambient Air
Temperature
Seawater
Air
Bottom
Mid-Depth
Surface
Ambient Air
Temperature
Seawater
Air
WD = 18.7m
WD = 37.3m
WD = 56m
Water Depth
= 56 m

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

The environmental conditions were taken from the Structural Basis of Design and Pipeline Basis
of Design.

The ambient air temperature and seawater properties used in the analysis are summarized in
Table 3.4-1.

Table 3.4-1 Surrounding Temperature
Ambient Air Temperature
Units Minimum Mean Maximum
Temperature C 19 27 35
Seawater Properties
Temperature Units Minimum Mean Maximum
- Surface C 20.3 27.6 30.3
- Mid Depth C 20.4 26.8 29.4
- Bottom C 20.1 26.1 28.9
Density kg/m
3
1025
Kinematic Viscosity m
2
/s 1.03 X 10
-6

Cases Considered - B1 and B2 C1 to C21
Preparatory Case,
A1 to A3

Note:
1. The ambient air temperature has been considered in the hydraulic analysis for the
topside piping and riser above water level.

The seawater current velocities that were used in the analysis are summarized in the table
below.

Table 3.4-2 Current and Wind Velocities
Current Velocity (m/s)
Depth Average 1-year Velocities
Near Surface 0.80
Mid Depth 0.50
Near Bottom 0.30
Wind Velocity (m/s)
1-Hour Sustained Wind Speed 14.00

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

Note:
1. The current and wind velocities are based on the Metocean Criteria for Su Tu Vang
(2003-4000-6B-0002, Rev. A).

The following soil parameters were used with the FEMtherm module to model the pipeline as
half-buried into the seabed soil for Preparatory Case Study, Cases A1 to A3, B1 and C1 to C21.
Case B2 has been modelled as non-buried.

Soil Type : Sand

Seabed Soil Density (sand) : 2500 kg/m
3

Soil Thermal Conductivity : 2.5 W/m-K

Soil Heat Capacity : 1250 J /kg-K

3.5 Fluid Composition

The fluid composition (dry basis) is quoted from Process Design Basis (Ref. 4) and presented
in Table 3.5-1 below.

Table 3.5-1 Original Fluid Composition (Dry Basis)
Component Mole % Molecular Weight
Ideal Liquid Specific
Gravity
Hydrogen Sulfide 0.00
Carbon Dioxide 0.06
Nitrogen 0.11
Methane 70.83
Ethane 9.13
Propane 5.39
iso-Butane 1.34
n-Butane 2.19
neo- Pentane 0.01
iso-Pentane 0.93
n-Pentane 1.03
Hexane 1.25
Methylcyclopentane 0.24
Benzene 0.15
Cyclohexane 0.15

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

Component Mole % Molecular Weight
Ideal Liquid Specific
Gravity
Heptanes 0.93
Methycyclohexane 0.43
Toluene 0.31
Octanes 0.96
Ethylbenzene 0.04
M-, P-Xylene 0.25
O-Xylene 0.06
Nonanes 0.69
1, 2, 4-TrimethylBz 0.06
Decanes 0.59
Undecanes 0.49 147.00 0.789
Dodecanes 0.41 161.00 0.800
Tridecanes 0.34 175.00 0.811
Tetradecanes 0.25 190.00 0.822
Pentadecanes 0.21 206.00 0.832
Hexadecanes 0.16 222.00 0.839
Heptadecanes 0.14 237.00 0.847
Octadecanes 0.12 251.00 0.852
Nonadecanes 0.10 263.00 0.857
Eicosanes + 0.61 350.55 0.887

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

The fluid composition was modified by adding condensate components and water to fit to the
condensate and water flow rates as in Table 3.2-1 at separator conditions (pressure of 3.962
MPa and temperature of 115.6 C). The modified compositions are presented in Table 3.5-2.

Table 3.5-2 presents the modified fluid compositions to be used in the different cases.

- Fluid 1 represents the fluid composition with condensate flow rate of 150 bbl / MMscf
and water flow rate of 100 bbl / MMscf.



Table 3.5-2 Modified Fluid Compositions
Component
Fluid 1 Fluid 2 Fluid 3
Mol % Mol % Mol %
H
2
O 40.477 - 25.678
N
2
0.063 0.107 0.079
CO
2
0.035 0.058 0.043
C1 40.871 68.776 51.033
C2 5.318 8.945 6.641
C3 3.186 5.355 3.979
iC4 0.806 1.353 1.006
nC4 1.33 2.232 1.66
2,2-dim-C 0.006 0.01 0.008
iC5 0.582 0.975 0.727
nC5 0.651 1.091 0.813
C6 0.833 1.392 1.04
m-c-C5 0.162 0.271 0.202
Benzene 0.102 0.171 0.128
c-C6 0.103 0.172 0.129
m-c-C6 0.307 0.511 0.383
Toluene 0.224 0.373 0.28
et-Benzene 0.03 0.05 0.038
m-Xylene 0.19 0.316 0.238

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

Component
Fluid 1 Fluid 2 Fluid 3
Mol % Mol % Mol %
o-Xylene 0.046 0.076 0.057
Ps-Cumene 0.047 0.079 0.059
C7 0.654 1.09 0.816
C8 0.696 1.159 0.869
C9 0.517 0.86 0.646
C10 0.462 0.767 0.577
C11 0.39 0.647 0.487
C12 0.33 0.548 0.413
C13 0.276 0.457 0.345
C14 0.204 0.338 0.255
C15 0.172 0.285 0.215
C16 0.131 0.217 0.164
C17-C18 0.213 0.353 0.266
C19-C20 0.583 0.966 0.728

OLGA requires an input file that contains a description of the fluid properties as a unique
function of temperature and pressure. This file was generated using the latest version of the
PVTSim program (PVTSim Version 19), supplied by Calsep. The SRK-Peneloux (SRK-P)
Equation of State (EOS) was used.

The table below presents the analyses cases and the fluid that has been utilized in the
simulation cases.

Table 3.5-3 Fluids Utilized for the Analyses Cases
Analyses Cases Fluid 1 Fluid 2 Fluid 3
Preparatory Case Study, A1
A3, C9 C12, C19 C21

B1 , B2, C1 C4, C13 C15
C5 C8, C16 C18

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

3.6 Fluid Densities

The fluid densities for pressures 10 to 90 barg at temperatures 100 C and 150 C are
presented in the table below.

Table 3.6-1 Fluid Densities
Fluid Density (kg/m
3
)
Pressure
(barg)
10 20 30 50 90
Temperature
(C)
100 16.9 34.5 52.7 89.8 164.3
150 9.3 23.4 38.3 68.8 129.9

Note:
1. The fluid densities are calculated by PVTsim using fluid compositions generated based
on condensate flow rate of 150 bbl/MMscf and water flow rate of 100 bbl/MMscf.

The fluid composition in Table 3.5-1 is based upon the assumption of a 50/50 mixture of the
DST #2 and DST #3 results.

The other fluid properties are presented in Table 3.6-2 (Ref. 4).

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

Table 3.6-2 Data Summary for Su Tu Trang Fluid Samples
Hydrocarbon Samples Well ST-1X ST-3X ST-3X
DST 3 1 2
Field Sample No. 3-27 1-38 2-29
Sand F F E

Fluid Type Condensate Condensate
Volatile Oil (or
Dark Condensate)
PAT Sample No. 39250-91-1 39250-91-2 39250-91-3
Fluid Property Method Results Results Results
Density (g/cc @ 20
o
C)
DMA5000
0.783 0.7799 0.8106
API (@ 15.6
o
C) 48.3 49 42.2
WAT (
o
C) Cross Polarized
Microscope
38 40 50
WAT (
o
C) GUTS Model 34 34 50.3
Pour Point (
o
C) ASTM D5853-95 14 15 20
Wax Content (C19+) per
HTGC (wt%)
10.3 9.9 12.4
Sulfur (ppm by wt) 50 75 174
Mercury (ppb by wt) 136 27 21
Asphaltene Total (wt%) Heptane
Insolubles
None Detected None Detected None Detected
TAN (mg KOH/g Oil) 0.01 0.06 0.02
Nickel /
Vanadium/
Antimony (ppm by wt)

<0.8
<0.2
7.4
<0.8
<0.2
5.7
<0.8
<0.2
5.6
Emulsion Okay Okay Okay
Viscosity (Dead
Condensate)
Haake RS600
Rheometer
@ 300
1/s
@ 1000
1/s
@ 300
1/s
@ 1000
1/s
@ 300
1/s
@ 1000
1/s
20
o
C 1.7 1.7 4.5 3.4 30 19.2
30
o
C 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.6 3.4 3.5
40
o
C 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.3 2.5 2.6
50
o
C 0.9 0.9 1.1 1.1 2.1 2.2
60
o
C 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 1.8 1.8

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

4. BASIS OF STUDY

The study was carried out using OLGA software (OLGA v 5.3.2.2). Appendix B provides further
details about OLGA and the general level of accuracy that can be expected from the OLGA
simulations. In addition to the basic OLGA software, the following optional OLGA module was
used.

FEMtherm module this enables the pipeline to be modelled and analysed as half-
buried into the seabed, taking into account the density, thermal conductivity and heat
capacity of the seabed soil.

4.1 Scope of Model

A model was built for the proposed 12 pipeline from LTPTP to CPP. The model began at the
inlet to the riser at the top of the producing wellhead platform (LTPTP) and terminated at the
outlet of the riser top at the receiving platform (CPP) as shown in Figure 3-1.

Starting from the expansion loop tie-ins at the platforms, the pipeline (including the expansion
loops) will be modelled as half-buried into the seabed (50% of OD).

4.2 Pipeline

4.2.1 Geometry

In order to provide good simulation results for both pressure drop and liquid hold-up, it is
important that the pipeline geometry used in the model is a good representation of the true
pipeline elevation profile. Bathymetry data was extracted for the proposed route, with data
points at 5 m intervals (Ref. 3). The lengths of the pipeline in the OLGA model have slight
variations from the final pipeline route. It was necessary to reduce the number of data points
used in the pipeline geometry for the following reasons:

1. Too many data points in the geometry would cause the model to run at an impractically
slow speed.
2. A distinction must be made between the detailed elevation data of the terrain (as
provided), and the elevation profile that the pipeline will eventually follow.

The number of data points is reduced by screening to provide a profile that the pipeline would
realistically be expected to follow, and by lumping pipe sections into longer pipe segments. In
lumping pipe sections together it is important to conserve the angle distribution of the pipeline
elevation profile, as for gas condensate pipeline differences of fractions of a degree of an
inclination near horizontal are significant over long sections.

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

Seabed profile along the planned pipeline route from LTPTP to CPP is shown in Figure 4-1
below.

Figure 4-1: Seabed Profile of Pipeline Route from LTPTP to CPP

Table 4.2-1 Section lengths for LTPTP to CPP Pipeline
Section Lengths (m)
LTPTP Topside Piping,
Riser and Expansion
Loop Tie-In
(1)

Pipeline
CPP Expansion Loop
Tie-In, Riser and
Topside Piping
(1)

209.27 19248.43 203.00

Notes:
1. The lengths in the first and last columns include the lengths of the topsides, risers and
expansion loop tie-ins at LTPTP and CPP to the pipeline.
2. Length of 5 expansion loops has been included in the pipeline model.

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

5. ANALYSIS RESULTS

5.1 Boundary of Insulation

The maximum operating temperature in the segment without 5LPP coating was determined in
Preparatory Case Study as shown by the graphical plots in Appendix A. From the temperature
profile for Preparatory Case Study, the point at which the fluid temperature is 140C has been
determined. This occurs at the point 456m from the start of the pipeline model and represents
KP 0.247 along the actual pipeline route with reference to Pipeline Routing Layout, Dwg. No.
2007-6031-2I-0002. Only FBE (corrosion coating) and concrete coating shall be applied from
KP 0 to KP 0.247 of the pipeline route. 5LPP shall be applied to downstream of and including
KP 0.247. It shall be noted that Preparatory Case Study has no effect for the pipeline
downstream of KP 0.247.

5.2 Results

The results for the steady state hydraulic analysis for the pipeline from LTPTP to CPP are
summarized in Table 5.2-1. The plots generated by OLGA presenting the steady state
temperature, pressure, total liquid hold-up volume and liquid and gas velocities for Preparatory
Case Study, Cases A1 to A3, B1 and B2 can be found in Appendix A. Appendix A also contains
the temperature, pressure profiles and liquid content for Cases C1 to C21.

The inlet pressure and pressure drop for each case are presented in Table 5.2-1.

Table 5.2-1 Summary of Inlet Pressures and Pressure Drops
Pipeline
Flow rates
(MMscfd)
Case
P
IN

(barg)
Pressure Drop
(barg)
LTPTP to
CPP
50 Prep Case 33.1 23.8
50 A1 37.5 28.2
50 A2 33.6 24.3
50 A3 38.7 29.4
10 B1 11.3 2.0
10 B2 11.3 2.0
50 C1 30.5 21.2
30 C2 19.1 9.8
15 C3 12.4 3.1
5 C4 12.5 3.2
50 C5 34.4 25.1
30 C6 20.9 11.6

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

Pipeline
Flow rates
(MMscfd)
Case
P
IN

(barg)
Pressure Drop
(barg)
LTPTP to
CPP
15 C7 12.7 3.4
5 C8 11.5 2.2
50 C9 37.4 28.1
30 C10 22.5 13.2
15 C11 13.1 3.8
5 C12 11.5 2.2
50 C13 29.4 20.1
30 C14 18.6 9.3
15 C15 12.3 3.0
50 C16 32.3 23.0
30 C17 19.7 10.4
15 C18 12.5 3.2
50 C19 35.3 26.0
30 C20 21.1 11.8
15 C21 12.9 3.6

Preparatory Case Study

For Preparatory Case Study, the simulation case took approximately 12 hours to achieve steady
state. From the results of this study, the pipeline coating is changed from FBE (non-insulated) to
5LPP (insulated) at KP 0.247. This new configuration is then used as the basis for analyses of
Cases A1 to A3, B1, B2 and C1 to C21.

High Flow and Low Flow Cases

Cases A1 to A3

For Cases A1 to A3, the simulation cases took approximately 12 hours to achieve steady state.
From the temperature profiles in Appendix A, it can be seen that the gradient of the temperature
profile changes when there is a change in pipeline external coating along the pipeline profile. An
increase in gradient representing a sharp drop in temperature at the riser, and again along the
pipeline at the expansion loop tie-in at LTPTP / pipeline interface occurred due to a change in
the external coating. For a well insulated pipeline, the temperature gradient is more gradual
than a less insulated pipeline, and subsequently has a smaller temperature drop along the
pipeline. The 5LPP coating causes the pipeline to be more insulated. Hence the temperature
drop from the inlet to the outlet of the pipeline in Case A1 is not as great as that of the pipeline

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

with FBE coating used in Preparatory Case Study. This temperature trend would in turn affect
the pressure profile along the pipeline.

The flow in the pipeline is stratified along the seabed and semi-annular up to the risers for
Preparatory Case Study and Cases A1 to A3.

The Capacity Verification Case A2 has been performed to check the inlet pressure P
IN
is less
than 36.4 barg. The P
IN
obtained for this case is 33.6 barg. Hence, the inlet pressure P
IN
for this
case is adequate.

The inlet pressures for Cases A1 to A3 are acceptable as they are less than the design
pressure and nominal operating pressure limits of 86 barg and 37.9 barg respectively.

From Table 5.2-1, the maximum gas velocity is 27.9 m/s and maximum liquid velocity is 4.9 m/s
for the 50 MMscfd flow rate cases.

Cases B1 and B2

For Cases B1 and B2, the simulation cases took approximately 48 hours to achieve steady
state. For Cases B1 and B2, the flow in the pipeline is stratified with slug occurrences, and
annular flow with instances of slugging at the risers. This regime is expected as the flow in the
pipeline is low. Thus, the low gas velocities sweep less fluid out causing liquid to accumulate in
the pipeline. The negative liquid velocities found in the pipeline during low flow conditions
indicate that there are brief back flows of liquid due to slugging in the pipeline but this should not
cause a problem during operation as the back flows of the fluids occurred for very short periods
of time.

Brief increases of gas and liquid velocities occur due to the removal of slugs in these cases and
do not cause any problems during low flow condition.

From Table 5.2-1, the maximum gas velocity is 5.2 m/s and maximum liquid velocity is 1.3 m/s
for the 10 MMscfd flow rate cases.

Cases C1 to C21

A range of cases has been analyzed, varying the inlet temperature T
IN
to study the effect of
different flow rates on the arrival temperature, T
OUT
.

For the medium C2, C6, C10, C14, C17 and C20 and high C1, C5, C9, C13, C16 and C19 flow
cases, the simulation took approximately 24 hours to achieve steady state.
For the low flow cases C3, C7, C11, C15, C18 and C21, the simulation took approximately 96
hours to achieve steady state.

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

For extremely low flow cases C4, C8 and C12, the simulation did not achieve steady state. This
explains the fluctuating behaviour of the liquid content in the pipeline.

For these 5 MMscfd gas flow rate cases, the T
OUT
temperatures for the 0 bbl/MMscf, 50
bbl/MMscf and 100 bbl/MMscf water content in the fluid composition, are 26.6C, 25.8C and
26.0C respectively.

All the temperature profiles for the cases (Cases C1 to C21) follow the general trend as
described in Case A1.

From the plots of the temperature profiles in Appendix A, comparing the plots for fluid
compositions containing 0 bbl/MMscf, 50 bbl/MMscf and 100 bbl/MMscf of water, the largest
drop in temperature is the one with 0 bbl/MMscf water content. As the content of water in the
fluid composition increases, the heat retention in the fluid increases.

As shown in the below table, the drop in temperature across the riser at LTPTP and the pipeline
on the seabed is greatest for 0 bbl/MMscf water content and the lowest for 100 bbl/MMscf.

Table 5.2-1 Temperature Drop
T (C)
Case C1 C5 C9
Water Content (bbl/MMscf) 0 50 100
Along the Riser 11.72 5.25 4.95
Pipeline 78.92 68.72 65.38

The maximum gas and liquid velocities for the cases C1 to C21 are 27.2 m/s and 4.6 m/s
respectively. For the cases with gas flow rates of 5 MMscfd and 15 MMscfd, the flow in the
pipeline is stratified with slug occurrences, and annular with instances of slugging at the risers.
This regime is expected in cases where the flow in the pipeline is low. The low gas velocities
sweep less fluid out causing liquid to accumulate in the pipeline. The negative liquid velocities
found in the pipeline during low flow conditions indicate that there are brief back flows of liquid
due to slugging in the pipeline but this should not cause a problem during operation as the back
flows of the fluids occurred for very short periods of time.

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

For cases with flow rates above 15 MMscfd, the flow in the pipeline is mainly stratified and
annular at the risers.

Brief increases of gas and liquid velocities occur due to the removal of slugs in these cases, and
do not cause any problems during low flow conditions.

A comparison between the water content in the fluid and its effect on the T
OUT
on the different
flow rates was made to study the possibility of waxing due to low flow conditions.

Cases C13 to C21 were considered as they are simulated as receiving flow from 3 wells, and
have lower inlet temperatures.

Comparing the cases with 0 bbl/MMscf water content in the fluid composition, the gas flow rate
at 15 MMscfd has the minimum T
OUT
at 25.9C. With an increased flowrate of 30 MMscfd, the
T
OUT
is 28.2C.

For the cases using fluid composition with 50 bbl/MMscf water content, the gas flow rate of 15
MMscfd would result in an outlet temperature of 26.7C.

For the fluid with 100 bbl/MMscf water content, the gas flow rate of 15 MMscfd would result in
an outlet temperature of 28.1C.

5.3 Conclusions

The inlet pressure determined for the pipeline is 33.6 barg based on the capacity verification
case (Case A2) and is less than 36.4 barg. For all the other cases, the maximum inlet pressure
required for the pipeline are 37.9 barg and is within the design pressure limit and nominal
operating pressure of 86 barg and 37.9 barg respectively.

Overall, it is concluded that the inlet pressure and pressure drop along the pipeline is
satisfactory for the required flow operations. Although the pipeline experiences slugging for
Cases B1 and B2, it is expected due to low flow conditions and should not pose any operational
difficulties.

Slugging was also observed for the low flow cases C4, C8, C12, C15, C18 and C21.

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

From Appendix B of "Process Basis of Design" (Ref. 4), the WAT (Wax Appearance
Temperature) is relatively high, ranging from 34 deg C to 50 deg C. On the other hand, the
calculated arriving temperature at Su Tu Vang (STV) CPP is lower than 34 deg C in several
cases with low flow rates. It should be, therefore, noted that there would be a certain limit to the
low flow rate in order to avoid wax appearance during operation.


DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

Table 5.2-2 Summary of Steady State Simulation Results
Pipeline Case
Q
GST
(MMscfd)
Q
OST
(bopd)
Q
WST
(bwpd)
P
IN
(barg)
P
OUT
(barg)
T
IN
(C)
T
OUT
(C)
U
G
(m/s) U
L
(m/s)
LIQC
(m
3
)
OILC
(m
3
)
WATC
(m
3
)
Flow Regime
Pipeline Riser
LTPTP to
CPP
Prep. Case 50 7500 5000 33.1 9.31 150 29.2 9.7 to 21.1 1.3 to 4.5 142.6 93.2 49.4 1 1 / 2
A1 50 7500 5000 37.5 9.31 150 79.5 9.7 to 27.9 1.6 to 4.9 113.7 67.6 46.1 1 1 / 2
A2 50 7500 5000 33.6 9.31 101 51.1 8.2 to 24.6 1.6 to 4.8 146.8 91.5 55.3 1 1 / 2
A3 50 7500 5000 38.7 9.31 150 88.4 9.6 to 29.0 1.5 to 4.9 107.7 68.1 43.6 1 1 / 2
B1 10 1500 0 11.3 9.31 83.4 19.6 3.7 to 5.2 -1.6 to 1.3 168.3 168.3 0 1 1 3
B2 10 1500 0 11.3 9.31 83.4 19.5 3.7 to 5.2 -1.6 to 1.3 168.4 168.4 0 1 1 3
C1 50 7500 0 30.5 9.31 136 42.9 9.8 to 23.8 1.3 to 4.2 88.6 88.6 0 1 1 / 2
C2 30 4500 0 19.1 9.31 123.5 31.3 8.9 to 14.1 1.0 to 2.3 102.8 102.8 0 1 1 / 2
C3 15 2250 0 12.4 9.31 97.8 26.1 5.7 to 7.1 -1.0 to 1.4 114.7 114.7 0 1 / 3 1 / 2
C4 5 750 0 12.5 9.31 57.4 26.6 1.5 to 24.3 -1.6 to 1.3 289.0 289.0 0 1 / 3 1 to 3
C5 50 7500 2500 34.4 9.31 143.3 68.3 10.0 to 26.0 1.3 to 4.5 88.1 67.4 20.7 1 1 / 2
C6 30 4500 1500 20.9 9.31 134.1 50.3 9.6 to 14.8 1.1 to 2.7 101.0 73.1 27.9 1 1 / 2
C7 15 2250 750 12.7 9.31 111.7 29.0 6.0 to 7.8 -1.1 to 1.5 132.7 87.3 45.4 1 / 3 1 / 2
C8 5 750 250 11.5 9.31 69.3 25.8 1.5 to 6.6 -5.2 to 1.9 322.0 235.1 165.3 1 / 3 1 to 3
C9 50 7500 5000 37.4 9.31 147.3 76.0 9.5 to 27.2 1.4 to 4.6 106.5 65.0 41.5 1 1 / 2
C10 30 4500 3000 22.5 9.31 140.9 59.9 9.5 to 15.5 1.4 to 2.9 114.6 64.8 49.8 1 1 / 2
C11 15 2250 1500 13.1 9.31 121.1 32.8 6.3 to 8.1 -1.1 to 1.6 150.1 77.6 72.5 1 / 3 1 / 2
C12 5 750 500 11.5 9.31 79.5 26.0 -0.5 to 4.6 -5.7 to 1.4 329.7 202.6 195.2 1 / 3 1 to 3
C13 50 7500 0 29.4 9.31 102.2 35.4 9.1 to 23.0 1.4 to 4.2 100.9 100.9 0 1 1 / 2
C14 30 4500 0 18.6 9.31 83.4 28.2 8.1 to 13.8 1.0 to 2.3 111.0 111.0 0 1 1 / 2
C15 15 2250 0 12.3 9.31 57.4 25.9 5.5 to 7.0 -1.0 to 1.5 120.6 120.6 0 1 / 3 1 to 3
C16 50 7500 2500 32.3 9.31 115.6 51.5 9.1 to 24.3 1.5 to 4.5 107.3 83.0 24.3 1 1 / 2


DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

Pipeline Case
Q
GST
(MMscfd)
Q
OST
(bopd)
Q
WST
(bwpd)
P
IN
(barg)
P
OUT
(barg)
T
IN
(C)
T
OUT
(C)
U
G
(m/s) U
L
(m/s)
LIQC
(m
3
)
OILC
(m
3
)
WATC
(m
3
)
Flow Regime
Pipeline Riser
LTPTP to
CPP
C17 30 4500 1500 19.7 9.31 97.5 35.9 8.4 to 14.1 1.0 to 2.7 119.8 86.7 33.1 1 1 / 2
C18 15 2250 750 12.5 9.31 69.3 26.7 5.6 to 7.2 -1.1 to 1.5 145.0 93.9 51.1 1 / 3 1 to 3
C19 50 7500 5000 35.3 9.31 123.9 61.0 8.8 to 25.4 1.5 to 4.6 124.3 78.0 46.3 1 1 / 2
C20 30 4500 3000 21.1 9.31 107.9 43.2 8.3 to 14.7 1.3 to 2.9 134.8 77.8 57.0 1 1 / 2
C21 15 2250 1500 12.9 9.31 79.5 28.1 5.7 to 7.4 -1.1 to 1.6 167.7 85.8 81.9 1 / 3 1 to 3

Note:
1. Flow Regime: 1 Stratified, 2 Annular, 3 Slug, 4 Bubble
2. Slugging occurs for the low flow cases.

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

6. REFERENCES

Ref. Doc. No. Title
1 2007-6031-2H-0001 Pipeline Basis of Design
2 STT-TQ-T-0002 Technical Query Hydraulic Analysis Procedure
3 2007-6031-2K-0001 Proposed STT EPS to STV CPP Pipeline Route
Survey (TL Report), Rev. 1.
4 2007-4700-9H-0003 Process Basis of Design (Rev. M)
5 2003-4000-6B-0002 Metocean Criteria for Su Tu Vang (Rev. A).
6 2007-4700-0K-0007 STT Production Chemistry Testing and Early
Production System Pipeline Analysis (Rev. A).
7 2007-4791-6H-0001 Structural Basis of Design

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

APPENDIX A

STEADY STATE SIMULATION PLOTS

39 of 166
STEADY STATE SIMULATION PLOTS

Figure 1: Steady State Preparatory Case Study, T
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
= 9.31 barg, Fully FBE Coated, Half-Buried
(Temperature Profile)

40 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

41 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
(Liquid Volume Fraction Profile - HOL)

42 of 166

IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
(Flow Regime Indicator Profile)

43 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
(Gas Velocity)
44 of 166
Figure 6: Steady State Preparatory Case Study T
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
(Liquid Velocity)
45 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
(Total Liquid Content in Branch - LIQC)
46 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
(Total Oil Content in Branch - OILC)

47 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
(Total Water Content in Branch - WATC)
48 of 166
Figure 10: Steady State Case A1, T
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
= 9.31 barg, FBE and 5LPP Coated, Half-Buried

49 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

50 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT

51 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT

52 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
(Gas Velocity)

53 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
(Liquid Velocity)

54 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
(Total Liquid Content in Branch LIQC)

55 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT

56 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT

57 of 166
IN
= 101
o
C, P
OUT

58 of 166
IN
= 101
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

59 of 166
IN
= 101
o
C, P
OUT

60 of 166
IN
= 101
o
C, P
OUT

61 of 166
IN
= 101
o
C, P
OUT
(Gas Velocity)

62 of 166
IN
= 101
o
C, P
OUT
(Liquid Velocity)

63 of 166
IN
= 101
o
C, P
OUT

64 of 166
IN
= 101
o
C, P
OUT

65 of 166
IN
= 101
o
C, P
OUT

66 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
= 9.31 barg, Fully 5LPP Coated, Half-Buried

67 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

68 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
(Liquid Volume Fraction Profile HOL)

69 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT

70 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
(Gas Velocity)

71 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT
(Liquid Velocity)

72 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT

73 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT

74 of 166
IN
= 150
o
C, P
OUT

75 of 166
Figure 37: Steady State Case B1, T
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT

76 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

77 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT

78 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT

79 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT
(Gas Velocity)

80 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT
(Liquid Velocity)

81 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT

82 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT

83 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT

84 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT
= 9.31 barg, FBE and 5LPP Coated, Unburied

85 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

86 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT

87 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT

88 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT
(Gas Velocity)

89 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT
(Liquid Velocity)

90 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT

91 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT
(Total Oil Content in Branch OILC)

92 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT

93 of 166
Figure 55: Steady State Case C1, T
IN
= 136
o
C, P
OUT

94 of 166
IN
= 136
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

95 of 166
IN
= 136
o
C, P
OUT

96 of 166
IN
= 123.5
o
C, P
OUT

97 of 166
IN
= 123.5
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

98 of 166
IN
= 123.5
o
C, P
OUT

99 of 166
IN
= 97.8
o
C, P
OUT

100 of 166
IN
= 97.8
o
C, P
OUT
= 9.31 barg, FBE and 5LPP Coated, Half-Buried (Pressure Profile)

101 of 166
IN
= 97.8
o
C, P
OUT

102 of 166
IN
= 57.4
o
C, P
OUT

103 of 166
IN
= 57.4
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

104 of 166
IN
= 57.4
o
C, P
OUT

105 of 166
IN
= 143.3
o
C, P
OUT

106 of 166
IN
= 143.3
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

107 of 166
IN
= 143.3
o
C, P
OUT

108 of 166
IN
= 134.1
o
C, P
OUT

109 of 166
IN
= 134.1
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

110 of 166
IN
= 134.1
o
C, P
OUT

111 of 166
IN
= 111.7
o
C, P
OUT

112 of 166
Figure 74: Steady State Case C7, , T
IN
= 111.7
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

113 of 166
IN
= 111.7
o
C, P
OUT

114 of 166
IN
= 69.3
o
C, P
OUT

115 of 166
IN
= 69.3
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

116 of 166
IN
= 69.3
o
C, P
OUT
117 of 166
IN
= 147.3
o
C, P
OUT

118 of 166
IN
= 147.3
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

119 of 166
IN
= 147.3
o
C, P
OUT

120 of 166
IN
= 140.9
o
C, P
OUT

121 of 166
IN
= 140.9
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

122 of 166
IN
= 140.9
o
C, P
OUT

123 of 166
IN
= 121.1
o
C, P
OUT

124 of 166
IN
= 121.1
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

125 of 166
IN
= 121.1
o
C, P
OUT

126 of 166
IN
= 79.5
o
C, P
OUT

127 of 166

IN
= 79.5
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

128 of 166
IN
= 79.5
o
C, P
OUT

129 of 166
IN
= 102.2
o
C, P
OUT

130 of 166
IN
= 102.2
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

131 of 166
IN
= 102.2
o
C, P
OUT

132 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT
133 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

134 of 166
IN
= 83.4
o
C, P
OUT

135 of 166
IN
= 57.4
o
C, P
OUT

136 of 166
IN
= 57.4
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

137 of 166
IN
= 57.4
o
C, P
OUT

138 of 166
IN
= 115.6
o
C, P
OUT

139 of 166
IN
= 115.6
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

140 of 166
IN
= 115.6
o
C, P
OUT

141 of 166
IN
= 97.5
o
C, P
OUT

142 of 166
IN
= 97.5
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

143 of 166
IN
= 97.5
o
C, P
OUT

144 of 166
IN
= 69.3
o
C, P
OUT

145 of 166
IN
= 69.3
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

146 of 166
IN
= 69.3
o
C, P
OUT

147 of 166
IN
= 123.9
o
C, P
OUT

148 of 166
IN
= 123.9
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

149 of 166
IN
= 123.9
o
C, P
OUT

150 of 166
IN
= 107.9
o
C, P
OUT

151 of 166
IN
= 107.9
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

152 of 166
IN
= 107.9
o
C, P
OUT

153 of 166
IN
= 79.5
o
C, P
OUT

154 of 166
IN
= 79.5
o
C, P
OUT
(Pressure Profile)

155 of 166
IN
= 79.5
o
C, P
OUT

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

APPENDIX B

OLGA SOFTWARE

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

B.1 Geometrical System Definition

The OLGA model accepts a network of diverging and converging branches. Each branch
consists of a sequence of pipes and each pipe is divided into sections. These sections
correspond to the spatial mesh discretisation in the numerical model.

Each branch starts and ends at a node. There are three different types of nodes:

Terminal (free end) nodes, where boundary conditions must be specified
Split nodes, where branches split
Merge nodes, where branches are coupled together

A staggered spatial mesh is applied. That is, flow variables (velocities, mass flows, fluxes, etc.)
are defined at section boundaries, while pressure, mass, phase fraction, temperature, etc. are
average values in section volumes, (refer to Figure 1).

Figure 1: OLGA section definitions

Each pipe in the system can have a pipe wall consisting of layers of different materials.

B.2 Fluid Properties

All fluid properties are normally assumed to be unique functions of temperature and pressure,
and have to be input to OLGA in a particular file. Thus, the total composition (the mole fractions
of the components) of the multiphase mixture is assumed to be constant both in time and space.
This limitation is important for mixtures with pronounced compositional dependent properties.
Note, however, that one may use different fluid properties in different branches in a pipeline
network. Network simulations are special cases where total compositional changes in the
pipeline may be important.

Due to the phase velocity differences, the fluid composition in a pipe is generally different from
the fluid compositions used in the PVT table - for example during the depressurisation of a
pipeline. If only gas is released from the pipe the total composition in the pipe will change.
Condensate may accumulate in the lower parts of the pipe and result in large compositional
differences between sections.

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

This difference will not affect the steady state results provided that the inlet flowing fluid has the
same composition as in the PVT table. In transient simulations, as the fluids in the pipes have
different compositions, the changes of the physical properties and the changes of equilibrium
mass fractions with the changes of temperature and pressure will differ from the values from the
PVT table. These differences are usually small.

As an alternative to PVT tables, it is possible to perform a simulation using compositional
tracking, where the compositional data is provided in a feed file and the code calculates the fluid
properties internally. This means that the total composition may vary both in time and space,
and that no special consideration is needed for a pipeline network. This procedure is also more
accurate in simulations where the fluid compositional will change considerably with time, e.g.,
blow down of pipelines. However, compositional tracking is more CPU demanding and is not
compatible with all the other modules, e.g. slugtracking.

The gas and liquid phases are assumed to be in thermodynamic equilibrium; the temperature
and pressure are equal in both phases and any interface mass transfer occurs instantaneously.
The limitation of the instantaneous interface mass transfer has important implications for the
pressure propagation. If normal condensation takes place, the mixture will appear too
compressible in OLGA and the speed of sound or pressure wave velocity will be smaller than if
the mass transfer rate was finite.

B.3 Thermal Calculations

OLGA is a modified two-fluid model, i.e. separate continuity equations for the gas, liquid bulk
and liquid droplets are applied; these may be coupled through interfacial mass transfer. One
mixture energy equation is applied; both phases are at the same temperature. This
approximation is acceptable during most simulation scenarios. However, fast depressurisation
may produce substantial differences between the liquid and gas phase temperatures in local
areas, which will not be calculated by OLGA.

B.4 General Expected Accuracy of the OLGA model

The present version of OLGA (OLGA v 5.3.4.3) is the market-leading simulator for transient
multiphase flow of oil, water and gas in well and pipelines with process equipment. OLGA is the
result of a continuing development project financed by three Norwegian oil companies - Statoil,
Saga Petroleum and Norsk Hydro - and followed by joint industry projects supported by around
10 oil companies world-wide. Institute for Energy Technology (IFE) and SPT carried out the
major part of the development work.

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

Temperature
OLGA performs only one energy balance for the fluid and only one fluid temperature is
computed in the middle of each pipe section. This temperature is an average between the gas,
oil and water phases. Therefore, for reliable temperature calculations in OLGA, the input data
for thermal computations must be as accurate as possible. Such data are thermal properties of
the fluid, pipe wall modelling and soil modelling in case of a buried pipeline.

Pressure
The accuracy of the pressure drop calculations in OLGA depends on the accuracy of the input
data and on the quality of the physical models implemented in the code. Important input data
are pipeline profile, inner wall surface roughness and fluid properties such as viscosity, surface
tension and gas mass fraction as functions of pressure and temperature.

The physical flow model in OLGA is the subject of a continuous effort to improve and validate
the model against both experimental data and available field data. The most important set of
experimental data used for developing and tuning the model are the data from the Sintef-IFE
project. These data contain information of pressure drop and holdup for pipes from 4 up to 12
in diameter, pressures from 1 to 90 bar, inclination angles from 5 to +90 degrees and different
types of fluids.

For gas condensate conditions, experience from comparisons with field data indicates that
pressure drop can be expected to be calculated with an accuracy of 0 to +20% with the latest
commercial version of the code. The average over-prediction is 5 10%.

Liquid holdup
The accuracy of the liquid holdup calculations depends on input data and the quality of the
physical model. Important input data are pipeline profile (holdup depends strongly on pipeline
inclinations at low flow rates), flow rates and fluid properties such as equilibrium gas mass
fraction as a function of pressure and temperature. For gas condensate conditions, the
expected accuracy of liquid holdup calculations in the pipeline with the latest commercial
version is in the order of +/-10%. The spread is 30 to +20%, and for low flow rates the spread
is even higher due to a sudden increase in holdup in inclined pipes when the flow rate becomes
low. This increase in uncertainty can therefore be a combination of flow model inaccuracy and
uncertainties in input like pipeline geometry and composition of the fluid.

Water accumulation
For three phase flow the uncertainty in the predictions of water accumulation is +/-50%. This
high uncertainty is due to that modelling of the effect of water is complicated and very little field
data and laboratory data is available. The percentage value is relative percentage to the
measured values.

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

Dynamic flow behaviour
The code has been tested against dynamic flow experiments, both typical start-up experiments
and terrain slugging experiments. The code has also been compared to various sets of slugging
data from some field tests and the accuracy in predicted slugging frequencies and slug sizes
varies from very good predictions at typically terrain slugging conditions (expected average
liquid slug volume predictions are within +/-10%), to inaccuracies of +/-100% at hydrodynamic
slugging conditions (slug volumes and frequencies are small for hydrodynamic slugging, thus
the large spread). It should also be considered that the quality of the field data can be quite
difficult to estimate. Data such as flow rates, pipeline profile and equilibrium gas mass fraction
of the fluid can be crucial for the quality of the simulations in addition to the computed reported
values for slug frequencies and slug sizes.

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

APPENDIX C

ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 3LPP AND 5LPP COATING APPLIED CASE

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

APPENDIX C - ANALYSIS RESULTS FOR 3LPP AND 5LPP COATING APPLIED CASE

C1 : SUMMARY

This section presents the results of the hydraulic analysis for Preparatory Case (3LPP) and Case D1
with 3LPP coating and 5LPP coating based on the following coating arrangement.

LTPTP Riser =2.2 mm 3LPP
LTPTP Expansion Loop Tie-in =2.2 mm 3LPP with 43 mm concrete coating
Pipeline (temperature greater than 140 C) =2.2 mm 3LPP with 54 mm concrete coating (non-
insulated)
Pipeline (temperature less than 140 C) =36 mm 5LPP with 58 mm concrete coating (insulated)
CPP Expansion Loop Tie-in =36 mm 5LPP with 49 mm concrete coating
CPP Riser =0.75 mm FBE

The boundary between non-insulated (3LPP) and insulated (5LPP) coating application was based on the
temperature decay (Preparatory Case), derived based on the description below.

Preparatory Case Study based on non-insulated pipeline (3LPP with concrete coating), maximum flow
rate, maximum inlet temperature, maximum ambient temperature (seawater and air), half-buried.

C1 : CONCLUSION

From the results of the Preparatory Case (3LPP), the location at which the temperature is 140 C along
the pipeline model has been determined to be at KP 0.687. The section from KP 0 to KP 0.687 will be
coated with 2.2 mm 3LPP (corrosion coating) and 54mm concrete (weight coating) while KP 0.687 to the
end of the pipeline will be coated with 36 mm 5LPP and 58 mm concrete coating.

The temperature profiles for Preparatory Case (3LPP) and Case D1 (3LPP) are presented in this
section. The temperature profiles for Case A1 FBE and Case D1 3LPP has also been presented for
comparison.

The summary of analysis cases and pipeline coating arrangement are presented in Tables C1 and C2.

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

Table C-1 Summary of Analysis Cases

Units
Maximum Flow Cases
Prep Case D1
Inlet Temperature C 150 150
Outlet Temperature F 302 302
Outlet Temperature C 31.2 81.1
Inlet Pressure calculated in analysis BarG 33.5 37.6
Total Gas Flowrate MMscfd 50
Water Content bbl / MMscf 100
Coating - 3LPP & Concrete only 3LPP & 5LPP as designed
Burial Condition - Half Buried
Downstream Pressure at CPP psig 135 (9.31 Bar G)

Cases
Input
Parameters

DOCUMENT NO.: 2007-6031-2J-0007

Table C-2 Pipeline and External Coating Data
External Coating Data
Su Tu Trang EPS to Su Tu Vang CPP Prep Case D1

Riser at LTPTP
Corrosion Coating
- Material 3LPP
- Thickness (mm) 2.2
Expansion Loop
Tie-In at LTPTP
Corrosion Coating
- Material 3LPP
Weight Coating
- Material Concrete
- Thickness (mm) 49
Pipeline
KP 0 to KP 0.687
Along Pipeline Route
- Material 3LPP
Weight Coating
- Material Concrete
- Thickness (mm) 58 54
KP 0.687 Along
Pipeline Route to
Pipeline End
- Material 3LPP 5LPP
Weight Coating
- Material Concrete
- Thickness (mm) 58
Cold End
Expansion Loop
Tie-In at CPP
Corrosion Coating
- Material 3LPP 5LPP
Weight Coating
- Material Concrete
- Thickness (mm) 49
Riser at CPP
Corrosion Coating
- Material FBE

Hot End
Page 165 of 166
Page 166 of 166

2007-6031-2J-0007 Rev H Re-AFD Pipeline Hydraulic Analysis - Approved

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

2007-6031-2J-0007 Rev H Re-AFD Pipeline Hydraulic Analysis - Approved

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Cuu Long Joint Operating Company

Su Tu Trang LTPTP - Wellhead Platform and Pipeline

Вам также может понравиться