Discuss the effect of inhibitors like methanol and monoethylene glycol on hydrate and ice formation in pipelines, and how their application is optimized.

Inhibitors such as methanol (MeOH) and monoethylene glycol (MEG) are critical in preventing hydrate and ice formation in pipelines. Methanol is particularly effective due to its high level of effectiveness on a weight basis, which facilitates easy flow to the hydrate formation point, while MEG provides low vapor and liquid phase losses . The application of these inhibitors must be optimized to ensure cost-efficiency and effectiveness. Rule-of-thumb methods and specific calculations (e.g., using equations to determine the solubility of inhibitors in condensate) guide the amount of inhibitor needed . For example, in hydrate-prone scenarios such as the Dog Lake Field Pipeline, large quantities of methanol were injected to manage winter-induced hydrates, with alternative strategies considered to further mitigate the issue, including burying pipelines and heating . Methanol and MEG optimize by accounting for conditions such as pressure, temperature, and pipeline fluid composition to reduce losses and improve efficiency .

How do hydrate plugs form and get dissociated in pipelines, and what lessons can be learned from past remediation cases?

Hydrate plugs form in pipelines when conditions favor hydrate stability, such as during pipeline shutdowns or rapid pressure and temperature changes . They are dissociated primarily through depressurization and heat influx, as seen in the Gulf of Mexico and North Sea cases, where controlled depressurization from both sides of the plug was employed to efficiently melt hydrates . Lessons from these remediation cases highlight the importance of early intervention and strategic use of inhibitors like methanol or glycol during start-up to prevent hydrate formation . Multi-sided depressurization, while cautious of Joule-Thomson cooling effects which may stabilize parts of the plug, allows for quicker dissociation compared to single-sided methods . These cases illustrate that proactive measures, such as proper inhibitor management and slow, deliberate changes rather than frequent adjustments, are critical for successful hydrate mitigation . Future best practices will need to address data collection for plug location, length estimation, and enhanced field strategies tailored to specific pipeline conditions.

Evaluate the techniques for detecting and managing wax deposition in crude oil pipelines, including the impact on hydraulic performance and restart behavior.

Wax deposition in crude oil pipelines significantly impacts hydraulic performance and restart behavior. Techniques for detecting wax deposition include monitoring changes in the pipeline's thermal and flow behavior, as wax layers increase internal roughness, reduce diameter, and act as thermal insulators . This affects frictional pressure gradients and can lead to increased pumping pressure requirements, particularly in low flow conditions . Non-Newtonian behavior of the oil below the cloud point necessitates understanding the viscosity changes depending on past shear and thermal histories, which influences wax deposition rates and pipeline flow capacity . Restart behavior is particularly influenced by the solid wax content, requiring careful pumpability assessments and mitigation strategies like heating, insulation, or chemical inhibitors to manage wax effects . Deploying thermodynamic simulators for assessing solid wax fraction behavior and employing methodologies for measuring non-Newtonian viscosities are critical to effectively manage wax deposition . Leveraging this data aids in designing operational strategies that mitigate wax impacts and enhance pipeline reliability.

In the context of pipeline operations, compare the roles of steady-state and transient modeling in understanding flow dynamics and operational challenges.

Steady-state modeling in pipeline operations provides a snapshot of flow dynamics under unchanging conditions, focusing on average system behavior and holdups without accounting for temporal changes . This approach can be useful for initial design or baseline assessments but often falls short in capturing dynamic flow phenomena such as transient effects caused by pipeline topography and operational changes . Conversely, transient modeling considers the time-dependent nature of flow systems, allowing for the simulation of dynamic scenarios like flow rate perturbations, phase transitions, and slug formation . It enables a deeper understanding of operational challenges such as the transient liquid sweep-out and varying holdups across different pipeline sections . Transient simulations, illustrated by tools like PLAC, allow operators to predict responses to operational changes, such as restarts after shutdowns, which are critical for effective pipeline management in real-world conditions . Integrating both modeling approaches provides a comprehensive framework to address the complex scenarios encountered in real-world pipeline operations.

What are the challenges of transient modeling in predicting flow dynamics in pipelines, and how can these be addressed?

Transient modeling in pipelines faces challenges such as capturing the effects of pipeline topography on slug formation, accurately modeling phase changes, and predicting liquid holdup. Transient effects caused by the topography, as observed in the Bruce/Frigg pipeline simulations, can be difficult to predict using steady-state analysis techniques, necessitating the use of dynamic simulators that can account for transient phenomena . Furthermore, conventional holdup correlations like Eaton may not accurately capture the dynamics under low flow rate conditions, often leading to underestimates of liquid content during phase transitions . To address these challenges, advanced transient modeling tools such as PLAC or OLGA are used to conduct detailed analyses that consider the comprehensive impact of variables like flow rate changes, pipeline topography, and phase behavior . While current models are valuable for deducing worst-case transients, ongoing refinement of slug flow models and calibration with field data can improve prediction accuracy, aiding in better pipeline design and operational planning .

Explain the role of methanol in hydrate management during pipeline start-ups and shutdowns, including lessons from historical operations.

Methanol plays a crucial role in hydrate management during pipeline start-ups and shutdowns by preventing the formation of hydrates in conditions where temperature and pressure drop to favorable hydrate formation levels . Its use is illustrated in the Gulf of Mexico case study, where methanol was injected before shutdowns and start-ups to inhibit hydrate formation due to environmental temperature influences and operational conditions . Lessons from historical operations, such as the North Sea and Gulf of Mexico cases, highlight methanol's effectiveness in reducing risk but also point to the necessity of tailored strategies combining methanol with careful management of operational protocols, including gradual depressurization and varying inhibitor volumes based on pipeline length and fluid dynamics . Methanol injection must be tuned to specific field conditions to optimize dosage and ensure effective mitigation, as underinhibition can lead to rapid hydrate formation and plugging risks . These historical insights emphasize the need for proper planning and execution to effectively leverage methanol's inhibition properties in managing pipeline hydrate challenges.

Analyze the impact of environmental factors on the formation of hydrates in pipelines and how they are mitigated, citing specific case studies.

Environmental factors such as temperature and pressure significantly influence hydrate formation in pipelines. For instance, in the Dog Lake Field Pipeline case study, low winter temperatures prompted hydrate formation, necessitating large quantities of methanol injection despite significant costs . Environmental exposure was a critical concern, with considerations for pipeline burial and wellhead heating as mitigation strategies to reduce external temperature impacts, demonstrating alternative preventative approaches . Similarly, the Gulf of Mexico case study highlighted the need for strategic interventions such as depressurization and inhibitor injection to combat hydrate formation in response to changing environmental conditions during pipeline shutdowns or operational restarts . These strategies underscore the importance of understanding local environmental conditions in designing effective hydrate prevention measures, combining chemical inhibition with structural modifications (e.g., insulation, burial) to maintain pipeline operations in adverse conditions .

Critically assess the advantages and limitations of using monoethylene glycol (MEG) compared to methanol for hydrate inhibition in pipelines.

Monoethylene glycol (MEG) and methanol are both used for hydrate inhibition, but they offer distinct advantages and limitations. Methanol is highly effective on a weight basis and easily flows to hydrate formation points, making it suitable for rapid response scenarios . However, it can incur higher losses into the gas phase, particularly at low water levels, and requires considerations in the inhibitor management plan . MEG, on the other hand, provides lower vapor and liquid phase losses and is less volatile, making it a cost-effective alternative for longer-term operations where supply logistics of methanol are a concern . Nevertheless, MEG's inhibition efficacy can be less than methanol's due to its higher weight requirements for similar levels of inhibition . Additionally, methanol's higher solubility in condensate presents potential handling challenges, which are less pronounced for MEG due to its minimal solubility . Each inhibitor's choice depends on the specific pipeline conditions, cost implications, and logistical considerations, underscoring the need for tailored pipeline operation strategies.

What strategies can be implemented to manage liquid sweep-out and handle slugging in multiphase pipelines, according to transient modeling case studies?

Liquid sweep-out and slugging in multiphase pipelines can be managed by adjusting the flow rate changes gradually to prevent large slug formations, as seen in the Marlin pipeline case study where a controlled flow rate increase allowed for gradual liquid sweep-out within the slug catcher capacity . Rapid changes could potentially lead to large slugs that overwhelm downstream processes . Additionally, transient modeling tools like PLAC or OLGA enable a detailed analysis of transient situations to predict potential hold-up and liquid sweep-out scenarios, allowing for proactive strategies to manage the system's dynamics . For instance, pigging operations are recommended to prevent excessive liquid accumulation by running pigs frequently at low throughputs, though this may incur high operating costs . These measures collectively aid in stabilizing flow conditions and minimizing operational disruptions due to slugging and liquid sweep-outs.

How does the topography of a pipeline affect slug formation in gas/condensate systems, particularly during shutdowns and restarts, and what are the implications for transient flow modeling?

In gas/condensate systems, the topography of the pipeline can significantly impact the location and likelihood of slug formation. Slugs typically form further down the pipeline, especially in areas with significant uphill gradients like the beach in offshore pipelines terminating on land . During shutdowns, such as the 12-hour shutdown of the Bruce/Frigg pipeline system, liquid dropout can occur due to a decrease in pressure along the pipeline, causing retrograde condensation . Upon restart, this liquid dropout can lead to the formation of slugs as the pressure increases and some liquid evaporates . Transient flow simulators like PLAC can model these dynamics and predict the formation and movement of slugs, showing that while some liquid evaporates, large slugs (e.g., 700 BBL) are still transported through the system, which can impact the downstream processing capacity . This illustrates the need for improved transient flow models to accurately predict phenomena arising due to topographical features and transient conditions, as steady state analyses may not capture such effects accurately .

Open navigation menu

Upload

100% found this document useful (1 vote)

1K views1,122 pages

Deepstar - Multiphase Flow

Uploaded by

febrian

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

100% found this document useful (1 vote)

1K views1,122 pages

Deepstar - Multiphase Flow

Uploaded by

febrian

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 1122

DEEPSTAR IV PROJECT

FLOW ASSURANCE DESIGN GUIDLINE

DSIV CTR 4203b-1

April, 2001

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

TABLE OF CONTENTS
POLICY STATEMENT

policy.pdf

1.0

INTRODUCTION

Sec1.pdf

2.0

FLOW ASSURANCE SUMMARY AND FUNDAMENTALS

Sec2.pdf

3.0

DESIGN PROCESS

Sec3.pdf

4.0

FLUID PROPERTIES AND PHASE BEHAVIOR

Sec4.pdf

5.0

MULTIPHASE FLOW

Sec5.pdf

6.0

STEADY-STATE HYDRAULIC SIMULATION AND LINE SIZING

Sec6.pdf

7.0

THERMAL MODELING

Sec7.pdf

8.0

TRANSIENT OPERATIONS

Sec8.pdf

9.0

HYDRATES

Sec9.pdf

10.0

PARAFFIN WAXES

Sec10.pdf

11.0

ASPHALTENES

Sec11.pdf

12.0

EMULSIONS

Sec12.pdf

13.0

SCALE

Sec13.pdf

14.0

EROSION

Sec14.pdf

15.0

CORROSION

Sec15.pdf

16.0

SOLIDS TRANSPORT

Sec16.pdf

17.0

SLUGGING

Sec17.pdf

18.0

SLUGCATCHER DESIGN

Sec18.pdf

19.0

PIGGING

Sec19.pdf

20.0

OTHER OPERATIONS

Sec20.pdf

21.0

(INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)

H-0806.35

01-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

22.0

HOST FACILITY REQUIREMENTS

Sec22.pdf

23.0

SYSTEM ECONOMICS AND RISK MANAGEMENT

Sec23.pdf

24.0

DEEPWATER ISSUES AND CASE STUDIES

Sec24.pdf

25.0

TYPICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS

Sec25.pdf

APPENDICES
SECTION 9 APPENDIX A: GAS HYDRATE STRUCTURES, PROPERTIES, AND
HOW THEY FORM
Sec9 App A.pdf
SECTION 9 APPENDIX B:
PROGRAMS

USERS GUIDE FOR HYDOFF AND XPAND

Sec9 App B.pdf

SECTION 9 APPENDIX C: HYDRATE BLOCKAGE AND REMEDIATION

Sec9 App C.pdf
SECTION 9 APPENDIX D: RULES OF THUMB SUMMARY

H-0806.35

Sec9 App D.pdf

01-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

POLICY STATEMENT

H-0806.35

The Flow Assurance Design Guide (FADG) is of a general nature.

The FADG does not undertake to meet the duties of operators, manufacturers,
suppliers, or engineers to properly engineer and operate multiphase production
systems.
The FADG is not meant to be an instructional tool; however, it can be used to
supplement a course on flow assurance issues.
The FADG is primarily a tool for design engineers with a sound knowledge of
flow assurance operations.
Nothing in the FADG is to be construed as a fixed rule without regard to sound
engineering judgment.
The FADG is not intended to supersede or override any federal, state, or local
regulation.
The FADG does not inhibit anyone from using any other guide.
The FADG is not all encompassing. The guide does benchmark topics that are
typically addressed in a quality flow assurance analysis.

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

1.0

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

INTRODUCTION
The Flow Assurance Design Guide (FADG) sets forth basic engineering requirements
and recommended practice deemed necessary for the reliable and cost effective design
and operation of multiphase production systems. Because flow assurance is a multidiscipline activity, the FADG addresses each discipline and explains how each fit in the
overall design process. The major flow assurance technologies covered in the guide are:

PVT and fluid properties

Steady state and transient multiphase flow modeling
Interface with the reservoir and the process equipment
Hydrate, paraffin, and asphaltene issues
Corrosion, erosion, and sand control
Each technology area will be discussed at a moderate level of detail. Basic behaviors
mathematical models, modeling techniques, experimental data, accuracy and uncertainty,
design tips and internal checks will be discussed. Hallmarks of good design practice will
be illustrated with numerous examples throughout the guide. Important reference
documents and published papers will be listed at the end of each major section.
Design engineers with a sound knowledge of flow assurance are the intended audience
for the FADG. The guide is not intended to be an introduction to flow assurance
technology.

H-0806.35

1-1

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

2.0

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

THIS SECTION IS INTENTIONALLY BLANK.

H-0806.35

2-1

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

3.0

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

DESIGN PROCESS
This section describes the design methodology or process that the flow assurance
engineer follows in developing a successful, cost effective subsea production system and
its operating philosophy. The flow assurance design methodology flow chart is presented
in Figure 3-1 and forms the basis for the discussion on the design process. Links to the
relevant sections in the Flow Assurance Design Guide are also provided.
As illustrated in the design methodology chart, the flow assurance design process
involves several major steps:

Establish design basis

Thermal- hydraulic design and assessment of fluid behavior
- Perform hydraulic design
- Perform thermal design
- Assess fluid thermodynamic/phase behavior
- Assess transient thermal- hydraulic behavior

Interface with mechanical design

Establish operating strategies
Determine host facility requirements
Assess system economics

Each step can be addressed individually; however, all steps will be considered
collectively because they are inter-related. The chart shows some of the considerations
and/or decisions involved with each step. For purposes of illustration, design process
steps are generally shown to be sequential. However in practice, several of the steps will
need to be addressed simultaneously.
The flow assurance design process starts early in the field development effort, potentially
even before any wells have been drilled when the types and amounts of reservoir fluid
samples are specified. The general sequence begins with the development of the design
basis and then the thermal-hydraulic design and assessment of fluid behavior. During the
thermal- hydraulic design phase, the flow assurance engineer will begin to interface with
other design engineers, such as pipeline/flowline and facilities engineers. In what is
typically a parallel effort, the flow assurance engineer will interface with the subsea
mechanical designers and other engineers, will develop operating strategies, and will
assist in determining host facility requirements. An over-riding consideration in the
design process is system economics and risk management.

H-0806.35

3-1

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

The design process will be iterative due to inevitable changes in the design basis, interim
results during the design, changes in system economics, and other changes. Such
iterations are indicated in the design methodology flow chart at the decision points in
which no would be the answer.
The flow assurance design process involves multiple technical interfaces.
engineering, completions engineering, pipeline/flo wline mechanical design,
controls engineering, facilities engineering, and operational personnel will
with flow assurance during the design process. The numerous interfaces
effective project management.
3.1

Reservoir
subsea and
all interact
necessitate

Design Basis
The first major effort in the design process is to establish the design basis. The flow
assurance engineer will be directly involved in terms of determining and documenting the
fluid characteristics, in terms of both PVT behavior and the potential for solids formation.
For the other aspects of the design basis, such as reservoir behavior, site characteristics,
and host facilities, the flow assurance engineer will need to ensure that the data needed
for the flow assurance analyses are included in the design basis. Thus the flow assurance
engineer will need to interface with those responsible for reservoir engineering,
metoceanic data, bathymetry, and surface facilities. These interfaces will continue
throughout the project. It is important to note that the design basis will need to be built
with conservatism to offset poor or missing data.
This step in the design process assumes that fluid samples have been collected. A
substantial amount of laboratory work may be required to determine the characteristics of
the fluid samples. Standard PVT measurements should be performed on the fluids, and
then fluid characterizations should be developed for use in thermal-hydraulic and other
modeling (reservoir and process). Section 4 discusses PVT behavior and fluid
characterization. The fluids should also be tested for potential solids formation such as
wax and asphaltenes.

3.2

Thermal-Hydraulic Design
The thermal- hydraulic design effort evaluates the lifecycle performance of the entire
production system. All parts of the system and all interfaces must be considered
throughout the operating lifetime of the development. This effort also should include
assessment of the potential for flow reductions due to solids formation.

H-0806.35

3-2

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

At the beginning of this step, basic design and operating principles should be set.
Examples include methods to be used to keep the production system out of the hydrate
formation region. For oil systems this could mean insulation. For gas system this would
require chemical inhibition. Another example would be to establish a lower limit on well
production rate and/or to use insulated tubing to prevent wax deposition in wellbores
during normal operation. This could be extended to the flowline, or wax may be
managed in the flowline with pigging and chemical injection. Such principles help guide
the flow assurance engineer through the design process; however, these principles should
be continuously evaluated in light of system operability and economics.
3.2.1

Hydraulic Modeling
Most system design attributes can be set on the basis of steady state analyses. Steadystate hydraulic models are used to determine the diameters for production tubing,
production flowlines, injection flowlines, and export pipelines. Criteria for line sizing
include pressure constraints, flow rates, and erosional velocity limits. As part of the line
sizing exercise and hydraulic assessment, changes in parameters such as production rates,
water cut, and GOR during the field life need to be evaluated. Artificial lift may also be
considered. Operating pressures will be calculated. Sections 5, 6, and 14 deal with
multiphase flow, line sizing, and erosion.

3.2.2

Thermal Modeling
Thermal modeling is typically combined with hydraulic modeling, thus thermal- hydraulic
modeling. Operating temperatures are calculated as a function of insulation level and
other parameters initially via steady state analysis. Section 7 covers thermal modeling.

3.2.3

Assessment of Transient Thermal-Hydraulic Behavior

The operation of subsea production systems and transport systems involves transient
processes, e.g. shutdowns, startups, and rate changes. It is during these transient
operations that issues like hydrate control and liquid handling become important system
design and operability drivers.
Examples of transient thermal- hydraulic modeling include wellbore warmup with restart,
flowline/riser cooldown upon shutdown, and depressurization. For deepwater oil
systems, the cooldown time to hydrate conditions has typically driven the insulation
level. Transient analysis may also include determining the potential for slugging and slug
characterization. Slugging can impact selection of line size, and thus the hydraulic and
line-sizing analysis may need to be re-iterated. Sections 8 and 17 cover transient
operations and slugging, respectively.

H-0806.35

3-3

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

3.2.4

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Assessment of Fluid Behavior and Solids Formation/Deposition

In this step, the thermodynamic behavior of the fluids is evaluated in view of the system
thermal and hydraulic performance to assure design criteria are met. Hydrate
dissociation curves are determined for the production fluids, and wax and asphaltene
formation envelopes are developed. The operating temperatures and pressures are
compared to these envelopes to predict when and where solid may form. Solids control is
responsible for many of the features of subsea design and operation including insulation,
chemical injection, pigging facilities, and special operating procedures for shutdown.
Methods for remediation of deposited solids also need to be developed. These methods
may require specific facilities in the design (e.g. solvent lines in the umbilical for
remediating asphaltene deposits in wellbores) and/or the development of special
procedures. Sections 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 discuss hydrates, wax, asphaltenes, emulsions,
and scale.

3.3

Interface with Mechanical Design

Flow assurance engineers and the engineers responsible for the mechanical design of the
subsea facilities must assure that characteristics such as line diameters, operating and
shut-in pressures, required insulation levels, and operating temperatures are consistent
within the system design. Information provided by the flow assurance effort is used in
the design of flowlines, pipelines, risers, subsea equipment (trees and manifolds),
umbilicals, and completions.

3.4

Operating Strategies
Operating strategies must be consistent with the system design and should be adaptable to
suit new circumstances in the event that fluid characteristics or other system
characteristics are found to be significantly different from those in the design basis.
Development of operating strategies is presented in Section 21.

3.5

Host Facility Requirements

The host facilities are a key part of the subsea system design, and its requirements and
capabilities must not be overlooked. Examples include the capacity, arrangement, and
control of receiving equipment (separators, slugcatchers, surge tanks, and flare knockout
drums), chemical injection storage and pumping, pigging equipment, normal and
emergency power, and control. Instrumentation, controls, and facility capabilities have to
be completely integrated into the overall system design and operability. Sections 18, 19,

H-0806.35

3-4

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

20, and 22 cover slugcatcher design, pigging, other operations, and host facility
requirements.
3.6

System Economics
There are numerous detailed design and manufacture activities and considerations that
are implicitly lumped into the Assess System Economics step. Section 23 covers system
economics and risk management.

H-0806.35

3-5

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE
Figure 3-1: FLOW ASSURANCE DESIGN PROCESS
ESTABLISH DESIGN BASIS

Reservoir Behavior
as f(t)
Productivity Index
Production Profiles
Pres. vs. Depletion
Temperature

Fluid Behavior
PVT Characterization
Hydrates
Wax
Asphaltenes

Flowline
Routing
Bathymetry
Seabed Temp.

INTERFACE WITH
MECHANICAL DESIGN

Host Facilities
Separator Pres.
Acceptable Arrival
Temp.

Flowlines, Pipelines, & Risers

Subsea Equipment
Umbilicals
Wellbores

OPERATING
STRATEGIES

FLOW SYSTEM THERMAL-HYDRAULIC DESIGN AND FLUID

BEHAVIOR
HYDRAULIC DESIGN

Model
Wells

Model
Flowlines

Model
Wells

Select Tubing
and Flowline
Diameters and
# of Flowlines

Plateau and
EOL Conditions
Satisfied?

Hydrates
Wax
Asphaltenes
Scale

Model
Flowlines

Prediction
Control
Remediation

Select Tubing
and
Flowline
Insulation

ThermalHydraulics OK?

HOST FACILITY
REQUIREMENTS

ASSESS
TRANSIENT
THERMALHYDRAULICS

Yes

ThermalHydraulics and
Fluid Behavior
OK?

Yes

Reservoir, Flow
System, and Host Design
Compatible?

Yes

Processing Capabilities
Processing Pres./Temps.
Metering
Storage Volumes
Export Requirements
PCS
Chemical Injection Pumps
Chemical Storage
Flare Requirements
Utility & Emergency Power
Surge/Slug Volumes
Surge/Slug Control

Startup / Warmup
Shutdown / Cooldown
Turndown / Ramp-up
Depressurization
Slugging

Yes
No

Procedures
Valve Sequences
Pump Sequences
Chemical Injection
Rates
Activity Durations

ASSESS FLUID
PHASE
BEHAVIOR

THERMAL DESIGN

ASSESS SYSTEM
ECONOMICS
CAPITAL COST
OPERATING COSTS
NET PRESENT VALUE

System
and Economics
Optimum?

Yes

DONE

H-0806.35

3-6

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

4.0

FLUID PROPERTIES AND PHASE BEHAVIOR

4.1

Introduction
Modeling of oil and gas production, processing, and transportation system requires
knowledge of how the fluid behaves with changes in temperature and pressure. This
modeling work will require not only fluid properties (densities, viscosities, heat
capacities) but also the phase behavior of the fluids.
Multi-component phase behavior is a complex phenomenon, which requires accurate
determination if two-phase pressure loss, hold-up and flow regime are to be determined
with any degree of confidence.
The phase behavior will determine the vapor-liquid split and the thermodynamic
properties of each of the phases present, and it is important for the designer of such a
system to have a knowledge of what form this equilibrium takes, and how it may change
in different parts of the pipeline. Since it is expected that both temperature and pressure
will fall as fluids flow along the pipeline, it is possible that either condensation or
evaporation will take place within the pipe. This can have a significant effect on liquid
holdup and hence pressure drop. It also means that the CGR (or GOR) can vary
significantly depending on whether it is based on pipeline inlet or outlet conditions, and it
is therefore important to make it clear under what conditions it has been calculated.
In practice, experimentally determined phase behavior is often limited and one has to
employ some method of prediction. There are two approaches commonly employed in
the prediction of hydrocarbon phase behavior. These are the black oil method, which
assumes that only two components, i.e. gas and liquid, make up the mixture, and the socalled compositional approach, in which each hydrocarbon component is taken into
account. The methods have their own relative merits and are discussed in this section.
This section also addresses fluid sampling. Without appropriate sampling techniques,
sample handling, and analysis methods, the predictive methods used in modeling of the
production and processing of reservoir fluids will be in error.

H-0806.35

4-1

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

4.2

Reservoir Fluids

4.2.1

Phase Behavior

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Reservoir fluids are often described in terms of their phase behavior, which can be
defined as the relationship between the fluid phases (usually the gas and the
oil/condensate) and how the phases change with variations in temperature and pressure.
Single Component Phase Behavior
In describing phase behavior, a system consisting of a single, pure substance is
considered first. Such a system behaves differently from systems made up of more than
one component. A phase diagram (or phase envelope) is a plot of pressure versus
temperature showing the conditions under which the various phases will be present.
Figure 4.2-1 shows a phase diagram for a single, pure substance.
4000

Pure Component Phase Diagram

CRITICAL
POINT

Pressure

3000

LIQUID

SOLID
2000

VAPOR PRESSURE
CURVE
1000

TRIPLE
POINT

VAPOR

0
-50

100

150

200

Temperature

Figure 4.2-1: Phase Diagram for a Single-Component System

This phase diagram shows the temperature and pressure conditions under which the
vapor, liquid, and solid phases exist. Various components of the phase diagram are
defined below.

H-0806.35

4-2

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Vapor Pressure Curve

The curve that divides the vapor phase from the liquid phase is called the vapor pressure
curve. At conditions above the curve only liquid will exist, and at conditions below the
curve only vapor exists. At pressure-temperature points on the curve, vapor and liquid
will co-exist.
Triple Point
The triple point is a unique point on the phase diagram at which vapor, liquid, and solid
all coexist.
Critical Point
The upper limit of the vapor pressure curve is called the critical point. The temperature
and pressure at this point are referred as to the critical temperature (Tc) and the critical
pressure (Pc).
Sublimation and Melting Curves
The phase diagram also illustrates the sublimation curve and melting curve, which
separate the solid and gas phases and the liquid and solid phases, respectively.
Multicomponent Phase Behavior
Reservoir fluids are multicomponent mixtures and exhibit more complex phase behavior
than pure components. Figure 4.2-2 illustrates a phase diagram for a gas-condensate
system. This diagram does not include potential solid phases that occur in reservoir
fluids; the diagram focuses only on the vapor and liquid phases.
Instead of a single curve representing the vapor pressure curve as with single component
fluids, there is a broad region in which vapor and liquid coexists. This region is called
the two-phase region or phase envelope. The two-phase region is bounded on one side by
the dew point curve and on the other by the bubble point curve. The two curves join at
the critical point. Figure 4.2-2 also illustrates the dew and bubble point curves.

H-0806.35

4-3

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

7000

Multiple Component Phase Diagram

6000

CRITICAL
POINT

BUBBLE
POINT
CURVE

5000

Pressure (psia)

CRICONDENBAR

DEW POINT CURVE

VAPOR FRACTION = 100 MOLE %

4000
LIQUID

99
MOLE %

QUALITY
LINES

3000

95
MOLE %

CRICONDENTHERM

90
MOLE %

80
MOLE %

2000

1000
VAPOR

0
-100

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Temperature (F)

Figure 4.2-2: Multiple Component Phase Diagram.

Dew Point and Bubble Point

At a pressure below the dew point curve, the fluid will be single-phase vapor. As the
pressure is increased at a constant temperature, the vapor compresses until the pressure
reaches a point at which the first drop of liquid is formed. This is referred to as the dew
point. The pressure at which the first liquid drop forms is called the dew point pressure.
As the pressure is increased above the dew point pressure, more and more liquid forms.
At a pressure above the bubble point curve, the fluid will be single-phase liquid. As the
pressure is reduced at a constant temperature, the liquid expands until the pressure
reaches a point at which the first bubble of vapor is formed. This is referred to as the

H-0806.35

4-4

1-Dec-00

1000

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

bubble point. The pressure at which the first gas is formed is the bubble point pressure.
As the pressure is decreased below the bubble point pressure, more and more gas appears.
Critical Point
As can be seen when comparing Figures 4.2-1 and 4.2-2, the definition for the critical
point for a single component is not the same as that for a multiple component mixture. A
rigorous definition of the critical point is that it is the point at which all properties of the
liquid and the gas become identical.
Cricondentherm and Cricondenbar
The highest temperature on the two-phase envelope is called the cricondentherm. The
highest pressure on the two-phase envelope is called the cricondenbar. These are
illustrated on Figure 4.2-2.
Quality Lines
Another feature in the two-phase envelope are quality lines. These lines indicate curves
on constant vapor or liquid quantities within the two-phase region. In Figure 4.2-2 there
are quality lines for 99, 95, 90 and 80 mole percent vapor. The quality lines all converge
at the critical point.
Retrograde Condensation
For many multiple component mixtures a phenomenon called retrograde condensation
can occur. If the mixture is at a pressure greater tha n the cricondenbar and at a
temperature greater than the critical temperature, it will be single-phase gas. If the
pressure is decreased isothermally, the dew point curve will be crossed and liquid will
form. A decrease in pressure has caused liquid to form; this is the reverse of the behavior
one would expect, hence the name retrograde condensation. As the pressure continues
decreasing, more liquid will form until at some pressure the amount of liquid starts
decreasing. Eventually the dew point curve will be crossed again.
Dense Phase Region
It is common practice to refer to the area above the cricondenbar as the dense phase
region. In this region it possible to move from a temperature well below the critical
temperature to one well above it without any discernible phase change having taken
place. At the lower temperature the fluid would behave more like a liquid and at the

H-0806.35

4-5

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

higher temperature it would behave more like a vapor, but in between it would not exhibit
any of the traditional signs of a phase change.
4.2.2

Components of Reservoir Fluids

Reservoir fluids contain a multitude of chemical components, which can be divided into
two groups: hydrocarbons and non- hydrocarbons. The hydrocarbon components include:

Paraffins (straight chain and branched)

Methane, ethane, propane, butanes, pentanes, hexanes, heptanes, octanes, etc.

Waxes

Naphthenes

Aromatics

Cyclopentane, cyclohexane, methylcyclohexane, etc.

Benzene, toluene, xylenes, ethylbenzene, naphthalene, etc.

Resins and Asphaltenes

Large molecules composed mainly of aromatic rings or carbon and hydrogen but
also can contain nitrogen, sulfur, oxygen, and metals

The non-hydrocarbon components of reservoir fluids include:

Water

Carbon dioxide (CO2 )

Sulfur compounds

4-8

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

4500
BLACK OIL

4000
PRESSURE PATH
IN RESERVOIR

3500

BUBBLE POINT CURVE

Pressure (psia)

3000
2

CRITICAL
POINT

2500

2000

1500

40
30

1000

20
10 % LIQUID

500
SEPARATOR

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Temperature (F)

Figure 4.2-3: Black Oil Phase Diagram

H-0806.35

4-9

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

4000
PRESSURE PATH
IN RESERVOIR
1

3500

VOLATILE OIL
CRITICAL
POINT

Pressure (psia)

3000
BUBBLE POINT
90
CURVE

80
70

2500

50
40
30
20

2000

10 % LIQUID

1500

1000

500

SEPARATOR

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Temperature (F)

Figure 4.2-4: Volatile Oil Phase Diagram.

H-0806.35

4-10

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

5000

PRESSURE PATH
IN RESERVOIR

RETROGRADE GAS

Pressure (psia)

4000

DEW POINT CURVE

CRITICAL
POINT

3000
60

30
20
10 % LIQUID

2000
3

SEPARATOR

1000

0
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

Temperature (F)

Figure 4.2-5: Retrograde Gas Phase Diagram.

H-0806.35

4-11

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

3000

PRESSURE PATH
IN RESERVOIR
1

WET GAS

2500

DEW POINT CURVE

Pressure (psia)

2000
CRITICAL
POINT

1500
20 % LIQUID
10
5

1000

2
SEPARATOR

500

0
-50

100

150

200

250

Temperature (F)

Figure 4.2-6: Wet Gas Phase Diagram.

H-0806.35

4-12

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

3000

PRESSURE PATH
IN RESERVOIR

DRY GAS

2500

Pressure (psia)

2000

1500

1000

DEW POINT CURVE

CRITICAL
POINT
2
10 5

SEPARATOR

1% LIQUID

500

0
-100

-50

100

150

200

Temperature (F)

Figure 4.2-4: Dry Gas Phase Diagram.

H-0806.35

4-13

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

4.3

Black Oil Model

4.3.1

Black Oil Model

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

The black oil approach to the prediction of phase behavior ignores the fluid composition
and simply considers the mixture as consisting of a gas and liquid phase in which the gas
may be dissolved in the liquid. The basic assumption of a black oil model is that
increasing system pressure (and reducing temperature) cause more gas to dissolve in the
liquid phases, and, conversely, decreasing system pressure (and increasing temperature)
cause gas to evaporate from the liquid phase. It was previously noted that retrograde
condensation involves the conversion of gas to liquid on reducing pressure. This is
contrary to the fundamental assumption of the black oil model and so the black oil
approach is only valid for systems operating at conditions far removed from the
retrograde region.
In a typical liquid reservoir, the reservoir condition is well to the left of the critical point
and so the expansion process involves the continual evolution of gas, i.e. the operating
point moves steadily across the quality lines to a condition of ever decreasing liquid
content. This type of process would be adequately represented by a black oil model.
For the gas reservoir, the reservoir condition lies to the right of the critical point so that
on expansion, (reducing pressure) the operating point moves across the quality lines to a
condition of increasing liquid content, i.e. retrograde condensation. This process could
not be represented by a black oil model.
As a general guide a black oil model should be adequate for describing crude oil- gas
systems, while a compositional model is necessary to describe wet-gas, gas-condensate
and dense phase systems.
The black oil model employs certain concepts and nomenclature, which require
definition. These are discussed briefly below:
Producing Gas Oil Ratio (GOR)
This is the quantity of gas evolved when reservoir fluids are flashed to stock tank
conditions. The units are standard cubic feet of gas per stock tank barrel of oil
(SCF/STB) measured at 14.7 psia and 60F.
The GOR of a crude is obtained by experimental testing. However, the GOR will vary
depending on how many flash stages are employed to get down to stock tank conditions.

H-0806.35

4-14

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

The normal convention is to calculate GOR from the sum of gas volumes evolved from a
multistage flash procedure (normally this involves 2 or 3 flash stages). This more closely
represents conditions in the field with the pressure and temperature conditions chosen for
the first stage flash approximating to conditions likely to be experienced in the first stage
separator in the field.
Solution Gas Oil Ratio (R s )
This is the quantity of gas dissolved in the oil at any temperature and pressure. It
represents the quantity of gas that would be evolved from the oil if its temperature and
pressure were altered to stock tank conditions, 14.7 psia and 60F. Hence, by definition
the Rs of stock tank oil is zero.
The Rs crude at its bubble point is equal to the producing GOR of the reservoir fluids.
The volume of free gas present at any pressure and temperature is the difference between
the GOR and the Rs. The volume of free gas is corrected for pressure, temperature and
compressibility to compute the actual in-situ volume of gas and hence superficial gas
velocity. Rs can be evaluated from standard correlations such as Glaso or Standing.
These correlations require as input the oil and gas gravity and the pressure and
temperature conditions.
Volume Formation Factor (B o )
The volume formation factor is the ratio of the volume occupied by oil at any pressure
and temperature to the volume occupied at stock tank conditions. The units are pipeline
barrels per stock tank barrel (BBL/STB). The volume formation factor of stock tank oil
is thus 1.0. Through use of Bo the volume flow rate and density of the liquid phase can
be calculated. Standard correlations are available to compute Bo . These require as input
the oil and gas density, the Rs of the liquid at the conditions of interest, and the pressure
and temperature.
Live Oil Viscosity
The viscosity of the oil in a two-phase pipeline depends on the stock tank oil viscosity
(dead oil viscosity), the solution gas oil ratio at the conditions of interest, and the pressure
and temperature. Correlations are available to compute the live oil viscosity.
The correlations available for Rs, Bo and live oil viscosity will yield approximate values
only and where laboratory or field data is available, these should be used to adjust and

H-0806.35

4-15

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

tune these correlations. The way in which the correlations are tuned will depend on the
quantity of field data available.
The minimum physical property information required to run a black oil model is:

Stock tank oil gravity

Gas gravity
There is often some confusion about the definition of gas gravity and hence uncertainty
about the value of this data item. The majority of the correlations are based upon
multistage 23 stages) separation, and the gas gravity used should always be the total
gravity based upon the weighted average gravity from each stage:
n

Total gas gravity =

sg i * Gi

i =1

where:
sgi = gravity of the ith separator stage off- gas
Gi = free gas GOR at the ith separator stage
n = number of stages in the separator train with the final stage at stock tank
conditions.

Total producing GOR

This should be taken as the sum of the gas volumes evolved from each stage of a
multistage flash.
4.3.2

Thermal-Hydraulic Simulation with the Black Oil Model

In thermal-hydraulic simulators, the black oil correlation models can be used to simulate
the key PVT fluid properties of the oil/gas/water system. These empirical correlations
treat the oil/gas system as a simple two-component system, unlike the more rigorous
multi-component compositional model methods (equations of state). As previously
described, the hydrocarbon is treated simply as an "oil" component (if present) and a
"gas" component related to stock tank conditions. All that is needed for most

H-0806.35

4-16

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

applications is a minimum of production data: oil gravity, gas gravity, solution gas/oil
ratio and, if water is present, the watercut.
When to Use Black Oil Fluid Modeling
Black oil fluid modeling is appropriate for a wide range of applications and hydrocarbon
fluid systems. In general, the basic black oil correlations will provide reasonable
accuracy in most PVT fluid property evaluations over the range of pressures and
temperatures likely to be found in production or pipeline systems. However, care should
be taken when applying the "black oil approach" to highly volatile crude oils or
condensates where accurate modeling of the gaseous "light ends" is required. In this
case, the modeler needs to consider using compositional modeling techniques, which
describe the fluid as a multi-component system.
To increase the accuracy of the basic black oil correlations for modeling multiphase flow,
thermal- hydraulic simulators typically provide the facility to adjust salient values of a
number of the most important PVT fluid properties to match laboratory data.
Specifically, the following points can be calibrated:

Oil saturated gas content at the bubble point (Rs )

Formation volume factor at the bubble point (Bo )

Formation volume factor at pressure above the bubble point to account for oil
compressibility above bubble point

Live oil viscosity at the bubble point

The above fluid properties are considered the single most important parameters affecting
the accuracy of multi-phase flow calculations. Calibration of these properties at the
bubble point and above can increase the accuracy of the correlations over all pressures
and temperatures.
This facility is typically optional, but the above calibrations will significantly improve the
accuracy of the predicted gas/liquid ratio, the flowing oil density and the oil volume
formation factor as a function of temperature and pressure. If the calibration data are
omitted, however, the thermal-hydraulic simulators will calibrate on the basis of oil and
gas gravity alone and thus, there will be a loss in accuracy. It should be noted that the

H-0806.35

4-17

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Black Oil calibration is only applicable to oil fluid types as it is not appropriate for a gas
fluid type.
4.4

Compositional Models

4.4.1

Equations of State
In a compositional model the predictions of gas and liquid physical properties are
performed through use of an equation of state, EOS. Any equation correlating pressure
(P), volume (V) and temperature (T) is known as an EOS. For an ideal gas the EOS is
simply:
PV = nRT
where:
n = number of moles of gas
R = Universal gas constant.
A gas is ideal if its molecules do not interact with each other and occupy no volume.
This is obviously not true, but the behavior of most real gases does not deviate drastically
from the behavior predicted by the ideal gas behavior. One way of writing an equation of
state for a real gas is to insert a correction factor into the ideal gas equation. This results
in:
PV = ZnRT
where the correction factor, Z, is known as the compressibility factor or z- factor. The
compressibility factor is the ratio of the volume actually occupied by a real gas at a given
pressure and temperature to the volume it would occupy at the same pressure and
temperature if it behaved like an ideal gas. The compressibility factor is not a constant.
It varies with changes in composition, pressure, and temperature.
To account for the non- ideality of most gas systems the ideal gas equation is modified to
include various correlating constants. The most commonly used equations of state used
in the oil and gas industry are called cubic equations of state because their mathematical
forms are cubic in terms of density or the z- factor. The two most popular equations of
state used in industry today are the Redlich-Kwong-Soave, the Peng-Robinson EOS, and
modifications of them.

H-0806.35

4-18

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

These cubic equations of state include terms to correct pressure for the forces of
attraction between the molecules. The actual pressure exerted by a real gas is less than
that of an ideal gas. Additionally, the cubic equations of state attempt to correct the
molar volume due to the volume occupied by the molecules.
The Peng-Robinson (PR) EOS, for example, is given by:
P =

RT
V b

a(T )
V (V + b) + b(V b )

where for any mixture :

b = i bi
i

i = mole mole fraction of component i

bi =

empirical constant for component i. This parameter represents the volume

occupied by the molecules.

a=
i

k ij =

i j (l kij ) ai a j

empirically determined interaction parameter for the two components, i

and j.
ai a j =

empirical constants for components i and j. These are a function of

temperature and represent the pressure contribution from the attractive forces.
The cubic equations of state can model liquids as well as gases and can be used to
calculate the vapor- liquid equilibria of hydrocarbon mixtures. The equation of state
allows a thermodynamically consistent method to evaluate the gas and liquid properties
when these two phases coexist.
The prediction of liquid densities was an area that ne eded improvement in original
development of the cubic equations of state. An empirical but effective way to improve
the accuracy of the liquid density predictions is to use the volume translation correction.
The volume translation is a linear correction of the predicted EOS volumes which does
not affect the equilibrium results from the original EOS. Therefore, this correction,
which is sometimes referred to as the Peneloux correction, is thermodynamically
consistent.

H-0806.35

4-19

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Another equation of state that is sometimes used in the oil and gas industry is the
Benedict-Weber-Rubin (BWR) equation and its derivative, the BWRS equation.
4.4.2

Viscosity
Viscosity, which is a transport property, cannot be evaluated from an EOS, but the EOS
provides compositional and property data that is needed in the viscosity models. Two
compositional methods to predict viscosity are commonly used: the LBC method (gas
and liquid) and the Pedersen method (gas and liquid). Preliminary testing has shown the
Pedersen method to be the most widely applicable and accurate for oil and gas viscosity
predictions. The Pedersen method is based on the corresponding state theory, as is the
LBC method.
Lower Alkanes
Predicted liquid viscosities using LBC and Pedersen methods have been compared to
experimental data for methane and octane as a function of both temperature and pressure
and for pentane as a function of temperature. For both methane and pentane the Pedersen
method predictions show close agreement with experimental data. For octane, the
Pedersen and LBC methods give comparable results. For the aromatic compound, ethyl
benzene, the Pedersen method is not as good as the LBC method.
Higher Alkanes
The results for higher alkanes eicosane and triacontane are mixed: the Pedersen method is
adequate for eicosane whereas the LBC method is slightly better than Pedersen for
triacontane. For triacontane both LBC and the Pedersen methods are inadequate.
However, in the majority of cases the higher hydrocarbons should be treated as petroleum
fractions rather than as single named components.
Petroleum Fractions
The LBC method describes viscosity as a function of the fluid critical parameters,
acentric factor and density. The LBC model is therefore very sensitive to both density
and the characterization of the petroleum fractions.
Water
The Pedersen method suffers the same drawback as the LBC method in that it is unable to
predict the temperature dependence of water, a polar molecule. To overcome this
problem, the Pedersen method has been modified especially for water so that it can

H-0806.35

4-20

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

accurately model the viscosity of water in the liquid phase. This was achieved by the
introduction of a temperature-dependent correction factor. However the prediction of the
viscosity of the gas phase is also affected, though in only a minor way.
Methanol
Neither the LBC nor the Pederson method can deal with polar components with the
Pederson method slightly worse than the LBC method. This is not surprising, as both
methods were developed for non-polar components and mixtures. The Pedersen method
works best with light alkanes and petroleum mixtures in the liquid phase. It performs as
well or better than the LBC method in nearly all situations.
The choice of the equation of state has a large effect on the viscosities predicted by both
methods. The LBC method is more sensitive to these equation of state effects than is the
Pedersen method.
4.5

Fluid Characterization
Petroleum reservoir fluids consist of thousands of different hydrocarbon molecules. The
diversity in chemical structure of the individual components increases with the carbon
number. In reality it is not practical to analyze for all of the components that may exist in
a reservoir fluid. Even if the separation and identification of each component present
were possible, the usefulness of such information would be limited. From a modeling
standpoint, it is desirable to keep the number of components small in using EOS to
minimize computation time requirements and round-off errors.
Standard composition analyses often stop at C7, C10, or C20. The gas chromatographic
analysis of pure hydrocarbon components up to C6 is routine. The physical and chemical
properties of these compounds (as required by an EOS) are accurately known. However,
compounds with higher carbon numbers are conventionally analyzed in terms of true
boiling fractions. The analysis is usually done in a gas chromatograph and provides the
mole fraction of all compounds that contain the same number of carbons in their
structure.
There are components that are too heavy and/or polar and are not volatile enough to be
separated by GC carbon number analysis. These components typically make up the
residue that is reported as the last carbon number component, and this residue consists of
all the components that have carbon numbers equal to or higher than the highest

H-0806.35

4-21

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

unseparable carbon number group. The residual group may be the C7+, C10+, C20+, or
C30+ fraction.
Because the components with carbon numbers C7 and higher are not separated as pure
compounds, their critical parameters are not known for use in EOS modeling. As a
result, a process is used to develop a set of pseudo-components to represent these
compounds and to determine the critical and other EOS parameters for these pseudocomponents. This process is referred to as the fluid or oil characterization process. An
EOS characterization refers to a list of hydrocarbon components and pseudo-components
and their critical properties and molecular weights, and it includes the binary interaction
parameters.
The fluid characterization procedure uses experimental data to assign equation of state
parameters to a set of pseudo-components. The experimental data often originates from
PVT experiments (e.g. constant mass expansion, constant volume depletion, differential
liberation, multistage flashes) of the reservoir fluid of interest. Viscosity data may also
be used. Because the characterization process will be using data for a specific reservoir
fluid, the resulting characterization will only be valid for that reservoir fluid. There are
no universal fluid characterizations.
The development of an EOS characterization proceeds through a series of steps:

All relevant experimental data is collected and reviewed. These data may include:
Constant mass expansion
Constant volume depletion
Differential liberation
Multistage flashes
Viscosity
Compositional analysis

Built experimental data into PVT simulation package.

Obtain initial estimate of EOS characterization based on compositional analysis and

select number of pseudo-components to be used.

In the PVT simulator, tune pseudo-component critical parameters to minimize error

between experimental data and EOS predicted results based on fluid characterization.

H-0806.35

4-22

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Tuning EOS models to the experimental PVT data can be more of an art than a science,
and it requires the use of appropriate software programs. This is at least partially a result
of the EOS models being highly nonlinear and the number of adjustable parameters in the
regression being large. Additionally, there is no rigorous way to arrive at the global
minimum of such a highly nonlinear function. Special non-linear regression techniques
have been developed that allow adjusting the constants of the EOS and the critical
properties of the pseudo-components to tune the EOS predictions to PVT measurements.
There are limitations associated with fluid characterizations. The pseudo-components are
assumed to behave as single, lumped components in phase behavior, but in reality they do
not. Some of the pure components lump ed in a pseudo-component may not in reality
move from one phase to another as the pseudo-component does in the simulation of the
fluid. To overcome inaccuracies in the use of EOS to describe the phase behavior of
reservoir fluids, characterization procedures need to be followed to generate the most
appropriate set of pseudo-components and their relevant properties.
The EOS characterization may only be applicable to some of the processes the fluid may
undergo (e.g. reservoir depletion, flowline transport, facilities processing). These
processes may be those for which data were available and used in the development of the
characterization. Thus, the range of applicability of the EOS characterization depends on
the type of PVT data used and the pressure and temperature range of that data
4.6

Fluid Sampling Guidelines

The following guidelines are merely recommendations to encourage the reader to
consider the implications and limitations of current technology when designing and
implementing a fluid sampling program. Most are not so much new technology as they
are common sense. These common sense guidelines were included because they are not
consistently followed.
The oilfield environment involves high temperatures and pressures, and flammable
liquids and gases. In such an environment, safety is the primary guideline. While some
safety recommendations have been included in the following report, we have not
attempted to fully address the issue. It is the responsibility of each company to
implement these guidelines safely.

H-0806.35

4-23

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

4.6.1

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Overview
Executive Summary
As field developments move to deeper water and subsea technology becomes more
widely used, paraffin and asphaltenes become more of a real problem than an annoyance.
Proper planning becomes critical and cannot be performed without data obtained from
representative fluid samples. CTR 901 was formed to address the special considerations
associated with collecting and handling fluid samples containing paraffins and
asphaltenes.
These guidelines were expanded somewhat beyo nd the basic goal of fluid sampling for
paraffin because it was recognized that in many instances the same sample would be used
for multiple reservoir fluid studies by a wide range of disciplines.
The following guidelines were developed with input from industry experts and with
vendor input. Issues related to sampling at surface facilities, sampling with downhole
flowstream samplers and sampling with downhole formation testers were addressed
individually.
Conclusions
In addition to the obvious concerns with obtaining a representative sample from the
reservoir, other problem areas must be understood and carefully addressed. First, all
equipment used in a sampling operation must be clean. Steam cleaning alone may not
remove previously deposited solids and these solids, which precipitate from one sample,
may dissolve in the next. Second, sample transfers are a major concern in the area of
sampling. In general, transfers performed on samples stabilized at reservoir conditions of
temperature and pressure should provide the greatest opportunity for representative
transfer. Response from the vendor community is that this is a realistic and attainable
goal. Consequently, vendor efforts have recently been directed toward the design and
testing of such a system. Ideally, proper planning and equipment selection can minimize
the number of transfers.
A major hindrance to getting samples to the lab exists in the area of availability of D.O.T.
approved transportation cylinders. While laboratories are increasing their capabilities to
analyze samples at reservoir pressure, the availability of suitable transportation cylinders
is lagging, especially above 10,000 psi. Vendors report that the cost and time associated
with obtaining D.O.T. approval for a specific cylinder design in the pressure ranges
required for deepwater development is prohibitive. While some vendors are pursuing this

H-0806.35

4-24

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

approval, none are currently known which can transport a sample at pressures higher than
10,000 psi.
Recommendations

4.6.2

Investigate all reasonable sampling options and carefully plan and document all
sampling operations. Coordinate planning efforts with all departments involved in
acquiring the sample or in the use of the data that will come from the sample.
Develop a prioritized analysis program for the sample detailing which analyses are
the primary purpose of obtaining the sample. Communicate with all vendors
involved in obtaining and analyzing the sample.

Condition the well to acquire a representative sample and minimize contamination.

Insist that sampling is performed by trained personnel.

Pay specific attention to equipment cleaning prior to sampling.

Minimize the number of transfers a sample will undergo. Perform transfers as near to
reservoir conditions of temperature and pressure as possible.

Do whatever possible onsite to verify that a satisfactory sample has been obtained
before concluding the sampling operation.

Introduction to Sampling Paraffinic and Asphaltic Fluids

Reservoir oils and condensate liquids may precipitate paraffins or asphaltenes upon
reduction of pressure and/or temperature, or evolution of solution gas. This may occur in
the formation, the tubing or surface facilities.
Precipitation in the Formation
Precipitation in the formation will preclude the acquisition of representative samples by
any sampling technique. Bottomhole sampling may be successful only if the precipitate
reaches an equilibrium state in the flowing fluid. Fortunately, while there are references
to this type of precipitation in the literature, it unlikely with most Gulf of Mexico crudes.
Precipitation in the Tubing
In this situation, the sampler should be lowered in the hole to a depth below where
precipitation is first known to occur. If the pressure at the sampler depth is at or below the
bubble point pressure, surface sampling is advised below.

H-0806.35

4-25

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Precipitation in Surface Facilities

Solid hydrocarbon precipitates could occur in surface separation facilities including
separator liquid sampling lines. If bottomhole sampling is precluded, surface sampling
would be the only option. However, traditional surface sampling techniques fail to yield
representative separator liquid sample. The separator gas sample, however, is considered
reliable. In this situation, the liquid sample is best obtained downhole. Upon retrieval to
the surface the liquid sample will contain solution gas. The sample is flashed at the
prevailing separator conditions of pressure and temperature to yield an equivalent
separator liquid sample. Such sample will contain any hydrocarbon precipitates.
Recombination with the separator gas sample in the produced gas-oil ratio should yield a
representative reservoir fluid sample.
4.6.3

General Job Planning Considerations

Following are the items which one should consider when planning a fluid sampling job.
Consideration of these items will help to define whether surface or downhole sampling is
required as well as the volume of sample required. It is important to note that data from
reservoir fluid studies are used by a wide variety of people. Any sampling effort should
be coordinated with all involved parties.
As planning for a sampling job begins, it is important to define the goals and objectives
of the job. This will help to ensure that everything needed from the job is obtained and no
unnecessary costs are encountered. Following are some of the items of information
commonly sought from fluid samples. Included in parentheses are brief statements of
how that particular information is used. As can be seen from this list a large number of
departments may have an interest in a particular sample. It is important to coordinate with
all interested parties when planning a sampling job to promote maximum sample
utilization.
1. Wax/Paraffin/Asphaltene/Flow-Separation
(System Design)

Studies/Chemical

Inhibitor

Stud ies

2. PVT/Reservoir Fluid Phase Behavior (Reservoir Management and System Design)

3. Hydrate Analysis (System Design)
4. PNA, SARA (Reservoir Management and System Design)
5. Geochemistry, Fingerprinting, etc. (Reservoir Management, Exploration)

H-0806.35

4-26

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

6. Water analysis, e.g. chlorides, scale, corrosion (Reservoir Management and System
Design)
7. Crude Assay (Refinery Information, Product Value Determination)
Fluid types may or may not be known before sampling takes place. Certain sampling
methods can be problematic for specific fluid types. In addition to the anticipated phase,
information may also be available concerning contaminants like H2 S, CO2 , Sulfur, etc.
It is important to attempt to tabulate how much sample is needed to accomplish the goals
and objectives listed above. In addition to the quantity needed for a specific set of goals
and objectives, backup samples may be needed. A table is included in section 4.4.14
which may be of assistance in determining required sample volumes.
It is important to give prior thought to the equipment that will be needed or available for
a particular job. This applies not only to sampling equipment but also to any site transfer
and transportation equipment. Company policy and experience may limit choices in this
area. It should be verified that all necessary equipment is available and suitable for the
job. Among the things to check are:

Pressure and temperature ratings of all equipment. Verify with vendors that
pressurized tools can be heated to the desired temperatures for site transfer as well as
being rated for downhole conditions.

Verify that sample containers for transfer and storage meet the goals and objectives of
the job. Items to consider in the selection of sample containers include:
Whether atmospheric, low pressure (i.e. in the range of separator conditions) or
high pressure (i.e. in the range of reservoir conditions) will be required. Verify
that all cylinders will be pressure tested prior to use.
Whether special cylinders are required (e.g. for H2 S, Hg, etc.)
In all but rare instances D.O.T. certification of transportation is required. Not all
currently available equipment, especially in the higher pressure ranges, has been
approved for transportation in the United States. Verify with the vendor that all
necessary equipment has been D.O.T. certified (or exempted).
A variety of transfer and displacement mechanisms are available in sampling and
transportation equipment. Company policy and experience may limit the available
choices as well as safety concerns. The following list details the available transfer

H-0806.35

4-27

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

mechanisms generally listed in order of preference. [Mercury is available but was

not listed due to environmental and safety concerns. Gas can be used as a
displaced fluid only (as opposed to a displacing fluid) but beware of the difficulty
of accurately obtaining the required voidage for transportation.]
Piston or diaphragm
Formation or saturated brine
Distilled water - Not recommended for acid gas
Potable water - May contain unknown contaminants

Consider in advance any onsite transfer to transportation vessel needs. These may
include:
Having a sufficient quantity of equipment on hand including backup equipment in
case of problems.
Method and degree of heating. Coordination with sampling tool vendors will be
necessary to obtain a heating program which is acceptable to all parties.
Additional technology is needed in this area to provide heating methods that
address the safety concerns of the vendors related to doing transfers at higher
temperatures.
Solvents and other supplies for cleaning all equipment prior to and during the
sampling operation should be available along with proper disposal containers.

Make sure all vendor and field personnel are properly trained and understand the
importance of your sampling job. Sampling in existing developments is sometimes
performed by field personnel who may:
not be properly trained in sampling
not understand the importance of obtaining a representative sample and
maintaining it during transfer and analysis, and
not understand the importance of supplying proper documentation of the sampling
effort.

Additionally, it is important in downhole sampling to make sure that the importance of

the job is understood by all decision making personnel, e.g. in the drilling department, so
that problems that arise can be properly handled.

H-0806.35

4-28

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Make certain that the laboratories involved have the proper capabilities for the type of
sample you are providing. The additional cost of taking a pressurized sample and
transporting it under pressure to the lab is wasted if the lab must reduce the pressure
of the sample to perform the transfer or to analyze the sample.

A key issue is onsite sample verification/validation. It is extremely valuable to verify

onsite that a hydrocarbon sample has been taken and, if possible, that it is
uncontaminated. In deep water developments in the exploratory phase it is extremely
costly to return to a well to resample. Additional technology is needed in this area.
Currently available technology and common sense methods include:
Visual observation
Check for and report any leaks.
Fittings and connections should be observed during tool disassembly to note
the presence of oil or mud. If only filtrate is found it can be observed under
UV light for florescence.
A sight glass rated for the same temperature and pressure may be installed in
the transfer assembly so that fluids may be observed during transfer.
Verify that opening pressure and temperature are consistent with expectations.
Check for a bubble-point at the surface and record the sample temperature during
the check and subsequent transfer for validation at lab.
Fluid analyzers are available in downhole tools which can give indication during
sampling of what fluid is entering the tool.
Verify proper mechanical operation of the tool including clocks, rupture disks,
etc.
Check the water cushion volume on formation testers to verify that a sample was
taken.
Bleed a minute amount of sample. This should only be done if there is a high
level of confidence in the safety of the operation and in the ability to limit
discharge.
Maximum utilization of sample is a key issue.
Establish a priority of analysis and verify the results of key items before
proceeding to lower priority items.

H-0806.35

4-29

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

If possible avoid splitting sample until main goals are achieved. Splitting samples
and recombining them has inherent opportunities for sample alteration.

Cost and time limitation are always a consideration and may limit the type and
volume of sample taken.
Reservoir and well specific characteristics will impact your sampling efforts.
Following are some items to consider:
Wellbore: hole diameter, rugosity, deviation, size of casing and other well bore
equipment, drilling problems which have been encountered, etc.
Again, verify that all equipment is rated for the reservoir temperature and pressure
anticipated in this wellbore. Also, verify that all equipment is rated for any special
contaminants anticipated.
If possible make some prediction concerning the maximum drawdown that can be
achieved without taking reservoir fluid through a phase change. Often this will
not be possible.
Formation: Formation pressure, permeability, formation consolidation and grain
size.
Mud system: Mud system, mudcake and their associated filtrates and fines. In
some cases, critical sampling needs may dictate in advance that the mud system
meet certain criteria, e.g. it is extremely unlikely that an uncontaminated oil
sample can be acquired with formation testers if oil based mud is used in the
drilling of the well. In some cases, it has been reported that even after two weeks
of drill stem testing oil based mud contamination could still be detected in the
flow stream.

4.6.4

Determine in advance what will be needed in the "Final Sampling Report" and
communicate this to all relevant parties. Include specific requirements for
presentation of data and conclusions as well as for onsite documentation of the
sampling job.

Surface Sampling
Pre-job Preparation
Verify that the well is properly conditioned for sampling (See section 4.4.9).
Verify all equipment has been properly cleaned (See section 4.4.10).

H-0806.35

4-30

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Verify that sufficient sample containers of appropriate type are available and on site.
Verify that all sampling equipment is prepared for sampling.
Job Execution
Sampling points on the surface depend on the objective of sampling and tests to be
performed. Examples of sampling locations for various test objectives are as follows:

The wellhead or choke manifold may be the best sampling point when checking
(qualitatively) for the existence of paraffins and asphaltenes. This would typically be
the surface sampling point usually having the highest temperature and pressure with
the least likelihood of deposition having occurred. Care must be taken with high
pressure environments by using appropriate high pressure sampling cylinders. This
sampling point is also feasible for dead oil sampling.

The separator is the most suitable place to sample if the objective is to reconstruct the
reservoir fluid. This would be done for such tests as PVT, hydrates etc. Consider that
the test separator may contain contaminants from previous testing. Attempt to
properly size the separator to allow sufficient throughput to clean any residue left in
the separator. The primary stage separator should be the one used for sampling.
Sampling points on the separator include:
Siphon tube - A siphon tube is available on some separators which extends from
an external sampling valve down into the oil pan of the separator.
Oil dump - oil
Meter runs - oil or gas
Top valve - gas
Sight glass for oil or gas. This may not be preferred if it is cooler than the rest of
the separator.

H-0806.35

Various sampling equipment configurations and procedures can be used. Example

configurations and procedures are given in section 4.4.10. These may aid in
determining the preferred configuration for a given surface sampling case.

4-31

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Verify valves are plugged on arrival and for shipping. Sample containers should also be
checked for leaks prior to shipping. This can be done by checking for bubbles after
applying "Snoop", Soapy water, or by submersion in water.
Properly label all cylinders and document relevant details of the test. An example form
has been included in the section 4.4.13 which may be sent to the location of the sampling
job.
4.6.5

Formation Testers Run in Cased and Open Hole

Generally, issues for open-hole and cased-hole formation testers are the same. The
primary difference lies in the method employed to isolate the tested interval.
Pre-job Preparation
Verify that well is properly prepared for sampling (See section 4.4.9).
Verify that all equipment has been properly cleaned (See section 4.4.10).
Pressure test sampling equipment to at least reservoir pressure plus 30 percent.
Give the vendor adequate time to prepare and verify proper operation of his equipment.
Verify that all activities are documented and reported to the customer. A sample
documentation form is included in section 4.4.13.
Job Execution
Sampling points and methods depend on the objective of sampling and tests to be
performed. Following are a list of issues to consider when executing your program:

The existence of a compositional gradient in the reservoir.

Existence of discrete lobes within the zone of interest.

Pressure gradient analysis for fluid density.

Location of the hydrocarbon sample with respect to the depth of the formation water
level to assure a representative sample.

H-0806.35

4-32

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Attempt to minimize filtrate contamination by flowing a volume of reservoir fluid out of

the formation prior to taking a sample. This can be accomplished through such actions as
the following:

Pump through modules or clean up chambers. The pump through modules allow
flowing an unlimited amount of sample through the tool to remove near probe
contamination. Clean up chambers allow flowing a limited volume of reservoir fluid
to auxiliary chambers.

Use fluid analyzers which can detect various differences in the fluid flowing into the
tool. Some currently available analyzers use either the resistivity or optical
characteristics of the fluids to make this differentiation.

Minimize the pressure drop while filling the sample chamber. Effectively this involves
the use of water cushions, throttling valves or chokes which may result in a longer
sampling period. Coordination with the drilling department will be necessary to arrive at
a mutually agreeable time period. Also, attempt to fill all void space within the tool with
water to prevent excessive drawdown at the instant the tool is opened.
It would be desirable to only sample one zone per run, even with a multi-sampler tool to
maximize the potential of taking an uncontaminated sample. These tools have portions of
the flow path which will be used for every sample taken. Sampling multiple zones in a
single run will cause some mixing of sample. The multi-sampler tools are better suited to
taking larger amounts of sample from a single zone.
Caution should be used to prevent pressure release during tool disassembly and sample
transfer at surface. This is a common sense statement but once pressure has accidentally
been released the damage has been done. Always assume you have a quality sample
during the transfer process even if downhole sensors or leakage at the surface suggest
otherwise.
Record any indication during disassembly of tool of downhole fluids: oil, gas, mud,
water, etc. This can be an early indication of whether hydrocarbons have been sampled or
whether only drilling fluid has been sampled.
Keep detailed documentation of sampling job. An example form has been included in the
appendix which may be sent to the location of the sampling job (See section 4.4.13).

H-0806.35

4-33

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Onsite Quality Verification

It is important to do everything possible to identify the quality of the sample before the
sampling equipment and/or rig leave the location. Returning for additional sampling will
rarely be feasible in deepwater developments (See section 4.4.3).
Onsite Transfer
The following points related to doing onsite transfer to transportation vessels should be
kept in mind:

Minimize number of transfers fluid will have to undergo. Every time sample is
transferred the likelihood of having an altered sample increases. The following
suggestions should be considered:
Consider sampling tools with transportable D.O.T. certified sample chambers.
Chambers which can be detached from the sampling tool and shipped to the lab
with the sample intact prevent onsite transfers.
If possible use transportation cylinders which can hold all of sample cylinder
volume so lab recombination will not be necessary. Subsampling into multiple
chambers means doing more onsite transfers and also more transfers when the
transportation cylinders arrive at the lab.

Sample chambers should be heated to reservoir temperature to guarantee a complete

remelt of crystallized paraffins in preparation for and during transfer of sample. Some
vendors discourage heating their sampling tools above a certain temperature. This is
typically related to concerns about uneven heating of the tool and not to temperature
limitations of the tool components. Communication with the vendor will serve not
only to educate the vendor to this need but also may result in a solution acceptable to
the oil company and the vendor.

Agitate heated sample and return to single phase before transfer to promote
homogeneity.

Verify sample quality after transfer if possible (See section 4.4.3).

Disassemble sample chamber and "swab" out all remaining oil and solids. Place these
solids and the swabbing cloth in a D.O.T. certified glass container for later analysis.
Report observations.

H-0806.35

4-34

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

4.6.6

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Chemically rinse the sample chamber until clean and place these samples along with
a virgin sample of the chemical used for rinsing in separate D.O.T. certified
containers (not plastic) for later analysis. Advance coordination with the vendor will
be necessary to identify appropriate cleaning solvents. For a more complete
discussion on cleaning see section 4.4.10.

Cased-Hole Sampling (Issues specific to downhole flowstream samplers run on or in

tubing)
Pre-job Preparation
Verify that the well is properly prepared for sampling (See section 4.4.9).
Verify that all equipment has been properly cleaned (See section 4.4.10).
Pressure test sampling equipment to at least reservoir pressure plus 30 percent.
Give the vendor adequate time to prepare and verify proper operation of his equipment.
Verify that all activities are documented and reported to the customer. A sample
documentation form is included in section 4.4.13.
Job Execution
It is desirable to run the sampler with surface readout of pressure to identify ail fluid
levels. This will aid in the proper positioning of the sampler in the fluid column to obtain
the most representative fluid and to avoid water. If a surface pressure readout is not
available then a separate run with a pressure gauge should be made first to identify fluid
contacts. The sampling tool should be positioned above and as near to the perforations as
possible.
The well may be sampled while shut- in but issues such as the following must be
considered:

Compositional gradients may result in the static fluid column from the pressure and
temperature gradient in that column.

Water may begin to settle in the bottom of the wellbore which may result in sampling
water.

The well may be sampled while flowing but issues such as the following must be
considered:
H-0806.35

4-35

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Drawdown across the perforations may cause gas to be liberated and the resulting
sample may be nonrepresentative.

At very low rates slugging may occur; again this may result in a nonrepresentative
fluid sample.

Minimize the pressure drop while filling the sample chamber to increase your chance of
sampling single phase fluid.
Caution should be used to prevent pressure release during tool disassembly and sample
transfer at surface. This will limit the usefulness of the sample and could prove very
costly in resampling.
Record any indication during disassembly of tool of downhole fluids: oil, gas, mud,
water, etc. This can be an early indication of whether the proper fluid has been sampled
(See also section 4.4.3).
Fluid should be compressed to maintain or obtain single phase condition during transfer.
Take backup surface samples if possible. This should be relatively inexpensive and may
prove invaluable if the bottomhole sample quality is questionable.
Keep detailed documentation of sampling job. An example form has been included in
section 4.4.13, which may be sent to the location of the sampling job.
4.6.7

Laboratory Transfer of Samples

Verify that all samples sent to the laboratory have been received and note condition of all
samples. Check labels on sampling cylinders and sampling data sheets for accuracy.
Verify that transfer equipment and lab storage vessels are clean before transfer (See
section 4.4.10).
Verify the transportation cylinder has not leaked.

Verify that opening pressure is the same as it was at the well site at the temperature at
which it was performed at the wellsite.

Repeat P-V check (i.e. bubble-point) that was done on site and at that temperature.

Stabilize temperature and pressure of the live fluid samples at reservoir conditions.

H-0806.35

4-36

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Agitate sample before transfer to promote sample homogeneity.

Disassemble transfer vessel and swab (if possible) all remaining oil and solids. Place
these solids and the swabbing cloth in a glass container for later analysis.
Chemically rinse the sample chamber with an appropriate solvent until clean and place
these samples along with a sample of the virgin solvent in separate containers for
analysis.
Keep detailed documentation of lab site transfer and analysis.
4.6.8

Technology Gaps
CTR 901 believes that additional R&D and implementation are needed in the following
areas. The items listed are either not currently available or don't exist in sufficient
quantities to meet projected Gulf of Mexico needs. In some cases the technology exists
but is not consistently implemented.

A sight glass in the transfer lines should be used during transfer to verify sample
quality onsite.

D.O.T. approved transportation cylinders to 10,000 psi with piston displacement

mechanisms.

D.O.T. approved high pressure cylinders (> 10,000 psi.) with or without piston
displacement mechanisms.

Pressure compensated transportation cylinders - these are needed for situations where
asphaltenes are suspected.

D.O.T. approved cylinders of sufficient volume to handle sample chambers are

needed to prevent having to subsample onsite.

Sample chambers that are transportable and DOT certified, preferably that can remain
at the lab for extended periods of time. These sample chambers would be part of the
sampling tool that could be removed and transported to the lab without having to
perform an onsite transfer. Ideally, they would remain at the lab until the priority tests
are completed and verified, possibly 60 days or so. Some vendors currently offer this
service. Unfortunately, not all vendors offe r this type of equipment and the equipment
available is limited in quantity and size and priced at a level that makes storage at the
lab during analysis very expensive.

H-0806.35

4-37

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Single phase samplers - These samplers use a nitrogen cushion to maintain reservoir
pressure on a sample as it is brought to the surface and cools. These are available in
the international market but only on a limited basis in the domestic market.

Downhole fluid analyzers that can accurately detect the difference between
hydrocarbons and all mud systems including oil based muds and synthetic oil muds.

Safe methods of heating sampling tools to 300F at the surface for transfers Currently, safety concerns with uneven heating has prompted some vendors to limit
the level to which they will allow their tools to be heated at the surface. Heating
methods acceptable to the vendors and customers should be feasible.

Improved transfer systems are needed which address the concerns in the previous
item. Also remote transfer capability is attractive from a safety standpoint.

Improved probe/reservoir interface in open- hole sampling tools. This is one of the
more common points of failure in formation tester samples.

Ability to truly control drawdown - Formation testers are needed which provide for a
reliable, predetermined drawdown. It is desirable to fill all void spaces in the tool and
chamber with a non-contaminating fluid. Additionally, the ability to variably
pressurize the pathways and chambers in the tool prior to and during sampling is
desirable.

Enhanced wellsite analytical capabilities are needed to verify samples before the rig
and sampling company leave the wellsite.

Variable rate downhole pump with ability to vent to annulus above top packer for
cased hole formation testers - This would permit large quantities of reservoir fluid to
be pumped away from sampling point to minimize contamination.

Improved agitation systems for transfers (balls, etc.) - Often these are not available.
These are needed to promote homogeneous sample transfers, especially when paraffin
deposition in the sampling tool is a concern.

Improved cleaning procedures - It is imperative that all sampling equipment be clean

prior to use. Steam cleaning alone does not always provide a tool that will take
representative samples. Coordination between vendors and industry personnel is
needed to identify acceptable solvents and cleaning procedures which can provide a
clean tool at an acceptable cost. Due to the limited availability of some sampling
equipment these procedures will often need to be carried out onsite.

H-0806.35

4-38

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

4.6.9

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Well Conditioning
Proper well conditioning is necessary for obtaining representative samples. The following
includes a general discussion of fluid phase behavior. An understanding of reservoir
fluids and phase behavior will assist in preparing an appropriate well conditioning plan.
Type Of Hydrocarbon Reservoirs
Hydrocarbon fluids fall into two main categories at reservoir conditions: liquids or gases.
Liquid hydrocarbons are referred to as bubble-point oils, and gases are refe rred to as
dew-point fluids.
Bubble-Point Reservoirs
Reservoir hydrocarbon fluid types are determined by the location of the point
representing the initial reservoir pressure and temperature with respect to the P-T diagram
of the fluid contained therein. If the reservoir temperature is below the critical
temperature and the reservoir pressure is at or above the bubble-point curve, the fluids are
characterized as bubble-point oils. Bubble-point oils range from black oils with gravity
and GOR generally below 400 API and 2000 SCF/bbl, respectively, to volatile oils which
generally exhibit higher gravity and GOR The literature is not in full agreement
concerning the criteria that characterizes the transition from black oils to volatile oils.
Gas Reservoirs
If the reservoir temperature is above the critical temperature and the reservoir pressure is
at or above the dew point curve, the fluids are characterized as dew-point gases. Dewpoint gases range from gas-condensates which release liquid condensate in the reservoir
below the dew-point (retrograde condensation), to wet gases which require reduction in
both P and T for any liquid to drop out. Gas-condensates and wet gases are characterized
by progressively higher gravities and GORs. Dry gases do not yield hydrocarbon liquid at
surface conditions.
Saturation Pressure
Bubble-Point Reservoirs
Bubble point systems are characterized by the coexistence of a liquid phase and an
infinitesimal amount of gas phase in equilibrium. The saturation or bubble-point pressure
(Pb ) is the fluid pressure in a system at its bubble-point. Pb is a function of system
composition and temperature. Oil reservoirs which exist above their bubble-point are
referred to as "undersaturated." Oil reservoirs which are associated with a gas cap are

H-0806.35

4-39

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

saturated at the gas-oil contact. The gas-cap may or may not exhibit retrograde
condensate behavior. In a saturated reservoir, the oil becomes progressively
undersaturated with depth below the gas-oil contact.
Dew-Point Reservoirs
Dew-Point systems are characterized by the coexistence of a gas phase and an
infinitesimal amount of liquid phase in equilibrium. The saturation or dew-point pressure
(PD ) is the fluid pressure in a system at its dew-point, and is a function of system
composition and temperature. Above the PD , the fluid exists as a single gaseous phase,
and exhibits retrograde condensation as the reservoir pressure falls below the original
dew-point pressure.
Prediction of Pb or PD
Knowledge of the type of hydrocarbon reservoir and its saturation pressure (bubble-point
or dew-point) is important for successful design and implementation of the sampling
operation. Estimates of saturation pressure can be obtained by using one or more of the
following leads:

Experience in same reservoir

Analogy with adjacent reservoirs containing similar hydrocarbons in same geologic

formation

DST and tubing gradient surveys

MER testing

Published correlations

Well Conditioning

Effect of Drawdown
Drawdown is defined as the difference between static reservoir pressure (Pe) and
bottomhole flowing pressure (Pwf), or delta p = Pe - Pwf . As long as Pwf is greater than or
equal to Pb or PD , single phase fluid will flow into the wellbore. Such fluid would be
representative of the original reservoir fluid.
Bottomhole sampling methods require that the fluid pressure at sampler depth be above
the saturation pressure.

H-0806.35

4-40

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Reservoirs where the drawdown will result in diphasic flow at or below sampling depth,
are best sampled at the surface separator.
Dry Gas Reservoirs
Constant gas composition with pressure drop prevails in reservoirs, tubing and at surface.
Gas well conditioning beyond cleanup stage for sampling is not necessary.
Adequate reservoir gas sample can be obtained at wellhead upstream (or downstream) of
choke.
It is advisable to determine "dry gas" state by sampling/analysis at high and low well
rates, and upstream (U/S) and downstream (D/S) of choke.
Wet Gas Reservoirs
Constant gas composition with pressure drop prevails in reservoirs, and possibly in
tubing and at surface U/S of choke.
As with dry gas reservoirs above, determine gas state U/S and D/S of choke. Generally,
wellhead sampling U/S of choke is representative.
The only well conditioning required involves initial well cleanup and flow at sufficiently
low choke to ensure high enough wellhead pressure for wellhead sampling.
If gas is two-phase U/S of choke, must sample gas and liquid at separator after reaching
constant GOR. Procedure would be similar to sampling gas condensate reservoirs.
Gas-Condensate Reservoirs
Pe substantially greater than PD with low drawdown assuring monophasic flow into the
wellbore:

Condition well by flowing at moderate rate to ensure cleanup of undesirable fluids.

Reduce choke size to achieve lowest possible steady-state rate as evidenced by
constancy of wellhead pressure, GOR and API gravity.

Very rich gas: Can be sampled with bottomhole or surface sampling. Additional
sample may be needed to obtain sufficient liquid due to shrinkage when bottom hole
samples are taken.

H-0806.35

4-41

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Medium to lean gas: surface sample to ensure adequate size sample dire to very high
shrinkage.

Pe slightly above or equal to PD - Diphasic flow into wellbore and possible condensate
drop-out in wellbore region. Well conditioning should be performed as indicated for
monophasic flow. Surface sampling early in life of reservoir is recommended.
Oil Reservoirs
Pe > Pb with low drawdown assuring monophasic flow into the wellbore:

Condition well by flowing at moderate rate to ensure cleanup of undesirable fluids.

Reduce choke size to achieve lowest possible steady-state rate as evidenced by
constancy of wellhead pressure, GOR and API gravity.

Bottomhole sampling is not recommended if the bottomhole flowing pressure at

sampler depth is not higher than Pb.

Pe slightly above or equal to Pb with finite drawdown causing diphasic flow in the
wellbore:

Condition well as indicated above and obtain surface oil and gas samples early in the
life of the reservoir.

Bottomhole sampling is possible in saturated reservoirs provided the sampled interval

is far removed from the gas-oil contact and at a pressure above Pb. Such cases also
require low drawdown as would prevail in high permeability reservoirs.

Well Conditioning for Surface Sampling of Oil and Gas Reservoirs

Before reliable separator gas and liquid samples can be taken, it is necessary to produce
the well for a sufficient length of time to bring about stable conditions. The well should
be opened on a suitable choke size small enough not to cause appreciable pressure drop
in the vicinity of the wellbore, but large enough (at least initially) to clean out mud
filtrate and liquid accumulation in the tubing, and prevent flow by heads. It is
recommended that a surface recording BHP gauge be placed in the well.
The criteria for well stability are:

Stabilized BHF pressure and temperature

Stabilized THP

H-0806.35

4-42

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Constant differential and static pressure readings on the gas offtake chart

Constant condensate (oil) production rate

Constant separator oil temperature

Stabilized GOR on 3 consecutive test runs of 4-hours each to within 5 percent

Stabilized composition as evidenced by on-site chromatographic analysis

It is preferred that sampling takes place when ambient temperature is not fluctuating and
is below that of separator temperature.
4.6.10 Tool/Cylinder Cleaning
All equipment, samplers, pumps, cylinders, lines, valves and fittings should be
thoroughly cleaned and free of hydrocarbons or other contaminants. The reader should
recognize that there are numerous methods, ma terials and chemicals that are acceptable.
Below we have listed some that are currently used by some DeepStar companies.

Valve packing glands should be limited to teflon, graphite, viton or vespel (polymide,
graphite, fluorocarbon putty) or other noncontaminating substances.

Thread compounds/lubricants should be limited to teflon tape or "Krytox" (perfluoro

ether plus 2 micron ground teflon) or other noncontaminating substances.

Example of a flow through cleaning method:

If paraffin or asphaltene deposits are suspected, disassemble containers and hand

clean. Assemble and flow through clean using remaining steps.

Flush with warm (~160F) toluene or other suitable solvent. Initially soak for 2
hours, agitate if feasible and drain. Continue process until effluent is visibly clear or
the refractive index as measured by light refractometer agrees with that for pure
toluene.

Follow with methanol to displace all toluene.

Flush with dry nitrogen.

4.6.11 Surface Sampling Configurations

Miscellaneous surface samp ling configurations have been submitted by various DeepStar
member companies. These are provided in the appendices of the CTR A901 final report
and are not included in the Flow Assurance Design.
H-0806.35

4-43

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

4.6.12 Sampling of Wells Cutting Water

The following discussion of sampling wells cutting water was an unsolicited submission
prepared by Ali Sinnokrot of Mobil. It is provided for use as submitted.
Well conditioning and cased hole sampling procedures for wells cutting water differ from
dry oil sampling procedures in one respect: the well should be flowing at all times during
the sampling operation at the smallest choke size; such that no water accumulation occurs
at the bottom of the well. The sampler should be lowered to the maximum depth while
staying above the stagnant water level.
Surface sampling procedures of wells cutting water are the same as those for black oil
reservoir.

Figure 4-1: Example of apparatus for sampling wells cutting significant amounts of water.

H-0806.35

Raise pressure in bottle 1 by 1000-2000 psi above the estimated Pb. Agitate contents
during pressuring. A positive displacement pump is used to raise the pressure
utilizing and immiscible fluid for non-piston type containers, or any convenient fluid
for piston type containers.

4-44

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Heat bottle 1 to about 1800 F while maintaining the pressure above Pb.

Allow the bottle to stand in a vertical position overnight. This allows all water to
separate out at container bottom.

Connect bottle 2 as shown in the diagram incorporating a two way valve and about 20
ft. of line loop downstream of the valve. Evacuate line and valve.

Commence sample transfer from bottle 1 to bottle 2 ensuring Pressure is safely above
Pb. Initially fill valve and line loop with reservoir fluid and pressure up to transfer
pressure.

Sample the fluid stream (using the two-way valve between the bottles) every 20 ml.
The sample will consist of a drop or two only to test whethe r the line contains any
water. At the first sign of water in the transfer line, shut the two-way valve followed
by the top valve on bottle 2. Any overlooked water in the transfer line will be caught
in the loop.

4.6.13 Documentation of Sampling Job

The following two figures illustrate an example two-page form which can be used to
document the sampling process.

H-0806.35

4-45

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

4.6.14 Volume Requirements for Fluid Evaluation Tests Standard Analyses

Table 4-1. Volume Requirements for Standard Analyses
STANDARD ANALYSES

Type of
Analysis
On-site

Description

Purpose

Minimum Qty
(cc)

Preferred Qty
(cc)

Flashed
or Dead

Live

Other
Samples
Minimum Qty
(cc)

Visual Observation

verification
of
downhole
sample

Opening pressure
verification
Fingerprint for
contamination

Verify that a sample

250

To determine the
ability of production
to flow at various
temperatures and
pressures

100

200

To know fluid
properties at various
temperatures and
pressures

100

500

has been collected in

a sampling tool

Sample quality check @ lab

Compositional
analysis & GOR

Specific gravities
& API

Molecular weight

PVT

Constant-Mass
Expansion

Bubble point

Liberation of gas

Specific gravity

Compressibility

Viscosity

@ reservoir
conditions

with flashed fluids

as a function of T

Separator flash

Water
content in

Karl Fischer ASTM D4928

live sample
ASTM (BS&W) D-96-88
container
Cloud
point
methodsSelect at
least one
H-0806.35

Microscopy

Fundamental test to
determine oil in
place and measure
further fluid
properties

Can affect reservoir

estimates and

production solids

Determine onset
temperature for wax
precipitation

Differential Scanning
Calorimetry (DSC)
4-46

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

STANDARD ANALYSES

Type of
Analysis

Total
Sulfur

Nickel &
Vanadium

Total Acid
Number

Pour Point

Description

Minimum Qty

Preferred Qty

Other

(cc)

Samples

Flashed
or Dead

Purpose

Live

Flashed
or Dead

Light Transmittance

200

Cold Finger

200

Filter Plugging (filtration)

200

160

X-ray fluorescence ASTM

D-4294
If low concentrations,
microcoulometry
ASTM D3120
Atomic Absorption/ICP
(Inductively Coupled
Plasma)

ASTM D-664-89 (IP177/83)

Determine value of
crude and limitations
for transportation
A

high

Live

Minimum Qty
(cc)

content

devalues crude. A
contaminant for the
refinery
Determine value of
crude,
affects
refinery,
transportation,
potential solids

Determine
temperature that a
ASTM D97-93 (IP 1567/86) crude will gel and no
longer flow in static
conditions

High Temp
Gas
Chromatography
(HTGC)

Provides information
for wax deposition

%
ASTM D-3279-90 (IP
Asphaltene 143/84)

Screening value to
estimate potential for
operational
problems.
Percent
asphaltene
also
affects crude value.

Elemental
Analysis
(C, H, N,
O, S)

Geochemistry? Input
data for value of
crude

H-0806.35

ASTM D-5291

4-47

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

STANDARD ANALYSES

Type of
Analysis

Description

Wax
Content

UOP 46-85

PNA or
SARA

Liquid Chromatograph
analysis

Purpose
Screening value to
estimate relative wax
problems. Low value
does not mean a wax
problem will not
occur
General information
of crude composition

Total if everything is selected

H-0806.35

Minimum Qty

Preferred Qty

Other

(cc)

Samples

Flashed
or Dead

100

825

4-48

Live

460

1035

Live

Minimum Qty
(cc)

960

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Table 4-2: Volume Requirements for Detailed Solids Formation Studies and Other
Analyses

Type of Analysis

Description

Purpose

Minimum Qty (cc)

Preferred Qty (cc)

Flashed
or Dead

Live

Other
Samples
Minimum
Qty (cc)

DETAILED SOLIDS FORMATION STUDIES

Paraffin

Rate of
deposition
Yield
stress (high
pour point

Determine severity of
wax problem Restart

pressure requirements

Volume requirements highly dependent upon

laboratory method

Determine severity of
problem

Volume requirement highly dependent on the

method

Must contact lab used for quantity (range 100

2000 ccs flashed/dead crude)

crudes)

Asphaltenes

Stability tests

Must contact lab used for quantity (range 20

100 ccs live oil)

Experimentally

Hydrate

Formation
conditions

measure
formation
conditions. Especially
for liquid dominated
systems.
Hydrate
formation potential
can be modeled using

PVT
data
and
reservoir properties.
OTHER ANALYSES

Water

Compositional
Determine potential
analysis
(API
for scale, corrosion,
RP45 rev in '96).
and
formation
Organic
acid
concerns
content

150

Drilling fluid

Compositional
analysis

100

Determine extent of
contamination

Any field solid

samples analyzed

inorganic
composition

Solids

H-0806.35

Organic/

chromat
ographic
analysis

Identify what the

solid is and if it will
also occur during

If
available

4-54

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

5.0

MULTIPHASE FLOW

5.1

Introduction

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

The simultaneous flow of gas and liquid through pipes, often referred to as
multiphase flow, occurs in almost every aspect of the oil industry. Multiphase
flow is present in wellbore tubing, gathering system flowlines, and processing
facilities and has become increasingly important in recent years due to the
development of marginal fields and deepwater prospects. In many cases, the
feasibility of these prospects/fields hinges on cost and operation of the pipelines
and the associated equipment. Multiphase flow characteristics can have a
profound effect on both the design and operation of these systems. For example,
the type of flow regime (described in Section 5.2) can effect the pressure drop
along a pipeline. The amount of the pressure drop can affect either pipe size
and/or pumping requirements depending on the scenario.
Multiphase flow in pipes has been studied for more than 50 years, with significant
improvements in the state of the art during the past 15 years. The best available
methods can predict the type of multiphase flow characteristics much more
accurately than those available only a few years ago. The designer, however, has
to know which methods to use to get the best results.
The objective of this section is to present the basic principals of multiphase flow
and illustrate the current methods available to predict multiphase flow regimes,
pressure drop and liquid holdup. This chapter is arranged in the following order.
Flow regimes are discussed and described in Section 5.2. Section 5.3 describes
the flow models used to predict the flow regimes. The calculation of pressure
drop and liquid holdup based on the flow regime is discussed in Sections 5.4 and
5.5. Section 5.6 illustrates the effects of three phases.
5.2

Flow Regimes
In multiphase flow, the gas and liquid within the pipe are distributed in several
fundamentally different flow patterns or flow regimes, depending primarily on the
gas and liquid velocities and the angle of inclination. In general, flow regimes are
split into two major categories based on geometry: horizontal and vertical. The
term "horizontal" is used to denote a pipe that is inclined in a range between plus
or minus 10 degrees. The term "vertical" denotes upward inclined pipes with
angles from 10 to 90 degrees from horizontal.

H-0806.35

5-1

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Observers have labeled these flow regimes with a variety of names. Over 100
different names for the various regimes and sub-regimes have been used in
literature. In this guide, only four flow regime names will be used: slug flow,
stratified flow, annular flow, and dispersed bubble flow. Figure 5.2-1 shows the
flow regimes for near horizontal flow, and Figure 5.2-2 shows the flow regimes
for vertical upward flow. Descriptions of the flow regimes are as follows:
5.2.1

Stratified Flow
Stratified Flow generally occurs at low flow rates in near horizontal pipes. The
liquid and gas separate by gravity, causing the liquid to flow on the bottom of the
pipe while the gas flows above it. At low gas velocities, the liquid sur face is
smooth. At higher gas velocities, the liquid surface becomes wavy. Some liquid
may flow in the form of liquid droplets suspended in the gas phase. Stratified
flow only exists for certain angles of inclination. It does not exist in pipes that
have upward inclinations of greater than about one degree. Most downwardly
inclined pipes are in stratified flow, and many large diameter horizontal pipes are
in stratified flow. This flow regime is also referred to as stratified smooth,
stratified wavy, and wavy flow by various investigators.

5.2.2

Annular Flow
Annular flow occurs at high rates in gas dominated systems. In annular flow part
of the liquid flows as a film around the circumference of the pipe. The gas and
remainder of the liquid (in the form of entrained droplets) flow in the center of the
pipe. The liquid film thickness is fairly constant for vertical flow, but it is usually
asymmetric for horizontal flow due to gravity. As velocities increase, the fraction
of liquid entrained increases and the liquid film thickness decreases. Annular
flow exists for all angles of inclinations. Most gas-dominated pipes in highpressure vertical flow are in annular flow. This flow regime is also referred to as
annular- mist or mist flow by many investigators.

5.2.3

Dispersed Bubble Flow

Dispersed bubble flow occurs at high rates in liquid dominated systems. The flow
is a frothy mixture of liquid and small-entrained gas bubbles. For near vertical
flow, dispersed bubble flow can also occur at more moderate liquid rates when the
gas rate is very low. The flow is steady with few oscillations. It occurs at all
angles of inclination. Dispersed bubble flow frequently occurs in oil wells.

H-0806.35

5-2

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Various investigators have also referred to this flow regime as froth or bubble
flow.
5.2.4

Slug Flow
Slug flow for horizontal flow usually occurs at moderate gas and liquid velocities.
Slugs form due to high vapor shear causing the development of waves on the
surface of the liquid to grow to a sufficient height to completely bridge the pipe.
When this happens, alternating slugs of liquid and gas bubbles will flow through
the pipeline. This flow regime can be thought of as an unsteady, alternating
combination of dispersed bubble flow (liquid slug) and stratified flow (gas
bubble). The slugs can cause vibration problems, increased corrosion, and
downstream equipment problems due to its unsteady behavior.
Slug flow also occurs in near vertical flow, but the mechanism for slug initiation
is different. The flow consists of a string of slugs and bullet-shaped bubbles
(called Taylor bubbles) flowing through the pipe alternately. The flow can be
thought of as a combination of dispersed bubble flow (slug) and annular flow
(Taylor bubble). The slugs in vertical flow are generally much smaller than those
in near horizontal flow. Slug flow is the most prevalent flow regime in low
pressure, small diameter systems. In field scale pipelines, slug flow usually
occurs in upwardly inclined sections of the line. It occurs for all angles of
inclinatio n. Investigators have used many terms to describe parts of this flow
regime. Among them are intermittent flow; plug flow; pseudo-slug flow, and
churn flow.

Flow Regime Prediction

There have been hundreds of multiphase flow design methods developed in the
past 50 years. As discussed in the previous section, the gas and liquid in the pipe
are distributed differently in each of the four major flow regimes (stratified,
annular, slug, and dispersed bubble flows). The prediction of the correct flow
regime is important for several reasons. For instance, the flow regime prediction
can show whether the line will operate in a stable flow regime or an unstable
regime. In addition, the prediction of liquid holdup and pressure drop is highly
dependent on the flow regime, with each regime exhibiting different behavior
when the design variables are changed.
Most software programs contain dozens of options to select for pressure drop,
liquid holdup, and flow regime predictions. Many of these methods only have
small ranges in which their predictions are accurate. This section of the guide
discusses prediction of flow regimes using different types of multiphase flow
correlations and models that are available. In addition, some recommendations on
which methods to use for certain applications are given.

5.3.1

Mechanistic Models vs. Correlations

Prediction methods for multiphase flow behavior have improved considerably
during the 50+ years that the subject has been studied. For many years,
multiphase flow prediction methods were correlations, based on curve fits of
experimental data. The correlations frequently use arbitrarily selected variables
and were based on limited databases, consisting almost entirely of low pressure,
small diameter data.
Extrapolations of these prediction methods to field conditions frequently proved
to be in serious error. In the 1960s and 1970s, several investigators undertook
experimental studies to try to understand the fundamental mechanisms of the
various flow regimes. In the past 15 years, models have been developed, which
are based on simulation of these mechanisms. These models, referred to as
mechanistic models, have proven to extrapolate best to field conditions.
The development of mechanistic modeling has created a marked improvement in
prediction capabilities. As noted previously, mechanistic models attempt to
model the physical phenomena associated with each flow regime. Mechanistic
models solve a set of simultaneous equations developed for a specific flow

H-0806.35

5-6

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

regime. Correlations for a few key parameters are required to solve the equation
set. Mechanistic models extrapolate to field conditions much better than the
multiphase flow correlations because the mechanistic models account for the
effects of all the major variables.
Several mechanistic models have been developed in the past few years. Tulsa
University has developed models for near vertical flow (Ansari) and a general
model covering all inclinations (Xiao). The physics in these models are good, but
the correlations built into them are based on small diameter, low-pressure data.
The OLGA-S mechanistic model is based on a wider range of data (diameters
from 1 to 8 inches and pressures from atmospheric to 1400 psi), and it is generally
believed to extrapolate best to field conditions.
On occasion, the conditions for a simulation may cause otherwise good
multiphase flow methods to give erroneous results. It is always a good idea to
check the results by use of another method to ensure that the answers are
reasonable.
The mechanistic methods simultaneously and consistently solve for both pressure
drop and holdup and as a result, can predict trends more accurately over a wider
range of variables (pressure, temperature, CGR, pipeline length and diameter)
than correlation based methods. A general failing of mechanistic models is their
poor performance for slugging and other intermittent flow regimes. If available,
comparison with field data or the results of suitable correlation methods is usually
advisable.
5.3.2

Flow Regime Transitions

Although the correlations and mechanistic models provide quantitative methods
for predicting transitions between flow regimes, some general comments can be
made about the flow regime transitions. These are:

Stratified flow occurs at low superficial gas and liquid velocities.

Dispersed bubble flow occurs at high superficial liquid velocities. Annular

flow occurs at high superficial velocities.

Slug flow occurs at moderate superficial gas and liquid velocities

H-0806.35

5-7

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

The transitions between the flow regimes are frequently depicted in a flow regime
map, such as those shown in Figures 5.3-1 and 5.3-2. The flow regime map
typically has the superficial gas velocity (Vsg) on the X-axis and the superficial
liquid velocity (Vsl) on the Y-axis. The flow regime map is only valid for a single
point in the pipeline. As the angle of inclination, pressure and temperature
change with position in the pipeline, the flow regime map also changes.
Experimental studies of flow regime transitions have shown that each of the flow
regime boundaries reacts differently to changes in the system variables. Table
5.3-1 shows the sensitivity of the transitions to changes in the major system
variables.
Table 5.3-1: Sensitivity of Flow Regime Transitions to System Variables
Transition
Variable

Slug to
Dispersed
Bubble

Slug to
Annular

Slug to
Stratified

Stratified to
Annular

Angle of
Inclination

Small Effect

Moderate
Effect

Strong Effect

Gas Density

Small Effect

Strong Effect

Pipeline
Diameter

Small Effect

Strong Effect

Moderate
Effect

Liquid Physical
Properties

Moderate
Effect

Small Effect

Moderate Effect

Moderate
Effect

The designer needs to carefully choose the method that will work best for the set
of conditions. The best methods are discussed in the remainder of this section.

Evaluation of Correlations/Models to Predict Flow Regimes

Many people have attempted to develop simple flow regime maps, usually using
some arbitrary dimensionless parameter on each axis (e.g. Baker, Beggs & Brill).
These methods are inherently inaccurate since no single parameter can model the
sensitivity effects shown in the previous table. The only flow regime map
prediction methods that have been effective for a wide range of conditions are
those using mechanistic models to estimate the flow regime transitions.
In 1976, Taitel and Dukler published a landmark article describing a method of
predicting flow regime transitions by modeling the mechanism of each transition.
By modeling each transition, this method can show the same type of behavior
observed in the experimental work. The original Taitel-Dukler paper covered
flow regime transitions in near horizontal flow only, and one of the transitions
(slug-dispersed bubble) is very much in error. Taitel and his co-workers at the
University of Tel Aviv have subsequently published several articles that expand
the range of angles of inclination and correct the errors in the original paper. The
Taitel-Dukler paper and the latest paper from Tel Aviv model flow regime
transitions for all angles of inclination. The Taitel, et al. methods give reasonably
good predictions of the various flow regime transitions, and the accuracy of the
predictions has improved with each revision.
Another approach to the modeling of flow regime transitions is the method used
in the OLGAS method. It employs mechanistic models of each flow regime and
links the models by the assumption that the flow regime giving the lowest liquid
holdup is the correct one. This assumption holds up well in practice. The
OLGAS method predicts flow regime transitions with similar accuracy to the
Taitel, et al. models.
As in many aspects of multiphase flow, the flow regime prediction methods are
not exact. Errors of +/- 25 percent for the transition velocities are typical, even
for the best prediction methods. If the Taitel-Dukler map is used, the designer
should be aware of the gross errors in the slug to dispersed bubble transition. The
errors for this transition can be 1000 percent. The dispersed bubble to slug
transition typically occurs at a superficial liquid velocity of about 10 ft/sec.
Taitel-Dukler frequently predicts this transition velocity to be 50 to 100 ft/sec.

H-0806.35

5-11

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

5.4

Pressure Drop Prediction

5.4.1

Pressure Drop Calculation

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

The pressure drop along a pipeline is one of the most important factors relating to
its operation. Accurate calculation of pressure drop is essential for the proper
sizing of the pipeline. An under-sized pipe will suffer excessive pressure drop
due to high fluid velocities, which can limit its throughput. An over-sized pipe
can suffer from excessive holdup, which can lead to slugging and may require a
high pigging frequency.
The design of a multiphase flow line requires knowledge of the physical
properties of the fluid, its phase equilibrium, the flow regimes which exist within
it and the profile of the route which it will follow. The through- life pressure drop
will indicate whether compression will be required at some point, and at what
point in the life of the field. This can seriously affect the economics of the field.
Unfortunately, pressure drop is one of the most difficult pipeline parameters to
calculate accurately.
In single-phase flow, flow resistance in a pipe is due primarily to pipe friction and
elevation differences. In multiphase flow systems, additional complexity arises
because frictional energy is not only dissipated at the pipe wall, but also at the
interface(s) between liquid and gas phases, usually resulting in slip between the
phases. In addition, whereas for single-phase gas flow, the pressure drop will not
be as dependent on the pipe elevation, in multiphase flow, it will be. In
multiphase flow, the overall rise height of the pipeline, along with local gradients
must be accounted for in the design.
The overall pressure gradient is composed of three additive elements:

pressure drop due to friction;

pressure changes due to elevation effects;
pressure losses due to inertia (acceleration).
The calculation of the constituent parts of the pressure gradient will be discussed
in the next three subsections.

H-0806.35

5-12

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

5.4.2

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Frictional Losses
In multiphase flow, frictional losses occur by two mechanisms: friction between
the gas or liquid and the pipe wall, and frictional losses at the interface between
the gas and liquid. The friction calculations, therefore, are highly dependent on
the flow regime, since the distribution of liquid and gas in the pipe changes
markedly for each regime.
In stratified flow, there is wall friction between the gas and the pipe wall at the
top of the pipe, and wall friction between the liquid and the wall at the bottom of
the pipe. There is also friction between the gas and liquid at the gas-liquid
interface. The interfacial friction can be similar in magnitude to the wall friction
if the interface is smooth, or it can be considerably higher if waves are present.
In annular flow, there is friction between the liquid film and the wall. There is
also considerable interfacial friction between the gas in the core of the pipe and
the liquid film. The interfacial friction is usually the larger component.
In dispersed bubble flow, friction occurs between the liquid and the wall. There is
negligible interfacial friction between the gas and liquid.
Slug flow has several frictional components. In the slug, the friction losses are
caused by the friction between the liquid and the pipe wall. In the gas bubble, the
frictional components are the same as in stratified flow, namely gas and liquid
friction with the pipe walls and interfacial friction between the gas and liquid.
The friction loss in the slug is usually much higher than the losses in the bubble.

5.4.3

Elevation Losses
Elevational losses may be the major pressure loss component in vertical flow and
flow through hilly terrain. The calculation of elevational losses is governed by
the following equation:

g sin
dp

= mix
dx elev
144g c
where:
(dp/dx)elev = Pressure gradient due to elevation, psi/ft
mix
H-0806.35

= Mixture Density, lb/ft3

5-13

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

= (l) (Hl ) + (g ) (1-Hl)

= Liquid Holdup

= Acceleration due to gravity, 32.2 ft/sec2

= Angle of inclination

= Gravitational conversion factor, 32.2 lb-ft/(lbf-sec2 )

To calculate the elevational gradient, the liquid holdup must be determined.

5.4.4

Acceleration Losses
Although acceleration losses are present for all flow regimes, they are only
significant for two flow regimes: annular flow and slug flow. The mechanisms
for the losses in these two flow regimes are very different and will be discussed
separately.
In single-phase flow, acceleration losses can be calculated from Bernoulli's
equation. Acceleration losses represent the change in kinetic energy as the fluid
flows down the pipe. The expression for acceleration gradient is:

V dV
dp

dx accel 144g c dx
where:

= Density, lb m/ft3

V = Velocity, ft/sec
For multiphase flow, the same type of relationship holds except that it refers to
the flow of the mixed phase fluid. Most methods assume a no-slip mixture and
use the no-slip mixture density (ns) and the mixture velocity (Vm) in the
calculation of acceleration losses.
The kinetic energy acceleration losses are small for most oil industry applications.
The main exception is high velocity flow through low-pressure piping. Flare
systems would be an example of piping that has high acceleration losses.
Acceleration may account for 30 to 50 percent of the overall pressure loss in such
lines. For a typical high pressure gathering system line, acceleration is usually
less than 1 percent of the total drop and is frequently ignored.

H-0806.35

5-14

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

In slug flow, another source of acceleration contributes significantly to the total

pressure drop. As a slug propagates down the pipeline, it overruns and entrains
the slower moving liquid from the film ahead of the slug front. Accelerating the
liquid from the film velocity to the slug velocity can produce significant pressure
losses. The acceleration loss may be anywhere from <1 percent to more than 50
percent of the total pressure drop. Mechanistic models include this loss, while
most of the correlation based methods ignore this loss.
5.4.5

Sources of Error and Constraints in Pressure Drop Calcula tions

Due to the complexity of multiphase flow, uncertainties associated with pressure
drop calculations are significantly greater than those in single-phase flow, and
errors in excess of +/-20 percent must be anticipated. These errors will be
increased if the terrain is rugged, the fluid properties are not fully defined or if the
velocities are particularly high, or indeed low. This latter feature is a result of the
fact that many pressure drop methods are empirically based and are therefore
really only valid for the range of conditions over which they were derived. This
also means that significant variations in pressure drop can be expected from
different methods.
The total pressure drop in both phases must be the same (i.e. DPl = DP g ). In
addition, the gas and liquid velocities are both functions of liquid hold up and
flow rate only. This means that there are two equations with two unknowns
(pressure drop and holdup), and in theory it should be possible to solve them
simultaneously, provided fluid properties, pipe topography, etc. can be defined. It
is also necessary to define quantitatively the friction factor at the gas-liquid
interface. This has been the stumbling block in the development of rigorous
models because no one has yet been able to derive a general, universally accepted
formulation for interfacial friction.
DPh , the pressure drop due to head loss, is typically calculated assuming that no
recovery of head occurs in downhill pipeline sections - this is a common and
fairly successful approach in empirical multiphase flow pressure drop calculations
and emphasizes the importance of having topography details of all minor
undulations.

H-0806.35

5-15

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

5.4.6

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Pipewall Roughness
The relative roughness used here is defined as the absolute pipe roughness (which
can be thought of as the surface-to-peak height of undulations on the metal
surface) divided by the pipe diameter. This is then usually applied to a Moody
friction chart to find the friction factor. The Moody chart gives the Fanning
friction factor as a function of Reynolds number and relative roughness.
A new steel pipe is usually reckoned to have an absolute roughness of about 50
micron. In a 24- inch pipe this converts to a relative roughness of about .00008.
An aged, corroded pipe will have a much rougher sur face and a corresponding
higher relative roughness value. There can be a factor of about two between the
pressure drop that can be expected between the new and the aged pipe. Since
flow rate is roughly proportional to the square root of pressure drop, this implies
that the new smooth pipe could have a capacity 40 percent greater than the very
rough pipe.
It is possible to generate a smoother surface than 50 microns by the use of
internally lining or coating the pipe. A roughness (smoothness?) of 10 microns is
feasible by this means, converting to a relative roughness of about 0.000016. The
Moody chart shows that at the maximum Reynolds number this produces a
friction factor of about 0.00115. The increase in capacity that might be expected
by coating or lining the pipe is therefore 6 to 7 percent.

5.4.7

Drag Reducing Agents

The previous section showed that significant pressure drop reduction might be
obtained by reducing the friction between fluid and pipe wall. A possibly a
cheaper option would be to use additives, the so-called drag reducing agents
(DRA's) to alter the frictional properties of the fluid. DRA's have been available
since about 1979 and have been used to reduce pressure drop, or increase
throughput, in liquid pipelines. They consist of polyolefins with molecular
weights in excess of 500,000 and are added to the oil at concentrations typically
between 15 and 100 PPM. One manufacturers DRAs can be supplied as water
or oil soluble products. The oil soluble type comes either as a solid suspension or
a gel formulation. Poor results have been reported in multiphase systems with the
gel type.

H-0806.35

5-16

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

DRA's have recently been experimented with in relation to multiphase pipelines.

Ohio University has shown that pressure drop reductions can be achieved in
stratified, slug and annular flow, but only at relatively low flows. The pressure
reduction was maximized at high water cuts. It seems that DRA's alter the flow
regime maps, with the transition from stratified to slug flow occurring at higher
velocities, increasing typically from 0.2 m/s to 0.8 m/s. The DRA has a surfactant
effect, reducing surface tension, but not leading to significant foaming or
emulsification. Work at Strathclyde University suggests that the mechanism by
which they work is the suppression of vortex formation and propagation in
turbulent flow, thus reducing energy loss. It is unlikely that DRA's will work in
systems with high GOR's (i.e. low CGR's).
Trials with DRA's in multiphase systems have been carried out by Norsk Hydro,
and they report reductions in pressure drop of about 50 percent, with additions of
a DRA at levels of 60 to 100ppm.
5.5

Liquid Holdup Calculation

Liquid holdup is the amount of liquid contained in a multiphase pipeline at
particular flow conditions. Pipeline liquid holdup is a factor of major importance
for operability of a pipeline. Differences in holdup at different flow conditions
represents the liquid that will be swept out of the line during flow rate changes
and the holdup at a particular time will be produced as a slug of liquid if the line
is sphered. These aspects affect slug catcher sizing and peak onshore liquid
processing requirements and are discussed in detail in later sections.

5.5.1

Causes of Liquid Holdup

The formation of liquid holdup is as follows. The liquid phase is normally carried
though the line by drag forces exerted by the gas phase. In upward sloping
sections of the pipeline line this drag must overcome both frictional and
gravitational forces - this causes liquid to accumulate in these sections so as to
reduce the flow area for the gas, increasing the drag to that required to carry the
liquid uphill.
The accumulation of liquid in uphill sections means that use of a representative
topography for a pipeline is vital in predicting liquid ho ldups - in particular the
topography must include the total upward distance through which the pipeline

H-0806.35

5-17

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

(i.e. including all intermediate climbs). If only limited topographical data is

available, Gregory (1991) recommends use of the terrain allowances.
Below a certain gas flow rate (which is different for each pipeline and is often
referred to as the sweep velocity) the holdup rapidly increases as the gas velocity
is further lowered. In this region the holdup appears to depend far more on gas
velocity than upon the amount of liquid in the fluids.
Above the sweep velocity the holdup only slightly decreases as gas velocity is
further increased. In this region the hold-up appears to be almost entirely
dependent upon the amount of liquid in the fluids.
5.5.2

No-Slip Holdup
The no-slip holdup is calculated by assuming homogeneous flow throughout the
length of the pipeline. If there were no slip between the gas and liquid phases,
both phases would move through the pipe at the mixture velocity. The liquid
would occupy the volume fraction equivalent to the ratio of the liquid volumetric
flow rate to the total volumetric flow rate. In multiphase flow terminology, this
equates to the liquid holdup being equal to the ratio between the superficial liquid
velocity and the mixture velocity:
Hl,ns

= No-slip liquid holdup

= Vsl/Vm

where:
Vsl = Superficial Liquid Velocity (actual ft3 /sec of liquid / pipe crosssectional area)
Vm = Mixture Velocity
In practice, no-slip conditions can only be achieved at extremely high gas
velocities where the pressure drops are uneconomic and there is a risk of erosion.
The no-slip holdup thus represents the minimum holdup possible in a multiphase
pipeline. At typical pipeline operating conditions of 4C and 70 barg, the no-slip
holdup can be estimated as 0.045 percent of the pipeline volume for each 1
BBL/MMscf of CGR.

H-0806.35

5-18

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Under most conditions, the liquid phase, which is more dense and viscous, moves
more slowly than the gas. When this occurs, the liquid holdup (Hl) is greater than
the no-slip holdup. Under these conditions, the actual gas velocity is greater than
the mixture velocity, and the actual liquid velocity is smaller than the mixture
velocity. The expressions for the actual gas velocity (Ug ) and the actual liquid
velocity (Ul) are:
Ug =
Ul =

5.5.3

Vsg
1- H l

Vsl
Hl

Sensitivity of Hold-Up to Major Operating Variables

The holdup in each flow regime has its own sensitivity to the important operating
variables. A summary of the effect of the major operating variables on the liquid
holdup is presented in Table 5.5-1.
Table 5.5-1: Influence of Operating Variables on Liquid Holdup
Slug Flow

Annular
Flow

Stratified
Flow

Dispersed
Bubble Flow

Superficial Gas
Velocity

Strong

Superficial
Liquid Velocity

Strong

Gas Density

Moderate

Strong

Pipeline
Diameter

Moderate

Weak

Angle of
Inclination

Moderate

Weak

Very Strong

None

Liquid
Properties

Moderate

Weak

H-0806.35

5-19

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

As seen in Table 5.5-1, the influence of the major variables on the holdup is very
different for each of the flow regimes. As a result, it is impossible to develop a
general holdup correlation that will apply to all the flow regimes. Unfortunately,
almost all of the commonly used ho ldup models available in commercial software
try to do this. They work poorly over much of the operating range as a result.
The only way to accurately predict liquid holdup is to use mechanistic models for
each of the flow regimes.
5.5.4

Prediction of Liquid Holdup

Many pipeline design correlations exist which generate or include an estimate of
liquid holdup; the section below describes the most commonly used ones. All
these correlations can be used for a single step calculation, treating the whole
pipeline length as a single inclined section (though note the comments in section
5.5.1 concerning total climb) but this will give poor results. Ideally all methods
should consider each individual climb in the pipe in turn in a multi- step
calculation. This can be performed using a spreadsheet set up for the purpose or
one of the proprietary software packages.

5.5.5

Mechanistic Models
Mechanistic models calculate liquid holdup as part of their overall solution to the
flow condition in each section of a pipeline. These models work at a more
fundamental level than the correlation methods as discussed in the prediction of
flow regimes.

5.5.6

Field/Experimental Holdup Data

Only limited field data of hold-up in gas-condensate pipelines is available in the
open literature.
Northeast Frigg: A prolonged flow trial was performed by Elf on the 17.3 km,
16-inch flowline between the N.E. Frigg field and the Frigg central processing
platform. This is the most comprehensive set of field data available in the open
literature (Hansen, 1991) including both transient and steady state data and
distinguishing between condensate and aqueous liquid phases.
Marlin and Barracouta: Cunliffe (1978) reported hold-ups in the Marlin (108 km
long, 20- inch diameter) and Barracouta (49 km long, 18- inch diameter) pipelines.
Baker, et al., amongst that used this data in their comparisons of holdup

H-0806.35

5-20

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

correlations. Details of pipeline topography and fluids composition (save overall

CGR) are not included in the paper.
Viking and Frigg: Holdup data from the Frigg (330 km long, 32- inch diameter)
and Viking (138 km long, 28- inch diameter) was reported in the comparison work
of Baker and co-workers. Again topography and fluids composition (aside from
overall CGR) were not reported.
South Morecambe: A 38.45 km, 36- inch line which is normally operated with
routine pigging to clear accumulation of condensate and injected MEG. The
fluids contain relatively little liquid having a CGR of approximately 2.5
BBL/MMscf. A series of trials were conducted in early 1988 measuring steady
state hold-up at one flow condition (McAllister, 1988).
Amethyst: A 50 km, 30- inch multiphase line which is normally pigged daily to
avoid build- up of condensate and water (the fluid CGR varies from 5 to 20
bbls/MMscf and usually includes about 1 bbl/MMscf of water, methanol is
injected offshore for hydrate prevention). Measurements of holdup in the line
were made in 1992.
PIPER: The PIPER rig was constructed and operated by BG R&T in 1995 to
provide data for validation of multiphase modeling methods. The 1995 work
(Molyneux, 1996) studied holdups in a 3-inch pipeline dip operating at typical
field velocities. Fluids used were air and water at 10 barg. Holdup results were
compared with PLAC predictions, and the comparison was remarkably good.
5.6

Three Phase Flow

In most of this guideline, discussion considers two-phase, or gas- liquid, flow. In
the majority of oil/gas field applications, there will actually be three phases
present (gas, oil or condensate, and water). The rigor prediction of three-phase
flow is still developing, though three-phase flow software is currently
commercially available. Most simulation software packages use two-phase
models with a mixed liquid stream using averaged properties for the oil and water.
The use of two-phase models with averaged properties generally gives acceptable
results unless either: emulsions are present, or the flow rates are low enough to
cause stratification of all three phases.

H-0806.35

5-21

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

5.7

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Information Sources
Agrawal, S.S., Gregory, G.A. & Govier, G.W. " An Analysis of Horizontal Stratified
Two Phase Flow in Pipes" Can. J. Chem. Engng. p280-287, 51, June 1973.
Baker, A. & Gravestock, N. "New Correlations for Predicting Press Loss and Holdup in
Gas/Condensate Pipelines" BHRA 3rd Int. Conf. on Multiphase Flow, The Hague
18-20th May 1987.
Baker, A., Nielsen, K. & Gabb, A. "Field Data Test New Holdup, Pressure- loss
Calculations for gas, Condensate Pipelines" O&G J. p78-86, March 21th, 1988.
Baker, A., Nielsen, K. & Gabb, A. "Holdup, Pressure- loss Calculations Confirmed"
O&G J. p44-50, March 28th, 1988.
Baker, A., Nielsen, K. & Gabb, A. "Pressure Loss, Liquid-holdup Calculations
Developed" O&G J. p55-59, March 14th, 1988.
Beggs, H.D. & Brill, J.P. "A Study of Two Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes"
Trans.Pet.Soc.AIME, p607, 256, 1973.
Beggs, H.D. and Brill, J.P., A Study of Two-phase Flow in Inclined Pipes, J. Pet. Tech.,
June 1967, P. 815.
Cunliffe, R.S. "Condensate Flow in Wet- gas Lines can be Predicted" O&G J. p100-107,
30th October. 1978
Eaton, B.A., Andrews, D.E., Knowles, C.R., Silberberg, I.H. & Brown, K.E. " The
Prediction of Flow Patterns, Liquid Hold- up and Pressure Losses Occurring during
Continuous Two-phase Flow in Horizontal Pipelines" J. Pet. Tech., p815-828, June
1967.
Gregory, G.A. "Comparison of Methods for the Prediction of Liquid Holdup for Upward
Gas- liquid Flow in Inclined Pipes" Can. J. Chem. Engng. p384-388, 53, August 1975.
Gregory, G.A. "Multiphase Flow in Pipes - Notes for a Professional Development
Course Neotechnology Consultants Ltd., Calgary 1991.
Gregory, G.A. & Fogarasi, M. "A Critical evaluation of Multiphase Gas- liquid Pipeline
Calculation Methods" BHRA 2nd Int. Conf. on Multiphase Flow, London, 19-21st June

H-0806.35

5-22

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Calculation Methods" BHRA 2nd Int. Conf. on Multiphase Flow, London, 19-21st June
1985.
Hansen, T.E. "The Northeast Frigg Full Scale Multiphase Flow Test" BHRA Multiphase
Production Conference, Cannes, 19-21st June, 1991.
Hughmark, G.A. "Hold-up in Gas- liquid Flow" Chem. Engng. Prog. P62, 58, 1962.
Lockhart, R.W. & Martinelli, R.C. " Proposed Correlation of Data for Isothermal
Two-phase, Two Compone nt Flow in Pipes" Chem. Engng. Prog. p45, 39, January
1949.
Mandhane, J.M., Gregory, G.A. & Aziz, K. "A Flow Pattern Map for Gas- liquid Flow in
Horizontal Pipes" Int. J. Multiphase Flow, p537, 1, 1974.
Mandhane, J.M., Gregory, G.A. & Aziz, K. "Critical Evaluation of Friction
Pressure-drop Prediction Methods for Gas- liquid Flow in Horizontal Pipes" J. Pet. Tech.
p1348-1358, October 1977.
McAllister, J.S., Hydrocarbons GB Ltd. memorandum and attached technical note dated
15th April 1988.
Minami, K. & Brill, J.P. "Liquid Hold-up in Wet Gas Pipelines" SPE 14535, SPE
Production Engineering, p36-44, February 1987.
Molyneux, P.D. "The Measurement of Multiphase Flow in a Pipeline Dip and
Comparison of the Results with PLAC Predictions" BG R&T Internal Report GRC R
1360, April 1996.
Mukherjee H. & Brill, J.P. "Liquid Holdup Correlations for Inclined Two-phase Flow
J. Pet. Tech., p1003-1008, May 1983.
Mukherjee, H. and Brill, J.P., Pressure Drop Correlation for Inclined Two-phase Flow,
J. of Energy Resources Te ch., Vol. 107, P.549, 1985.
Oliemans, R.V.A. "Modeling of Gas-condensate Flow in Horizontal and Inclined Pipes"
Proc. ASME, Pipeline Engng. Symp., ETCE, p73, Dallas, February 1987.
Oliemans, R.V.A., Two-phase Flow in Gas Transmission Pipelines, ASME paper
76-Pet-25, Sep. 1976.
H-0806.35

5-23

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

76-Pet-25, Sep. 1976.

Palmer, C.M. "Evaluation of Inclined Two-Phase Liquid Holdup Correlations Using
Experimental Data" MS Thesis, U. of Tulsa, 1975.
Taitel, Y. & Dukler, A.E. "A Model for Predicting Flow Regime Transitions in
Horizontal and near Horizontal Gas- liquid Flow" AIChE J., p47-55, 22, 1976.

H-0806.35

5-24

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

6.0

STEADY-STATE HYDRAUIC SIMULATION AND LIN E SIZING

6.1

Introduction
The majority of pipelines are sized by use of three primary design criteria:
available pressure drop; allowable velocities; and flow regime Line sizing is
usually performed by use of steady state simulators, which assume that the
pressures, flowrates, temperatures, and liquid holdup in the pipeline are constant
with time. This assumption is rarely true in practice, but line sizes calculated from
the steady state models are usually adequate. Thermal considerations, including
steady-state temperature drop, and the effect on steady-state hydraulics is
discussed in Chapter 7, entitled Thermal Modeling.
For a more rigorous pipeline sizing, the simulations could be done using transient
simulators. Transient simulators allow changes in parameters such as inlet
flowrate and outlet pressure as a function of time, and calculate values for the
outlet flowrates, temperatures, liquid holdup, etc. as a function of time. If the line
is operating in slug flow, the line size calculated from the transient model might
be different from that calculated from a steady state simulator.
These
considerations will be discussed later in Chapter 8, entitled, Transient
Modeling.
This chapter is arranged as follows. Sections 6.1 and 6.2 discuss some general
guidelines for pressure drop and fluid velocity design criteria (The third design
criteria, flow regimes are discussed in Chapter 5). Section 6.3 presents some
general guidelines to follow when using steady-state simulators.

6.2

Pressure Drop Design Criteria

No clear-cut criteria exist for determining the amount of pressure drop to be
allowed in a pipeline design. Allowable pressure drop is a function of the
parameters of the system being designed. The following are some guidelines for
specific systems:

For plant piping, rule of thumb values for pressure gradients, such as a
frictional gradient of 0.2-0.5 psi per 100 ft. of equivalent length, are generally
used.

H-0806.35

6-1

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

In the design of a gathering system, the ideal way to choose allowable

pressure drops is to simulate the system from the reservoir through the
processing plant as a function of time. This approach will account for the
changes in reservoir pressure, flowrate, and composition that the gathering
system must handle during the life of the field.

If it is not feasible to do the rigorous simulations for a gathering system, the

allowable pressure drop can be estimated from the initial wellhead pressure
and the processing plant inlet separator pressure. A rule of thumb to use for
this method is to take 1/3 of the difference between the wellhead pressure and
the separator pressure as the allowable pressure drop in the pipeline. The
remainder of the difference would equal the initial choke pressure drop. This
approach would allow for future operation at reduced reservoir pressures.

A rule of thumb estimate of allowable pressure drop for long distance

gas/condensate pipelines is to allow 10-20 psi per mile for frictional pressure
drop at design rates.

The pressure drop in the line should be compared with the allowable pressure
drop. It should be pointed out that pressure drop is not always a maximum at
the highest flowrate. If the pipeline contains inclined or vertical elements, it is
possible that the highest pressure drop may occur at a low flow condition due
to high elevational losses at low flows.
6.3

Velocity
The velocity in multiphase flow pipelines should be kept within certain limits to
ensure proper operation. Operating problems can occur if the velocity is either
too high or too low, as described in the following sections. It is difficult to
accurately define the point at which velocities are "too high" or "too low. This
section of the guide will try to quantify limits, but these limits should be
considered as guidelines and not absolute values
For the maximum design velocity in a pipeline, API RP-14E recommends the
following formula:
Vmax =

H-0806.35

C
Pns

6-2

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

where Vmax = Maximum mixture velocity, ft/sec

Pns = No-slip mixture density, lb/ft3
=

( Pg V sg ) + ( PlV sl )
Vm

g = Gas Density, lb/ft

l = Liquid Density, lb/ft
C = Constant, 100 for continuous service, 125 for intermittent service.
This equation attempts to indicate the velocity at which erosion-corrosion begins
to increase rapidly. Many people think this equation is an oversimplification of a
highly complex subject, and as a result, there has been considerable controversy
over its use. For wells with no sand present, values of C have been reported to be
as high as 300 without significant erosion/corrosion. For flowlines with
significant amounts of sand present, there has been considerable erosion-corrosion
for lines operating below C = 100.
The use of the API equation has been the subject of several research projects. It
has been generally agreed that the fo rm of the equation is not sophisticated
enough, and should include additional parameters. Unfortunately, no other
equation has been proposed which has gained acceptance in the industry as an
alternative to the API equation. As a result, the recommended maximum velocity
in the pipeline is the value calculated from Equation 6.1 with a C value of 100.
It should be noted that Equation 6.1 is also used by many people as an estimate of
the maximum velocity for noise control.
The concept of a minimum velocity for the pipeline is an important one and
should be considered in the design of the line. Turndown conditions frequently
govern the design of the downstream equipment. Velocities that are too low are
frequently a greater problem than excessive velocities, so that the designers
natural tendency to add "a bit of fat" to the design by increasing pipe diameter can
cause severe problems in the operation of the line and the downstream facilities.
At low velocities, several operating problems may occur:

Water may accumulate at low spots in the line. If there is an appreciable

amount of CO2 or H2S in the well stream, this water may be very corrosive.
H-0806.35

6-3

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Liquid holdup may increase rapidly at low mixture velocities. A large

accumulation of liquid may cause problems in downstream separators or slug
catchers if the line is pigged or the rate is changed rapidly.

Low velocities may cause terrain induced slugging in hilly terrain pipelines
and pipeline-riser systems.
It is not possible to give a simple formula quantifying the velocity when the
phenomena discussed above will occur. The minimum velocity depends on many
variables, including: topography; pipeline diameter; gas- liquid ratio; and
operating conditions of the line. A ballpark value for the minimum velocity
would be a mixture velocity of 5-8 ft/sec. The actual value of the minimum
velocity can only be quantified by simulation of the system using the methods
discussed.
6.4

Steady State Simulators

This section contains some general guidelines on the use of steady state
simulators. The topics covered include:

Phase Equilibrium and Physical Properties

Pipeline Elevation Profile
Interpretation of Results
6.4.1

Phase Equilibrium and Physical Properties

Accurate prediction of the phase behavior and physical properties for the fluid
flowing through the pipeline is essential to a good simulation of the pipeline
operation. The estimates of these parameters depend in large part on the quality of
the input data available.
During conceptual design work, the only data available may be an estimate of the
oil rate and gas-oil ratio. After well tests have been performed, compositions of
the wellstream and PVT data may be available as well as projections of the
flowrates of oil, gas and water as a function of time. Obviously, as the accuracy of
the input data improves, the quality of the pipeline simulation improves. For
details on physical property prediction, refer to Chapter 4, entitled "Physical
Property Data and Prediction".

H-0806.35

6-4

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Steady-State Simulators generally have two fundamentally different models

available for estimation of phase behavior and physical properties. The black oil
model estimates the phase behavior and physical properties by use of a series of
correlations that are based on operating temperature, pressure and some global
parameters such as specific gravity of the oil and gas. Compositional models use
an equation of state to estimate the quantity of liquid and gas at the operating
conditions; then, correlations are used to estimate the physical properties.
The decision on whether to use the black oil model or compositional modeling
depends on the available information and the type of system that is being
modeled.
The choice of models for gas-condensate and volatile oil systems is clear.
Compositional models should be used for any gas-condensate or volatile oil
system. This recommendation covers gas-oil ratios above about 3500 SCF/bbl.
The accuracy of compositional modeling depends, in a large part, on the
characterization of the heavy ends of the well stream. The materials heavier than
hexane (C6+) are usually characterized by use of pseudo-components or cuts.
The heavy ends could be characterized by one C6+ cut, or by a series of cuts
corresponding to various boiling ranges. In general, the accuracy of the
predictions increases when more cuts are used. Steady-State Simulators require
two of the following parameters to characterize a cut: specific gravity; molecular
weight, or normal boiling point. In many cases, the mole fractions for cuts
heavier than C6+ may have been measured in the PVT analysis, but cut properties
were not noted. In cases like this, the customary assumption is to use the
properties of the corresponding normal paraffin as the cut properties. This adds
some error to the analysis, but it is unavoidable in many circumstances.
If the compositional model is used in steady-state simulators, the only variable
that can be easily manipulated to match experimental data is the liquid viscosity.
Generally, steady-state simulators do not have an option that will automatically
adjust the phase equilibrium calculations to match experimental data. It is
possible to manually modify the phase equilibrium calculations, but it requires
considerable effort, and the methods to do this are beyond the scope of this guide
and specific to the particular simulator.

H-0806.35

6-5

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Although it is possible to get good estimates of the phase equilibrium for 3-phase
(gas-oil- water) systems, the available software does not allow rigorous simulation
of three-phase flow. The models present in steady-state simulators can only do
two-phase (gas- liquid) flow calculations. Steady-state simulators average the
properties of the liquid hydrocarbon and liquid water, and use that average in the
two-phase flow methods. Volumetric averaging, however, may not give good
values for the viscosity and surface tension of the mixture. If the oil and water
form an emulsion, the viscosity estimate may be off considerably using simple
volumetric averaging, because the viscosity of an emulsion can be as much as 50
times as high as the viscosity of the oil or water. If it is likely that an emulsion
will form, the Woeflin method, which is available in steady-state simulators,
should be used to estimate the viscosity of the emulsion.
For lower gas-oil ratios, the choice of models is more difficult. Compositional
models should give more accurate phase equilibrium results, but the physical
property estimates from the compositional models may not be as good as the
black oil model. (Section 4 illustrates this point.) As a result, it cannot be stated
categorically that either the black oil model or the compositional model is
superior for low gas-oil ratio systems. General practice with Steady-State
Simulators has been to use the black oil model for lower gas-oil ratio streams.
If tests of the phase equilibrium and physical properties have been done as part of
the wellstream analysis, steady-state simulators allow the users of the black oil
model to adjust the model predictions for solution GOR, densities, and liquid
viscosity to match experimental values. The pipeline predictions after PVT
matching should be considerably better than those obtained with use of the
standard correlations.
6.4.2

Pipeline Elevation Profile

The pipeline elevation profile used in the simulation can have a significant impact
on the calculated pressure drop. Because the liquid holdup in upwardly inclined
flow is greater than the holdup in downward flow, the elevational pressure drop in
uphill legs is greater than the pressure recovery in downhill legs. As a result,
elevational losses can account for much of the pressure drop in hilly terrain
pipelines, even if the inlet and outlet of the line are at the same relative elevation.

H-0806.35

6-6

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

If the velocities in the line are high, the uphill and downhill holdups may be close.
As the mixture velocity decreases, there will be an increasing difference between
uphill and downhill holdups.
The following table illustrates how sensitive the liquid holdup is to mixture
velocity at various angles of inclination from horizontal. The feed stream is a
gas-condensate with about 4 bbl/MMSCF of liquid present. (The values shown
are predictions of the OLGAS model.)
Table 6-1:
PIPELINE
INCLINATION
ANGLE,
DEGREES

LIQUID HOLDUP (BBLS/MMSCF)

2.7

4.1

5.4

8.1

16.2

-2.0

0.0041

0.0053

0.0064

0.0091

0.0115

-1.0

0.0052

0.0068

0.0085

0.0108

0.0122

-0.5

0.0068

0.0087

0.0108

0.0124

0.0126

0.0

0.0224

0.0218

0.0198

0.0156

0.0131

0.2

0.5797

0.4134

0.2249

0.0179

0.0134

0.5

0.5961

0.4988

0.3846

0.0317

0.0135

1.0

0.5997

0.5000

0.4314

0.3023

0.0144

2.0

0.6009

0.5024

0.4337

0.3428

0.0158

MIXTURE VELOCITY FT/SEC

Using the values in the table below, a comparison of two models for a given
section of a pipeline has been made. In the first model, the pipeline segment
consists of two equal length sections of -0.5 degree and +0.5 degree each. The
second model consists of a single horizontal pipeline segment. The liquid
holdups for the two models are:

H-0806.35

6-7

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Table 6-2:
MIXTURE
VELOCITY, FT/SEC

HOLDUP FOR -0.5

DEGREE AND +0.5
MODEL

HOLDUP FOR
HORIZONTAL
MODEL

2.7
4.1

0.3015
0.2538

0.0224
0.0218

5.4

0.1977

0.0198

8.1

0.0221

0.0156

16.2

0.0131

The liquid holdups are far apart at low velocities and are the same at higher
velocities. This comparison makes two points:
1. The pipeline profile must be realistic if the calculations of liquid holdup and
pressure drop are to be accurate.
2. Low velocities cause severe problems in prediction of the pipeline
performance.
For very low velocities, it would be necessary to know the pipeline elevation
profile within an accuracy of about one pipe diameter in order to get accurate
holdup predictions. This is generally not practical.
In many cases, the pipeline topography is not known when the preliminary
pipeline sizing calculations are run. Frequently, in offshore pipeline design, the
designer only knows water depths at subsea wells or platforms. Instead of
assuming a straight- line pipeline profile, it is recommended that the designer add
some terrain features to the pipeline profile to simulate hills and valleys that are
inevitably present in the actual profile.
To improve the accuracy of the simulation, many calculation segments should be
used in simulating the pipeline. Increasing the number of calculation segments
always improves the accuracy of the simulation, but it increases the computer
simulation time. The number of segments required depends on how rapidly the
temperature, pressure and holdup are changing in the pipeline. For a system with
rapid changes in pressure, e.g. flare systems; the number of calculation segments

H-0806.35

6-8

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

should be greater. If the temperature and pressure are changing slowly, a coarser
grid can be used to simulate the pipeline.
6.4.3

Interpretation of Results
When a multiphase simulator is run, the interpretation of the results can be
difficult. The following section provides assistance in understanding steady-state
simulators output, and ensuring that the design criteria for the line (velocities,
flow regime, and allowable pressure drop) are met.
The velocity in the pipeline should be kept within a limited range. Calculation of
the velocities from a steady-state simulators output is not straightforward. The
designers of steady-state simulators chose to include the actual gas and liquid
velocities in their output table rather than the superficial gas and liquid velocities,
which are needed in the erosional velocity calculations. The superficial and
actual velocities are related by simple formulas:

Vsg = Ug (1 H l )
and
Vsl = U l H 1
It is important to note that liquid holdup is generally shown to only two decimal
places in output tables. For gas-condensate lines, if the liquid holdup is below 0.5
percent, the printout will show 0.00 for the holdup. If there is a way to increase
the number of significant digits to be reported (based on simulator), this is
suggested.
A more accurate way of calculating the superficial velocities from the steady-state
simulators output tables which doesn't rely on reading the value for the liquid
holdup is:

Hl =

(U g Vm)
(U g U l )

Vsl = U l H l

H-0806.35

6-9

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Vsg = Vm Vsl

To calculate the C value in the API-RP14E equation, the value of the no-slip
mixture density must be known. The no-slip mixture density can be calculated
from the phase densities shown on the output table and the superficial velocities
calculated above:

ns =

( g Vsg ) + (l Vsl )
Vm

It is worthwhile to emphasize the point that the pipeline design should be checked
at off-design points as well as the no minal design point. For most pipelines,
worst-case conditions for liquid holdup and flow regime occur at turndown
conditions.
Some steady-state simulators allow the user to print a flow regime map based on
the selected correlations for horizontal and vertical flow. Some simulators have
some limitations. For instance, in PIPEPHASE, the flow regime map is printed
only for the last "device" in a "link. If the "link" contains several pipes with
different inclinations, the flow regime map for some of these sections may be
quite different from the map at the last "device. The only way to print the flow
regime map at specific points along the line is to make these points ends to
"links".
Most simulators also print the flow regime predictions for each pipeline segment.
The printout shows the predictions of the multiphase flow regimes and in some
cases, the correlation/model used (e.g. Beggs and Brill and Taitel and Dukler,
etc.).
Once the flow regime is determined, the designer needs to decide if this flow
regime is acceptable. This decision is more difficult than it may appear. Here are
some general rules/practice methods to follow:

H-0806.35

Ideally, the flow line should not be in the slug flow regime. In practice, it may
be very difficult to design a line to avoid slug flow under all anticipated flow
conditions. The only variables the designer can change are diameter and
operating pressure; the changes in these variables required to avoid slug flow

6-10

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

may be impractical. It should be pointed out that many pipelines operate

successfully in slug flow. As long as the pipeline and downstream equipment
are designed with proper consideration of slug flow effects, they can be
successfully operated.

6.5

The flow regime analysis may show that the line is in stratified flow. In many
instances, this is an excellent flow regime in which to operate. At low
flowrates, however, slugging may occur in lines predicted to be in stratified
flow, induced by the terrain. Terrain induced slugs are generally much longer
than the slugs in normal slug flow and can cause severe operating problems.
Terrain slugging is discussed in more detail in Section 5.2.2.

If the pressure drop and velocities for lines in dispersed bubble or annular
flow are within acceptable limits, these flow regimes are usually good regimes
in which to operate.

Networks (Flows in Networks)

Analysis of multiphase networks is increasingly important since in mature sectors,
the exploitation of smaller gas fields often requires the combination of several
widely separated fields or tie- ins to existing platforms to make economics viable.
In spite of advances in directional drilling, these fields must often be developed
via remote wellheads and multiphase flowlines.
The drive to reduce costs necessitates use of existing infrastructure and minimal
fluids processing. Thus multiphase fluids may need to be exported through
networks originally designed for low CGR or even single-phase fluids.

6.5.1

Analysis of Simple Networks (Gathering Systems)

A basic approach for simple networks outlined by Gregory & Aziz (1978) relies
on an initial knowledge of the flow from each feed of a gas gathering system, the
details of each flowline section (construction, topography etc.) and the pressure
and temperature at the combined outlet of the system. Calculations are performed
backwards through the system to ascertain the pressure and temperature at each
node. This is illustrated in Figure 6.1.
If this approach is being used to generate a preliminary network design, pipeline
details (e.g. diameter) for each section may require adjustment to meet pressure

H-0806.35

6-11

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

constraints for particular feeds (indeed it will probably be necessary to return to

previous, downstream, calculations to satisfy some criteria).
Limitations of this very simple approach are the possible need for multiple
calculations with many iterations to study systems where feed temperatures vary
significantly with supply pressure (i.e. due to letdown across wellhead chokes).

Figure 6.1: Network Calculation Example

6.5.2

Computerized Simulation of Simple Networks

All commercially available modeling packages should be capable of modeling
simple gathering networks using a combination of feeds, pipes, mixers and sinks.
All the following codes are capable of handling networks of flowlines:

Netflo (BG R&T)

PIPESIM (Baker-Jardine)

PLAC (AEA Technology)

OLGA (Scanpower)

HYSIM/HYSIS (Hyprotech)

H-0806.35

6-12

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Aspen Plus (Aspentech)

In most cases, different flow models can be used to simulate each individual
flowline within a network. Commercial codes such as Pipesim and Pipeflow also
have add-in features allowing optimization of flow through gathering systems and
optimization of lifetime production from a gas field (or group of fields).
6.5.3

Looped and Branching Pipelines

Parallel pipelines installed for turndown reasons, to increase capacity of a
pipeline, or to allow round trip pigging may only be treated as two separate
systems if the liquid and gas mixture entering each line is accurately known and if
their discharges are isolated from one another.
The complexity of multiphase flow is such that the split of gas and liquid into two
branches of a line cannot be accurately predicted and cases have been reported
where fluctuations in the outlet conditions (e.g. due to slugging from one flowline
entering a vessel) has affected the upstream operation of a pipeline discharging to
the same vessel. Thus any calculation which assumes an equal split of gas and
liquid phases in a branching or looped multiphase line should be regarded with
caution.
Bearing in mind the above, a method for hand calculation of looped pipeline
systems has been proposed by Gregory & Fogarasi (1982) which gives upper and
lower bounds for the pressure drop in a looped multiphase pipeline with a total
gas flow of Qg and total liquid flow Ql. Nomenclature for this approach is shown
in Figure 6.2.

Figure 6.2: Looped Pipeline Calculation

H-0806.35

6-13

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

The resulting range of pressure drops will be associated with a range of liquid and
gas flow splits and will cover the range of possible pressure drops in the looped
line.
A further effect which must be checked for in looped systems with different
topographies is the possibility of one branch filling with liquid and acting as a
manometer leg (the liquid head balancing the pressure drop in the flowing line.
As well as increasing the pipeline pressure drop this phenomenon could result in
unexpected liquid slugs being received at the terminal when a subsequent flow
increase expels this liquid.
6.5.4

Computerized Looped and Parallel Line Calculations

Standard steady-state multiphase pipeline models can handle looped lines but are
limited in that the split of flow through each line must be set by the user and
repeated calculation used to balance the pressure drop in each branch. Splitting of
different proportions of gas and liquid into each line (required for the calculation
procedure recommended by Gregory & Fogarasi) is only possible by setting up
the loop line as entirely separate systems and adjusting both flowrates and fluid
compositions in each.
Simpler analysis of complex networks can be performed by fitting curves to the
results of several steady-state simulations for each section of line to build a
spreadsheet model of the network. Figure 6.3 shows an example of such a model
- in this case gas flowrates at each input are entered and the spreadsheet calculates
flows and hold-ups in each section of line. In practice, correlations for pressure
drop could also be incorporated. Such spreadsheet application is limited to the
operating conditions for which the correlations were derived (unless a great deal
of effort is put in to incorporating physical property correlations etc.) but once set
up can be used to study many cases in a large network very quickly - e.g. to
identify flow changes causing the greatest change in the network holdup.

H-0806.35

6-14

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Neptane
Initial flow
Final flow

Mercury

30 Mmscfd
145 Mmscfd

Initial flow
Final flow

Neptane Node 1
Initial flow
30 Mmfscfd
Final flow
145 Mmscfd
Initial HU
1102 bbls
Final HU
273 bbks

Mercury Node 2
Initial flow
25 Mmfscfd
Final flow
25 Mmscfd
Initial HU
236 bbls
Final HU
236 bbks

Niode 1- Node 2
Initial flow
100 Mmfscfd
Final flow
215 Mmscfd
Initial HU
186 bbls
Final HU
48 bbks

Niode 2 Easington
Initial flow
125 Mmfscfd
Final flow
240 Mmscfd
Initial HU
1198 bbls
Final HU
431 bbks

Easington

Minerva
Initial flow
Final flow

25 Mmscfd
25 Mmscfd

Initial flow
Final flow
Liquid

70 Mmscfd
70 Mmscfd

125 Mmscfd
240 Mmscfd
1734 bbls

Figure 6.3: Network Analysis Spreadsheet Calculation

6.6

How Steady -State Hydraulic Simulation Fits into the Design Process
Steady-state hydraulic simulation fits under the umbrella of Flow System
Thermal Hydraulic Design and Fluid Behavior. The hydraulic design is also tied
in closely with the thermal analysis, which will be the subject of Chapter 7.

6.7

Information Sources
1) Eaton, B.A., Andrews, D.E., Knowles, C.R., Silberberg, I.H. & Brown, K.E.
"The Prediction of Flow Patterns, Liquid Hold-up and Pressure Losses
Occurring during Continuous Two-Phase Flow
2) Gregory, G.A. & Fogarasi, M. "A Critical Evaluation of Multiphase
Gas-Liquid Pipeline Calculation Methods" BHRA, 2nd Int. Conference on
Multiphase Flow, London, 19-21st June 1985.

H-0806.35

6-15

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

3) Oliemans, R.V.A. "Two-phase Flo w in Gas Transmission Pipelines" ASME

paper 76-Pet-25, September 1976. Clark, C.J., Lee, T.P. & Sugarman, P.P.
"Operability of Multiphase Subsea Pipelines" Pipes & Pipelines International,
pp14-20, May-June 1985.
4) Gregory, G.A. & Aziz, K. "Calculation of Pressure and Temperature Profiles
in Multiphase Pipelines and Simple Pipeline Networks" J. Can. Pet. Tech.,
pp56-67, Jan-Mar 1978.
5) Gregory, G.A. & Fogarasi, M. "Estimation of Pressure Drop in Two-Phase
Oil-Gas Looped Pipeline Systems" J. Can. Pet.Techno l., pp75-81, Mar-Apr
1982.

H-0806.35

6-16

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

7.0

THERMAL MODELING

7.1

How Thermal Modeling Fits into the Design Process

Fluid temperatures along an operating flowline or pipeline are important in many
circumstances. Firstly of course, the temperature of the flowing fluids has a direct
influence on the phys ical characteristics of the fluids and on depositional potentials. The
temperature of the fluid in a gas or gas-condensate line will determine the amount of
condensation of liquids along a gas-condensate line and will therefore have an impact on
pressure drop and liquid holdup in the line and on corrosion potential. The assessment of
potential for hydrate formation and wax deposition along the line will require accurate
estimates of temperatures. Corrosion is a strong function of temperature, so good heat
transfer estimates are vital to corrosion prediction. When a flowline is shut in, the rate at
which the contained fluids cool will determine how long the operator has to effect any
required hydrate intervention actions. Also, the rate at which a flowline warms may
determine the amount of time that high-rate corrosion inhibition will be required. For
gas/condensate pipelines, temperature loss due to the Joule-Thomson (J-T) expansion
effect can be significant. Depending on flowing pressures and the amount of insulation
and/or burial, the temperature of the gas leaving the pipeline may be less than ambient
because of the J-T effect.
For these reasons, an accurate knowledge of the heat transfer characteristics of the system
will be required to properly model the heat transfer between the pipeline and the
surroundings. Accurate information on the following will be needed:

Thicknesses of the pipe, pipeline coatings, and insulation

Thermal conductivities of the pipe, coatings, and insulation.

Whether the pipe is buried or exposed

Burial depth, if applicable

Ambient environment (air/water, water velocity)

Ambient temperatures

With this information, appropriate heat transfer coefficients, which are then used to
determine the temperature profile in the pipeline, can be calculated. Usually, these
calculations are performed by the multiphase simulation software being use, though they
can be calculated manually.

H-0806.35

7-1

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

In most multiphase simulators, heat transfer rates are calculated using homogeneous
mixture properties. Hence no attempt is made to account for the position of the liquid
and gas in the pipe. This approach has been found to be satisfactory for multiphase
pipelines operating under normal transportation conditions.
In some circumstances the homogeneous heat transfer model may not be adequate. For
instance, when investigating heat flow from a pipe or valves during a rupture or shut- in,
knowledge of the liquid content (and resultant heat transfer characteristics) at different
locations in the pipe may be important. Under some such circumstances, fluid
boundaries can be located by experience or calculation, appropriate heat transfer
coefficients can be estimated, and heat loss rates calculated by hand methods. For
others, it would be necessary to use a sophis ticated transient model.
7.2

Calculation of Wellbore Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient

This section describes why the accurate calculation of the Wellhead Flowing
Temperature is important, and it also outlines how the WHFT (or FWHT) is calculated
using steady state multiphase simulation software. This section is split into two parts: the
first describes the factors that influence the WHFT and the theory involved and, the
second section describes the more practical aspects involved in determining the well head
flowing temperature using multiphase simulations.
It is important that the temperature at the wellhead be calculated accurately since it can
greatly affect the design of the flowline and/or the separator downstream of the wellhead.
For example, the following are influenced by the wellhead temperature:

The relative vapor/liquid split in the separator or flowline (which may affect the sizing
of the flowline or the separator).

The possibility of hydrate formation.

Rate of corrosion in the flowline.

The temperature profile at the inlet to the flowline affects the type of insulation and burial
requirements. If the temperature is high, then burial may be required to prevent upheaval
buckling. Conversely, if WHFT is very high, it may be necessary to cool the flow stream
before it enters the flowline.
This design guide discusses the factors, which affect the wellhead temperature, such as
watercut, flow rate, and completion details.

H-0806.35

7-2

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

In the following, heat transfer within the tubing and the casings is not rigorously
calculated. Instead, the casings and annuli are approximated to an equivalent thickness of
cement (or another insulation material). This method provides accurate results
considering that information on the heat transfer through the completion details and the
thermal properties of the surrounding rock may not be readily available and/or of
questionable accuracy.
As an alternate, an unsteady-state well simulation program could be used to rigorously
model the temperature loss through the tubing, casing and the annuli with time. Such a
program can calculate the temperature profile in the well during start-up and as a result of
flow rate changes. Some believe that such a program should not be used to calculate
steady-state wellhead flowing temperatures but should only be used to give an indication
of the warm up rates or the thermal response to changes in the operating conditions such
as flow rate.
This section describes the method used to calculate the WHFT. The description of the
calculation will allow the reader to determine which factors most influence the WHFT.
Calculated Well Heat Transfer
The heat lost from a flowing well into the surrounding rock matrix is by time-dependent
heat transfer. As in the case of a flowline, the overall heat transfer coefficient, which
determines heat loss from the produced fluids, is obtained from a series combination of
three components:

An internal film coefficient

Composite coefficient for the tubing/casing comprising:

the resistance of the tubing and casing walls

the resistance of the annulus medium
the resistance of the casing cement grouting
A time dependent coefficient for the surrounding rock matrix.

The heat transfer coefficient for radiation is not included as its influence is usually small
compared with the other coefficients.
Heat Transfer Through Completion
The calculation of the heat transfer rate through the layers becomes quite complicated
when a large number of casings are employed. The numerous casings, annuli and cement
thicknesses each contribute to the overall resistance to heat transfer. To simplify the
H-0806.35

7-3

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

calculation, it is possible to approximate the numerous layers to a single layer of cement

having the same resistance to heat transfer as the sum of the casings and annuli.
The heat transfer rate, Q, is described below. Where j indicates the properties of the jth
layer.
Q=

2T
[ln( D j +1 / Dj ) / K j ]

For a single layer of cement with an outer diameter of Dc, the equation becomes:
Q=

2K c T
ln( Dc / Dci )

Since Dc is the only unknown and the numerator is the same for both equations the
equations can be rewritten as below:
Dc = Dco exp( K c (ln DJ + 1 / D j ) K j )
The heat transfer coefficient through the completion can now be expressed (based on
tubing inside diameter) as:
hcoml =

2 Kc
Di ln( Dc / DCI )

At the bottom of the well there is normally only one tubing, one casing and one thickness
of cement (and one annulus). However, nearer the top of the well there may be numerous
casings, annulus, different annular fills and cement thicknesses.
Internal Heat Transfer
The internal heat transfer coefficient, hi, assumes the existence of homogeneous twophase flow. This assumption is usually acceptable since the resistance of the internal film
to heat transfer is low compared with the resistance of the casings and the external
medium.
The expression used for estimating the film coefficient is the same as that recommended
for single-phase turbulent flow.

H-0806.35

7-4

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

hi =

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

0.023k m
x Re 0.8 x Pr 0.3
Di

The physical properties are derived on a phase volume weighted basis. The subscript m
denotes a mixture property. For example, the mixture viscosity is determined by the
following:

m = ll + g (1 g )
(Since heat is usually lost from well fluids the exponent for the Prandtl number is set to
0.3.)
External Medium
Heat transfer to the earth is essentially transient radial heat conduction, with the effective
heat transfer coefficient varying with time. While the analysis of the problem is
relatively straightforward, a simple explicit solution is not available. However,
approximate asymptotic solutions for short and long flow times can be derived.
The effective heat transfer coefficient, referred to the tubing inner diameter, is given by:
hearth =

2 ke
Dif (t )

f (t ) = [(z ) 0. 5 + 0.5 0.25( z / )0.5 + 0.125 z ] x 2 / Dco

Dco 2
z=
t
t = time (hrs .)

f (t ) = ln( Dco / t ) 0.29

Steady state simulation software able to perform the above calculations may not provide
an accurate prediction of WHFT during start-up. Transient wellbore simulation software
should be used to calculate a more accurate well warm up time.
For flowing times of the order of 10,000 hours, the system can reasonably be assumed to
be approaching steady state. For times between 500 and 10,000 hours the well will
probably be approaching steady state, and the steady-state value will be a reasonable
approximation.

H-0806.35

7-5

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

surroundings and heat loss is high. With time, heat loss will reduce as the rock warms
and the WHFT will increase. The rate of this increase is dependent on the flow rate.
Well start-up can be of particular importance. Before the well is started- up, the
temperature of the fluids is at the geothermal gradient. On start- up, cold fluid will be
produced; if the fluids pass through a choke at the wellhead then the temperature
downstream of the choke may be very low since the initial temperature upstream was
low. This may result in hydrate formation with the potential for forming a blockage.
It is therefore important to know how quickly the well would warm to determine the
length of time that methanol/hydrate inhibitor injection will be required.
When production commences from a well the WHFT will rise quite quickly. Usually, the
wellhead temperature will approach the steady-state value within two residence times of
the well. Typically this is no more than a few hours.
7.4

Pipelines
The temperature of the gas and liquid phases can be computed by carrying out an
incremental heat (energy) balance along the pipe. This balance can be calculated by hand
or (probably more accurately and certainly more conveniently) by using a commercial
software package, which contains the proper physics simulations.

7.4.1

Heat Balance Equations

The heat balance should allow for latent heat changes due to mass exchange between the
phases, enthalpy exchange between the phases, internal energy changes due to expansion,
contraction, and elevation changes, advection (heat transferred via the bulk fluid flow),
and heat losses to the environment. The latter term will depend on internal film heat
transfer coefficients, pipe wall thermal conductivity (multiple layers of steel, insulation,
coatings and burial), external heat transfer coefficients, the ambient temperature and the
thermophysical properties of the fluids.
The rate of cooling falls with increasing diameter because, although the greater diameter
implies an increased rate of heat loss (which is proportional to pipe surface area), the
increased mass flow of fluid within the pipe implies a greater heat capacity and hence a
smaller change in temperature. Although separate gas and liquid temperatures are
computed by solving separate heat balances for each phase, the temperatures are
essentially identical because of good contact between the phases.

H-0806.35

7-9

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

A large number of temperature profiles could be reproduced here for the range of
conditions likely, but all are of the same type and it should be possible to express them by
a relatively simple mathematical relationship. The simplest possible expression of the
heat loss equation is:
Q = UA T

and in a discretized form, representing the rate of heat loss with distance:
dQ UD(t t c) dL

where Q is the heat flux, U the overall heat transfer coefficient, D the pipe diameter, T
the fluid temperature, A the pipe surface area, T0 the ambient (sea) temperature and L the
distance along pipeline form the inlet.
The equivalent change to the gas enthalpy is given by:
dQ = MCpT (due to reduction in enthalpy)

where m is the mass flow of fluid and Cp the fluid heat capacity. Combining the above
equations gives an expression for rate of change of temperature with distance:
dT / dL = UD( t To ) / mCp
Equation 4.6.4 can be integrated to give temperature as a function of distance:
ln[(T I 0 )/( 0 )] = UDL/mCp
where TI is the fluid inlet temperature. This can be simplified by collecting a number of
terms together for both fluids and expressing the mass flow in terms of volumetric flow,
area and density leads to:
ln[(T1 T0 )/(T - T0 )] = KL/VD
where K is a correlating constant and V the gas velocity.
For this approach to be valid, plotting the left-hand-side of the equation above against
L/(VD) should result in a straight line with gradient K. Test data has been analyzed in
this way and it has been found that K is, to within acceptable limits, independent of
pipeline length, diameter and velocity. It is only a function of CGR, and a simple
relationship between K and CGR has been derived.

H-0806.35

7-10

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

It is fairly clear that as it is desirable to maintain an elevated temperature within the

pipeline in order to prevent wax or hydrate formation then it is best to run with as large a
flow as possible, and that insulating the pipe will improve matters. However, it is
probable that in most realistic circumstances the fluids will have reached the sea
temperature within about 50km.
U, the overall heat transfer coefficient, will have to be calculated. For a pipeline with
multiple layers of insulation, (e.g. the pipe wall and then a layer on concrete the
following equation should be used:
1/Upd = 1/hpd + ln(d/d )/2pk + ln(d/d)/2pk + 1/h
Here hi is the heat transfer coefficient from the fluids to the pipe wall, he that from the
exterior of the bundle to the surroundings, di the pipeline internal diameter, do the
pipeline external diameter, dc the outer diameter of the conc rete coating, kp the thermal
conductivity of the pipe wall and kc the thermal conductivity of the concrete. Additional
layers can be included by analogy. For a buried pipeline the equation can be modified to:
1/Upd = 1/hpd + ln(d/d )/2pk + ln(d/d)/2pk + 1/kcosh1(2z/d)
where z is burial depth to the pipeline centerline and ks the thermal conductivity of the
soil.
Many methods exist for the calculation of hi each appropriate to particular conditions.
The AEA pipeline simulation code PLAC uses the Dittus-Boelter (2) equation for
turbulent fluid heat transfer:
hi = 0.023(k/Dh)Re 0.8Pr n
Pr, the fluid Prandtl number, is given by;
Pr = mC /
and Re, the Reynolds number, by;
Re = rVD/
r is the fluid density, m its viscosity and k is thermal conductivity. Dis the hydraulic
diameter for that fluid (equal to 4 times the flow area divided by the flow perimeter).
has the value 0.3 if the fluids are cooling and 0.4 for heating. This equation should be

H-0806.35

7-11

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

applied to the gas and liquid phases individually and the results combined to give an
overall value for hi.
For low flowrates a convection model is used for the gas heat transfer coefficient:
hi = 0.13k(r2 g|Tw-T|/m2 T)0.333Pr0.333
Tw is the wall temperature and T the fluid temperature. For low liquid velocities the
laminar heat transfer coefficient is used:
hi = 4k/Dh
7.4.2

Rules of Thumb
At early stages of a project, there may not be enough information to enable rigorous
calculation of the heat transfer coefficient. The following rule of thumb values for heat
transfer coefficients for subsea flowlines can be useful in these instances.
TABLE 7-1:
U Value, BTU/hr/ft2 /degF

Applications

H-0806.35

Wells

Risers

20-40

Buried Pipelines

1-3

Concrete Coated Non-buried Pipelines

3-5

Nonburied Pipelines without Concrete

5-50

7-12

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

7.4.3

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Determining Insulation Requirements

In some circumstances it is practical and cost effective to thermally insulate a pipeline
system. Insulation may be provided for any one, or a combination of, the following
reasons:

Avoid or limit wax deposition.

Avoid or limit hydrate formation.

Minimize oil emulsion viscosity to avoid excessive pressure drop.

Maintain fluids at a sufficiently high temperature to avoid, or limit requirement for, feed
heating at the separation plant.

Marine pipelines and risers are provided with some form of coating for corrosion
protection and these offer varying degrees of thermal insulation. Risers on offshore
platforms are normally coated with coal tar enamel or a very thin layer of fusion bonded
epoxy (FBE). These offer little thermal insulation. Often risers are coated with ca. 12
mm of Neoprene to provide corrosion protection in the splash zone. Where thermal
insulation is required this coating may be used over the full length of the riser. Marine
growth on risers can add substantial thermal resistance.
Pipelines are normally protected against corrosion by FBE or coal tar enamel. For an
offshore pipeline requiring concrete weight coating (to provide negative buoyancy) coal
tar enamel is normally applied to the pipe to provide corrosion protection.
Offshore pipelines smaller than 16 inches in diameter are often trenched to avoid damage
by fishing trawl boards. Even if a pipeline trench is not mechanically backfilled (i.e. not
buried) some natural in- fill of the trench normally occurs so that the pipe becomes
partially buried. Under some conditions a trenched pipeline has to be covered by rocks to
provide stability or to protect it from upheaval buckling. This rock dump ing buries the
line; providing enhanced thermal insulation. On some occasions pipelines are buried
solely to provide enhanced thermal insulation.
In addition to the coatings referred to above, low thermal conductivity insulation
materials can be applied to minimize heat loss from a pipeline. Insulation systems can be
divided into two main categories:
Low strength polymeric based materials requiring protection from the environment by
encasing in an outer sleeve. This is the now- familiar Pipe- in-Pipe (PIP) configuration
where a layer of polyurethane foam (PUF) is sandwiched between the inner carrier pipe

H-0806.35

7-13

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

and a protective jacket pipe. For deep and cold water, this type of construction provides
effective and stable pipeline insulation.
Some pipeline coaters are now offering a system for subsea use consisting of PVC or
PUF foam sandwiched between an ethylene-propylene-diene monomer (EPDM)
corrosion coating and an EPDM outer layer providing protection from the environment.

Insulation capable of withstanding the environment.

Neoprene.

EPDM.

Syntactic materials, such as syntactic PUF or PPF (polypropylene foam).

Typical values of thermal conductivity for popular insulation materials are:

TABLE 7-2:
Material

BTU/hr-ft-F

W/m-K

PUF (effective value

accounting for joint
efficiency)

0.02

0.035

PPF (solid)

0.13

0.225

PPF (foam)

0.10

0.131

Neoprene

0.15

0.260

Epoxy

0.15

0.260

Notes:
(1) Values depend on water depth, temperature and age.
(2) Aging tests on Neoprene carried out in 1985 showed that the thermal conductivity rises
approximately 50 percent as water absorption occurs.

7.5

Special Application Notes

7.5.1

High Temperature Related Problems

Transportation of high temperature wellhead fluids (in excess of ca. 90C) ma y give rise
to problems in meeting the maximum temperature specification of the pipe coating
material. Approximate maximum temperatures for various pipe coatings are given
below.

H-0806.35

7-14

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

TABLE 7-3:
Maximum
Temperature (C)

Coating
FBE (fusion bonded epoxy)

Coal Tar enamel (coal tar wrap)

(i)
on subsea lines
(ii)
on lines buried on land or at
sea
Neoprene

70
50
ca. 100

The coating specialists should be consulted if there is any possibility of operating near the
maximum allowable coating temperature. They can also advise on alternative coatings
for any particular application.
CO2 corrosion of pipelines increases with temperature but reaches a maximum at about
60C. In some cases it is necessary to cool the fluids prior to entry to the pipeline to
reduce corrosion rates to a level consistent with the use of carbon steel pipework.
An alternative to providing cooling offshore is to use corrosion resistant pipe for the
initial sections of the pipeline. At some distance downstream of the start of the line
natural cooling in the sea will reduce fluid temperatures to a level where carbon steel pipe
can be used.
7.5.2

Low Temperature Related Problems

The main areas of concern with regard to low temperature operation of multiphase lines
are:

Wax deposition

Hydrate formation

High viscosities, in some crudes, and under some circumstances, in oil/water emulsions.

In subsea and onshore multiphase pipelines, fluid temperatures may drop below the wax
appearance point with the result that small particles of wax form. Some of these wax
particles are carried along in the liquid and some are deposited on the pipe walls. In fact
because the walls of the pipeline are generally colder than the bulk fluid, wax deposition
H-0806.35

7-15

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

onto the pipe wall may occur while the bulk pipeline fluids temperature is still somewhat
above the wax appearance point.
7.6

Notes on Specific Software Packages

7.6.1

Pipephase
Several concerns arise when using SimScis Pipephase for heat transfer calculations:

Pipephase only estimates temperature loss by the Joule-Thomson expansion cooling

effect if the compositional model is used. The J-T effect is ignored in black oil
simulations.

The default velocity of water flowing past a pipeline is 10 miles per hour in Pipephase.
This velocity is generally too high. More typical values are 1 to 3 ft/sec (0.7-2 mph).

The Pipephase viscosity routine does not estimate viscosities at temperatures below 60
degrees F. At lower temperatures, it uses the viscosity at 60 degrees F. This can lead to
errors for pipelines in deep water or cold climates.

The thermal conductivity for saturated concrete is much higher than that for dry
concrete. The saturated concrete value should be used for subsea pipelines with
concrete coating.

Unless a value is entered for Hrad, radiation is ignored in the heat transfer calculations.
For subsea or buried pipelines, radiation is negligible, but it can be a significant effect
for surface flowlines.

The convective heat transfer routines in Pipephase are not very rigorous. Errors in heat
transfer calculations can occur for systems in which convection is the prime source of
heat transfer.

H-0806.35

7-16

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

8.0

TRANSIENT OPERATIONS

8.1

Introduction

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Transient multiphase flow simulators have only been developed recently. The first
widely used commercial program, OLGA (marketed commercially by Scandpower),
began development in about 1983 and has been commercially available since 1990. One
of OLGA's current competitors, PLAC (now called ProFES and marketed by AEA), was
introduced to the market at about the same time. A transient simulator called Tacite,
which was developed by IFP and marketed by SimSci, is also available.
Steady state simulators assume that all flow rates, pressures, temperatures, etc. are
constant through time. Inherently transient phenomena, such as slug flow, are modeled
by use of their average holdups and pressure drops. Transient programs show the
variations in parameters such as pressure, temperature, and gas and liquid flow rates as a
function of time and can model phenomena such as slug flow. Transient simulators more
closely model the operation of pipelines and with more detail than do steady state
simulators.
Transient simulators solve a set of equations for conservation of mass, momentum and
energy to estimate liquid and gas flow rates, pressures, temperatures and liquid holdups
as a function of time. The programs utilize an iterative procedure that ensures that a set
of boundary conditions (such as inlet flow rates and outlet pressures as a function of
time) are met while solving the conservation equations.
Generally, the use of transient simulators will be more appropriate than steady state
programs whenever transient performance is highly important to the design process.
Such situations include startup and shutdown liquid and gas delivery, heatup and
cooldown temperature fluctuation, unsteady flow into receiving facilities (separators and
slug catchers), and pigging. In addition, the current version of OLGA2000 includes the
ability to estimate the flow of all three phases (oil, gas, and water). Particularly at low
production rates, liquid holdups (and the distribution of oil and water in the holdup
liquid) should be more accurately predicted when using three-phase simulation.
Use of Transient Simulators
Because of their utility, transient simulators have been used for a variety of purposes.
These uses include:

H-0806.35

8-1

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

8.2

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Slug flow modeling

Estimates of the potential for terrain slugging

Pigging simulation

Identification of areas with higher corrosion potential, such as water accumulation in

low spots in the line and areas with highly turbulent/slug flow

Startup, shutdown and pipeline depressurizing simulations

Slug catcher design

Development of operating guidelines

Real time modeling, including leak detection

Operator training

Design of control systems for downstream equipment

Transient Codes in Use

Although there are a large number of engineers and scientists working in the area of
transient two-phase flow modeling, the number of commercial software packages is
limited to just a few. The most widely used is the OLGA code developed by IFE and
SINTEF in Norway and marketed commercially by Scandpower. OLGA was the first
commercial general transient two-phase flow package, which has enjoyed wide use by
the six members of the consortium that sponsored the development. New developments
in OLGA are available to the member companies before they are made ava ilable in the
commercial versions. Some of the member companies have developed their own
versions of OLGA for their specific needs.
In competition to OLGA is the PLAC (now called ProFES) code developed by AEA
Technology/Harwell laboratories which was commercialized in the autumn of 1992, but
had been used for consultancy for more than two years previous. PLAC was developed
with support from BP. PLAC is now marketed by AEA.
There are other transient two-phase flow codes. Total and IFP have developed a transient
version of the mechanistic PEPITE program called TACITE, which features a slug
tracking model. Shell has a code called TRAFLOW which is under development as an
online simulator and analysis code.
There is a great deal of activity in the development of transient programs. However most
of this is being carried out in-house by oil companies and research centers, hence little is

H-0806.35

8-2

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

known about them. It is expected that competition in the market place will increase when
some of the other codes are commercialized.
8.2.1

OLGA
OLGA is a dynamic, one dimensional modified two fluid model for transient two-phase
hydrocarbon flow in pipelines and networks, in which processing equipment can be
included. The code has been developed by the SINTEF/IFE two-phase flow project
which commenced in 1984 and was based on the computer program OLGA 83. This was
originally developed for Statoil by IFE in 1983.
The two-phase flow project was aimed at improving OLGA by expanding an
experimental database from a high pressure 8- inch large scale test facility run by SINTEF
at Tiller in Norway. Extensive testing was carried out by IFE and by the projects
member oil companies which included Conoco Norway, Esso Norge, Mobil Exploration
Norway, Norsk Hydro, Petro-Canada, Saga Petroleum, Statoil, and Texaco Exploration
Norway.
The basic models in OLGA contain three separate mass conservation equations for the
gas, the continuous liquid and the liquid droplets, these are coupled with the interphase
mass transfer terms. Momentum conservation is applied to the gas-droplet field and to
the continuous liquid, hence giving two equations. The mixture energy equation is
written in conservation form, accounting for total energy balance in the system. OLGA
predicts as a function of time the pressure, temperature, mass flow of gas and liquid, the
holdup and the flow pattern. Closure laws are required for the friction factor and the
wetted perimeters of the phases and these are flow regime dependent. The droplet field
also requires an entrainment and deposition model. The two basic flow regimes adopted
are distributed and separated flow. The former contains bubble and slug flow and the
latter stratified and annular flow. The transition between the two regime classes is
determined according to a minimum slip concept.
Due to the numerical solution scheme, the original versions of OLGA are particularly
well suited to simulate slow mass flow transients. The implicit time integration applied
allows for long time steps which is important for the simulation of very long transport
lines, where typical simulation times are in the range of hours to days.
The necessary fluid properties (gas/liquid mass fraction, densities, viscosities, enthalpies
etc.) are assumed to be functions of temperature and pressure only, and have to be
supplied by the user as tables in a specific input file. Thus, the total composition of the

H-0806.35

8-3

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

two-phase mixture is assumed to be constant both in time and along the pipeline for a
given branch. The user may specify a different fluid property table for each branch, but
has to ensure realistic fluid compositions if several branches merge into one.
In 1989 Scandpower A/S acquired marketing rights to the OLGA program and
commercial use of the code increased considerably. The early versions of OLGA had a
simple data input and output file format which made the setting- up of problems very time
consuming. Later versions have user friendly interfaces which greatly enhances the use
of the code, PreOLGA is used for input data generation and PostOLGA is used for post
processing. Fluid properties are generated using a package called PVTOL. The newest
version of OLGA (OLGA2000) has further improved the user interface and has improved
calculation accuracy for high GVF flow situations.
In 1993 Statoil acquired the Tiller facility for 5 years and embarked on a substantial
research and development effort to improve OLGA, areas under development include:

Improved mechanistic modeling and closure laws,

Slug flow modeling,

Three phase flows,

Compositional tracking.

These areas also indicate where there are deficiencies in the present code.
In addition, OLGA has been interfaced with the Fantoft D-SPICE multi-compositional
dynamic process plant simulator to improve the modeling of equipment; however, this
interface only provides a dynamic exchange of data between the codes and is hence not a
fully integrated model.
Some of the other original two-phase flow project sponsors have also developed OLGA
for their own use, notably Conoco who have developed improved thermal modeling and
pigging simulation in their version called CONOLGA.
8.2.2

PLAC
The PipeLine Analysis Code (PLAC) was originally developed from the nuclear reactor
safety code TRAC (1986) under a four-year program sponsored by BP Exploration and
the UK Offshore Supplies Office. The major parts of that work were to remove the
redundant reactor specific components and to convert from steam/water physical
properties to multi-component hydrocarbon properties. More suitable models for

H-0806.35

8-4

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

The calculation has three main elements. These are: depressurization rate, JouleThompson cooling, and heat transfer from the surroundings.
The depressurizing rate is a critical aspect. The faster the depressurizing the lower the
temperature that will be experienced.
The venting rate can be fixed (e.g. 100 MMSCFD) by using a control valve and a mass
flow rate meter. Alternatively, the system can be vented through an orifice. In most
cases the flow through the orifice is critical, and therefore the depressurizing rate is
independent of the downstream pressure.
As the pressure decreases, the temperature of the system will drop due to JouleThompson cooling (auto-refrigeration). The expansion of the gas is normally considered
to be isentropic. As the gas expands it does work and the energy required to do this work
is removed from the gas in the form of heat. For an isentropic process, the autorefrigeration is not dependent on the duration of the depressurizing, only the physical
properties of the fluid. However, as discussed below, the process is not truly isentropic.
Depressurization of a pipeline system usually requires many hours, and in some cases
days. During this period, the heat input from the surroundings may be (for uninsulated
systems, usually will be) significant.
The Joule-Thompson effect is not time-dependent and is only dependent on the expansion
of the gas in the system. Heat transfer from the surroundings is time dependent. The
longer the depressurization, the greater the influence of the surroundings whilst the autorefrigeration aspect remains (roughly) constant. Therefore, increasing the depressurizing
time will result in less cooling and, therefore, in a higher minimum temperature.
Depressurizing Rate Calculation
It is usual to depressurize a system through an orifice or a valve. The equation for the
mass flow rate through an orifice is given below. The equation for a valve is of a similar
form with slightly different constants (not given here).
W = Cd KAP 1 M W / zT
where

W = Mass flow rate (kg/s)

Cd = Coefficient of discharge

H-0806.35

8-9

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

K = Function of specific heat ratio (kg- mol0.5K0.5 J-0.5)

A = Orifice/valve area for venting (m2 )
P1 = Upstream pressure (N/m2 )
MW = Molecular weight (kg/kg-mole)
z = Gas Compressibility
T = Temperature (K).
K, the specific heat ratio function is defined by the following equation;

2
+1
K = [( )[(
)^ (
)]]^ 0.5
R +1 + l
where

= Ratio of specific heats

R = Gas constant (8314 J-kg mole-1 K-1 )

The equation above is only valid for critical (i.e. sonic) flow. Critical flow only occurs
when the following criteria is satisfied.

P2
2 ( / 1)
<(
)
P1
+1
where P2 = Downstream pressure (N/m2 ).
The occurrence of critical flow greatly simplifies the calculation. If the system is
operating under critical flow then the flow rate is only dependent on the upstream
pressure.
It is normal to consider the depressurizing to be complete when the system pressure falls
below 2 bara. For a downstream pressure of 1 bara, critical flow exists down to pressures
of 1.83 bara (g = 1.3) and so therefore critical flow is usually assumed for the whole of
the depressurizing. Critical flow may not exist at the lower flow rates where the
downstream pressure is significantly greater than atmospheric,
While the pressure ratio satisfies the last equation, the flow rate (W) is independent of the
downstream pressure.

H-0806.35

8-10

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Heat Transfer
The temperature of the fluid is determined by the effect of Joule-Thompson cooling due
to isentropic expansion of the gas and warming of the gas by heat transfer from the
surroundings. The conservatism of the equation is described below:
The assumption of isentropic expansion means that the gas loses the maximum amount of
energy (i.e. heat) and therefore results in a conservative prediction of the minimum
temperature.
When the gas temperature drops below the ambient temperature the pipeline is warmed
by the surroundings. The influence of the surroundings must be reasonably estimated so
as to calcula te a conservative (i.e. low) minimum temperature.
The calculation of an accurate internal heat transfer coefficient is important since it
greatly influences the prediction of the minimum temperature. The method used must
calculate a conservative (i.e. low) heat transfer coefficient for at least the period that the
system is at its minimum temperature.
The correlation used to determine the heat transfer coefficient will depend on the type of
system and the method of depressurizing. Details of the equatio ns used to calculate the
internal heat transfer coefficient are given below.

H-0806.35

8-11

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Table 8-1:
Heat

Transfer

Equations
The calculation of an accurate internal heat transfer coefficient is important since it greatly influences
the prediction of the minimum temperature. The method used must calculate a reasonably
conservative (i.e. low) heat transfer coefficient for at least the period that the system is at its
temperature.
The correlation used to determine the heat transfer coefficient will depend on the type of system and the
method of depressuring.
The internal heat transfer coefficient is calculated using one of the following equations:
Stream Line Flow (Re < 2100)
If the flow is laminar (Reynolds number < 2100) then the following equation should be used:

1.86 k m d i u m m
hi =

d i m

c pm m

d i

1/ 3

[Process Heat Transfer. D.Q. Kern. equ. (6.1). page 1031

As the above equation and those following will usually be applied to non-viscous gases the
viscosity correction factor is ignored.
Correction For Natural Convection
For very low flow rates natural convection (rather than forced) convection can become
important.
The forced convection coefficient (hi) can be corrected by multiplying by

2.25 1 + 0.01 Gra

1/ 3

)]

log 10 Re
[Process

Heat

Transfer. D.Q. Kern. Equ (10.4). page 2061]

Where Gra is the Grashof number at the average conditions, given by:

H-0806.35

8-12

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

Gra =

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

d i3 m2 gT
m

[Process Heat Transfer. DLL Kern. Table 3.2. page 371]

This factor should be ignored if less than 1.
The Grashof number is difficult to calculate since the temperature difference between the bulk
fluid and the tube wall (AT) has to be determined iteratively. It can be done by guessing a wall
temperature and iterating such that the heat flux across the internal film is the same as the heat
flux through the pipe and the insulation.
If this correction is ignored, then the internal heat transfer coefficient will be under-predicted
and a conservative (i.e. low) heat transfer coefficient will be determined.
Turbulent Flow
If the Reynolds number is greater than 2100, then the following should be used

0.023k m
hi =
di

du m m

c pm m

k m

0 .4

[Chemical Engineering. Volume 1 I. Coulson and Richardson. Equ (7.50). page

1911
Alternatively:

hi = 0.023k m0.6 d i0.2 m0. 4 m0.8 c 0.m4

where m denotes a mixture property, e.g. for viscosity.

m = l + v (1 )
The velocity at which the heat transfer coefficient is to be calculated should be 75% of the exit
velocity. This allows for the fact that there is a velocity profile through the system. If possible
the velocity should also be based on the average velocity for the time step.

External Heat Transfer Coefficient

The external medium has a significant effect on the calculated minimum fluid/wall
temperature. If the pipe is located in the air (e.g. topsides of a platform) then the overall
heat transfer coefficient will be low, giving rise to a relatively low minimum wall
H-0806.35

8-13

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

temperature. If the pipe is located in the sea, the overall heat transfer coefficient will be
higher and the minimum wall temperature will accordingly be higher (assuming, for this
comparison, that the air and sea temperatures are equal)
Minimum Pipe Wall Temperature
The objective of most depressurizing studies is the calculation of a minimum pipe wall
temperature, or the calculation of a depressurizing rate which prevents the system from
falling below the minimum tube wall temperature.
In a gas-only system the heat transfer rate between the gas and the pipe wall will be low,
and consequently the temperature difference between the fluid and the tube wall will be
relatively high. In order to be conservative, it is usual to assume that the fluid temperature
and the tube wall temperature are identical throughout the depressurizing. This
assumption will always result in the calculation of a conservative (i.e. low) minimum
tube wall temperature since it ignores the existence of a temperature profile between the
fluid and the wall.
In a two-phase system, the heat transfer rate between the liquid and the pipe wall will be
significantly higher than the heat transfer rate between the gas and the pipe wall. It is
reasonable to assume that where pools of liquid occur (in dips etc.) the high heat transfer
rate will result in the pipe wall cooling to the same temperature as the fluid. However the
effect of the fluid being warmed by the pipe wall is ignored and hence a conservatively
low pipe wall temperature is predicted.
Simultaneous Riser and Topsides Depressurizing
In most studies the riser and topsides pipework will be depressured simultaneously.
The majority of the length of the riser will be immersed in the sea and have the benefit of
the sea as a heat source. Riser pipework is generally much simpler than the Topsides
pipework.
The topsides pipework is more complicated (e.g. a large number of branches etc.), and
located in the air. The poor heat transfer properties of air coupled with the lower
minimum ambient temperature mean that the topsides pipework will drop to a lower
temperature relative to the riser. Because of this difference in heat transfer rates the
topsides and the riser should be modeled separately.

H-0806.35

8-14

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Critical Velocity for Slugging

To avoid the delivery of large and/or erratic quantities of liquid to the receiving facilities
during depressurization, slugging should be avoided where possible. To avoid slugging
the depressurizing rate should not exceed the critical velocity for slugging.
Flow Regime in Riser
Annular mist flow is unlikely to occur in the riser. The actual velocities experienced in
the riser are usually approximately an order of magnitude less than that required to
produce annular-mist flow.
Conditions Downstream of Letdown Valve
The temperature downstream of the let-down valve will invariably be significantly colder
than that experienced in the topsides or riser pipework. Temperature specifications of the
downstream pipework are not usually a problem since stainless steel is usually the
material of construction. Liquid drop-out may occur due to the low fluid temperature,
and this will need to be accommodated in a liquid KO vessel.
8.4.2

Emergency blowdown of pipes containing gas and liquid

This section concerns the simulation and philosophy of emergency blowdown (i.e. rapid
depressurization) of pipes and vessels containing gas and liquid. Conditions experienced
during blowdown generally set the minimum design temperature of those pipes and
vessels subject to emergency blowdown.
A review of blowdown issues by BPX concluded that the only program that could
accurately model the blowdown process was developed by Saville and Richardson of
Imperial College London (IC). They have been working in the area for many years
developing both the experimental facilities to provide accurate data, and the theoretical
models to simulate the blowdown process.
BP identified a need to have a simplified blowdown model available to assist design
teams in carrying out sensitivity studies and in developing optimum blowdown
procedures. A blowdown module has consequently been developed (for BPX use) within
the GENESIS flowsheeting package using a simplified version of the approach taken by
Saville and Richardson. This model is not further discussed herein.

H-0806.35

8-15

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Blowdown Philosophy
A blowdown philosophy document defining relevant cases and the start conditions from
which blowdown occurs should be developed in the early stages of any design.
Code Requirements
API RP 521 provides general guidelines for determining the need for emergency
blowdown. There are, in fact, no mandatory blowdown requirements. However,
emergency blowdown has become accepted in the industry as being necessary for all
offshore installations, other than for some unmanned platforms. The BP Code of Practice
CP 37 clearly defines this philosophy.
CP 37 sets out the three basic reasons for providing emergency blowdown facilities as:
1. To reduce the risk of vessel or pipeline rupture in a fire.
2. To minimize the fuel inventory which could supply a fire.
3. To minimize the uncontrolled release of flammable or toxic gas.
Emergency blowdown facilities are not required for subsea pipelines. The platform
topsides section of the pipeline, including pig launcher/receiver and all pipework on the
platform side of the ESDV should be blown down through the platform blowdown
system. For pipelines fitted with subsea isolation valves (SSIVs) there is also a
requirement to provide for emergency blowdown of the riser and subsea pipework
situated between the SSIV and the top of the riser.
Effects of Blowdown
Blowdown of the contents of a vessel, pipework, or sections of a pipeline from high
pressure results in auto-refrigeration of the contained fluid due to expansion of the gas
and evaporation of the liquid. The resultant fall in the temperature of the pipe or vessel
wall metal can result in the need for costly materials to avoid brittle fracture. In addition
low fluid temperatures can result in the formation of hydrates, ice, or even solid CO2, and
these can lead to blockages.
Blowdown Times and Start Conditions
Blowdown must be at such a rate that equipment subject to high temperature does not
fail. API RP 521 sets out the basic requirements for blowdown times and these are

H-0806.35

8-16

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

further detailed in CP 37. In general blowdown to 50 percent of design pressure in 15

minutes must be achieved, assuming wall thickness of 25 mm and greater. For vessels
designed to BS5500, reduction of pressure to 6.9 barg in 15 minutes must be achieved
unless the rate can be related to the decrease in strength of the vessel.
Identification of realistic worst case conditions at the start of a blowdown is of great
importance in establishing temperature and pressures experienced during the blowdown
process. Worst case conditions would normally involve starting the blowdown from the
maximum pressure and minimum ambient temperature. However, it is also quite possible
to have start conditions where the fluid temperature is below ambient.
8.4.3

Depressurization of Pipelines Containing Gas and Liquid.

Pipelines are routinely depressurized to reduce the potential for hydrate formation during
shutdown and/or to help melt hydrates that have formed. (This process is often also
referred to as blowdown by many in the industry.) A transient analysis program, such
as OLGA, is often used to determine the transient effects of this depressurization.
When depressurizing a pipeline system, there are two ge neral goals:
(1) Reduce pipeline pressure at such a rate that the fluid temperature stays out of the
hydrate range everywhere.
(2) Control liquid egress rate from the pipeline to that rate that the process and/or flare
system can handle.
To accurately predict fluid/pipewall temperatures during depressurization, it is important
that accurate (reasonably conservative) heat transfer characteristics of the system be used,
including pipeline self-burial and natural marine fouling of risers. It is also important
that gas/liquid flow rates to the receiving facilities be reasonably modeled.

8.5

Turndown and Ramp-up

8.5.1

Line Fill Time

Steady state holdups at low gas velocities can be very high, often exceeding practicable
slug catcher volumes by orders of magnitude for long pipelines. In such cases it is useful
to consider the time taken for the steady state liquid content of a line to accumulate. In
some cases, the lines will be periodically pigged to remove liquids such that total liquid
levels remain below an established upper bound. In those cases, the liquid fill- time sets
the required pigging frequency.

H-0806.35

8-17

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

If it is assumed that no liquid is expelled from the pipeline outlet before steady state is
reached (the case for all but extremely unusual conditions or topographies) this is a
simple calculation. The results are most useful plotted as a Line Fill Nomograph as
shown in Figure 8.5-1, an example for a 125 km long, 24- inch diameter line.
The sloped section of the curve is the line filling, the gradient being proportional to the
gas flow rate. The flat section of the curve occurs once steady state has been reached. In
the case shown, the highest steady state holdup (25,000 BBL) occurs at a gas flow rate of
75 MMSCFD exceeded the existing slugcatcher capacity by nearly 20000 BBL.
However continuous operation at this low gas flow rate would be required for a period of
7 days to reach this liquid content.
Fill-time nomographs may also be of use in the general operation of lines for reckoning
of liquid contents following a series of flow rate changes as filling lines of the
appropriate gradient can be extrapolated for cases where the pipeline is already partially
full of liquid.

Figure 8.5-1: Example Line -Fill Nomograph

H-0806.35

8-18

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

In general, decreases in gas flow rate, however dramatic, will not cause liquid production
(unless accompanied by a significant decrease in outlet pressure). Instead, liquid
production will cease following the reduction in flow until the liquid content of the
pipeline has been reached. Liquid production will then resume at a flow rate
commensurate with the gas flow and CGR. The period required for liquid accumulation
can be quickly estimated from a fill-time nomograph.
Liquid production during and after a flow increase will depend upon the initial liquid
content of the line, the initial and final flow rates, the rate at which the flow rate is
increased and the topography of the line.
8.5.2

Initial and final liquid content

Above a certain gas flow rate (the transition velocity), which will depend on the
particular pipeline and fluids, the holdup will be relatively constant. A significant peak in
liquid production will only arise where the final steady state liquid holdup is markedly
lower than the initial liquid content of the line, i.e. when the initial flow rate is lower than
the transition velocity and when gas has flowed at this rate long enough for the liquid
content of the line to significantly exceed the steady state holdup at the final flow rate.
A first estimate of the volume of liquid produced during a transient can be made from a
fill-time nomograph, such as Figure 8.5-1, but no indication of the time or rate of arrival
can be made. In the event of the line not having reached steady state conditions at the
beginning of the transient a simple calculation based on gas flow rate and CGR can be
made. For convenience a line fill time nomograph can be used.
A transient simulator will generally give a more accurate understanding of fluid behavior
during turn-down or ramp-up and, depending on the simulator being used and on the fluid
being modeled, may yield more accurate liquid and gas volumetric estimates.

8.5.3

Effect of Initial and final gas flow rates on Liquid Delivery Rates
Flow rates are important in determining the size of the peak in liquid production as
described above but will also add to the background liquid production rate during the
transient and the rate at which a peak in liquid production rate occurs. Various simple
calculation and estimation methods have been devised to predict liquid production during
transients based on initial and final flow rates and liquid holdups. Gregory (1994)
suggests that the two extremes in the time for a slug of liquid to appear and the rate at
which it appears can be estimated from the residence times of the liquid and gas phases in
the pipeline:

H-0806.35

8-19

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

f = L (1 - e) / V
f = L e / V
f is the residence time of the excess liquid in the line, V?the gas superficial velocity,
V the liquid superficial velocity, L the length of the pipeline and e the average voidage.
The first expression assumes the excess liquid moves as a slug and travels at the average
gas velocity. The second assumes that the liquid moves as a layer or film traveling at the
average liquid velocity. This approach then estimates the liquid production rate, Q,
during the transient as:
Ql = (vi - ve ) /
where vi is the initial liquid content of the line and ve the final liquid content. To Ql must
be added the steady state liquid production rate during the transient which is estimated as
the liquid flow rate associated with the increased gas flow.
This method was compared with field data for two gas-condensate lines (one 18-inch
diameter and 30 miles long, the second 20- inch diameter and 67 miles long) by Cunliffe
(1978) who obtained good results basing the residence time on the average liquid velocity
and predicting liquid holdups with the correlation of Eaton et al. (1967).
A slightly different approach was taken by Bevan (1992) who used analogy with a
conveyor belt to predict liquid production during and following flow rate changes.
Conveyor speed is dependent upon the inlet gas velocity and this determines the transport
of liquid out of the line. The amount of liquid "on" the conveyor at each point along its
length is determined by the gas velocity when that section of "conveyor belt" entered the
line. Changes in flow rate are thus modeled as fronts of different holdup which travel
through the line at a rate dependent on the instantaneous inlet gas velocity. Bevan backcalculated from the Eaton and other correlations and comparisons with experimental data
to produce holdup correlations for this model.
Both Gregory/Cunliffe and Bevan models have been shown to provide acceptable
estimates of transient liquid production but cannot easily allow for the effects of pipeline
topography or ramped increases in flow rate.
Again, a transient simulator will generally give a more accurate understanding of fluid
behavior during turn-down or ramp-up and, depending on the simulator being used and
on the fluid being modeled, may yield more accurate liquid and gas volumetric estimates.
H-0806.35

8-20

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

8.5.4

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Topography and ramp rate

The topography of a pipeline determines both the amount of liquid held-up in a line and
the exact location of liquid within that line. The former effect is taken into account in the
plots of liquid holdup vs. gas flow rate and can be incorporated into the Gregory/Cunliffe
and Bevan approaches to transient simulations by using correlations modified to suit the
pipeline under investigation. The effect of location of liquid will determine the exact
nature of the peaks seen and the delay in arrival of liquid after the flow is increased. In
the case of a pipeline ending in a steep rise (e.g. up the shore to a terminal or up a riser to
a platform) the holdup will be concentrated near the outlet giving rise to higher flow rate
peaks than those predicted by the methods described previously and will arrive almost
immediately after the change in flow rate. Such effects can only be simulated by rigorous
dynamic models such as OLGA or PLAC.
The rate at which the flow rate change is made will also affect the peak liquid production
rate and the arrival time of the peak liquid flow. Long ramp times smooth out the liquid
peak and can, in the extreme, be considered as a series of minor flow rate changes leading
to a smooth transition from one steady-state to another. This effect can be modeled only
with difficulty by the simple methods described above. Dynamic modeling using OLGA
or PLAC is needed to obtain a good prediction of the reduction in peak liquid rate.

8.5.5

Liquid processing and slug catcher sizing

A primary need to understand transient behavior of a pipeline is to aid the accurate sizing
of the liquid reception and processing facilities at the terminal, whether onshore or
offshore.
The minimum liquid separation and processing requirement can be estimated from the
expected fluid composition, the full range of pipeline outlet conditions, and suitable
physical properties package. However, liquid production during transients can exceed
steady-state flow by more than an order of magnitude, requiring a combination of
oversized liquid processing plant and buffer high-pressure storage, in the form of a slug
catcher, to handle it.
Rapid estimates of slug catcher and liquid processing requirements for a transient can be
made from the plot of liquid production vs. time during that transient. Results of a
typical flow ramp simulation are shown in Figure 8.5-2. The initial constant gradient is
the liquid production rate at the low starting flow. Following the increase in flow the
liquid production rate increases sharply and then decreases to a steady rate which is the
steady state liquid production at the new flow rate. Terminal liquid processing can be

H-0806.35

8-21

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

represented on this plot by a line with maximum gradient equal to the processing capacity
(note however that this assumes that the liquids processing plant throughput can be
increased instantaneously). Since liquid can only be processed when it is present in the
slug catcher/separator the processing line follows the liquid production curve initially. At
point A, where the transient liquid production exceeds the processing capacity the
processing rate diverges at its maximum gradient. The processing line rejoins the liquid
production line at a later time, after the pipeline has reached steady-state, when the
backlog of liquid has been processed.

Figure 8.5-2: Example Results from Rampup Simulation

The difference between the cumulative produced liquid and cumulative processed liquid
is the liquid processing deficit (LPD). The maximum LPD during a transient determines
the size of slugcatcher required to avoid flooding of the terminal during that transient. By
experimenting with a range of liquid processing rates the balance between liquid
processing capacity and slugcatcher size can be assessed and optimized.
8.5.6

Alternative operation of line

The processing capacity and/or slug catcher size required for a pipeline may be limited by
plot size, weight and footprint (e.g. on an offshore platform) or for economic reasons.
Operation of a multiphase line will often still be possible.

H-0806.35

8-22

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

The most widely used method in these circumstances is to routinely pig the line using
spheres. This method is most suited to long pipelines with a high steady state liquid
holdup flowing low CGR fluids. The pigging interval is planned so that the liquid
accumulated in the pipeline is a conservative fraction of the available slugcatcher volume
(this interval can be estimated from the line- fill nomograph such as Figure 8.5-1). The
line is only allowed to reach steady state at high flow rates (when the holdup is low) and
any flow ramp can be accommodated as the line never contains more than the slugcatcher
volume of liquid. If high CGR fluids are flowed, sphering as a means of inventory
control may not be practical, as the pigging interval will be too short to allow normal
pipeline operation. Other disadvantages of this approach are the need to install pig
launching and receiving facilities, the need to design the pipeline to accommodate pigs,
the risk of pigs sticking in the line due to wax, hydrate or other debris, the need to
transport pigs back offshore following use and the risk of pig launcher and receiver
failures shutting down the terminal.
An alternative approach is to modify the pipeline operating procedures to reduce the
severity of transients. Williams (1996a & b) used transient simulations to define an
operating envelope, see Figure 8.5-3, for an export pipeline and for a proposed infield
flowline, operation of which is complicated by the flowing of fluids ranging from CGR
20 to 200 BBL/MMSCFD. LPDs were calculated from transients ramping the gas flow
from low values to the design maximum based on the existing slugcatcher, marginally
oversized liquid processing facilities and a ramp time of 24 hrs (based on the gas
processing plant turn- up rates). The envelope identified the operating conditions from
which the ramp to maximum flow rate could be performed. Operation outside the
envelope of flow rates requires more time for flow increases and the use of line fill time
nomographs to assess the accumulation of liquid in the line.

H-0806.35

Figure 8.6-1: Passage of a Sphere through a Flowline

where:
Hl = liquid film holdup
Hls = sphered slug holdup
Ll = sphere to pipe cross-sectional area ratio
va = velocity of liquid at sphere (m/s)
vl = liquid film velocity (m/s)
vm = mixture velocity (m/s)
vs = sphered slug fluid velocity (m/s)
vsph = sphere velocity (m/s)
vls = sphered slug front velocity (m/s)
The mathematical details of the approach required to calculate the sphered slug volume
will not be discussed in this design method. However, the general approach is to
determine the rate of growth of the sphered slug as it passes through the flowline

H-0806.35

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Elevation (m)

40
20
0
0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

-20
-40
-60
Distance (m)

Figure 8.6-2: Topography of hilly terrain pipeline

Pig Location (m)

Figure 8.6-3: Pig Position vs. Time

H-0806.35

8-29

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.6-4 shows the holdup profile throughout the pipeline for various times and indicates that
before the pig is launched the holdup in the upward inclined sections is around 35 percent,
whereas in the horizontal and downward sloping sections it is around 2 percent. The pig slug is
shown just after the pig has passed the top of the first hill and indicates that the holdup is around
95 percent, and that the slug is less than 500 m in length. The holdup profile at 40,000 s
indicates that the liquid content of the pipeline is still building-up 4 hours after the pig has been
received. Figure 8.6-5 shows the pressure at the pipeline inlet and indicates that a pressure rise
of 1.3 bara is required for the pig to ne gotiate the first 50 m hill. The liquid full hydrostatic head
would be equivalent to 2.8 bara, hence the generated pressure is consistent with the observation
that the pig slug half fills the upward inclined section.

Time in sec

Figure 8.6-4: Pipeline holdup profiles

H-0806.35

8-30

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.6-5: Pipeline Pressure Profiles

8.7

Pressure Surge Transients

Pressure surge transients in single phase flows are well understood, with computer
packages available to predict the surge characteristics of complex pipeline networks with
components such as pumps, valves, and surge suppression devices. When a two-phase
flow is introduced into the system the analysis is made far more complicated since the
speed at which the pressure waves travel is modified by the gas fraction. In addition, the
discontinuous fluid interfaces in two-phase flow provide additional locations for pressure
waves to be reflected and attenuated. Such is the complication that no general-purpose
pressure surge code exists for two-phase systems. There are however a number of ways
that two-phase surge pressures may be analyzed with single-phase software; these are
outlined below. We will begin with a brief introduction to single-phase pressure surge
phenomena, followed by a discussion of the effects of two-phase flow, supported by
some examples.

8-35

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

pressure to the fractional change in volume and hence depends on whether the
compression is adiabatic or isothermal. For an adiabatic process PV = (constant) and
hence K = P. Since P/ = RT the expression for adiabatic compression of an ideal gas is:
= (K/)1/2 = (RT)1/2
For air at 15 C, = 1.4, R = 287 J/kg/K; hence the wave speed is 340 m/s. The
equivalent bulk modulus of elasticity is 141.7 KN/m2 and the density is 1.226 kg/ m2 .
The pressure wave velocity is modified when boundaries such as pipe walls, free
surfaces, gas bubbles and solid particles are present. The elasticity of the walls of the
pipe through which the fluid is travelling has the effect of reducing the pressure wave
speed by a factor dependent upon the size, cross-section shape, and pipe material. In
addition the method of pipe restraint may also affect the result. The general equation for
the wave speed in a fluid contained within a thin walled pipe of circular cross-section is:
a = 1 / [ (1/K + D/tE)]1/2
where:
D = internal diameter
t = wall thickness
= pipe restraint factor
For materials with a high elastic modulus such as steel or concrete, or for pipelines with
frequent expansion joints, F can be taken as unity. Hence for water at 15C in a steel
pipeline (E=207 GN/m2) of 200 mm diameter and 15 mm wall thickness, the wave speed
is reduced from 1466 m/s for rigid pipewalls to 1374 m/s.
Wave speed in two-phase flow
The wave speed in two-phase flow can be determined by simply replacing the single
phase bulk modulus and density with the two-phase equivalents, i.e.:
a = (Ktp / tp)1/2 for rigid pipewalls
and:
a = 1 / [ tp (1/Ktp + D tE)] 1/2
where:
H-0806.35

8-36

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

(1- )

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

= +
Ktp

and:
tp = (1- ) L + g
= in-situ gas fraction
Using air and water as an example it is seen that the wave speed is rapidly reduced by the
introduction of only small quantities of gas. For example, a void fraction of only 1
percent is required to reduce the wave speed from 1446 m/s to 119 m/s. The table below
shows the wave speed for vario us gas fractions, also shown is the relative Jacowski head
rise possible compared with the liquid only case. It is hence seen that in two-phase flow
the wave speed and potential surge is much reduced by the combined high
compressibility and high density of the two-phase mixture.
Table 8-2:
Void
fraction
0.000
0.005
0.01
0.1
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.99
0.995
1.0

Two -phase
bulk modulus
(N/m2)
2.19e+9
2.80e+7
1.41e+7
1.42e+6
7.08e+5
3.54e+5
2.83e+5
2.36e+5
1.77e+5
1.57e+5
1.43e+5
1.42e+5
1.42e+5

Two -phase
density
(kg/m2)
1000.0
995.0
990.0
900.1
800.2
600.2
500.6
400.7
201.0
101.0
11.2
6.2
1.2

Wave
speed
(m/s)
1466.0
168.0
119.0
37.7
29.7
24.3
23.8
24.3
29.7
39.4
113.0
151.3
340.0

% potential head
rise
100.0
11.4
8.0
2.4
1.62
1.00
0.81
0.66
0.41
0.27
0.07
0.06
0.03

Wave speed is plotted as a function of the void fraction in Figure 8.7-2.

H-0806.35

8-37

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.7-2: Pressure wave speed in two-phase

8.8

Topography Effects

8.8.1

Hilly terrain slug flow and dip slug generation

In all the classical steady state programs used to model multiphase flows the flow regime
is assumed to change abruptly as the topography changes. However, in practice the
previous flow regime may persist for some distance into the next section. An example of
this is flow over a hill where slug flow may be predicted in the uphill section and
stratified in the downhill part. In a steady state simulation the slugs would abruptly
disappear at the apex. In practice this may not happen, and the liquid slugs may persist
for some distance into the downward sloping section which can give rise to a much
higher pressure recovery than in stratified flow.

H-0806.35

8-38

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Interactions with the terrain may cause additional effects. For example, the liquid
sloshing in a dip may cause perturbations in the gas and liquid flow rates downstream,
giving rise to flow regimes different to those expected from analysis with steady flow
rates. Flow rate fluctuations caused by slugs dissipated in a downward sloping section
may be sufficient to generate slugs in a following downstream section normally operating
in stratified flow.
By taking account of the hysteresis in the flow regimes and by tracking the local phase
flow rates it is easy to see how in practice flows may differ greatly from those predicted
by classical steady state methods. It is here that transient two phase flow simulators offer
considerable promise if interface tracking methods can be relied upon. However, one
must be caut ious about the application to real systems. It can be envisaged that, in a long
hilly terrain pipeline, a section may exist close to the slug/stratified boundary. A small
perturbation in the pressure or flow rate may be all that is required to trigger a slug and
change the characteristics of the whole pipeline.
In some cases it has been observed that the exit of a slug in a pipeline apparently triggers
the formation of another slug. Slugs occur regularly with one, two, or three in a line at
one time. This is due in part to the time taken for the liquid level to reestablish, and partly
due to the depacking effect as the slug exits, removing the high pressure drop over the
slug body. This causes an increase in the gas velocity which can trigger another slug.
This is illustrated in Figure 8.1-1 which shows the passage of slugs throughout a 400 m
long, 8-inch diameter, horizontal air/water test facility. The Y-axis shows the
identification number for 30 Light Emitting Diode (LED) slug detector probes, whic h are
located along the top of the pipeline, and give a binary on output when water wet and a
off signal when in air. As the number of slugs in the line increases the influence of
each slug exiting diminishes and slug formation becomes less orderly. The topography of
the pipeline can exaggerate this effect if uphill sections are present at the outlet. This can
increase the pressure fluctuations due to hydrostatic effects, and can lead to severe flow
rate fluctuations such as demonstrated by severe slugging. The random type of slugging
with considerable decay and coalescence is demonstrated in Figure 8.8-2 .

Figure 8.8-3: Experimental set-up

H-0806.35

8-42

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.8-4: Dip slug generation

Figure 8.8-5: Densitometer traces for various gas velocities

H-0806.35

8-43

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.8-6: Pipeline dip experiments-flow pattern map and equilibrium holdup

Initial comparisons with PLAC have been encouraging as illustrated in Figure 8.8-7,
which shows that PLAC generally predicts the gas velocity at which liquid is removed
from the system and the equilibrium holdup, however PLAC tends to underestimate the
holdup at the higher gas velocities. Figure 8.8-8 shows that the predicted slug frequency
is generally lower than that measured. However, the results are still in reasonable
agreement. This is because PLAC simulates waves rather than slugs, Figure 8.8 -9 shows
the oscillations produced by PLAC for case of 317 liters of water with an air velocity of
0.5 m/s.

H-0806.35

8-44

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.8-7: Comparison between PLAC and measured liquid removal limit

H-0806.35

8-45

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.8-8: Comparison between PLAC and measured slug frequency

Figure 8.8-9: PLAC holdup oscillations for 317 l of water and 0.5 m/s air velocity

H-0806.35

8-46

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

OLGA is also reported to yield good comparison to experiment, though data supporting
this is not generally available; generally restricted to member companies of the OLGA
club; the group of companies actively supporting its development.
In practice oil and gas pipelines will usually reach or attain equilibrium first at the start of
the pipeline, hence slugs can be initiated near the pipeline inlet. It is possible for inlet
flow rate fluctuations to initiate slug formation. Such inlet flow rate oscillations may
result from slugging wells, gas- lift operations, and test well cha nges for example, and
should be suspected as possible causes for flow rate perturbations which generate slugs in
otherwise stratified flowing conditions. When using transient flow simulators it is
worthwhile to consider the effects of practical flow rate perturbations on the result.
8.8.2

Effects of topography on process plant

For gas/condensate systems the point of slug formation usually occurs further down the
pipeline, depending on the liquid condensation rate and topography. Slugs are not
usually formed at the start since the pipeline conditions can be above the dew point. For
typical offshore gas condensate pipelines terminating on land, the greatest uphill
gradients can be at the beach, making this a possible location for slug formation. This
phenomena was observed in dynamic simulations of the Bruce/Frigg pipeline system (by
BPX) where liquid drop-out occurred when Bruce was shut down. This resulted in a
pressure decrease along the pipeline which gave rise to an increase in the liquid drop-out
rate due to retrograde condensation. Predictions using PLAC showed that following a 12
hour shutdown it required around 48 hours to repack the pipeline (Figure 8.8-10). During
the shutdown liquid drop-out occurred in the pipeline. This liquid was partly swept out
when Bruce gas was reintroduced into the system. PLAC showed that during the start-up
phase some of the liquid evaporates as the pressure increases. That liquid which is swept
out arrives as a train of 700 BBL slugs which are easily handled by the process plant
(Figure 8.8 -11). Another result from the PLAC simulations was the fact that the 12 hour
shut-down was not long enough for equilibrium conditions to be obtained, hence the
liquid content is less than the equilibrium value. This is contrary to the results obtained
using steady state analysis of the holdup change for the cases with and without Bruce gas
which indicated that around 4000 BBL of liquid could be removed from the pipeline.
The user should take care with this type of analysis to make sure that the rate of
condensation and evaporation is realistic, as it is possible that the simple nature of the
phase change model in the more popular transient simulators may give rise to large
errors. For example, the use of a single composition for the fluid may mean that the

H-0806.35

8-47

H-0806.35

8-50

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

slug is produced into the separator it may accelerate due to the reducing gravitational
resistance and the reduced frictional length (Figure 8.8-12). This can cause large velocity
increases which can impact on the process plant control, and can also give rise to large
loads on the vessel internals. This is discussed more fully in Section 17 of this Guideline.
Process plant dynamics can be simulated by a number of codes. BPX Sunbury presently
uses the SPEEDUP code which has also been interfaced with a simple slug hydraulic
model to enable the simulation of slug effects on process plant to be investigated. The
slug size is an input to the simulation. However, it is possible to see the effect of the slug
catcher pressure on the passage of the slug. Classical control schemes generally reduce
the gas compressor speed if the separator gas flow is reduced, hence when the slug is
produced the compressor is decelerating. A better solution can be to increase the
compressor speed when the gas flow drops off, hence reducing the separator pressure and
sucking the slug up the riser. This has the effect of reducing the gas starvation period and
also means that the compressor is accelerating when the gas surge occurs.
A recent study using SPEEDUP to investigate control strategies to limit the impact of
slug dynamics on the process plant has shown that gas outlet flow control can reduce the
peak in the gas surge. As the slug is received the gas flow rate reduces. By opening the
gas outlet control valve, the pressure in the slug catcher is reduced, hence sucking the
slug in and allowing some scope for increase in the slugcatcher pressure to absorb some
of the gas flow rate surge.
8.8.3

Hilly terrain pipeline shutdown and restart

BPX experience with the operation of the Cusiana Phase 1 system in Colombia has
shown that maximum flowline pressures may be generated by flowline start-up. The
longest multiphase flowline in the Phase 1 gathering system is the 20- inch diameter, 20
km long flowline that transports production from wellpads T and Q. The mountainous
terrain from the remote well T to the Cusiana Central Processing Facilities is illustrated in
Figure 8.8-13. When the production from T pad was stopped, the shut-in pressure at T
pad was around 1300 psia compared to the arrival pressure of 640 psia. The high back
pressure resulted from segregated liquids draining and filling the pipeline dips; however,
the liquid levels were suspected to be different, hence causing a non-equalized
hydrostatic equilibrium condition.
A simple 2- inch air/water model of three pipeline dips was constructed at BPX Sunbury
to demonstrate what happens during the shutdown and restart and it was confirmed that it
is possible for the liquid to drain into the dips with unequal levels, hence producing a

H-0806.35

8-51

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

While it is seen that PLAC can simulate the liquid settling behavior, the comparison with
the experimental results is not always good. This is because PLAC does not model slugs
properly and hence the holdup in the uphill sections is sometimes underestimated, hence
the initial condition is not always correct.
The highest back pressures can be generated when the flowline is restarted as it is
possible for the liquid in the dips to be displaced downstream before the gas is able to
penetrate the dip, and this increases the difference in the hydrostatic levels. Once the gas
penetrates, the pressure is reduced as the gas lifts the liquid out of the dip. One can
imagine that the start-up pressure can be large if all the liquid in the dips is displaced
simultaneously.
A simple method has been established to estimate the pressure rise during the start-up of
hilly terrain flowlines. For long hilly flowlines, the total uphill elevation changes may be
very large and hence the total theoretical hydrostatic head may lead to very conservative
start-up pressures. It is therefore recommended that the flowlines are started by unloading
the sections closest to the facilities first. The pressure can be estimated by summing the
uphill elevation changes and calculating the hydrostatic head for the section being started.
In practice experience with the start-up of Cusiana T pad indicates that the actual
hydrostatic pressure generated was around 2/3 of the maximum theoretical value,
however this is very dependant on the particular system.
If the analysis of start- up pressures is required to check the design pressure of the
flowline, then the topography should be investigated to determine if there are low points
where the pressure can be higher than at the well pad. This is the case with the T-Q
flowline where the maximum pressures are generated in the valley just downstream of the
wellpad.
8.8.4

Pipeline-riser interactions
A special topographical effect is the interaction between a pipeline and a vertical
platform riser. This can give rise to a phenomenon called severe slugging if the pipeline
inclination is downhill at the base of the riser and if flow rates are low enough (stratified
flow). Severe slugging is discussed in Section 17 and will not be described again here.
However, it is useful to demonstrate that dynamic simulation can be employed to
accurately predict the size of severe slugs and the cycle time, enabling topside process
plant to be sized.

H-0806.35

8-55

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

One of the validation cases for the PLAC code was a comparison with severe slugging
experiments carried-out by BP at Sunbury. The test rig consisted of a 45m flowline
inclined downhill at 2 followed by a 15m vertical riser. The rig operated at near
atmospheric conditions and the test fluids were air and water. A schematic of the rig is
shown in Figure 8.8-17 where the pipeline inner diameter is 2 inches. Figure 8.8.-18 and
Figure 8.8-19 show the measured slug size and frequency for a range of fluid superficial
velocities.

Figure 8.8-17: Schematic of severe slug test rig.

Figure 8.8-18: Experimental slug volume (% riser)

8-61

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.8-22: Schematic of a pipeline loop

Let a equal the fraction of the inlet liquid flow rate in line A, and equal the fraction of
the free inlet gas in line A, Hence:
Qoa = Qoin and Qga = Qgin
The free gas at the inlet to the loop is given by the difference between the producing gasoil ratio and the solution gas-oil ratio at the inlet conditions.
hence:
Qga = (GOR - RSin) Qoin
These expressions can be used to determine the effective producing gas-oil ratio to use in
the two-phase pressure drop analysis as follows:
GORa = [Q oa RSin + (GOR - RSin)Q oin ] / Qoa
hence:
GORa = RSin + / (GOR - RSin)
Similarly for line B:
GORb = RSin + (1- / 1-)(GOR - RSin)
Steady state pressure drop calculations can be performed for a range of gas and liquid
splits using the effective GOR calculated above. The value of the solution gas-oil ratio at
the inlet conditions can be determined using the inlet temperature and pressure and a
suitable PVT pacakge.
H-0806.35

8-62

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.8-23 shows the locus of the possible solutions for a equal pipeline loop and
indicates that the 50/50 solution (a = 0.5) gives rise to the maximum downstream
pressure, and hence minimum pressure drop, however this is not always the case. For
other pressure drops there are two flow split solutions and hence it could be possible for
the flows to oscillate between the two solutions.

Figure 8.8-23: Locus of solutions for equal pipeline sizes

Gregory et al. suggests that the existence of a manometer leg effect can be checked if the
net elevation increase over the loop is such that the maximum possible hydrostatic head
that could result from the liquid phase static in the pipeline is greater than the pressure

H-0806.35

8-63

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

drop that will result from the total throughput of gas and liquid flowing in one of the
parallel lines. This may not be wholly true as a symmetrical hill would have a net
elevation change of zero. However the potential exists for the uphill section to contain
liquid and provide a manometer effect. It is hence recommended that the manometer
effect check be carried out using the sum of the uphill elevation changes. If one of the
legs contains static liquid it is obvious that the loop has in fact not increased the capacity
of the system as the flow only occurs in one leg.
In the above example the pipes in the loop are identical and hence the locus of possible
solutions is symmetrical. This is not the case when the pipes are different as illustrated in
Figure 8.8-24 for a 10- inch and 12- inch loop from Gregorys paper. Here the locus of the
possible solutions is not symmetrical and the minimum pressure drop occurs with a liquid
split of 65/35.

H-0806.35

8-64

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.8-24: Locus of solutions for unequal pipelines

The main points to remember about the hydraulics of looping two-phase pipelines are as
follows:
1. If the pipes in the loop are identical, the assumption of equal split may lead to an
underprediction or overprediction of the pressure drop in practice, as equal splits are
unlikely. For some conditions equal split can give a minimum in the locus and for
others a maximum.
2. A range of flowing solutions are often possible which give equal pressure drops.
While this may give rise to steady outlet flow rates, the natural perturbation produced
by multiphase flows, and the complex characteristics of flow splitting, can lead to
oscillations between the legs, and consequent transient liquid sweep-out.

H-0806.35

8-65

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

3. Although the outlet flow rate from the loop may be steady at one condition, a small
change in the operating conditions can lead to transient liquid sweep-out as the new
operating point stabilizes.
4. A check should be made for manometer effects based on the sum of the uphill
elevation changes, although this may not give the maximum holdup change as a pipe
full flowing case may also exist. If manometer legs occur the loop will not increase
the flowing capacity.
5. Static liquid legs may have implications for corrosion.
8.9

Transient Modeling
In practice the worst transients can be deduced from relatively few simple calculations:
(a) Small diameter tie- ins from minor fields connected to long, large diameter trunklines
do not usually contain enough liquid, even at low flow rates to significantly contribute to
a transient.
(b) For a given total flow in a network, the highest holdup will generally be for that
combination of flows which has the lowest gas flow rate passing through the greatest
length of the largest diameter pipeline.
(c) For low CGR fluids, the maximum period of operation at low gas flow rate should be
considered and the amount of liquid deposited in the pipeline during the period
calculated. This figure may prove less than the steady-state liquid holdup at that flow
rate and if so should be used instead of the steady-state figure for determining the worst
case transients.
Having identified transient flow situations likely to cause problems, a more detailed
analysis can then be performed using a transient modeling code such as PLAC or OLGA.

8.10

Transient Modeling Case Studies

8.10.1 Marlin pipeline holdup profile

Figure 8.10-1 shows the predicted liquid content of the Marlin gas condensate pipeline as
a function of the gas flow rate. This is a 67 mile long, 20- inch diameter wet gas line
operating with a liquid loading of around 65 BBL/MMSCF. It is seen that the general
trend is that the liquid content reduces as the gas flow rate increases. Hence, if a gas flow
rate increase is made, liquid will be removed from the pipeline as the new equilibrium
liquid content is established. If the change in the gas flow rate is carried-out too fast, the
excess liquid can be swept out as a large slug which may overfill the downstream plant,

H-0806.35

8-66

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

whereas if the changes are made slowly, the liquid can be gradually swept out within the
slug catcher capacity.
It is also interesting to note in this figure the wide variation in the predicted holdup
obtained from using the various methods. This may not be too much of a problem when
calculating the amount of liquid swept out during a transient because it is the difference
in the holdup that it most important. In this example the Eaton holdup correlation is
expected to give reasonable answers. However, one should be wary of using the
correlation approach rather than mechanistic models since they do not usually predict the
steep rise in holdup as the velocity and interfacial friction reduces hence a gross
underestimate can result when starting from low flow rates.

Figure 8.10-1: Marlin Pipeline Holdup Profile

Figure 8.10-2 shows the liquid flow rate at the outlet of the Marlin gas condensate
pipeline during an increase in the flow rate from 155 MMSCFD to 258 MMSCFD.
During the test the gas rate was held constant at 155 MMSCFD for 52 hours in order to
reach equilibrium conditions. The rate was then increased to 258 MMSCFD in a period
H-0806.35

8-67

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.10-4: Marline Comparison with PLAC

The holdup profile shows a rapid rise in the liquid content at gas rates below 200
MMSCFD, hence operating in this region could cause problems even without pigging, as
relatively small gas rate perturbations can cause large quantities of liquid to be swept
from the pipeline. For example a 10 percent increase in the gas rate from 200 to 220
MMSCFD could remove 4750 BBL of liquid and, possibly, swamp the slug catcher.
Shortly after the start-up of the Amethyst pipeline system the pig launcher failed and it
was decided to investigate the consequences of cont inuing production, and allowing the
pipeline liquids to build up to equilibrium values. A decision was taken to limit the
minimum gas flow rate to 250 MMSCFD, and hence to avoid possible uncontrolled
sweep-out due to inherent flow rate fluctuations. The pipeline was operated without
pigging over the winter, where it took several months to obtain an equilibrium holdup,
which was estimated to be in the region of 18000 BBL from a mass balance. This is
within 17 percent of the value predicted by the old segregated flow mechanistic model in
MULTIFLO, but is 213 percent higher than the value predicted by the Eaton correlation.
Some of the simple transient analysis outlined below was used to investigate how to
resume pigging operations.
A simple approach to sizing a vessel to handle the liquid produced by a gas rate increase
would be to consider the change in the equilibrium holdup and ignore the effect of the
liquid pump-out rate. For example if the gas rate were increased from 250 MMSCFD to
350 MMSCFD the equilibrium liquid removed would be 15373 - 8018 = 7355 BBL.
Hence the gas rate could be increased in two steps from 250 MMSCFD to 300 MMSCFD
which would remove 3800 BBL and then 300 MMSCFD to 350 MMSCFD which would
remove 3555 BBL. A 7355 BBL surge volume would be required if the increase were
made in one step without taking account of the liquid pump-out rate. The maximum gas
flow rate available is 350 MMSCFD which gives a pipeline inventory of 8018 BBL, and
hence it is still necessary to walk in the first pig.
We will use the Amethyst case to illustrate a simple way of determining the effect of the
pump-out rate on the required surge volume. Consider the case of an increase in the gas
rate from 250 to 350 MMSCFD.

At 250 MMSCFD the equilibrium holdup is 15373 BBL

At 350 MMSCFD the equilibrium holdup is 8018 BBL

Hence the difference in holdup is 15373 - 8018 = 7355 BBL.

H-0806.35

8-73

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.10-9: Simplified liquid outflow profile during ramp-down

8.10.3 PLAC simulation of shutdown and restart of Pompano subsea wells
Pompano is a development in the Gulf of Mexico consisting of a fixed platform in 1300 ft
of water, with a proposed remote 18 slot template located 4 miles away in a water depth
of 1800 ft. The template was originally going to be connected to the host platform by
two 6-inch pipelines allowing flexible operation as the flow rates change, and facilitating
pigging from the platform using processed oil. The first phase of the development, now
completed, involved the installation of the platform and start-up of the platform wells,
which are expected to produce a maximum of around 18 mbd. The second phase of the
development will involve installation of a subsea template and flowlines. However it was
required to make provision for this during the installation of the first phase. The

H-0806.35

8-77

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

maximum oil production from the subsea wells was expected to be 12 mbd and slug
catchers were required to be sized for the platform reception facilities.
The slugs produced by pigging the pipeline were to be handled by operational procedures
and were not used for sizing the slug catcher. The predicted mean and maximum normal
hydrodynamic slugs were 6 BBL and 16 BBL respectively, and were well within the
feasible slug catcher size, which was in the region 50100 BBL. It was hence necessary
to consider the slugs produced by flowline rate changes which could be quite frequent as
wells are switched to test and as turndowns are accommodated. A worst case was
considered to be start-up from 1 well to full production, giving a flow rate increase from
112 mbd. This was modeled with PLAC by running the simulation at 12 mbd for
13000s to give a steady state. The flow rate was then ramped down to 1 mbd over 60s,
left at this rate for 5000s, then increased to 12 mbd over 60s. The predicted outlet liquid
flow rate profile is shown in Figure 8.10-10 and indicates that the liquid flow rate drops
off when the flow rate is reduced after 13000s. The plot shows a large overshoot when
the rate is increased again at 18000s. The oscillations decay as the final equilibrium
production rate of 12 mbd (equivalent to 17.7 kg/s) is approached. The peak production
rate is 82 kg/s which is equivalent to 51 mbd, and is hence over four times the final
equilibrium production rate.

Figure 8.10-10: PLAC simulation of outlet liquid flow rate

H-0806.35

8-78

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

The outlet gas rate is shown in Figure 8.10-11 and indicates that the main gas surge
occurs after the second slug.

Figure 8.10-11: Predicted outlet gas flow rate

The liquid holdup plot in Figure 8.10-12, shows that the initial holdup is around 40
percent in the inclined flowline (cells 118) and around 20 percent in the vertical riser
(cells 1939). During the low flow condition from 13000s the liquid drains from the riser
into the flowline and also builds up at the template end of the flowline. During the rate
increase the first slugs were due to the liquid drained from the riser. The liquid that
drained to the template is smeared out along the flowline to re-establish the equilibrium
holdup.

H-0806.35

8-79

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.10-12: Holdup profile duri ng shutdown and start-up

The outlet liquid flow rate predicted by PLAC was converted to a spreadsheet for further
processing by a slug catcher simulation program called PLACSEP, which is available on
the PC. This program converts the liquid volume flow rate into the level fluctuations in a
cylindrical slug catcher vessel. Figure 8.10-13 shows the level for a 50 BBL vessel (5ft
dia x 15ft long) where the liquid pump-out rate is fixed at 25 mbd. In one case there is no
control on the minimum level in the vessel, and in the other a minimum level of 20
percent is imposed.

H-0806.35

8-80

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.10-13: Slug catcher level fluctuations with and without level control

Figure 8.10-14: Effect of pump-out rate on slug catcher level

The result is also plotted in Figure 8.10-14 for a pump-out rate of 12 mbd and shows that
the vessel would be swamped, even without low level control. Hence it is not possible to
H-0806.35

8-81

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

hence:
at 0 mbd,

surge volume = 768 BBL

at 12 mbd,

surge volume = 300 BBL

at 19.692 mbd,

surge volume = 0 BBL

The comparison between the simple method and the rigorous PLAC simulation is shown
in Figure 8.10-18 where it is seen that the agreement is close for pump-out rates similar
to the final equilibrium value. However, there are large discrepancies at the extremes for
the reasons outlined previously. For zero surge volume the pump-out rate predicted by
PLAC is 51 mbd compared to 19.7 mbd assuming a constant transition flow rate, hence
the simple method fails to take account of the liquid distribution in the pipeline and
consequently underestimates the peak outlet flow rates.

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.10-20: Variation of shut-in temperature with time

Figure 8.10-21: Pipeline liquid content during shut-in

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

an empty pipe and hence some time is required for the severe slugging cycle to be
established. Figure 8.10-30 shows the pressure in the inclined flowline, which is in good
agreement with the measured data of Figure 8.10-28.

Figure 8.10-27: Schematic of experimental riser facility

H-0806.35

8-93

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.10-28: Pressure traces during one severe slugging cycle

Figure 8.10-29: Experimental rig topography used in PLAC

H-0806.35

8-94

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.10-30: Pressure in inclined flowline predicted by PLAC.

Figures 8.10-31 to 8.10-33 illustrate the holdup and velocity fluctuations throughout the
riser. Analysis of the PLAC results enables the following comparison to be made:

Cycle time
Slug build- up time
Slug production time
Bubble penetration time
Gas blowdown time
Slug length
Maximum pressure at riser base
Slug tail exit velocity

Experimental
measurements
183 s
124 s
24 s
14 s
21 s
59 m
47.5 psig
3.5 m/s

PLAC
predictions
172 s
127 s
11 s
9s
25 s
57 m
48 psig
4.5 m/s

From the above comparison it is seen that in most cases the PLAC predictions are in good
agreement with the measured values apart from the slug production time. This time is
however rela tively short and is difficult to accurately determine from the plots. The
experimental conditions were not tabulated by BHRA and hence the estimation of the

H-0806.35

8-95

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

flowing velocities could also be subject to some error. However, the predictions indicate
that the flowing conditions in the riser are close to the boundary for true severe slugging
as the riser is only full of liquid for a short period of time before the gas pressure is
sufficient to eject the slug. Figure 8.10-34 shows the test case point on the experimental
flow pattern map and confirms that the PLAC predictions are qualitatively correct.

Figure 8.10-31: Holdup variation during severe slugging

H-0806.35

8-96

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.10-32: Vapor velocity variation

H-0806.35

8-97

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.10-33: Liquid velocity variation

Figure 8.10-34: Flow regime observations from catenary riser experiments

H-0806.35

8-98

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

8.10.7 Analysis of hilly terrain pipeline loop for Cusiana phase 1.

The Phase 1 Cusiana development contractor performed a study in October 1992 to
determine the configuration of the production flowlines that were required to transport
multiphase well production to the Central Processing Facilities. The flow rates were
expected to increase as more wells were drilled in the future, this was accommodated in
the design by extensive looping of the pipelines in order to increase the capacity. The
pipe sizes were mainly dictated by flowing velocity considerations to avoid erosion
limits, however in the study these were incorrectly calculated as half the required value,
hence the flowlines were significantly oversized. The Multiphase Flow Group in XFE
was commissioned to investigate the proposed multiphase gathering system and to
investigate the potential multiphase design issues.
The philosophy of looping was investigated by considering a 20- inch pipeline loop that
was proposed between the original well pad 504 and the Cusiana CPF. The topography
of this section is shown in Figure 8.10-35 and illustrates the large elevation changes as
the pipeline negotiates the hills, the Cusiana river, and the approach to the CPF which is
located on a mesa. Both pipes are assumed to have identical profiles. The analysis of the
hydraulic operation of the pipeline loop was conducted using MULTIFLO simulations to

determine the possible flowing solutions based on a steady state analysis.

Figure 8.10-35: Topography of 20-inch looped pipeline

H-0806.35

8-99

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

The table below shows the calculated gas-oil ratios for a 70 mbd oil flow rate with a
producing gas-oil ratio of 2000 scf/stbo. At the inlet conditions to the loop of 600 psia
and 175F the calculated solution gas-oil ratio is 180.81 scf/stbo. a is the fraction of the
inlet liquid flow rate in line A and is the fraction of the inlet free gas flow rate in line A.
Table 8-3: Effective GORs for use in two -phase simulations

Liquid fraction ?
0.1

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

0.9

1.0

0.0

181

0.1

2000

1090

636

484

408

383

363

0.2

3819

2000

1090

787

636

585

545

0.4

7458

3819

2000

1394

1090

989

908

0.6

11096

5638

2910

2000

1545

1394

1272

0.8

14734

7478

3819

2606

2000

1798

1636

0.9

16554

8367

4274

2910

2227

2000

1818

1.0

18373

9277

4729

3212

2455

2202

2000

Qoa

The MULTIFLO predicted pressure drops for each gas and liquid flow rate combination
are shown in the table below where the pressure drops are calculated for a fixed value of
at each value of a and hence GOR and oil flow rate Qoa.
Table 8-4: Overall two -phase pressure drops for line A

0.1

0.2

Liquid fraction
0.4
0.6
0.8

0.0
0.1
0.2

163
118
91

162
130
101

163
123
95

164
109
96

167
122
112

169
129
120

171
135
128

0.4
0.6

68
65

83
78

75
80

94
104

114
127

124
138

134
149

0.8
0.9
1.0

68
71
75

82
86
91

92
99
108

118
127
137

144
154
165

157
168
179

170
181
193

H-0806.35

8-100

0.9

1.0

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

The data can be plotted as pressure drop vs a for each value of . If the line sizes or
topographies of the loop are different the calculations must also be repeated for line B.
However, if both lines are the same the results will be symmetrical i.e. a = 0.9 and = 0.9
for line A corresponds to a = 0.1 and = 0.1 for line B. The result for the case considered
is shown in Figures 8.10-36 and 8.10-37, where the locus of possible solutions is shown
in Figure 8.10-37.

Figure 8.10-36: Solution for line A

H-0806.35

8-101

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Figure 8.10-37: Combined solutions

The figures illustrate that at 70 mbd no zero flow or manometer effect can exist since 0
percent liquid fraction is not a solution. The nature of the tee junction at the loop is such
that the liquid may preferentially take the run and this could give a 100 percent free gas
split into the other leg with 22 percent of the liquid flowing in the run. Note that between
40 percent and 60 percent liquid split to the run several solutions are possible with
different overall pressure drops. The main problem is the liquid holdup variations in each
leg if the flow switches. The holdup at 0 percent gas split to the run is 9377 BBL and the
flow rate is 15.4 mbd. In the side leg the corresponding holdup is 2264 BBL giving a
7113 BBL slug if the flow in the loop switches. The possibility of unstable operation was
part of the reason for recommending that the Cusiana multiphase flowlines should not be
looped.

H-0806.35

8-102

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

For the example above the sum of the uphill elevations is 504 ft, which gives rise to a
hydrostatic head of 163 psi. Figure 8.10-38 indicates that manometer effects are possible
when the inlet flow rate is reduced below around 60 mbd since the flowing pressure drop
could be balanced by a static column of liquid in the other leg.

Figure 8.10-38: Pressure drop characteristic for total flow in the one leg

8.10.8 Using two-phase pressure surge analysis to determine pig-slug loads

The effect of a pig-slug impacting on a closing pressure control valve was studied as part
of the design of the Rough field slug catcher at Easington. An isometric of the approach
pipework to the slug catcher is shown in Figure 8.10-39 where it is seen that the 340
sealine terminates in a 17m riser at A then follows horizontally, and finally rises at 45
degrees between D and E before entering the sphere receiver. The PCV is located just
upstream of the slug catcher. The PCV is designed to control the downstream pressure
independently of upstream conditions. Flow control is provided downstream of the gas
offtake J.

H-0806.35

8-103

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

It was required to estimate the loads produced by the pig-slug impacting on the PCV if it
closed during pig reception, and hence to determine the need to set the valve fully open
during pigging. The slug catcher is located 10m above ground level and it was required to
assess the structural loads that may be generated by the slug dynamics.
A simple dynamic model of the slug reception process indicated that the slug velocity
increases from a initial value of 7m/s to a final velocity of 21m/s as the tail passes the
PCV and the slug is discharged into the slug catcher. This acceleration is due partly to the
hydrostatic head loss and the reducing frictional length of the slug as it is produced.
Initial simulations using FLOWMASTER were based on the surge pressures generated
by closing the PCV during slug reception. A linear valve closure rate was assumed and
the effect of the valve closure time investigated. The results of a single phase surge
analysis are shown in Figure 8.10-40 indicating that surge pressure should not exceed 95
bar, which is well below the maximum allowed pressure of 150 bar. The valve closure
times of around 30s are too long to generate significant unequilibriated loads in the short
piping runs. What was of more concern was the impact of the slug front on a partially
open control valve, which is more difficult to assess.

8.11

9.2

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Safety First: A Gallon of Prevention is Worth a Mile of Cure

There are many examples of line rupture, sometimes accompanied by loss of life,
attributed to the formation of hydrate plugs. Hydrate safety problems are caused by
three characteristics:
1.

Hydrate densities are like that of ice; a dislodged hydrate plug can be a projectile
with high velocities. In the 1997 DeepStar Wyoming field tests, plugs ranged
from 25-200 ft with velocities between 60-270 ft/s. Such velocities and masses
provide enough momentum to cause two types of failure at a pipeline restriction
(orifice), obstruction (flange or valve), or sharp change in direction (bend, elbow,
or tee) as shown in Figure 9.2.1-1. First, hydrate impact can fracture pipe, and
second, extreme compression of gas can cause pipe rupture downstream of the
hydrate path.

Hydrates can form either single or multiple plugs, with no method to predict which
will occur. High differential pressures can be trapped between plugs, even when
the discharge ends of plugs are depressurized.

Hydrates contain as much as 180 volumes (STP) of gas per volume of hydrate.
When hydrate plugs are dissociated by heating, any confinement causes rapid gas
pressure increases. However, hydrate plug heating is not an offshore option due to
the difficulty of locating the plug and economics of heating a submerged pipeline.

Field engineers discuss the hail-on-a-tin-roof sounds when small hydrate particles
hit a pipe wall. Such small, mobile particles can accumulate to large masses
occupying a considerable volume, often filling the pipeline to tens or hundreds of feet
in length. Attempts to blow the plug out of the line by increasing upstream pressure
(see Rule-of-Thumb 18) will result in additional hydrate formation and perhaps
pipeline rupture.
When a plug is depressurized using a high differential pressure, the dislodged plug can
be a dangerous projectile which can cause pipeline damage, as the below three case
studies (from Mobils Kent and Coolen, 1992) indicate.
9.2.1

Case Study 1. 1991 Chevron Incident.

A foreman and an operator were attempting to clear a hydrate plug in a sour gas
flowline. They had bled down the pressure in the distant end from the wellhead. They
were standing near the line when the line failed, probably from the impact of a moving
hydrate mass. A large piece of pipe struck the foreman and the operator summoned
help. An air ambulance was deployed; however the foreman was declared dead on

H-0806.35

9-2

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

arrival at the hospital. No pre-existing pipe defects were found.

illustrates the safety hazards associated with moving hydrate plugs.
9.2.2

Figure 9.2.1-1

Case Study 2. 1991 Gulf Incident

On January 10, 1991 the Rimbey gas plant was in the start-up mode. A hydrate or ice
plug formed in the overhead line from the amine contactor. The line had been
depressured to the flare system, downstream of the plug. The ambient temperature,
which had been -30 oC, rose rapidly due to warming winds around midnight. At 2:00
a.m. the overhead line came apart, killing the chief operator. In addition, the plant
suffered approximately $6 million damage.
Contributing to this failure were pre-existing cracks in the pipeline. These cracks did
not impair the piping pressure-containing ability under steady-state conditions, but
they did reduce the piping strength under the transient (impact) conditions when the
plug broke free.

9.2.3

Case Study 3. 1991 Mobil Incident

At 11:30 a.m. on January 2, 1991 two operators attempted to remove a blockage in a
sour gas flowline, which had been plugged about three days. The downstream side of
the plug had been completely depressured. The upstream portion of the line,
originally at 1,100 psig, was completely depressured to a truck within a 5- minute
period. At 12:15 p.m. the flowline failed and gas began flowing from somewhere
around the casing. The leak was isolated at 3:18 p.m. by an employee of a wellcontrol/firefighting company.
The failure was caused by the eruption of a hydrate plug at a Schedule 40, 3- inch,
screwed pipe nipple. Note that, because both ends of the hydrate plug were
depressured, there may have been two end plugs, with intermediate plugs or pressure
as shown in Figure 9.2.3-1.

Were out-of-service immediately prior to the incident.

Did not have hydrate or freeze protection.
Were pressurized while out-of-service.
Were being restarted.
Had high differential pressures across plugs for short periods.

The Chevron Canada Resources Hydrate Handling Guidelines (1992) suggest that the
danger of line failure due to hydrate plug(s) is more prevalent when:
long lengths of pressurized gas are trapped upstream,
low downstream pressures provide less cus hion between a plug and restriction, and
restrictions/bends exist downstream of the plug.
9.2.4

Case Study 4. 1980s Statoil Incident

In the mid-1980s a hydrate plug occurred topside on a platform in a Statoil oil Field in
the Norwegian sector of the North Sea. The line section was valved-off and heat was
applied to remove the plug. After some time of heating, the work crew went to lunch,
intending to complete the task on their return. Upon their return the crew found that
the section of line had exploded dur ing their absence.
Heat had apparently been applied to the mid-point of hydrate plug and the plug-end
portions served to contain very high pressures until the line ruptured. Figure 9.2.3-1
(b) is a schematic of such a situation. In Section 9.3 it is shown that pressure increases
exponentially with temperature increases when hydrates are dissociated.

9.2.5

Case Study 5. 1970s Elf Incident

In the 1970s a plug occurred on a floating platform riser in the North Sea. Blocking
valves were closed and the pipeline was disconnected downstream of the plug. The
discharge end of the pipeline was aimed overboard, with the intent of using high
upstream pressure to extrude the plug from the line. When the plug was expelled into
the ocean, the force was so great that the platform was said to rise 20 cm in the ocean.

H-0806.35

9-6

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers Hydrate Guidelines (1994) suggest

three safety concerns in dealing with hydrate blockages:
Always assume multiple hydrate plugs; there may be pressure between the plugs.
Attempting to move ice (hydrate) plugs can rupture pipes and vessels.
While heating a plug is not normally an option for a subsea hydrate, any heating
should always be done from the end of a plug, rather than heating the plug middle.
The last recommendation could be expanded in consideration of a subsea line:
Heating a subsea plug is not recommended due to the inability to determine the end of
the plug as well as provide for gas expansion on plug heating, and
Depressuring a plug gradually from both ends is recommended.
The above case studies warn that hydrates can be hazardous to health and to
equipment. Yet hydrate plugs can be safely dissociated through the procedure
indicated in the Section 9.4 of this handbook.
The preferred procedure, from both safety and economic considerations, is to prevent
the formation of hydrate plugs, through design and operating practices. While the
usage of many gallons of inhibitors may be costly on a continuous basis, such
expenses are easily overshadowed when plugs form and production is stopped. As the
case studies in this handbook show, it is not uncommon for several hundred yards of
hydrate plugs to form, preventing offshore production for a matter of weeks or
months, during remediation.

H-0806.35

9-7

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

9.3

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Prevention by Design: How to Ensure Hydrates Wont Form

The purpose of the prevention section is (1) to indicate common offshore sites of
hydrate formation, (2) to indicate design methods to provide hydrate protection, and
(3) to provide designs to make remediation easier if a hydrate plug occurs.
Three conditions are required for hydrate formation in offshore processes:
1.

Free water and natural gas are needed. Gas molecules ranging in size from
methane to butane are typical hydrate components, including CO2 , N2 , and H2 S.
The water in hydrates can come from free water produced from the reservoir, or
from water condensed by cooling the gas phase. Usually the pipeline residence
time is insufficient for hydrates to form either from water vaporized into the gas,
or from gas dissolved in the liquid water.

Low temperatures are normally witnessed in hydrate formation; yet, while

hydrates are 85 mole % water, the system temperature need not be below 32 o F for
hydrates to occur. Below about 3000 feet of water depth, the ocean bottom
(mudline) temperature is remarkably uniform at 38-40 o F and pipelined gas readily
cools to this temperature within a few miles of the wellhead. Hydrates can easily
form at 38-40 o F as well as the higher temperatures of shallower water, at high
pressure.

High pressures commonly cause hydrate formation. At 38 o F, common natural

gases form hydrates at pressures as low as 100 psig; at 1500 psig, common gases
form hydrates at 66 o F. Since pipelines typically operate at higher pressures,
hydrate prevention should be a primary consideration.

The above three hydrate requirements lead to four classical thermodynamic prevention
methods:

H-0806.35

Water removal provides the best protection. Free water is removed through
separation, and water dissolved in the gas is removed by drying with tri-ethylene
glycol to obtain water contents less than 7 lb m/MMscf. Water removal processing
is difficult and costly between the wellhead and the platform so other prevention
schemes must be used.

Maintaining high temperatures keeps the system in the hydrate-free region. High
reservoir fluid temperature may be retained through insulation and pipe bundling,
or additional heat may be input via hot fluids or electrical heating, although this is
not economical in many cases.

The system may be decreased below hydrate formation pressure. This leads to the
concept of designing system pressure drops at high temperature points (e.g.
bottomhole chokes). However, the resulting lower density will decrease pipeline
efficiency.
9-8

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Most frequently hydrate prevention means injecting an inhibitor such as methanol

(MeOH) or mono-ethylene glycol (MEG), which decreases the hydrate formation
temperature below the operating temperature.

Two kinetic means of hydrate inhibition have been added to the thermodynamic
inhibitor list and are being brought into common practice:
1.

Kinetic inhibitors are low molecular weight polymers and small molecules
dissolved in a carrier solvent and injected into the water phase in pipelines. These
inhibitors work by bonding to the hydrate surface and preventing crystal
nucleation and growth for a period longer than the free water residence time in a
pipeline. Water is then removed at a platform or onshore.

Anti-agglomerants are surfactants, which cause the water phase to be suspended as

small droplets in the oil or condensate. When the suspended water droplets
convert to hydrates, the flow characteristics are maintained without blockage.
Alternatively the surfactant may transport micro-crystals of hydrate into the
condensed phase. The emulsion is broken and water is removed onshore or at a
platform.

The above methods are used individually or jointly for prevention. The prevention
section of this handbook provides a method to use the six above methods to prevent
hydrates in the design of an offshore system.
Hydrates form in offshore systems in two fundamental ways: (a) slow cooling of a
fluid as in a pipeline or (b) rapid cooling caused by depressurization across valves as
on a platform.
Section 9.3.1 provides typical offshore system examples of hydrate formation in a
well, a flowline, and a platform. Offshore design for hydrate thermodynamic
inhibition with slow cooling of a pipeline is the topic of Sections 9.3.2, 9.3.3, 9.3.4,
and 9.3.5. Design practices are provided in Section 9.3.6 fo r hydrate prevention with
rapid cooling across a restriction like a valve. Section 9.3.7 gives procedures for
prevention of hydrates through inhibition and heat management. Section 9.3.8
provides general design guidelines for hydrate prevention in an offshore system.
9.3.1

Where Do Hydrates Form in Offshore Systems?

Figure 9.3.1-1 shows a simplified offshore process between the well inlet and the
platform export discharge where virtually all hydrate problems occur. In the figure
hydrate blockages are shown in susceptible portions of the system: (a) the well, (b) the
pipeline, or (c) the platform, and this section provides a brief description of each in
Examples 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Prior to the well, high reservoir temperatures

H-0806.35

9-9

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

prevent hydrate formation, and after the platform export lines have dry gas and
oil/condensate with insufficient water to form hydrates.
In Figure 9.3.1-1, two unusual aspects of the system should be noted: (1) the water
depth is shown as 6,000 feet but it may range to 10,000 feet, and (2) the distance
between the well and the platform may range to 60 miles. Such depths and distances
provide cooling for the pipeline fluids to low temperatures, which are well within the
hydrate stability region.
The system temperature and pressure at the point of hydrate formation must be within
the hydrate stability region, as determined by the methods of Sections 9.3.2 through
9.3.4. The system temperature and pressure enters into the hydrate formation region,
either through a normal cooling process (Example 2 and Figures 9.3.1-4 and 9.3.1-5)
or through a Joule-Thomson process (Section 9.3.6).
A typical plot of the water temperature in the Gulf of Mexico is shown in Figure
9.3.1-2 as a function of water depth. The plot shows a high temperature of 70 o F (or
more) occurs for the first 250 feet of depth. However, when the depth exceeds 3,000
feet the bottom water temperature is very uniform at about 40 o F, no matter how high
the temperature is at the air-water surface. This remarkably uniform water
temperature at depths greater than 3,000 feet occurs in almost all of the earths oceans,
(caused by the water density inversion) except in a few cases with cold subsea
currents.
The ocean acts as a heat sink for any gas or oil produced so that, without insulation or
other heat control methods, any flowline fluid cools to within a few degrees of 40 o F,
no further than a few miles of the wellhead. The rate of cooling with length is a
function of the initial reservoir temperature, the flow rate, the pipeline diameter, and
other fluid flow and heat transfer factors. However, as shown in Section 9.3.2, the
ocean bottom temperature of 40 o F is low enough to cause hydrates to form at any
typical pipeline pressure.

H-0806.35

9-10

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

FIGURE 9.3.1-1: OFFSHORE WELL, TRANSPORT PIPELINE, AND PLATFORM

H-0806.35

9-11

1500

Without inhibition a hydrate problem may occur

2000

Without inhibition a hydrate problem will occur

3000

Insufficient experience; salt alone will not suffice

By 1988 Shell had drilled 16 wells in the Gulf of Mexico at water depths between
2,000 and 7,500 feet, using muds with 20 wt% sodium chloride (NaCl) and partially
hydrolyzed polyacrylamide (PHPA). In each well Shell experienced an average of
more than one gas kick per well, which signaled the possibility of hydrate formation.
Only one instance in 2900 ft of water involved the possibility of hyd rate formation,
when Shell experienced difficulty disconnecting the drill stack.
Barker and Gomez (1989) documented two occurrences (see Case Studies C.21 and
C.22 of Appendix C) of hydrate formation in relatively shallow waters off California
and the Gulf of Mexico, where losses in drill times were 70 days and 50 days,
respectively. Recently, the number of hydrate problems have increased dramatically
as drilling has moved to deeper water. In several cases where safety was an issue
(plugged blow out preve ntors, stack connectors, etc.) the well was abandoned. Much
remains to be done in this area.
Downstream of the well and choke, the fluid flows through a pipeline of considerable
length before reaching the platform. Example 2 represents flow conditions in the
pipeline.
9.3.1.2

Example 2: Hydrate formation in a Flowline.

Texacos Notz, (1994) provided a hydrate pipeline case in Figure 9.3.1-4 for a Gulf of
Mexico gas. To the right of the diagram hydrates will not form and the system will
exist in the fluid (hydrocarbon and water) region. However, hydrates will form in the
shaded region to the left of the diagram, and hydrate prevention measures should be
taken.
Pipeline pressure and temperature conditions were predicted using a pipe prediction
program such as OLGA or PIPEPHASE and those conditions are shown
superimposed on the hydrate conditions in Figure 9.3.1-4. At low pipeline distances

H-0806.35

9-16

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

(e.g. 7 miles) the flowing stream retains a high temperature from the hot reservoir gas
at the pipeline entrance. The ocean cools the system, and at about 9 miles a unit mass
of flowing gas and associated water enters the hydrate region (shaded region to the left
of the line marked 0% MeOH), remaining in the uninhibited hydrate area until mile
45. Such a distance may represent several days of residence time for the water phase,
so that hydrates would undoubtedly form, were not inhibition steps taken.
In Figure 9.3.1-4, by mile 25 the temperature of the pipeline system is within a few
degrees of the ocean floor temperature, so that approximately 23 wt% methanol is
required in the free water phase to prevent hydrate formation and subsequent pipeline
blockage. Methanol injection facilities are not available at the needed point along the
pipeline. Instead methanol is injected into the pipeline at the subsea wellhead. In the
case of the pipeline shown in Figure 9.3.1-4 methanol is injected at the wellhead so
that in excess of 23 wt% methanol will be present in the free water phase over the
entire pipeline length.
As vaporized methanol flows along the pipeline in Figure 9.3.1-4, it dissolves into any
produced brine or water condensed from the gas. Hydrate inhibition occurs in the free
water, usually at accumulations with some change in geometry (e.g., a bend or
pipeline dip along an ocean floor depression) or some nucleation site (e.g., sand, weld
slag, etc.).
Hydrate inhibition occurs in the aqueous liquid, rather than in the vapor or condensate.
While most of the methanol dissolves in the water phase, a significant amount of
methanol either remains with the vapor or dissolves into any liquid hydrocarbon phase
present as calculated using the methods shown later in this section.
In Figure 9.3.1-4, Notz showed that the gas temperature increases from mile 30 to mile
45 with warmer (shallower) water conditions. From mile 45 to mile 50 however, a
second cooling trend is observed due to a Joule-Thomson gas expansion effect.
Methanol exiting the pipeline in the vapor, aqueous, and condensate phases is usually
not recovered, due to the expense of regeneration.
Todd (1997) provided simulations with a different behavior from the pipeline in
Figure 9.3.1-4. In Todds simulations, typical gas pipeline pressure drops are small
relative to the overall pressure, resulting in an almost constant pressure cooling,
providing a straight, horizontal line between the pipeline end points on a plot like
Figure 9.3.1-5. Pipeline pressure drops are functions of several variables, and
individual systems should be simulated for best results.
H-0806.35

9-17

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

FIGURE 9.3.1-4: OFFSHORE PIPELINE PLOTTED ON HYDRATE FORMATION CURVES (FROM NOTZ 1994)

H-0806.35

9-18

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

9.3.1.3

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Example 3: Typical Offshore Platform Process.

Manning and Thompson (1991, pp. 80-82, 344-355) detail a typical offshore platform
process for a sweet crude oil with dissolved gas delivered to the platform at 1000 psig
and 120 o F. The process is shown in Figure 9.3.1-6 with process conditions given in
Table 9.3.1-2 and selected stream compositions provided in Table 9.3.1-3.
The process was sized for a product of 100,000 barrels per day (bpd) of oil to the
pipeline at the LACT (lease automatic custody transfer) unit, with 49 MMscf/d gas
produced at 1000 psig and an overall gas to oil ratio (GOR) of 491 scf/Bsto. The
heavy ends of the crude are divided into five boiling-point cuts while mole fractions of
individual gas components are given.
There are three objectives of the platform process:
3.

to separate the gas, water, and oil, providing an oil phase which has a very low
vapor pressure, and providing water discharge to the ocean.

to dehydrate the gas to a water content below 7 lb m/MMscf before injection into
the pipeline to shore, and

to compress the gas for transport to land.

Note that water separation and gas dehydration are vital for hydrate prevention, so that
even if the system cools into the hydrate pressure-temperature region shown in Figure
9.3.1-5, hydrate formation is prevented due to insufficient water. The export pipeline
gas water content is below its water dew point (9 lb m/MMscf) at the lowest
temperature (39 o F) so free water will not condense from the gas phase.
The oil is stabilized by flow through a series of four separators, operating at 1000 psig,
300 psig, 55 psig, and 2 psig before the export oil pipeline, so an oil pipeline pressure
greater than 15 psia will prevent a gas phase. Hydrate formation is not a significant
problem in the oil export pipeline because relatively few hydrate formers (nitrogen,
methane, ethane, propane, butanes and CO2 ) are present and the water content is low.
The gas from each separator is compressed, cooled, and separated from liquid again
before re-combining the gas with the previous separators gas for injection into the
export gas line. The additional oil obtained after cooling the compressed gas amounts
to about 1.5% of the total oil production.

H-0806.35

9-19

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

FIGURE 9.3.1-5: TYPICAL TRANSPORT PIPELINE PLOTTED ON HYDRATE FORMATION

CURVES

H-0806.35

9-20

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

FIGURE 9.3.1-6:TYPICAL OFFSHORE PLATFORM SCHEMATIC (FROM MANNING AND THOMPSON 1991)

One Minute Estimate of Hydrate Formation Conditions (Accurate to 50%)

Assuming the pipeline pressure drop to be relatively small, the engineer may do a
rough estimation to determine whether the pipeline will operate in the hydrate region.
As a first approximation, the engineer should first calculate the pressure at which
hydrates form at the lowest deep ocean temperature (38-40 o F), so that if the pipeline
pressure is greater, then inhibition might be considered in the pipeline design and
operation. Such an approximation may indicate the need for more accurate
calculations to determine the amount of inhibition required.
Rules-of-Thumb. In this handbook, Rules-of-Thumb will frequently be stated in bold
type. These Rules-of-Thumb are based upon experience, and they are intended as
guides for the engineer for further action. For example, using a Rule-of-Thumb the
engineer might determine that a more accurate calculation was needed for inhibitor
injection amounts, or that further consideration of hydrates was unnecessary. Rulesof-Thumb are not intended to be Absolute Truths, and exceptions can always be
found. Where possible the accuracy of each Rule-of-Thumb is provided. The first
Rule-of-Thumb is given below for hydrate formation at ocean bottom temperatures.
Rule of Thumb 1: At 39 oF, hydrates will form in a natural gas system if free water
is available and the pressure is greater than 166 psig.

H-0806.35

9-24

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Hydrate formation data were averaged for 20 natural gases (from Sloan, 1998, Chapter
6) with an average formation pressure of 181 psia. Of the 20 gases, the lowest
formation pressure was 100 psig for a gas with 7 mole % C3 H8 , while the highest
value was 300 psig for a gas with 1.8 mole % C3 H8 .
Rule-of-Thumb 1 indicates that most offshore pipeline pressures greatly exceed the
hydrate formation condition, indicating:
gas drying and/or inhibition is needed for ocean pipelines with temperatures
approaching 39 o F,
a more accurate estimation procedure should normally be considered, and
hydrate formation pressures are dependent upon the gas composition, and are
particularly sensitive to the amount of propane present.
It should be reiterated here that hydrates can form at temperatures in excess of 39 o F
when the pressure is elevated, as in the case of warmer temperatures in shallower
water. More accurate estimations of hydrate formation conditions over a broad
temperature range are made by the method in the following section.
9.3.3

A Ten-Minute Estimation of Hydrate Formation/Inhibition (Accurate to 25%).

As a second approximation of hydrate formation the design/facilities engineer should
perform two calculations:
1.

A pipeline pressure-temperature flow simulation should be done to determine the

conditions between the wellhead and the platform separators, (or between the
platform and the onshore separators), and

Hydrate formation conditions such as those shown in Figure 9.3.1-4 should be

calculated, determining pressures and temperatures of vapor and aqueous liquid
inhibited by various amounts (including 0 wt%) of methanol (MeOH) or monoethylene glycol (MEG).

The intersection of the above two lines determines the pressure and temperature at
which hydrates will form in a pipeline. As we have seen in Exa mple 2 of Section
9.3.1, it is very likely that a long offshore pipeline will have hydrate formation
conditions with free water present. The engineer then needs to specify the amount of
inhibitor needed to keep the entire pipeline in the fluid region, without hydrate
formation.
Step 1 in this calculation, the flow simulation of the pipeline, is beyond the scope of
this handbook and should be considered as a separate, pre-requisite problem, perhaps
H-0806.35

9-25

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

done by the engineering staff at the home office. As an alternative if a pipe flow
simulation is not readily available, the engineer may wish to assume that contents of a
long offshore pipeline will eventually come to the ocean bottom temperature at the
pipeline pressure.
Step 2, enabling estimations of hydrate formation pressures and temperatures, is one
of the principal goals of this handbook, as discussed in this and in the following
section. The methods below (Sections 9.3.3 and 9.3.4) may then be used directly to
determine the amount of MeOH (methanol) or MEG (monoethylene glycol) needed to
prevent hydrate formation at those conditions.
9.3.3.1

Hydrate Formation Conditions by the Gas Gravity Method.

The simplest method to determine the hydrate formation temperature and pressure is
via gas gravity, defined as the molecular weight of the gas divided by that of air. In
order to use this chart shown in Figure 9.3.3-1, the gas gravity is calculated and the
temperature of a point in the pipeline is specified. The pressure at which hydrates will
form is read directly from the chart at the gas gravity and temperature of the line.
To the left of every line hydrates will form from a gas of that gravity, while for
pressures and temperatures to the right of the line, the system will be hydrate- free.
The following example from the original work by Katz (1945) illustrates chart use.

9.3.3.2

Example 4: Calculating Hydrate Formation Conditions Using the Gas Gravity Chart
Find the pressure at which a gas composed of 92.67 mol% methane, 5.29% ethane,
1.38% propane, 0.182% i- butane, 0.338% n-butane, and 0.14% pentane form hydrates
with free water at a temperature of 50 o F.

H-0806.35

9-26

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

FIGURE 9.3.3-1: HYDRATE FORMATION CURVES FOR VARIOUS GAS GRAVITY (FROM KATZ 1959)

H-0806.35

9-27

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Solution:
The gas gravity is calculated as 0.603 by the procedure below:

COMPONENT

MOL
FRACTION
yI

MOL WT
MW

AVG MOL WT
IN MIX
yI @MW

Methane

0.9267

16.043

14.867

Ethane

0.0529

30.070

1.591

Propane

0.0138

44.097

0.609

i-Butane

0.00182

58.124

0.106

n-Butane

0.00338

58.124

0.196

Pentane

0.0014

72.151

0.101

1.0000

Gas Gravity =

17.470

Mol Wt of Gas 17.470

=
= 0.603
Mol Wt of Air 28.966

At 50 o F , the hydrate pressure is read as 450 psia

The user is cautioned that this method is only approximate for several reasons. Figure
9.3.3-1 was generated for gases containing only hydrocarbons, and so should be used
with caution for those gases with substantial amounts of CO2 , H2 S, or N2 . In addition,
the estimated inaccuracies (Sloan, 1985) for the hydrate equilibrium temperature (Teq)
and pressure (Peq) are maximized for 0.6 gravity gas as 7 o F or 500 psig. In the fifty
years since the generation of this chart, more hydrate data and prediction methods
have caused the gravity method to be used as a first estimate, whose principle asset is
ease of calculation. Section 9.3.4 provides one of the most accurate methods for
calculation of hydrate conditio ns, but it requires some additional time as well as a
computer.
9.3.3.3

Estimating the Hydrate Inhibitor Needed in the Free Water Phase

The above gas gravity chart may be combined with the Hammerschmidt equation to
estimate the hydrate depression temperature for several inhibitors in the aqueous
liquid:

H-0806.35

9-28

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

T =

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

CW
M(100 - W)

(1)

where:
T = hydrate depression, (Teq - Toper) o F,
C =

constant for a particular inhibitor (2,335 for MeOH; 2,000 for MEG)

W = weight per cent of the inhibitor in the liquid, and

M =

molecular weight of MeOH (32) or MEG (62).

The Hammerschmidt equation was generated in 1934 and has been used to
determine the amount of inhibitor needed to prevent hydrate formation, as indicated in
Example 5. The equation was based upon more than 100 natural gas hydrate
measurements with inhibitor concentrations of 5 - 25 wt% in water. The accuracy of
the Hammerschmidt equation is surprisingly good; tested against 75 data points, the
average error in T was 5%.
For higher methanol concentrations ( up to 87 wt%) the temperature depression due to
methanol can be calculated by a modification of Equation (1) by Nielsen and Bucklin
(1983), where xMeOH is mole fraction methanol in aqueous phase
T = 129.6 ln(1 x MeOH )

9.3.3.4

(1a)

Example 5: Methanol Concentration Using the Hammerschmidt Equation.

Estimate the methanol concentration needed to provide hydrate inhibition at 450 psia
and an ocean floor temperature of 39 o F for a gas composed of 92.67 mol% methane,
5.29% ethane, 1.38% propane, 0.182% i-butane, 0.338% n-butane, and 0.14%
pentane.
Solution:
The gas is the same composition and pressure as that in Example 4, with the gas
gravity previously determined to be 0.603 and uninhibited hydrate formation
conditions of 50 o F and 450 psia. Inhibition is required since the pipeline operates at
39 o F and 450 psia, well within the hydrate formation region. The weight percent of
inhibitor needed in water phase is determined via the Hammerschmidt Equation (1),
with the values:
T = Temperature Depression (50 o F - 39 o F = 11 o F),

H-0806.35

9-29

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

M = Molecular Weight for Methanol (= 32)

C = Constant for Methanol (= 2335)
W = Weight Percent Inhibitor
Rearranging in Equation (1)
W =

100 M T
100 32 11
=
= 131
.
M T + C 32 11 + 2335

The methanol in the water phase is predicted as 13.1 wt % to provide hydrate

inhibition at 450 psia and 39 o F for this gas. The engineer may wish to provide an
operational safety factor by the addition of more methanol.
9.3.3.5

Amount of Inhibitor Injected Into Pipeline

While the Hammerschmidt equation enables estimation of the wt% MeOH (or MEG)
needed in the free water phase, three other quantities are necessary to estimate the
amount of inhibitor injected into the pipeline:
1.

the amount of the free water phase,

the amount of inhibitor lost to the gas phase, and

the amount of inhibitor lost to the condensate phase.

The amount of the free water phase is multiplied by the wt% inhibitor from the
Hammerschmidt equation, just as the inhibitor concentrations in the gas and
condensate are multiplied by the flows of the vapor and condensate. Because hydrate
inhibition occurs in the water phase, inhibitor concentrations in the gas and condensate
phases are usually counted as economic losses. Methanol recovery is done only rarely
on platforms and is typically too expensive at onshore locations.
Amount of Water Phase
The water phase has two sources: (a) produced water and (b) water condensed from
the hydrocarbon phases. The amount of produced water can only be determined by
data from the well, with an increasing amount of water production over the wells
lifetime.
Water condensed from the hydrocarbon phases may be calculated. The water content
of condensates is usually negligible, but water condensed from gases can be
H-0806.35

9-30

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

substantial. The amount of water condensed is the difference in the inlet and outlet
gas water contents, multiplied by the gas flow rate.
Rule-of-Thumb 2: For long pipelines approaching the ocean bottom temperature of
39 o F, the lowest water content of the outlet gas is given by the below table:
Pipe Pressure, psia
Water Content, lbm/MMscf

500
15.0

1000
9.0

1500
7.0

2000
5.5

An inlet gas water content analysis is used, if available. Then the water content of the
outlet gas (Rule-of-Thumb 2) may be subtracted from the inlet gas to determine the
water condensed per MMscf of gas. When an inlet gas water content is not available a
water content chart such as Figure 9.3.3-2 may be used to obtain the water content of
both the inlet and outlet gas from the pipeline.
In Figure 9.3.3-2 the temperature of the pipeline inlet or outlet is found on the x-axis
and water content is read on the y-axis at the pipeline pressure, marked on each line in
Figure 9.3.3-2. The engineer is cautioned not to use the water content chart at
temperatures significantly below 38o F. At lower temperatures the actual water content
deviates from the line due to hydrate formation. An illustration of condensed water
calculation using Figure 9.3.1-6 is given in Example 6 (Section 9.3.3.6).

H-0806.35

9-31

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

FIGURE 9.3.3-2: WATER FORMATION CURVE (FROM MC KETTA & WEHE, 1958)

H-0806.35

9-32

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Amount of Inhibitor Lost to the Gas Phase.

The Hammerschmidt equation only provides the amount of methanol needed in the
free water phase at the point of hydrate inhibition, while two other phases represent
potential losses of methanol. The amount of MeOH or MEG loss into the gas phase
should also be considered using the following Rules-of-Thumb.
Rule-of-Thumb 3: At 39 o F and pressures greater than 1000 psia, the maximum
amount of methanol lost to the vapor phase is 1 lbm MeOH/MMscf for every weight
% MeOH in the free water phase.
Rule-of-Thumb 4: At 39 o F and pressures greater than 1000 psia, the maximum
amount of MEG lost to the gas is 0.002 lbm/MMscf.
The methanol loss chart in Figure 9.3.3-3 shows that at typical offshore pipeline
conditions, the amount of methanol in the vapor may be 0.1 mole% of that in the water
phase. Rule-of-Thumb 3 is valid except for low water amounts, when the methanol
vapor loss can be substantially higher and the method of Section 9.3.4.4 should be
used. Figure 9.3.3-4 validates Rule-of-Thumb 4 for MEG. Note that the data for
Figure 9.3.3-1 and Figure 9.3.3-3 were obtained in 1985 for the mole fraction ratio of
inhibitor in the vapor over the aqueous phase; the water phase wt% inhibitor must be
converted to mole % in order to use either chart. Example 6 in Section 9.3.3.6
illustrates methanol loss to the gas phase.
Amount of Inhibitor Lost to the Liquid Phase
Two general Rules-of-Thumb can be applied to inhibitor losses in the condensate.
Rule-of-Thumb 5: Methanol concentration dissolved in condensate is 0.5 wt %.
Rule-of-Thumb 6: The mole fraction of MEG in a liquid hydrocarbon at 39 o F and
pressures greater than 1000 psia is 0.03% of the water phase mole fraction of MEG.
Even with low losses of MEG relative to MeOH in both the gas and the liquid, it is
important to remember that methanol is a much more effective inhibitor than ethylene
glycol on a weight basis. The predominance of methanols use is due to this
effectiveness, together with the fact that methanol easily flows to the point of hydrate
formation.

H-0806.35

9-33

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

FIGURE 9.3.3-3: METHANOL LOST TO VAPOR (FROM SLOAN, 1998)

H-0806.35

9-34

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

FIGURE 9.3.3-4: MONO ETHYLENE GLYCOL LOST TO VAPOR (FROM

TOWNSEND AND REID, 1972)

H-0806.35

9-35

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

9.3.3.6

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Example 6: Methanol Injection Rate

This sample calculation uses all of the concepts presented in Section 9.3.3. A sub-sea
pipeline with the below gas composition has inlet pipeline conditions of 195 o F and
1050 psia. The gas flowing through the pipeline is cooled by the surrounding water to
a temperature of 38 o F. The gas also experiences a pressure drop to 950 psia. Gas
exits the pipeline at a rate of 3.2 MMscf/d. The pipeline produces condensate at a rate
of 25 bbl/day, with an average density of 300 lbm/bbl and an average molecular weight
of 90 lbm/lbmole. Produced free water enters the pipeline at a rate of 0.25 bbl/day.
Natural gas composition (mole %): methane = 71.60%, ethane = 4.73%, propane
=1.94%, n-butane = 0.79%, n-pentane = 0.79%, carbon dioxide = 14.19%, nitrogen =
5.96%.
Find the rate of methanol injection needed to prevent hydrates in the pipeline.
Solution:
Basis: The basis for these calculations was chosen as 1 MMscf/d.
Step 1) Calculate Hydrate Formation Conditions using the Gas Gravity Chart

COMPONENT

MOL
FRACTION
yI

AVG MOL WT
IN MIX
yI @MW

Methane

07160

16.04

11.487

Ethane

0.0194

44.09

0.855

Propane

0.0194

44.09

0.855

n-Butane

0.0079

58.12

0.459

n-Pentane

0.0079

72.15

0.570

Nitrogen

0.0596

28.01

1.670

Carbon Dioxide

0.1419

44.01

6.245

1.0000
Gas Gravity =

H-0806.35

MOL WT

22.708

mol wt gas 22.708

=
= 0.784
mol wt air 28.966

9-36

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Reading the gas gravity chart Figure 9.3.3-1, the hydrate temperature is 65 o F at 1000
psia.
Step 2) Calculate the Wt% MeOH Needed in the Free Water Phase
The Hammerschmidt Equation is: T =

CW
100M - MW

Where:T = Temperature Depression (65 o F - 38 o F = 27 o F),

M = Molecular Weight for Methanol (= 32.0)
C = Constant for Methanol (= 2335)
W = Weight Percent Inhib itor
Rearranging the Hammerschmidt equation
W =

100 M T
100 32 27
=
= 27
M T + C 32 27 + 2335

The weight percent of methanol needed in freewater phase is 27.0% to provide hydrate
inhibition at 1000 psia and 38 o F for this gas.
Step 3) Calculate the Mass of Liquid H2 O/MMscf of Natural Gas
Calculate Mass of Condensed H2 O
In the absence of a water analysis, use the water content chart Figure 9.3.3-2, to
calculate the water in the vapor/MMscf. The inlet gas (at 1050 psia and 195 o F) water
content is read as 600 lb m/MMscf. Rule of Thumb 2 states that exiting gas at 1000
psia and 39 o F contains 9 lb m/MMscf of water in the gas. The mass of liquid water
due to condensation is:
600 lb m _
MMscf

9 lbm
MMscf

= 591 lb m
MMscf

Calculate Mass of Produced H2 O Flowing into the Line

Convert the produced water of 0.25 bbl/day to a basis of lb m/MMscf:

H-0806.35

9-37

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

0.25bblH 2O 42 gal 8.34lbm 1day

day

bbl bbl 3.2MMscf

lb H O
= 27.4 m 2
MMscf

Total Mass of Water/MMscf Gas: Sum the condensed and produced water
591 lb m + 27.4 lb m = 618.4 lb m
MMscf
MMscf
MMscf
Step 4) Calculate the Rate of Methanol Injection
Methanol will exist in three phases: water, gas, and condensate. The total mass of
methanol injected into the gas is calculated as follows:
-Calculate Mass of MeOH in the Water Phase
27.0 wt% methanol is required to inhibit the free water phase, and the mass of
water/MMscf was calculated at 618.4 lb m. The mass of MeOH in the free water phase
per MMscf is:
27wt% =

M lb m MeOH
100%
M lb m MeOH + 618.4lbm H2 O

Solving M = 228.7 lbm MeOH in the water phase

Calculate Mass of MeOH Lost to the Gas
Rule of Thumb 3 states that the ma ximum amount of methanol lost to the vapor phase
is 1 lbm MeOH/MMscf for every wt% MeOH in the water phase. Since there is 27
wt% MeOH in the water, that maximum amount of MeOH lost to the gas is 27
lbm/MMscf.
Calculate the Mass of MeOH Lost to the Condensate
Rule of Thumb #5 states that the methanol concentration in the condensate will be 0.5
wt%. Since a barrel of hydrocarbon weighs about 300 lbm, the amount of methanol in
the condensate will be
0.005 300 lb m/bbl 25 bbl/d 1d/3.2 MMscf = 11.7 lb m/MMscf
Calculate the Total Amount of MeOH/MMscf
MeOH in Water
H-0806.35

= 228.7 lbm/MMscf
9-38

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

MeOH in Gas

= 27 lbm/MMscf

MeOH in Condensate

= 11.7 lbm/MMscf

Total MeOH Injection

= 267.4 lbm/MMscf

(or 40.33 gal/MMscf at a MeOH density of 6.63 lb m/gal)

In the above example, the amount of methanol lost to the gas and condensate is
approximately 11% of the total amount injected. However, with large amounts of
condensate it is not uncommon to have as much as 90% of the injected methanol
dissolved in the condensate (primarily) and gas phases. In such cases, the Rules-ofThumb should be replaced by a more accurate calculation, as shown in Section 9.3.4.
The hand calculation example is provided for understanding of the second
approximation. The method is made much more convenient for the engineer via the
use of the below spreadsheet program.
9.3.3.7

Computer Program for Second Approximation

Shuler (1997) of Chevron provided a computerized version (HYDCALC) of the above
calculation method, which is included with the disk in this handbook. Slightly
different Rules-of-Thumb have been used, but these differences are insignificant, as
shown by a comparison in Section 9.3.3.9 of results of the hand calculation (Example
6) with the computer method (Example 7).
HYDCALC is an IBM-PC compatible spreadsheet that provides an initial estimate of
pipeline methanol injection for hydrate inhibition. To use HYDCALC, obtain access
to a Microsoft Excel - Version 7.0 spreadsheet program and copy HYDCALC into a
hard drive directory. Start Excel - Version 7.0 and open the file HYDCALC.
Once the file is opened, the user will see text in three different colors on a color
screen- black, red, and blue. The red text signifies required User Inputs, composed of
the following eight pieces of information to start the program:

H-0806.35

Pipeline Inlet Pressure - Starting high pressure

Cold Pipeline Pressure - Pressure at the coldest part of the pipeline.

Pipeline Inlet Temperature - Starting warm temperature.

Cold Pipeline Temperature - Temperature at the coldest part of the pipeline.

9-39

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Gas Gravity - Gas gravity, calculated by the steps in Section 9.3.3.1 and Example
4.

Gas Flow Rate - Gas flow in the pipeline measured in MMscf/d.

Condensate Rate - Condensate flow in the pipeline measured in bbl/d.

Formation Water Rate - Produced water flowing into the pipeline (bbl/d).

Once the above values are input, HYDCALC displays calculations for both
Intermediate Results (in black) and the amount of methanol or glycol to be injected (in
blue on a color screen). In the below example, the User Input and Calculations are
both listed in black, due to printing restrictions. A prescription for the use of this
method is shown in Example 7.
9.3.3.8

Example 7. Use of HYDCALC to Find Amount of Methanol and Glycol Injection

This spreadsheet problem is the identical problem worked in Example 6 by hand. A
sub-sea pipeline with the a gas gravity of 0.784 has inlet pipeline conditions of 195 o F
and 1050 psia. The gas flowing through the pipeline is cooled by the surrounding
water to a temperature of 38 o F. The gas also experiences a pressure drop to 950 psia.
Gas exits the pipeline at a rate of 3.2 MMscf/d. The pipeline produces condensate at
a rate of 25 bbl/d, with an average density of 300 lb m/bbl and an average molecular
weight of 90 lbm/lbmole. Produced free water enters the pipeline at a rate of 0.25
bbl/d.
Determine the rate of methanol and glycol injection needed to prevent hydrate
formation in the pipeline.

H-0806.35

9-40

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

FIGURE 9.3.3-5: EXAMPLE 6 CALCULATED BY HYDCALC

H-0806.35

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

Ethane
Propane
n-Butane
Nitrogen
Carbon Dioxide
n-Pentane

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

0.0473
0.0194
0.0079
0.0596
0.1419
0.0079

Enter.
Enter.
Enter.
Enter.
Enter.
Enter.

At the Options screen, input 1 then Enter.

At the screen asking for the required Temperature, input 38, and Enter.

10. Read the hydrate formation pressure of 229.7 psia, (meaning hydrates will form at
any pressure above 230 psia at 38 o F for this gas.)
11. When asked for another calculation input 1 for No then Enter.
12. At the Options screen input 2, then Enter.
13. At the screen asking for the required temperature, input 38, and Enter.
14. At the screen to enter the WEIGHT PERCENT of Methanol, input 22.
15. Read the resulting hydrate condition of 22 wt% MeOH, 38 o F, and 1036 psia.
It may require some trial and error with the use of the program before the correct
amount of MeOH is input to inhibit the system at the temperature and pressure of the
example. One starting place for the trial and error process would be the amount of
MeOH predicted by the Hammerschmidt equation (27 wt%) in Example 6. Ng and
Robinson (1983) measured 20 wt% of methanol in the water required to inhibit
hydrates at 38 o F and 1000 psia. A comparison of the measured value with the
calculated value (22 wt%) in this example and through the Hammerschmidt equation
provides an indication of both the absolute and relative calculation accuracy.
HYDOFF can also be used to predict the uninhibited hydrate formation temperature at
1000 psia at 58.5 o F, through a similar trial and error process, as compared with 65 o F
determined by the gas gravity method. No measurements are available for the
uninhibited formation conditions of the gas in this example.
In using HYDOFF, if components heavier than n-decane (C 10 H22 ) are present, they
should be lumped with n-decane, since they are all non-hydrate formers.

H-0806.35

9-45

1-Dec-00

INTEC ENGINEERING, INC.

9.3.4.3

DEEPSTAR
MULTIPHASE DESIGN GUIDELINE

Conversion of MeOH to MEG Concentration in Water Phase

The concentration of inhibiting monoethylene glycol (MEG) in the water phase can be
determined from methanol (MeOH) concentration using a simple correlation of
inhibitors:
wt% MEG = -1.209+ 2.34(wt% MeOH)- 0.052(wt% MeOH)2 + 0.0008(wt%
MeOH)3
(2)
To use Equation (2), first determine the amount of methanol required using HYDOFF,
as in Example 8. Insert the amount of methanol in Equation (2) to determine the
amount of mono-ethylene glycol needed in water to inhibit hydrates. Equation (2)
should be used for the free water phase only. Example 9 (Section 9.3.4.6) provides a
summary calculation of all the procedures in Section 9.3.4.

9.3.4.4

Solubility of MeOH and MEG in the Gas

Figure 9.3.3-3 is a fit of recent measurements by Ng and Chen (1995) for Kv MeOH
defined as the methanol mole fraction in gas relative to water ( yMeOH/xMeOH in H2O).
Once the mole fraction of methanol in water is determined, it may be multiplied by
KvMeOH to obtain the mole fraction of methanol in the gas. As can be determined by
Figure 9.3.3-3, the solubility in the water is only slightly affected by pressure over the
range from 1000-3000 psia at