University of Aberdeen

MSc Subsea Engineering

Design of a
Subsea
Pipeline
System
Flow Assurance EG55F8

Contents
1.0

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................1

2.0

Base Data-...................................................................................................................................................1

3.0

Methodology...............................................................................................................................................3

4.0

Results.........................................................................................................................................................3

4.1 Task 1- Identifying Suitable Pipeline Diameter............................................................................................3

4.2 Task 2- Erosion..............................................................................................................................................5
4.3 Task 3- Hydrate Formation Conditions.........................................................................................................6
4.4 Task 4- Insulation Configuration...................................................................................................................6
4.5 Task 5 - Slugging...........................................................................................................................................7
4.6 Task 6- Pressure.............................................................................................................................................7
5.1 Task 1- Identifying Suitable Pipeline Diameter............................................................................................8
5.2 Task 2- Erosion..............................................................................................................................................8
5.3 Task 3- Hydrate Formation Conditions.........................................................................................................8
5.4 Task 4- Insulation Configuration...................................................................................................................8
5.5 Task 5- Slugging............................................................................................................................................9
5.6 Task 6- Pressure.............................................................................................................................................9
5.7 Task 7- Operational Modes...........................................................................................................................9
5.0

Conclusion................................................................................................................................................10

6.0

References.................................................................................................................................................11

Appendix A -Erosion..............................................................................................................................................12
Appendix A- Erosion............................................................................................................................................13
Appendix B- Hydrate Formation........................................................................................................................14
Appendix B- Hydrate Formation........................................................................................................................15
Appendix C- Insulation Configuration..............................................................................................................16
Appendix D- Slugging...........................................................................................................................................17
Appendix D- Slugging..........................................................................................................................................18
Appendix E- Pressure..........................................................................................................................................20

1.0 Introduction
Flow assurance is simply another term for multiphase transport, which regards the
transmission of gas, oil and water all within the same pipeline from reservoir to processing
[1]. Flow assurance is pivotal to the success of a developed field, because this area
specifically concentrates on the behaviour of the flow within the pipeline. Flow assurance
problems can hinder production rates in turn reducing revenue, therefore it is an area of
extreme interest to keep pipelines producing.
The purpose of this document is to present the determined findings in the area of interest,
flow assurance more specifically, for the design of a subsea pipeline system. Within this
document will be the methodology used to complete the assignment, including the means of
how it was completed. The assignment was comprised of various tasks including,
determining suitable pipeline diameters, establishing hydrate formation conditions and
providing the insulation configuration. Other tasks included checking the terrain induced and
severe slugging, specifically for well 1 and 4 as well as establishing whether the need for gas
lift is present, when produced fluids are 90% water. All the tasks involved will be presented
appropriately where results will be provided in either tabular or graphical representation. The
base data used to complete the tasks will be included to show where particular values were
extracted from and used.

2.0 Base Data

Basic boundary conditions, pure hydrocarbon components, petroleum fractions and other
constraints such as ambient sea temperature and the aqueous component are provided.
Ambient sea temperature and aqueous component were set at 4 C and 0 rising to 90%
respectively. The before mentioned basic data values and constraints are supplied to complete
the assigned tasks, where values are used in calculations and the model configuration through
the use of PIPESIM.

Figure 1(Boundary Conditions)

Figure 1 provided the values needed for firstly configuring the model on PIPESIM, where the
inlet pressure and temperature as well as ambient sea temperature were assigned to each
flowline and riser. The minimum arrival pressure to the platform, is used in determining the
suitable pipe diameter through the use of PIPESIM. The pure hydrocarbon components as
shown in figure 3 are also supplied for use in PIPESIM, as too is the petroleum fractions
shown in figure 2. Predominantly all of the base data of which is supplied, is for use in
PIPESIM in order to create a working model. The hydrocarbon components and petroleum
fractions as shown in figure 2 &3, are supplied to construct the model, as the components are
the composition of elements present within the produced fluids. The petroleum fraction is in
fact the produced fluid, where the two figures show what components are extracted from the

well.
Figure 2(Petroleum Fraction)

Figure 3(Hydrocarbon Components)

Figure 4 (Pipe Diameters & Well Flow Rates)

Figure 4 shows the pipe diameters and well flow rates which were also supplied, each
individual diameter had to be run individually as PIPESIM wouldnt allow all 3 to be
calculated simultaneous. The final piece of data which is provided is the basic layout
expected of the model layout involving the pipelines and riser as shown in figure 5.

Figure 5(Basic Pipeline Layout)

3.0 Methodology
The methods used in the completion of the assigned tasks were done primarily through the
use of the software, more specifically PIPESIM accompanied with various other calculations
which were not completed using the software. Through the use of the before mentioned
software and calculations, the desired outcomes to each task were achieved. The base data
provided was used in variations of PIPESIM, configuring the working pipeline model. Firstly
the parameters of each flowline and riser were completed, where the diameter, inlet pressure,
wall thickness, roughness and temperature were assigned. The supplied petroleum fraction
and hydrocarbon components are then inserted into the software too, so that the model could
be tested, producing an output file. From the output file the necessary values for further hand
calculations are provided. Calculations include using standards for determining the extent of
erosion within the pipeline design. The Katz method was used to establish hydrate formation
conditions within the pipeline as well as determining the insulation level and wax conditions.
When reviewing the severe slugging terrain the Scott, Shoham and Brill method was used to
determine the slug length and ultimately the volume to determine whether or not the separator
could sustain the amount of slugging present. A detailed account of the equations and
methods used is provided within the appendices, where each process is shown.

4.0 Results
4.1 Task 1- Identifying Suitable Pipeline Diameter
To determine the best suited internal pipeline diameter from the three options as shown in
figure 4, the following results were obtained using PIPESIM presenting the pressure within
the pipeline over the distance of the pipeline development.

Figure 6(Diameter 241 mm Pressure vs Distance)

Figure 6 shows that there is a considerable difference in pressure between the different flow
rates, where the pressure significantly drops for the 3280 sm3/day flow rate. It can be seen
that pressure amongst the other flow rates drop to 12-19 bar where as the highest flow loses

all pressure by the end of the pipeline.

Figure 7(Diameter 292 mm Pressure vs Distance)

As presented in figure 7 a noticeable change in the pressure levels can be seen compared with
figure 6. With the increased diameter a more consistent level of pressure is achieved, despite
the very large drops at the end of the pipeline, the pressure levels still remain at 13 bar.

Figure 8(Diameter 343 mm Pressure vs Distance)

Figure 8 shows that similar to the previous diameter the pressure levels are increased with the
diameter where each flow rate has a consistent pressure of over 20 bar, until evidently
dropping to an adequate 12 -13 bar at the end of the pipeline. After consideration the diameter
of 292 mm was selected, where reasons for selection are outlined in the discussion of task 1,
section 5.1.

4.2 Task 2- Erosion

Task 2 involved confirming the selected diameter is suitable with regards to erosion using
API RP 14E, the specific detailed calculations used to complete this task will be included in
appendix A. The API RP 14E is the American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice,
which defines a critical velocity above which erosion may occur. This standard recommends
that the maximum velocity in the system to be limited to that of the critical velocity.

Figure 9(PIPESIM Output File Values)

Figure 9 presents values along with the appropriate headings which were extracted from the
output file produced from the created model in PIPESIM. The above values were used in the
equations outlined in appendix A using the API RP 14E.

Figure 10(Calculated Values using API RP 14E)

The results from using the before mentioned equations in appendix A are presented in figure
10, it should be noted that each table supplied are only the first 4 entries of the results, full
results will be provided in the appendix A.

4.3 Task 3- Hydrate Formation Conditions

To determine the results needed, the Katz method was used to determine the hydrate
formation conditions of the pipeline. The equations used for this method will be provided in

appendix B along with the graphs used to obtain the hydrate K values needed for
determination of the hydrate formation conditions.

Figure 11(Hydrate Formation Results Using Katz Method)

To determine the correct temperature involved, simple trial and error was implemented,
where 10 C was firstly used, however as shown in figure 11 this was not close to 1. With a
slight increase in the temperature resulted in a more accurate value, resulting in hydrate
formation occurring at 12 C. Despite satisfying hydrate conditions, at an insulation level of
10 Wm-2 C-1 the wax conditions were not acceptable. The U-value was then changed to 0.5
W/(m2 K), where the lowest temperature is recorded at 35C, greater than the 25C minimum
requirement.

4.4 Task 4- Insulation Configuration

Establishing the insulation configuration involved the before established U value, for which
was the value 0.5 W/(m2 K). This value was selected as it both satisfied the requirements set
by the temperature which wax and hydrates formed. A K value of 0.007 W/m.K is used of
which is that of the material izoflex and will resultantly produce a U value between 0.1 and 1
[2]. This material will be used as the insulation material, producing a thickness as shown, of
14.6 mm. The lowest temperature achieved with this U value is approximately 35 C, a 10
C gap as a precaution from the 25 C, where wax begins to deposit. The equation used,
again will be provided in appendix C, figure 12 shows the values which were obtained
regarding the insulation configuration, including insulation thickness.

Figure 12(Insulation Configuration Values)

4.5 Task 5 - Slugging

Similar to task 2, establishing the terrain slugging of the pipeline was completed using the
same process.

Figure 13(Output File Values)

Figure 14(Max Slug Length & Volume)

Figure 13 shows only 2 entries obtained from the output file, the values shown are for 4 well
and those for 1 well, which are then used in the determination of slug length. Once acquired
the length is multiplied by the pipe area to establish the volume of slugging. The equation
used in determine the terrain slugging will be provided in appendix D, accompanied with the
other values from the output file.

4.6 Task 6- Pressure

It is specified that as the field matures the same volume of liquid will be produced however
of that, only 10% will be production fluid, with the remaining 90% being water. This shift in
fluid composition has a direct impact on pressure within the pipeline. Figure 16 as shown in
appendix E shows that pressure drops to as low as 8 bar, much lower than the minimum 10.3
bar required. It is recommended that gas lift is needed to return the pressure of the fluids to
the minimum arrival pressure of 10.3 bar to allow the wells to flow.

5.0 Discussion
5.1 Task 1- Identifying Suitable Pipeline Diameter
As previously presented in section 4.1 both diameters 292 mm and 343 mm both produced
sufficient pressure levels when tested in the PIPESIM model, however the 292 diameter was
chosen for further analysis. This diameter was selected solely down to financial motives with
regard to practical application. The chosen diameter has a significantly lower diameter than
that of the 343 mm option, the reduced diameter size therefore reduces material costs as the
pipeline will have a lower overall area, hence forth the choice of the 292 mm option.

5.2 Task 2- Erosion

The parameters in which surround the calculation of erosion are that to identify that the
diameter selected is acceptable regarding erosion using API RP 14E. Using the API RP 14E
determines the suitability of erosion through the use of equations, the detailed calculations

will be fully provided in appendix A, in determining this viewpoint a check is completed

concluding calculation. This check is the equation Vm/Vm*< 1, where Vm is the mixture
velocity and the maximum allowable mixture erosional velocity respectively. Using this
check it establishes a consistent value of approximately 0.32 satisfying the criterion of being
less than 1.

5.3 Task 3- Hydrate Formation Conditions

The results as shown in section 4.3, show that through the use of the Katz method the
temperature at which formation occurs was defined as 12 C, however despite the model
satisfying this restriction with temperatures above 12 C, the temperatures achieved within
the pipeline were unacceptable from a wax deposition viewpoint. The temperatures achieved
were much lesser than the 25 C at which wax deposition occurs, it is also a general
efficiency consideration that temperatures must remain 10 C above this minimal
temperature. This consideration is applied to reduce the possibility of wax deposition as much
as possible, within reason. To achieve the minimum 35 C now needed, the U value assigned
to the model in PIPESIM is changed to achieve this, where 0.5 Wm2 C- is selected, reduced
1

from the previous U value of 10 Wm-2 C-1.

5.4 Task 4- Insulation Configuration

The insulation configuration can be determined following the establishment of a sufficient U
value, completed in the previous task. A K value of 0.007 W/m.K was selected where the
material which can achieve said value is that of izoflex. This material was selected as the
assigned K value produces a U value range of which the previously selected U value is
within. With a thermal conductivity ranging from 0.004 to 0.007 W/m.K producing U values
between 0.1 to 1 W/m.K. Therefore, izoflex is the ideal insulation material given that the U
value for the pipeline is 0.5 Wm2 C- , corresponding with the U value, and the thickness of
1

insulation calculated is too of reasonable dimensions. Through the calculations as shown in

appendix C, the thickness of insulation is calculated to be 14. 6 mm.

5.5 Task 5- Slugging

It is specified that the 1st stage separator only has an 8.5 m3 slug handling capacity. As shown
in section 4.5 the max slug length for 4 well flow was determined to be 117.4 m, this
calculated length was then multiplied by the area to produce a slug volume of 7.86 m 3, of
which is lesser that specified in the criteria. The same procedure was completed for the
determination of slug parameters for the flow of 1 well, where slug length and volume were

calculated to be 108.65 m and 7.28 m3 respectively also satisfying the 8.5 m3 restriction. The
slugging lengths were initially determined using the Scott, Shoham and Brill method where
the equations used will be provided in appendix D, it is established that slugging within the
pipeline is acceptable due to both calculated volumes being below the aforementioned
maximum capacity.

5.6 Task 6- Pressure

From the results of task 6 in section 4.6 it is established that due the change in composition of
fluid properties the pressure within the pipeline cannot be maintained at the minimum 10.3
bar to allow the well to flow. The fact that the well will not flow is the main impact of the
pressure drop, no flow results in no production therefore no revenue is generated. Ultimately
producing and generating revenue are the main concerns of operators in the oil and gas
industry, excluding safety. If a well cannot produce the necessary fluids, the costs to maintain
said well will soon inflate larger than the profit generated. Therefore to keep the pipeline
flowing gas lift is needed to keep the field development economically viable. Gas lift is a
method where injected gas decreases the viscosity within the fluids by reducing the pressure
on the bottom of the well, allowing the fluids to flow easily [3].

5.7 Task 7- Operational Modes

Before finalising the overall architecture of the pipeline, consideration should be given to the
other operational modes of the pipeline. Well start up is as the name states, the well is started
up at a specified rate from which allows time to warm up. However at this stage there will be
a minimum flow rate where the thermal losses throughout the system will put the fluids in the
hydrate formation region [4]. Well shut in can also produce a high hydrate formation risk,
however the formation of hydrates can be prevented in the flowline. This can be
accomplished through the method of flowline blowdown, where the pressure is reduced
below the hydrate formation pressure at ambient sea pressures [4]. This procedure is
necessary to prevent the temperature within the flowline from forming hydrates due to the
temperature of the fluids flowing in the flowline. The risk of hydrates with a well shut in is
because the pressure remains high, however temperature significantly reduces due to the
transfer of heat to the ambient environment. Due to the high risk of hydrate formation in the
other operational modes, it is extremely important to review the architecture of the pipeline
regarding these modes and risks to maintain the flow within the flowline. It should also be
noted that the need for a blowdown is subject to several factors including the ability of heat

retention of the insulation, flowline pressure and the thermal energy available in pipeline
system.

5.0 Conclusion
In conclusion it was determined that the suitable diameter for the pipeline was 292 mm,
despite 343 mm also satisfying the requirements, it was noted that the lesser diameter would
reduce overall costs. Using the API RP 14E standards it was revealed that the pipeline would
experience no erosion, meeting the requirements of task 2. The temperature hydrate
formation would occur at was 12 C, however the pipeline parameters were not acceptable
regarding wax deposition, therefore the U value was adjusted to 0.5 5 Wm2 C- . Using the
1

adjusted U value, the thickness of insulation was calculated to be 14.6 mm. The Scott,
Shoham and Brill method revealed that the calculated slug volume within the system was
lesser than that of the 8.5 m3 requirements. Regarding the change in component volumes, the
pressure within the system was reduced to below the minimum 10.3 bar, indicating the need
for gas lift to allow the pipeline to continue flow. It was also established that with regard to
the operational modes of well start up and shut in, consideration is needed over the
finalisation of the pipeline system, specifically hydrate formation. It was also noted that this
could possibly be prevented in the shut in mode using blowdown, however this method is
subject to various factors which can also influence how vulnerable the pipeline will be to
hydrate formation.

6.0 References
[1] Statoil, 2007. About Flow Assurance. [online] Available
at:<http://www.statoil.com/en/technologyinnovation/fielddevelopment/flowassurance/pages/d
efault.aspx > [Accessed 5 April 2015]
[2]Microtherm, 2015. Izoflex, Very Best Pipeline Insulation of 21st Century. [online] Available
at:< http://www.microthermgroup.com/low/EXEN/site/adv_pipelines.aspx> [Accessed 7
April 2015]
[3]Rigzone, 2015. How Does Artificial Lift Work?. [online] Available at:<
http://www.rigzone.com/training/insight.asp?insight_id=315&c_id=4 > [Accessed 6 April
2015]
[4] Bai, Q., Bai, Y., 2005. Subsea Pipelines and Risers. 1st ed. London. Elsevier.

Appendix A -Erosion
The equations used in task 2 for establishing the erosion of the pipeline are as follows.
Conforming to API RP 1E standard:
V m

1.22C
m

[1.1]

However, m is not known and also must firstly be calculated along with l before equation
1.1 can be solved. Firstly l must be calculated which is done through the use of:
L=

Vsliquid
( Vsliquid +Vsgas )

[1.2]

Vsl and Vsg are the superficial velocities of both the liquid and gas respectively, values
which are produced from the PIPESIM model output file. The next step in the procedure is to
determine m which is completed

through the equation:

[1.3]

m=l liquid + ( 1 l )gas

Equation 1.1 can now be performed that all the input values are known, Vm* is the maximum
allowable mixture erosional velocity, of which is used in the criterion for no erosion.
However to use the equation for the criterion Vm must also be calculated, which is done
through the simple equation of:
[1.4]
Vm=Vsliquid+ Vsgas
The task is then completed by using the equation as follows to satisfy the criterion for no
erosion within the pipeline:
Vm<1
Vm

[1.5]

The result of using such equations are presented in tables 1, 2 and 3, which reveal each
calculated value throughout the 0.25 m intervals of the riser, flowline 1 and 2.

Table 1(Erosion Calculation Results- Riser)

Appendix A- Erosion

Table 2(Erosion Calculation Results- Flowline 1)

Table 3(Erosion Calculation Results- Flowline 2)

Appendix B- Hydrate Formation

To complete task 3 the Katz method was used to determine at what temperature hydrate
would form within the model. The equation used for the Katz method is as follows:
i=n

Ky
i=1

=1

[2.1]

VS

The equation 2.1 is used to provide a value to equal one, once successfully completed this
produces the temperature at which hydrate formation will occur within the pipeline. The
values for y are that of the mole fractions which are obtained from the PIPESIM model, Kvs
values are those extracted from the hydrate K value graphs. The process involves trial and
error, a temperature is used to extract K values from the graph and then implemented into
equation 2.1 until the final produced number is equal to 1. With regard to pipeline, 10 C was
first tried but was not successful, it was found that 12 C was closely accurate to one,
therefore hydrate formation would occur at this temperature. In table 4 the produced results
from the calculation are revealed, accompanied with the mole fractions which are extracted
from the output file of PIPESIM.

Table 4(Katz method, Calculation Results)

An example of the hydrate graphs used to attain the K values are also provided in tables 5 and
6, where temperature is along the x axis and pressure on the y axis respectively. It should be
noted that individual graphs are used for each separate component such as methane ethane
etc.

Appendix B- Hydrate Formation

Table 5(Methane K Value Hydrate Graph)

Table 6(Ethane K Value Hydrate Graph)

Appendix C- Insulation Configuration

The equation used for the configuration has different derivations, however because the U
value

is

below

1,

the

correct

derivation

can

be

selected

as

shown.

[3.1]

As it is the thickness of insulation which is desired, equation 3.1 is rearranged to solve for the
parameter r1, which is shown in equation 3.2.
r 1=rpe

k1
)
U rp

[3.2]

To establish the thickness of insulation, r1 is then subtracted from rp, where rp is the inner
radius of the pipe, and r1 is the outer radius respectively. Figure 15 below shoes what each
value within equation 3.2 represents regarding the pipeline.

Figure 15(Equation 3.2 Representation)

Appendix D- Slugging
It is specified that at the 1st stage separator the maximum capacity for slugging is 8.5 m 3,
therefore the empirical formula of Brill et al. (1981) is used to determine the slug length
within the pipeline. Equation 4.1 is the formula of Brill et al. (1981) as follows:
[4.1]
The slug length is represented by L m, which is the parameter desired. D is pipe diameter
where um is mixture velocity. As all the values are known they are then inserted into equation
4.1, however both the diameter and mixture velocity were initially in metric units but were
converted to imperial as specified by the formula. Once calculated in imperial units, the
results were then again converted into metric units, where the produced slug length was
multiplied by the pipe area to provide the total slug volume of the pipeline. Tables 7, 8, 9 and
10 show the calculated results both for the 4 well flow and 1 well flow, accompanied with the
total slug volume of both.

Table 7(Flowline 1 Slug Length Results)

Appendix D- Slugging

Table 8(Flowline2 and Riser Slug Length Results)

Table 9(Flowline 1 & 2 Slug Calculation Results - 1 Well)

Table 10(Riser Slug Calculation & Max Slug Volume)

Appendix E- Pressure
Firstly each individual component had to be changed from their original value to 10% of that
value, table 11 shows each component and the new values assigned in accordance to the
specification. As well as reducing the original components to 10%, water was added and
made 90% of the fluid being extracted from the well. Figure 15 shows the pressure drop due
to the change in fluids produced, which results in the need for gas lift to maintain the flow
within the pipeline.

Table 11(Individual Component Assigned Values)

Figure 16(Pressure Drop)