SPE 77495
Increasing Separation Capacity with New and Proven Technologies
R. W. Chin, SPE, CDS Separation Technologies, D. I. Stanbridge, CDS Engineering, R. Schook, CDS Engineering
Copyright 2002, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and
Exhibition held in San Antonio, Texas, 29 September2 October 2002.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.
Abstract
Compact separation has been a buzz word in design of new
facilities for many years now as more reserves are being
located in deeper waters. However, upgrading existing
facilities to handle more production is also important. Third
party processing, under-estimated reserves, or recently located
nearby reserves result in higher rates. Space then becomes a
premium especially in the deep water facilities where extra
space may have been minimal in the design. This paper will
discuss some new and proven technology not only for compact
separation, but also for increasing gas/liquid separation
capacities of existing vessels. Applications of the
technologies will also be presented.
Introduction
Compact separation has been a buzz word in design of new
facilities for many years now as more reserves are being
located in deeper waters. Spars, semi-submersibles, and
FPSOs are designed with weight and space reduction in mind.
Subsea processing, a likely future scenario, is certainly
concentrating on reducing the size of equipment.
Compact separation, however, is also important in
upgrading existing facilities to handle more production. Third
party processing, under-estimated reserves, or recently located
nearby reserves result in higher rates. Space then becomes a
premium especially in the deep water facilities where extra
space may have been minimal in the original design.
Some separators need to be upgraded in order to handle
increases in throughputs. The increase in flow velocity can
occur from actual increases in rates or decreases in pressure.
The gas velocities are so high that the existing demister may
be too small in area or that re-entrainment may occur from the
gas-liquid interface. Other separators may be large enough,
but may have a problem with short-circuiting or droplet
shatter. In addition to the separators, the dehydration system
will also require upgrading as rates increase.
Several possible solutions can be considered. Generally,
in order of preference, consideration is given to:
Higher capacity internals
o Inlet cyclones
o Demisting Cyclones
Inline separation
Partial Separation
New vessels
Downtime and economics play a major role in determining the
choice over internal or external modifications. Figure 1
depicts possible upgrade scenarios.
As gas rates increase, mesh pads can be replaced by vane
packs and cyclones. Cyclones can also be placed in pipe
spools, installed in the gas outlet line. Compact, cyclonic
separators or inline devices can be placed in front of the main
separator for partial separation. The separated gas is led to the
existing scrubber, which may also have to be upgraded.
This paper will discuss some relatively new (to the oil
industry) and proven technologies for increasing gas/liquid
separation capacities of existing vessels. These technologies
can also be applied to compact separation. Applications of the
technologies will be presented.
Cyclonic Devices
Inlets
As rates increase, problems with foam or droplet shatter can
occur. More liquid is generally entrained in the gas phase as
well as the drops becoming smaller. Mitigating droplet shatter
and providing separation at the inlet are then requirements.
Figure 2 shows some typical inlet devices which include:
Open pipe with flat or curved plate
Half open pipe
Open pipe directed at vessel head
Pall ring box.
Cyclonic devices are being more widely used as they provide
foam breaking as well as gas/liquid separation. The
advantages of a cyclonic inlet are:
2 R. W. CHIN, D. I. STANBRIDGE, R. SCHOOK
High allowable momentum,
De-foaming characteristics,
Liquid-liquid coalescing benefits, and
Gas demisting benefits.
Figure 3 shows an inlet cyclone in more detail. Features of
inlet cyclones are:
Swirl blades or tangential inlet to provide the spin
Inner vortex tube to prevent pre-mature escape of
the gas
Kick-off blades to prevent liquid creep into the gas
outlet, and
Anti-swirl blades in the liquid to prevent
gas vortexing.
The cyclone can be used with inlet momentums an order of
magnitude higher than say pipe inlets. Typically, pipe inlets
are used for momentums (V2 where is bulk density and V
is bulk velocity) less than 1000 Pa. Inlet cyclones have been
used successfully to 65,000 Pa.
Because of the high centrifugal accelerations (100-150
gees), large foam bubbles are broken, liquid drops are
removed from the gas phase, and liquid-liquid coalescence
occurs within the cyclone. Problems with some cyclones are
that a poorly designed liquid outlet can shear the liquids,
offsetting the benefits of the coalescence and possibly making
the situation worse. For cases where a high liquid level is
required, the inlet cyclone can be submerged up to the gas
outlet level.
When designing inlet cyclones, the varying liquid levels
and flow rates must be taken into account to prevent gas
blowby out the bottom of the cyclones. Liquid carryover out
the top of the cyclones is not as much of a problem.
Mono-cyclones such as shown in Figure 4 are similar to
the inlet cyclone in operation. The vessel wall is the outer
shell of the inlet cyclone.
Inline Degasser
A variation on the inlet cyclone design is shown in Figure
5. Figure 5 is a schematic of an inline bulk degasser
employing similar stationary turbine technology.
A two-phase mixture (liquid/gas) is brought into rotation
by the first swirl turbine. Due to the density difference, the
gas will move to the center of the system resulting in a stable
core. The complete gas-core and some liquid are removed and
led into a vertical scrubber section. In this scrubber, the liquid
is separated from the gas and forced back into the main pipe.
Finally, the clean gas leaves the scrubber. The separated gas
can be sent directly to an existing scrubber which may also
have to be debottlenecked. The reason for separating some
liquid (besides most of the gas) is the controllability of the
system. A sophisticated control system makes it possible to
handle huge variations in both the gas and/or the liquid flow.
SPE 77495
Development of the degasser started with scale models. A
6 and an 11 degasser were built to investigate the behavior
of the complete system. Also the theoretical models
describing efficiency and pressure balance in the degasser
were verified successfully. The information gained from the
laboratory tests resulted in an 18 full-scale degasser shown in
Figure 6.
Demisting Cyclones
Cyclones, albeit smaller in size, can also be used to
remove mist. Higher capacities, small drop removal, and less
fouling tendency are the cyclones main advantages over
traditional demisters. Figures 7 and 8 summarize some typical
demisters and their main features. Figure 9 shows some
typical cyclones. In the reverse flow cyclone, flow enters
tangentially around the gas outlet tube. The flow travels down
with liquid being spun to the outer wall and draining out the
bottom. The gas reverses direction and flows out the
inner tube.
In axial flow cyclones, a stationary turbine in the tube
spins the flow. Downstream of the turbine, the liquid film is
removed through slits along with some secondary purge gas.
The liquid drops to the bottom of a chamber enclosing the
cyclone and flows out a drain tube. The main portion of the
gas flows straight out of the cyclone. The secondary gas
usually has to be cleaned up by a mesh pad. In the recycling
cyclone, the purge gas is educted back into the center of the
cyclone through the stationary turbine. A low pressure region
exists because of the spinning flow, similar to that in a
tornado. In this way, the purging gas is cleaned again and
there is no need for a secondary mesh pad.
Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) Modeling
In addition to the higher capacity and more efficient
hardware, a key software tool in upgrading and design is CFD
(computational fluid dynamics) modeling. The basic idea
behind CFD is to set up equations for the conservation of
mass, momentum and energy for the volume in which the fluid
flows. This is achieved by dividing the flow volume into a
finite number of smaller volumes (cells), for which the
conditions are considered to be constant or follow a fixed
correlation. By solving these equations, the conditions in all
the cells can be calculated. The equations are solved by an
iterative process. As the number of calculations can become
very high, a computer is needed to perform the calculations.
CFD can be used to determine sources of problems in
separators such as fluid short circuiting and droplet shatter.
Different solutions can then be modeled and the best one
selected, saving the expense of costly trial and
error shutdowns.
Applications
Four applications will be presented:
Improvement of oil/water separation through use of
inlet cyclones
Liquid carryover removal by a cyclonic
SPE 77495 INCREASING SEPARATION CAPACITY WITH NEW AND PROVEN TECHNOLOGIES
inline demister
Pipe vibrations caused by gas slugging to be
eliminated by use of an inline degasser
Flare scrubber performance improved by
CFD modeling
Oil/Water Separation Improvement
Inlet baffle plates are known to cause foam and emulsion
problems, especially with high momentum flows. An inlet
cyclone, on the other hand, can handle high momentum flows
as well as having beneficial effects on the emulsion. As part
of an effort to improve separation efficiency, inlet cyclones
were tested in a North Sea test separator (2408 mm x 9000
mm SS). The vessel had been suffering from high oil in water
and water in oil levels caused by the inlet deflector plate. The
results of the modifications are shown in Figure 10.
Prior to the modification, the water in oil was on the order
of 10-14%v for certain wells. After the modifications, the
water in oil was near zero. At higher momentums, the water
in oil was in the 2-6%v range. More importantly, the oil in
water was on the order of 20-30 ppm which is overboard
quality (less than 40 ppm) and significantly (1-2 orders) less
than prior to modifications. Finally, the importance of the
cyclone liquid outlet low shear design was realized when
another type of cyclone was similarly tested. Both the water
in oil and oil in water were significantly higher for this other
cyclone especially for the high momentum flows.
The main production vessel (3800 mm x 14212 mm SS)
was then retrofitted with inlet cyclones. Improvements in both
the oil in water (20%+ reduced to 5-6%) and water in oil (400
ppm+ to less than 200 ppm) have been realized.
Liquid Carryover
During well startup, the gas rates can sometimes be much
higher than what a separation vessel has been designed to
handle. The well must be started slow enough so as not to
cause too much liquid carryover that will flood downstream
equipment and cause a platform shutdown. However, the
longer the startup, the less the gas and oil production.
For this application, the vessels were too small (59 ID x
20 SS) to install new devices internally so demisting cyclones
were placed in a spool piece in the gas outlet piping. See
Figure 11. The liquid from the cyclones was drained
continuously to a lower pressure system through a small
diameter orifice to control the gas purge. Well startup times
were reduced by a factor of 5 (from 10 to 2 hours) as the
increased liquid carryover was removed by the external
cyclones. Higher gas capacities were also realized.
Gas Slugging/Pipe Vibrations
The first application for this device is shown in Figure 12.
Gas, evolving from water as it depressurizes flowing through
hydrocyclones, is causing slug flow and subsequent vibrations
in a downstream riser piping. The degasser will be placed
downstream of the hydrocyclones to remove the gas to flare
or recompression.
3
The information gained from the laboratory tests resulted
in the final 18 full-scale degasser shown in Figure 6. Design
conditions are: 60,000 Sm3/d liquid and 98,000 Sm3/d gas.
Taking into account the pressure in the system, the gas-
fraction is 30%v.
Tests of the full-scale 18-degasser showed that the
measurements indeed obey the mathematical rules used as the
design basis. The turndown appeared to be approximately
40% in liquid flow. For 1000 m3/hr liquid, the separation
efficiency is still satisfactory.
The efficiencies are shown in Figure 13 (different liquid
rates and gas-fractions). At the design point, the efficiency is
greater than 90%, mainly because of the low pressure drop
specification. However, if degassers with larger separation
efficiencies are needed, it is only a matter of re-designing the
internals (i.e. optimizing the efficiency for a certain maximum
given pressure drop). During the tests, the dynamic response
of the degasser was studied thoroughly. In automatic control-
mode, the system remains stable when huge variations in
liquid and/or gas flow are initiated.
The conclusion of the experiments is that the design rules
and test results are as expected. This implies that the degasser
concept can be applied in a variety of applications both
offshore and onshore.
CFD Modeling
Figure 14 shows a pictorial of a flare scrubber with carryover
problems. Not only was the scrubber not removing incoming
liquids, it actually lost liquid as evidenced by a decreasing
liquid level with closed dump valves. The original scrubber
with flow through nozzle N1 had an impact plate diverting the
flow downwards. The gas then reversed itself in order to flow
through the vane pack demister. During one retrofit, a hole
was cut into the baffle as it was believed that the impact plate
was shearing the drops into a fine mist, but the problems
remained.
The gas flow was modeled using CFD and the results are
shown in Figure 15. The inlet jet flows through the impact
plate hole and hits the back wall. Some of the flow is diverted
upwards, but a large portion is diverted downwards across the
liquid interface. Figure 15 also shows the predicted velocities
across the liquid surface, which are higher than 50 m/s. This
high velocity re-entrains liquids which are then carried up to
the vane pack. A second problem with the scrubber is
illustrated by the velocities across the vane pack. A poor flow
distribution is predicted. Although the vane pack may have
had sufficient area under uniform flow, the mal-distribution
would result in local flooding which is compounded by the
additional liquids being swept up from the liquid surface.
The recommended solution was two-fold: 1) reduce the
inlet velocities by splitting the flow using a second inlet
(N20), and 2) lowering the liquid level as low as possible.
When these two recommendations were implemented, the
carryover problem was resolved.
4 R. W. CHIN, D. I. STANBRIDGE, R. SCHOOK SPE 77495

Summary and Conclusions Reverse Vane

Open Impact Cyclones
Pipe
Cyclonic gas/liquid separation devices have been described Pipe Plates Spreader
with emphasis on increasing capacities of existing vessels.
These devices can also be applied to design new separators to
be more compact resulting in weight and space savings. The
devices are somewhat new to the oil industry, but are well
proven by laboratory and field testing. In addition to
hardware, the use of CFD software to debottleneck/design
equipment was also described. CFD can be used to determine
causes of poor separation performance as well as to provide
solutions. Both the hardware and software are key tools for
improving separation performance and design. Increasing Flow Rates Lead to

About the Authors Short Circuiting Droplet Shatter - Foam

Bob Chin, previously with Shell for 17 years in research and
Figure 2. Typical Separator Inlets.
operations, now leads CDSs North/South American office
located in Houston, TX. His experience encompasses multi-
phase flow, pipeline leak detection, heavy oil dehydration, and
gas-liquid separation. Dave Stanbridge is the Process
Manager for CDS. With over 10 years experience in the Swirl blades or
separation industry, he oversees all research and process tangential inlet to
simulations for CDS. Rob Schook joined CDS in 2001 as a provide spin
process engineer after receiving his Masters in Fluid
Mechanics from University of Twente and his Ph.D on Inner vortex
Transitional flow in Gas-Turbines from Eindhoven University tube
of Technology. His present work includes development of
Inline Technology; Degasser/Deliquidiser. Kick-off
blades

Liquid anti -swirl

blades

Figure 3. Features of Inlet Cyclones.

Inline
demister

Existing
Separator Existing
Scrubber

Partial
Separation Higher
Capacity
Demister
Figure 1. Possible upgrade solutions.

Figure 4. Stand-alone mono-cyclone for gas-liquid

separation.
SPE 77495 INCREASING SEPARATION CAPACITY WITH NEW AND PROVEN TECHNOLOGIES 5

Drop Size Gas Rate DP Fouling

Removes gas Removal
outside of Large ~150 microns Low Low Low
pipe

Small ~10 microns Medium Low High

Medium ~40 microns High Low Low

Stationary Stationary Small ~10 microns Highest High Low

turbine with turbine

opposite spin
Figure 5. Schematic of a cyclonic inline degasser. Figure 8. Operating parameters of demisters.

Reverse Non recycle Recycle Axial Flow

18 Inline Degasser Flow
Scrubber Control Unit axial flow
Figure 9. Different types of demisting cyclones.
Figure 6. Full scale 18 Inline Degasser.

January 1999
Empty Mesh Vanes Cyclones 100
14
90
Deflector
12 80

10
70
Oil-in-
% 60 Water
Water- 8
50 (ppm)
in-Oil
6 40

30
4
20
Gravity Impact 2

Coalescense Centrifugal Inlet Cyclone 10

Coalesence Impact 0 0
Gravity 5000 15000 25000 35000 45000 55000 65000
Coalescence
Inlet momentum [kg/ms]

Increasing Flow Rates Lead to More Entrainment Figure 10. Liquid/liquid separation results with
inlet cyclones in a test separator.
Figure 7. Typical demisters.
6 R. W. CHIN, D. I. STANBRIDGE, R. SCHOOK SPE 77495

Figure 14. Flare scrubber schematic.

Figure 11. Inline cyclonic demister. Flow Mal-Distribution

Leading to Localized
Flooding

1. Flare 2. Recompression Flow to

degassing drum

20 m
Gas outlet
line

Water flow
50,000 m/d

GWR = 1 to 2
Flow from
hydrocyclones Degasser
Cyclone
Recirculation
High Velocities
Figure 12. Inline degasser application. Leading to
Re-entrainment
Figure 15. CFD model of flare scrubber.

Separation Efficiency (3 bar backpressure)

100

80 1000 liq
Efficiency [%]

60 1250 liq
1500 liq
40
1750 liq
20 2000 liq
2250 liq
0
2500 liq
0 10 20 30 40 50
GAS fraction [%]

Figure 13. Inline degasser separation efficiencies.