Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Abstract
This paper presents a state-of-the art review of the design
options for subsea flowlines and production equipment for
high-pressure service considering the High Integrity Pressure
Protection System (HIPPS). Industry is finding prospects
requiring High Pressure High Temperature (HPHT) equipment
as oil and gas development extend into deeper offshore
reservoirs. To develop these fields as subsea tiebacks, the
design of flowlines and risers for HPHT conditions often
becomes technically challenging or cost prohibitive.
One of the options is to use a HIPPS system to allow the
use of a lower-pressure rated flowline compared to the
wellhead and tree equipment. However, it may not be obvious
whether HIPPS is cost-effective, practical or operationally
acceptable. Design issues for evaluating HIPPS include: field
architecture, offset distance, line size, materials, pressure
rating of the system components, length and pressure rating of
fortified zones, type of control system, system reliability,
dynamic pressure rise resulting from a blockage and installed
cost. Another fundamental issue is Why are land-based
HIPPS systems widespread and generally accepted in the
industry, but not used as yet subsea?
For selected field architectures, the impact of using
HIPPS will be illustrated with respect to these design issues.
These design case studies will provide guidelines as to which
combination of architectures and design parameters will be
most suitable for taking advantage of the HIPPS system
capabilities. The paper will also summarize current industry
design guidelines that apply to the design of HIPPS.
Introduction
High integrity pressure protection systems (HIPPS) are the
evolution of mechanical and electronic safety devices used in
the process industry to handle production or transportation
upsets. Simply put, HIPPS is designed to protect low-rated
equipment against overpressure or abject flow accompanying
the upset condition by either isolating or diverting the upset
away from the low-rated equipment. However, HIPPS is more
commonly referred to as a high integrity pipeline protection
system, because many HIPPS design/cost studies are
associated with field layout pipeline designs.
There are two fundamental methods for maintaining a
design break between the pressure requirement associated
with conventional rated equipment and the pressure
requirement for low-rated equipment:
OTC 14183
OTC 14183
In all cases, the type of flowline (bare, insulated, pipe-inpipe) and type of riser affects the design of the HIPPS system
and the benefits of using HIPPS.
Single Well Tieback. Figure 3 is typical of a single well
tieback to a host platform. A common configuration is a
subsea Christmas tree with a single well jumper, one or two
flowline sleds with dual flowlines. Dual flowlines are most
common for deepwater tiebacks for flow management. As
shown in this figure, the Christmas tree, well jumper, sled
piping and valves would be rated to shut-in tubing pressure. A
HIPPS valve installed at the tree or the flowline sled would be
designed to shut-off flow in case of a high-pressure event.
Furthermore, both the flowlines will require a fortified zone
near the tree and a fortified riser and flowline pipe near the
host facility.
Manifold Tieback. Figure 4 illustrates an example of a
manifold tieback to a host platform. This configuration shows
off-template wells with well jumpers, a manifold, flowline
jumpers, and dual flowlines to a host platform. In this case,
two options are available for the HIPPS architecture:
OTC 14183
OTC 14183
OTC 14183
OTC 14183
values for CSU and SOR within these guidelines help set the
reliability levels a HIPPS design must meet.
Dependent failures (i.e. common cause failures), which
may cause redundant systems to break down simultaneously,
dominate the reliability calculations. Although there are
several models for quantifying dependent failures, most
analyses are done using either a Beta Factor Model or
Multiplicity Distribution.
However, finding enough relevant data to determine the share
of dependent failures compared to the total failure rate can be
a problem. In systems with short histories, such as HIPPS,
these methods will only contribute rough estimates. Therefore,
estimates should be reviewed under established engineering
judgment.
Design Parametric Study
A series of deepwater field development cases have been
prepared and analyzed to illustrate the impact and benefits of
using HIPPS. Each case study in the parametric study
illustrates the combination of parameters that will be most
suitable for taking advantage of the HIPPS system capabilities.
Base Case Assumptions.
No of wells
Offset Distance
Flow Rate
Water Cut
SITP
FWHP
Flowing Manifold Pressure
Max FWHT
Water Depth
Oil API Gravity
Gas Oil Ratio
Bubble Point Pressure
Water Cut
1 to 4
30 miles
20,000 BPD/well
50%
13,000 psi
9,000 psi
less than 5,000 psi
300 deg F
5,000 ft at the subsea field
600 ft at host platform
38
1200
4,000 psi
50%
HTEM
HPHT
IEC
MMS
NPD
NooX
OD
PSD
PMV
PSI
PSV
PWV
PT
QSV
RP
SCM
SEM
SIL
SITP
SOR
OTC 14183
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank the management and technical
staff of FMC Kongsberg Subsea for permission to publish
this paper.
References
1. Bayly, D.B., Loth, W.D., Pressure Specification Break
Pipelines, paper presented at the Society of for
Underwater Technology conference Aspect 94 Advances in Subsea Pipeline Engineering and
Technology, Aberdeen, Scotland, May 1994. 5.
2. Hiatt, D.C., Holtman, D.E., Overpressure Devices Vary
in Design to Meet Different Needs, Pipe Line & Gas
Industry Magazine, Gulf Publishing Co., Vol. 81, No. 10,
October, 1998.
3. Onshus, T., Aar, R., Lund, B.F., HIPPS Applications
and Acceptance Criteria, #7828, Offshore Technology
Conference, May 1995.
4. National Transportation Safety Board, Highly Volatile
Release from Underground Storage Cavern and Explosion
Mapco Natural Gas Liquids, Inc. Brenham, Texas April 7,
1992,
NTSB Report Number: PAR-93-01, adopted on
November 4, 1993, NTIS Report Number: PB93-916502
5. Internet sites:
www.iceweb.com.au/valve/hipps.htm
www.mokveld.nl/hipps2.htm
www.mokveld.nl/hipps3.htm
www.mokveld.nl/hipps4.htm
www.mokveld.nl/hipps5.htm
www.sintef.no/units/indman/sipaa/prosjekt/hipps.html
6.
Beckman, J., Subesa Production: Shell Hurdles High
Pressures and Temperatures for North Sea Tiebacks,
Offshore Magazine, Pennwell Publishing Co.,
December, 1996.
OTC 14183
7.
8.
9.
10
Table 1. Flowline Sizing and Pipe Material Savings from Using HIPPS
No of
wells
No of
Flowlines
Flowline
O.D./Grade
1
1
2
3
4
Single
Dual
Dual
Dual
Dual
8.625/X70
6.625/X70
8.625/X70
10.75/X65
10.75/X70
With HIPPS
0.623
0.502
0.623
0.802
0.752
Pipe Materials
Savings from using
HIPPS
%
$M
40
4
38
4.6
40
8
41
12.8
41
12.4
No of Flowlines
1
1
2
3
4
Single 8.625 OD
Dual 6.625 OD
Dual 8.625 OD
Dual 10.75 OD
Dual 10.75 OD
SAFETY
INTEGRITY
LEVEL (SIL)
4
3
2
1
OTC 14183
ESDV
Representative Safety
Shut-in Systems
Figure 1
PSV
PWV
Pump
2oo3
Holding
Chamber
QSV
PWV
PSD
Flare
HIPPS
PWV
PSV
QSV
FORTIFIED ZONE
QSV
2oo3
Holding
Chamber
Flare
Pump
OTC 14183
CURRENT STATE OF THE ART IN THE DESIGN OF SUBSEA HIPPS SYSTEMS
11
Subsea
Manifold
Flowline
Sled
Fortified Section
Riser and
Riser Base
Fortified
12
J. DAVALATH, H.B. SKEELS, S. CORNELIUSSEN
OTC 14183
Single
Well
Subsea
Sled
Fortified
Section
Fortified
Section
Host
Platform
OTC 14183
CURRENT STATE OF THE ART IN THE DESIGN OF SUBSEA HIPPS SYSTEMS
13
Subsea
Manifold
HIPPS Valves
HIPPS Valves
Fortified
Fortified
Fortified
Fortified
Host
Platform
14
J. DAVALATH, H.B. SKEELS, S. CORNELIUSSEN
OTC 14183
Pressure, psi
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
10000
11000
12000
13000
14000
20
40
60
100
120
140
160
180
Upstream of choke
Downstream of Choke
80
One Well,
Single 8-5/8" OD Flowline
30 mile offset, Fortified Length = 1 mile
20,000 BPD, 50% Water Cut
200
OTC 14183
CURRENT STATE OF THE ART IN THE DESIGN OF SUBSEA HIPPS SYSTEMS
15