Proceedings of the 5th International Offshore Pipeline Forum IOPF 2010 October 20-21, 2010, Houston, Texas, USA

IOPF2010-4001
A CASE STUDY IN OFFSHORE GAS PIPELINE DEPRESSURIZATION
Aleck Chen, P.E. McDermott Subsea Engineering Houston, Texas, U.S.A. Amir Alwazzan, Ph.D. McDermott Subsea Engineering Houston, Texas, U.S.A.

ABSTRACT This paper summarizes the results of a flow assurance depressurization study conducted on a 32-inch long distance offshore pipeline (approximately 50 miles) transporting gas condensate from a wellhead platform to an onshore processing facility. This pipeline was designed to be depressurized from onshore upon an emergency shutdown. The objectives of this study are to investigate the effect of depressurizing the pipeline from one side of the pipeline, as well as from both sides simultaneously, determine the dimension of the restriction orifice (RO), manage production flowrates and onshore arrival pressures, calculate liquid discharge rates and determine the minimum temperature downstream of the RO during depressurization due to JouleThomson cooling effect. Based on the system configuration, fluid and other operating parameters, various scenarios have been designed and investigated in order to come up with the appropriate depressurization design. Considering depressurizing the pipeline from one side, the results showed that it takes approximately 55 hrs to depressurize the pipeline from 125 bar to 30 bar using a 1.5inch RO. The results interestingly showed that depressurizing the pipeline from both sides yields the same results. The transient simulations were performed using flow simulator OLGA 5.3.2. INTRODUCTION If water and gas coexist in the production system, gas hydrates tend to form under low temperature and high pressure conditions. During steady state flowing conditions, the production fluids reach the wellhead with relatively high temperatures. They also generate a certain amount of heat due to friction when flowing in the pipeline. Once the system is shut down, fluids inside the pipeline start to cool down to ambient temperatures, while contained in the system under high

pressure, providing the required elements for gas hydrates to form. Gas hydrate blockage in offshore pipelines remains a major concern in offshore oil and gas production systems. Since its difficult to remediate and significant time is required to remove hydrate blockages, prevention and control of hydrate formation in the pipeline is preferred in hydrate management.

BACKGROUND The analysis presented in this paper considers depressurization after an unplanned shutdown of a 32-inch pipeline transporting wet gas from an offshore production platform to an onshore processing plant located 50 miles away. The offshore portion of the pipeline is 46 miles, while the onshore portion is 4 miles. A 32-inch vertical riser is used to transport the production fluid from the topsides to the subsea pipeline. The topsides are located at 35 m above sea level. The gas consists of approximately 91% methane with some other light-end components. The condensate-gas ratio (CGR) is approximately 40 bbl/mmscf at the onshore separator conditions of 50 bar and 28C. The hydrate dissociation curve is shown in Figure 1. One of the issues in this study is that the pipeline is laid on a rough terrain possessing several dips along the seabed, providing pockets for liquid accumulation. In order to consider the maximum liquid content and pressure, both winter and summer operating conditions have been investigated. The onshore arrival pressures studied were 85 bar (normal operating pressure) and 120 bar (maximum operating pressure). Maximum flowrate of 1,000 mmscfd and minimum flowrate of 500 mmscfd were considered.

Copyright 2010 by ASME

Figure 1: Hydrate Dissociation Curve

CASE DESCRIPTION The three cases described in the previous section represent different operating scenarios in studying pipeline depressurization. Case 1: Low flowrate, maximum shore arrival pressure, and winter environmental and operating conditions. This case represents the maximum possible pipeline settle out pressure which can occur due to IOPPS initiation when the pipeline is in a packed condition. Winter temperature is considered as it results in the largest liquid hold up in the pipeline. A combination of high pressure and low temperature will provide the peak flowrate when the depressurization process is started. This combination also produces the lowest temperature downstream of the RO and provides a conservative estimate of the drop in temperature with time upstream of the RO. This case is expected to provide an estimate of the maximum duration of time required to depressurize the pipeline, from maximum pressure conditions in winter.

Three cases had been investigated in this study for one-sided depressurization, as summarized in Table 1. Case 1 was also considered in two-sided depressurization. Table 1: Pipeline Depressurization Cases
Case Number 1 2 3 Operating Conditions Winter Winter Summer Flowrate (mmscfd) 500 1,000 500 Shore Arrival Pressure (bar) 120 85 120

Case 2: Maximum flowrate, normal shore arrival pressure, and winter operating conditions. This case represents an operating scenario which produces the maximum gas volume and minimum liquid volume in the pipeline during winter, when hydrate formation can occur. Choosing the normal operating pressure in this case is to reflect a more realistic operating scenario, as the liquid hold up at the end of the depressurization will be less in comparison to Case 1. Case 3: Minimum flowrate, maximum shore arrival pressure, and summer environmental and operating conditions. This case is designed to compare with Case 1, where winter conditions are considered, to analyze the difference in depressurization time and the amount of liquid discharged.

The onshore ESDV (Emergency Shutdown Valve) is closed after reaching steady state to simulate an unplanned shutdown. While production fluids are still being transported from the wellhead platform, the closure of the ESDV packs the pipeline, which results in the activation of the offshore IOPPS (Instrumented Overpressure Protection System) set at a pressure of 135 bar, which is equivalent to the export pipelines design pressure, to shut down the boarding valve located on the offshore platform. The system is shut in for three days to provide adequate time for the pipeline to come to equilibrium, which represents the worst case for liquid production. KHI (Kinetic Hydrate Inhibitor) is injected in the pipeline to prevent hydrate formation while the system is shut in. The system is then depressurized by opening the restriction orifice located in the onshore processing facility. Temperatures used in this study were 80C at the riser inlet, 70C as the minimum design temperature downstream of the RO and 0C as the minimum design temperature for offshore pipeline.

ONE-SIDED DEPRESSURIZATION RESULTS Restriction orifice sizes of 1.25-inch, 1.5-inch, and 1.75-inch were analyzed in this study. Table 2 summarizes the simulation results for the three RO sizes. Case 1 conditions were applied in these simulations. Table 2: Restriction Orifice Sizing Results
RO Size (inch) 1.25 1.50 1.75 Minimum Temperature Downstream of the RO (C) -58 -59 -59 Maximum Liquid Discharge Rate Downstream of RO (ft3/h) 1,050 2,940 3,325 Depressurization Time to Reach 30 bar (hr) 79.0 55.5 40.6

For all the RO sizes studied, the minimum temperatures downstream of the RO remain greater than -70C during depressurization. From the above table, it is observed that for step changes of 0.25 inch in RO diameter, the depressurization

Copyright 2010 by ASME

time is reduced 25-30%. In order to obtain reasonably faster depressurization rates whilst keeping the liquid production also in check, it appears, on balance that a 1.5-inch RO achieves these objectives. Hence, a 1.5-inch RO is selected. Table 3 presents the depressurization simulation results for the three cases using a 1.5-inch RO. Table 3: Pipeline Depressurization Results
Depressurization Time to Reach 30 bar (hr) 55 53 51 Minimum Temperature Downstream of RO (C) -59 -52 -34 Peak Liquid Discharge Rate (ft3/h) 2,940 1,750 1,050 Total Onshore Liquid Discharged (bbl) 1,400 675 600

Figure 2: Pressure Profiles (Case 1)

Case

1 2 3

As demonstrated in Figure 1, under winter operating conditions (13C), the corresponding hydrate formation pressure is 42 bar. To provide a reasonable safety margin on hydrate dissociation, the pipeline was depressurized to 30 bar. Simulation results indicate that, under worst case scenario (Case 1), the pipeline can be safely depressurized from 125 bar to 30 bar in under 60 hours when a 1.5-inch RO is used. In this paper, only Case 1 simulation results are presented graphically, since the depressurization design is based on the worst case scenario. Figure 2 compares the pressure profiles during steady state operation, when the pipeline is shut down at 135 bar, and after a three-day shut in. The pressure inside the pipeline maintains at 125 bar after a three-day shut in, which is lower than the pipeline pressure at the beginning of the shut in. The reduction in pressure is due to line cooling as temperatures reach the ambient condition. Figure 3 shows the pressure upstream of the RO during depressurization. It is noted that it takes 55 hours for the pipeline to reach 30 bar. As discussed earlier, hydrate deposition in fact melts at 42 bar during winter, therefore, the depressurization time is reduced to 44 hours. Figure 4 demonstrates the temperature downstream of the RO during depressurization. It can be seen that the lowest temperature is approximately -59C, which is lower than the design temperature of -70C. When the RO is functioned, gas will be discharged first, followed by liquid. When the depressurization process starts, Joule-Thompson cooling will be at its greatest, and the lowest temperature is seen downstream of the RO. Since liquid has greater heat capacity, the fluid temperature downstream of the RO will rise when liquid starts to be expelled from the pipeline.

Figure 3: Pressure Upstream of the RO during Depressurization (Case 1)

Copyright 2010 by ASME

Figure 4: Temperature Downstream of the RO during Depressurization (Case 1)

liquid discharge rates are identical. The main reason beyond this phenomenon is that with such a long pipeline, gas compressibility plays a prominent role in maintaining the pressure. In other words, depressurization becomes a function of gas compressibility more than discharged fluid. Also, it is noted that the offshore platform is placed at 35 m above sea level, while the onshore processing plant is 5 m above sea level. Because of the difference in hydrostatic heads, more liquid travels through the onshore RO than the board valve on the offshore platform. Hence, depressurizing from both sides does not provide significant benefit to obtain shorter depressurization time in this study. However, it is important to highlight that in case of hydrate plugs forming in the pipeline, two-sided depressurization is an effective way to dissolve the hydrates. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions can be drawn from this study: A 1.5-inch restriction orifice was recommended for depressurizing this long distance subsea export pipeline given the design constraints. Increased liquid volumes will elongate depressurization times. Larger liquid volumes are seen during winter, low production flowrate, and higher onshore arrival pressure. For the worst case liquid production case (Case 1), it takes approximately 55 hours to depressurize the pipeline from settle out conditions to 30 bar. Two-sided depressurization with two identical 1.5-inch RO yielded similar results to those of the one-sided depressurization. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors would like to thank McDermott Subsea Engineering management for the permission to publish this work. REFERENCES 1. Bilyeu, D.J., Chen, T.X., Clearning Hydrate and Wax Blockages in Subsea Flowline, Offshore Technology Conference 17572, Houston, Texas, 2005. 2. Bollavaram, P., Sloan, E.D., Hydrate Plug Dissociation by Method of Depressurization. Offshore Technology Conference 15257, Houston, Texas, 2003. 3. Guo, B., Song, S., Chacko, J., Ghalambor, A., Offshore Pipelines. Gulf Professional Publishing, 2005.

In Case 2, the production flowrate is two times greater than that in Case 1 (1,000 mmscfd vs. 500 mmscfd), and the shore arrival pressure is lower (85 bar vs. 120 bar). It can be seen from the difference in the total liquid discharged onshore that less liquid was produced in Case 2. Comparing the peak liquid discharge rate and total onshore liquid discharged in Cases 1 and 3 also draws the conclusion that Case 1 produces the most liquid in the pipeline. TWO-SIDED DEPRESSURIZATION An attempt to simulate depressurizing the line from both sides has been considered to investigate the possibility of reducing the depressurization time. The worst case scenario (Case 1) was used in this investigation. At the start of depressurization, the onshore RO and the boarding valve (also with 1.5-inch dimension) on the offshore platform are opened simultaneously. Table 5 compares the results of one-sided and two-sided depressurization. Table 5: One-sided and Two-sided Depressurization Results Comparison
Depressurization Time to Reach 30 bar (hr) 55.0 55.5 Minimum Temperature Downstream of RO (C) -59 -59 Peak Liquid Discharge Rate (ft3/h) 2,940 2,940

Case

One-sided Two-sided

The depressurization times to depressurize from 125 bar to 30 bar in the pipeline in both cases are comparable, while the minimum temperatures downstream of the RO and the peak

Copyright 2010 by ASME