BHR Multiphase Conf - Steady-State and Interrupted Production in Deep Water Oil System

Steady-state, and interrupted, production through
a deep water black oil system

T Hill, T Johnson, V Hacala-Nicol
BP Exploration Operating Company,
Sunbury International Centre for Business and Technology, UK

ABSTRACT

Operating information is presented on a deepwater black oil field that has two flowline-
riser systems. The paper primarily concerns one of these systems in which a hydrate
blockage occurred during an abnormal operating condition resulting from sea-water
ingress. This system has three manifolds producing into the flowline-riser, with a
significant low point close to the middle of the >10 km flowline.

As background, steady state information on pressure drop and temperature drop is
presented for one flowrate case in each of the flowline-riser systems, with comparison to
OLGA predictions. Comments are also made on the prevailing flow regime.

The bulk of the paper covers assessment and modelling of liquid distribution in the
flowline-riser system after a process shutdown, and descriptions of the subsequent
attempted re-start, the development of a blockage, and the resultant remediation
activities. Remediation involved use of riser base gas lift to remove liquid from the riser,
and this activity was also modelled using OLGA, with subsequent comparison to the
field data.

NOMENCLATURE

Symbol Description Units
dP Pressure drop between two locations bar
dT Temperature drop between two locations
o
C
d/s Downstream
FR Flowline-riser
FTA Flowline termination assembly
GOR Gas-oil ratio Sm
3
/Sm
3

ID Pipe internal diameter m
ILT In-line tee
OLGA Transient multiphase flow simulator
J-T Joule-Thompson cooling
M1-1 First manifold (closest to host) in first production system
M1-2 Second manifold in first production system
M1-3 Third manifold in first production system
M1-4 Fourth manifold in first production system
M2-1 First manifold (closest to host) in second production system
BHR Group 2010 Multiphase 7 21
M2-2 Second manifold in second production system
M2-3 Third manifold in second production system
P Pressure measurement bar
PT Pressure transmitter location
RB Riser base
RT Riser top
RBGL Riser base gas lift
ROV Remotely operated vehicle
SIV Subsea isolation valve
TEG Tri-ethylene glycol
U Heat transfer coefficient W/m
2
/K
u/s Upstream

1 INTRODUCTION

BP currently produces ~200 MMtonnes/yr (4 MMbbl/d oil equivalent) oil and gas. An
increasing proportion of this production is from deepwater fields, in a variety of
geographical locations. This paper concerns an oil field in more than 1300 m water
depth. Production is through several manifolds into two flowline-riser systems, then into
a host facility that can process 10 MMTonnes/yr (200 Mbbl/d) oil, and the associated
water and gas. Figure 1 shows the primary flowline-riser system discussed in this paper.

Operating data has been collected. Steady-state data is presented for the two systems,
showing flow rates, pressures, and temperatures. Flow regime is shown for one case.

For one of the systems data are also presented on a shutdown condition, showing the
amount and location of liquid in the system immediately after the shutdown. A
description is then given of the re-start of production through the system, followed by
another shutdown because of high-pressure observed at the base of the riser.

M2-1
Manifold
FTA
RBGL
Supply
Well
M2-2
Manifold
Well
M2-3
Manifold
Well
P
Valve Valve Valve
P
P
P P P P
P
P
M2-3
ILT
M2-2
ILT
M2-1
ILT
upper
lower
M2-2
ILT d/ s
M2-2
ILT u/ s
M2-3
ILT d/ s
M2-1
ILT u/ s
P
P P
Riser top
pressure
Riser base
pressures
SIV
P P
M2-1
Manifold
FTA
RBGL
Supply
Well
M2-2
Manifold
Well
M2-3
Manifold
Well
PP
Valve Valve Valve
PP
PP
PP PP PP P
PP
PP
M2-3
ILT
M2-2
ILT
M2-1
ILT
upper
lower
M2-2
ILT d/ s
M2-2
ILT u/ s
M2-3
ILT d/ s
M2-1
ILT u/ s
PP
PP PP
Riser top
pressure
Riser base
pressures
SIV
PP PP
Location Line length and elevation change
M2-3 M2-2 2.25 km and -15 m
M2-2 M2-1 3.87 km and -24 m
M2-1 RB 6.07 km and +106 m
Riser 1.56 km and +1342 m
Water depth
Riser base upper PT @ -1285m
Riser base lower PT @ -1305m
Riser top PT @ +32m

Figure 1 - Typical flowline - riser configuration
22 BHR Group 2010 Multiphase 7
The subsequent investigation of the cause of this high-pressure revealed that there had
been some seawater ingress through an incorrectly installed clamp covering a vent port
on a future tie-in slot, during a time period in which the umbilical core pressure was not
maintained above ambient seawater pressure. The mixing of production fluids with cold
seawater resulted in the formation of hydrates, which on subsequent shutdown resulted in
a pressure retaining blockage in the production flowline believed to be due to a high
viscosity mixture of hydrates, oil, seawater and emulsion.

2 INFORMATION ON FLUIDS

2.1 Crude oil and associated gas
The crude oil is 0.865 specific gravity (32 API), with 125-170 Sm
3
/Sm
3
GOR and an oil
viscosity of 30 cP at 15C. Reservoir temperatures are in the range 75-95C.

Typical flowline inlet pressure during normal operation is 60-100 bar, with inlet
temperatures of 65-85C, giving a solution GOR in the range 50-90 Sm
3
/Sm
3
.

2.2 Produced water
The produced water has a chloride content of 80-115,000 mg/l. The highest well water
cut during the operations described in this paper was 11 %.

2.3 Hydrate formation
The oil and associated gas have a tendency to form hydrates with the produced water.
The hydrate dissociation pressure at the seabed temperature of 4C is approximately 13.5
bar, compared to a design separator pressure of 30 bar. This dissociation pressure was
predicted using sea water, and is therefore conservative for normal operation.

An assessment of industry hydrate experience led to an assertion that for water cut less
than 5% there is a very low likelihood of flowline blockage even if hydrates do form.

3 INFORMATION ON THE FLOWLINE-RISER SYSTEMS

The flowline internal diameter is 283
mm. At the FTA linking the end of
each flowline and its respective riser
there is an ROV operated SIV (see
Figure 1).

3.1 Riser configuration
Water depth at the deepest pressure
sensor in the riser is at 1305 m. The
risers comprise a rigid, near vertical
section from the swan neck at the
base up to 80m water depth. After
two rigid bends there is a flexible
riser, to accommodate host motion,
leading to a rigid spool piece which
runs up to 32 m above sea level to the
riser top boarding valve on the host
facility. A diagram of the riser
-1400
-1200
-1000
-800
-600
-400
-200
0
0 50 100 150 200
Horizontal length (m)
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)

Figure 2 - Details of riser configuration
configuration is shown in Figure 2. For an oil-filled riser the static dP between riser top
and bottom pressure gauges is 105-110 bar.

3.2 Flowline - riser 1
The FR 1 system has a 23 km flowline. Production into the system is from four
manifolds located at 0 km (M1-4), 3.5 km (M1-3), 8.5 km (M1-2) and 17.2 km (M1-1)
from the upstream end. In terms of inclination, the flowline has three major sections, a
virtually flat section between M1-4 and M1-3, an uphill section (0.15 degrees) from M1-
3 to a high point downstream of M1-2 and a downhill section (0.75 degrees) from that
high point to the riser base. An OLGA model of this system was developed using
detailed topography from a seabed survey, and the riser description summarised above.

3.3 Flowline - riser 2
The FR 2 system has a flowline of ~12 km total length, in two sections, with a change of
inclination half way along. The first section, ~6 km, slopes 0.36
o
downhill. The second
section also ~6 km long, slopes 1
o
uphill to the riser base. At the low point, the flowline
is ~100 m below the riser base (8.0-8.5 bar dP if oil filled). Flow into the system is from
three manifolds located at 0 km (M2-3), 2.2 km (M2-2) and 6 km (M2-1) from the
upstream end. An OLGA model was similarly developed for this flowline - riser.

3.4 Instrumentation
The instrumentation available on each flowline - riser system is as follows:
pressures and temperatures at wellheads and on manifolds
multiphase flowmeter in test header on each manifold
pressures and temperatures along flowline at each manifold ILT
pressures and temperatures at riser base below and above gas injection wye
pressures and temperatures on host facility at riser top and in slug-catcher

Production flow rates are also available from the reconciled production allocation
system, given the choke settings of the various wells lined up to production.

3.5 Hydrate prevention
The main method for prevention of hydrate formation is wet insulation. Flowlines have
a design U= 2.5 W/m
2
/K (based on pipe ID), and risers U= 3.4 W/m
2
/K. This insulation
easily keeps flowing fluids above hydrate formation temperature over the design ranges
of production rates, flowing pressures and temperatures. Flowline design cool down
time is 12 hours minimum from 45C to 20C. If a shutdown is likely to exceed the cool
down time, then each system is displaced with dead crude from host storage tanks at a
flowing velocity sufficient to remove any accumulated water.

Methanol injection is available to protect wellhead jumpers, manifold pipe work, and
connection from manifold into flowline, which have a design cool down time of 6 hours
from 65C to 20C. Neither methanol injection nor flowline displacement is undertaken
whilst the water cut in the respective flowline - riser system is less than 5%.

4 STEADY-STATE OPERATIONS

4.1 Operating data for flowline - riser 1
This section describes a steady state operating condition in the flowline - riser 1 system.

The combined production from all the flowing wells was about 12,000 Sm
3
/d oil. Table
1 shows the flow through each of the manifolds. Measured pressure drop through the
system was 65.2 bar from manifold M1-1 to riser top, and a further 17.1 bar from
manifold M1-1 to manifold M1-4. Temperatures were 70C downstream of manifold
M1-1 ILT, and 58.8C at riser top. Under the above conditions, the riser base pressure
transmitter indicated fluctuations of 2.5 bar.

4.2 Flow regime for flowline - riser 1
Figure 3 shows riser base pressure, and dP between riser base gauges. The dP variations
(0.3 bar over 20m) are somewhat less than the gas only / liquid only extremes of slug
flow (dP would move between ~0-1.5 bar), so the flow is more homogeneous. However,
as the gas expands up the riser there seems to be sufficient coalescence to generate larger
gas pockets leading to the greater variations in absolute pressure at the riser base.
Superficial gas and liquid velocities at riser base are ~2 and 3 m/s respectively, which is
consistent with dispersed bubble flow, but close to the transition to slug flow.

83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
Time (hours)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
b
a
r
a
)
0.75
1
1.25
1.5
1.75
2
2.25
2.5
2.75
3
3.25
d
P

L
o
w
e
r

-

U
p
p
e
r

r
i
s
e
r

b
a
s
e

P
I

(
b
a
r
)
Operating data riser base P
DP Lower - Upper Riser Base PI

Figure 3 - Riser base pressure, and riser base dP between gauges, vs time

4.3 OLGA predictions for flowline - riser 1
For the section from M1-1 to riser top, OLGA predicted 66.7 bar dP and 11.6C dT, and
a further 17.7 bar dP and 16.7C dT between M1-4 and M1-1. OLGA steady state dP
and dT predictions are an excellent match (within 4%) to the operating data. Figure 4
shows the steady state pressure and temperature profiles predicted by OLGA. The
output from the PT gauges along the flowline at the manifold ILTs, production riser base
and riser top are super-imposed onto the predictions for comparison purposes.
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
120
130
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000 22000 24000 26000
Pipeline length from M1-4 (m)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
b
a
r
a
)

/

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
C
)
OLGA Pressure
Operating pressure data points
OLGA Temperature
Operating temperature data points
M1-4
M1-3
M1-2
M1-1

Figure 4 - Flowline riser 1 measured pressure and temperature profiles vs OLGA

4.4 Operating data for flowline - riser 2
Combined production from the flowing wells was about 10,000 Sm
3
/d oil, 2,000 SMm
3
/d
gas, and 300 Sm
3
/d water. Table 1 shows the flow from each manifold. Measured dP
through the system (Figure 5) was 65.4 bar from M2-1 to riser top, and a further 2.3 bar
between M2-3 and M2-1. The wellhead flowing temperatures were 69-79C.
Temperatures were 70.4C at manifold M2-1 downstream ILT, and 56.6C at riser top.

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
110
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000
Flowline - Riser 2 - Pipeline length from M2-3 (m)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
b
a
r
a
)

/

T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e

(
d
e
g
C
)
OLGA Pressure
Operating Pressure data points
OLGA Temperature
Operating Temperature data points
M2-3
M2-2 M2-1
Figure 5 - Flowline riser 2 measured pressure and temperature profiles vs OLGA

4.5 OLGA predictions for flowline - riser 2
For the flowline section from M2-1 to riser top, OLGA predicted 59.2 bar dP, and 14C
dT and a further 2.4 bar dP and 3.9C dT between M2-3 and M2-1, as shown in Figure 5.
OLGA steady state dP and dT predictions are in reasonable agreement (within 13%) with
the reported operating data. The output from the pressure and temperature gauges along
the flowline at the manifold ILTs, production riser base and riser top are super-imposed
onto the predictions for comparison purposes.
5 SHUT-DOWN OF FLOWLINE - RISER 2

After a steady-state period similar to that described above (oil rate ~8,700 Sm
3
/d), this
system was shut down. During the initial period of shutdown, the riser top flow path into
the slug-catcher remained open, and the system de-pressurised normally through the
process to a riser top pressure of 28 bar. This depressurisation happened relatively
quickly, compared to the subsequent longer timescale cooling, and some liquid would
have been carried out of the system. A day later, pressures at M2-1 and riser base were
tending to equilibrium. Figure 6 shows the pressures at riser top, riser base, and at M2-1.

Pressure plots for riser top, riser base, S4
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
31-Dec
15:00
31-Dec
21:00
01-Jan
03:00
01-Jan
09:00
01-Jan
15:00
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
b
a
r
a
)
M2-1
RB
RT
Shutdown
Cooldown
Steady state
Normal depressuring
Day 1 Day 2 Day 2 Day 1 Day 2
M2-1 Pressure plots for riser top, riser base, S4
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
31-Dec
15:00
31-Dec
21:00
01-Jan
03:00
01-Jan
09:00
01-Jan
15:00
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
b
a
r
a
)
M2-1
RB
RT
Shutdown
Cooldown
Steady state
Normal depressuring
M2-1
Riser and flowline dPs
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
31-Dec
15:00
31-Dec
21:00
01-Jan
03:00
01-Jan
09:00
01-Jan
15:00
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,

b
a
r
RT-RB
RB-M2-1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
31-Dec
15:00
31-Dec
21:00
01-Jan
03:00
01-Jan
09:00
01-Jan
15:00
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,

b
a
r
RT-RB
RB-M2-1
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
31-Dec
15:00
31-Dec
21:00
01-Jan
03:00
01-Jan
09:00
01-Jan
15:00
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,

b
a
r
RT-RB
RB-M2-1
Pressure drop over flowline -
RB-S4, S4-S3, and S3-S2
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
31-Dec
15:00
31-Dec
21:00
01-Jan
03:00
01-Jan
09:00
01-Jan
15:00
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,

b
a
r
RB-M2-1
M2-3M2-2
M2-2M2-1
RB M2-1 M2-2 M2-3
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
31-Dec
15:00
31-Dec
21:00
01-Jan
03:00
01-Jan
09:00
01-Jan
15:00
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,

b
a
r
RB-M2-1
M2-3M2-2
M2-2M2-1
-1
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
31-Dec
15:00
31-Dec
21:00
01-Jan
03:00
01-Jan
09:00
01-Jan
15:00
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,

b
a
r
RB-M2-1
M2-3M2-2
M2-2M2-1
RB M2-1 M2-2 M2-3

Figure 6 - Pressures, and dPs across riser and flowline sections

5.1 Measured static pressure drop and inferred liquid volume
Given measured dP after cooldown for M2-1 to riser base (4.3 bar), the dP for M2-3 to
M2-1 (0 bar), oil density, and flowline elevation profile, the volume of oil in the line was
estimated (N.B. M2-1 PT is 5 m above the low point, giving a small manometer effect).

Riser base to low point near M2-1 3.4 km, 210 m
3

Low point to M2-1 PT up to 0.5 km, 30 m
3

M2-1- M2-3 0 km, 0 m
3

Total oil volume 3.9 km, 240 m
3

5.2 Calculated liquid hold-up
OLGA was used to simulate the shutdown and subsequent depressurisation, including
removal/drainage of liquid and cooling of gas. The simulated resultant liquid
distribution is shown in Figure 7, corresponding to total liquid volume of 4.3 km, 275
m
3
. The OLGA-predicted liquid accumulation in the flowline upon shutdown is in
reasonable agreement with the reported operating data.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
Flowline-riser 2 length from S2 to RB (m)
L
i
q
u
i
d

h
o
l
d
u
p

(
-
)
-1420
-1400
-1380
-1360
-1340
-1320
-1300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
shutdown liquid holdup Topography
S3
S2
S4
R
221 m3
oil in low
point - RB 54 m3 oil
in low
point - S3
Depth of M2-1 PT
Potential
manometer
effect between
these points
M2-2
M2-3
M2-1
RB
M2-3 to RB (m)
M2-2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
L
i
q
u
i
d

h
o
l
d
u
p

(
-
)
-1420
-1400
-1380
-1360
-1340
-1320
-1300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
S3
S2
S4
R
221 m3
oil in low
in low
point - S3
Depth of M2-1 PT
Potential
manometer
effect between
these points
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000
L
i
q
u
i
d

h
o
l
d
u
p

(
-
)
-1420
-1400
-1380
-1360
-1340
-1320
-1300
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
S3
S2
S4
R
221 m3
oil in low
in low
point - S3
Depth of M2-1 PT
Potential
manometer
effect between
these points
M2-2
M2-3
M2-1
RB
M2-3 to RB (m)
M2-2

Figure 7 - OLGA flowline-riser 2 shutdown holdup plot

6 RE-START OF FLOWLINE - RISER 2

6.1 Lining up for production re-start
After a week of being shut in, this flowline-riser system was prepared for re-start. As
previously mentioned, during the early stages of the period of shutdown, the riser top
boarding valve was open. Midway through the shutdown period there was a topsides
process trip which caused closure of the boarding valve, which then remained closed for
the remainder of the shutdown period until opened again immediately prior to re-start.
The SIV and all flowline valves upstream remained open throughout.

6.2 Commencement of production
Production was re-started with flow from wells at M2-3, M2-1, and then M2-2 (which
had the only water producer) manifolds. Detailed pressure measurements are shown in
Figure 8. The riser base pressure began to rise as production was re-started, increasing
from 55 bar to a plateau of 140 bar. The plateau corresponds to an oil-filled riser (as per
section 3). This plateau value of pressure had been previously observed in the flowline-
riser 1 system, which slopes down to the base of the riser, but not in this system.

Pressure plots for riser top, riser base, and S4
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
07-Jan 00:00 07-Jan 01:00 07-Jan 02:00 07-Jan 03:00 07-Jan 04:00
Timeline
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
b
a
r
a
)
M2-1
RB
RT
Shutdown
Production restart
Riser top valve opened
Gas-oil interface
through flexible riser
Gas-oil interface
reaches top of riser
Oil-water interface
enters bottom of riser
Gas-oil interface
moving up riser
Oil produced from riser top
M2-1 Pressure plots for riser top, riser base, and S4
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
07-Jan 00:00 07-Jan 01:00 07-Jan 02:00 07-Jan 03:00 07-Jan 04:00
Timeline
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
b
a
r
a
)
M2-1
RB
RT
Shutdown
Production restart
Riser top valve opened
Gas-oil interface
through flexible riser
Gas-oil interface
reaches top of riser
Oil-water interface
enters bottom of riser
Gas-oil interface
moving up riser
Oil produced from riser top
M2-1

Figure 8 - Riser base, M2-1 and slugcatcher pressures through production re-start
After about 30 minutes at this pressure, the riser base pressure began to increase further.
This was noticed by the operators, who were rightly concerned, and they shut this
flowline-riser 2 system back down, as they interpreted the increase in riser base pressure
as evidence of a developing blockage in the riser.

6.3 Actions taken on subsequent decision to shut-down
Once shut down, the SIV was closed in order to isolate the riser from the flowline. This
was also the correct course of action - given the view that the cause of the pressure
increase was a developing blockage in the riser - thus isolating the riser from any
upstream pressure source - thereby greatly reducing the potential for accelerating any
dislodged blockage material towards the host facility.

An investigation team was then set up to determine the cause of the final pressure
increase and to recommend the remediation steps required.

7 ANALYSIS OF CAUSE OF HIGH RISER BASE PRESSURE

Pressure measurements were then collated for the riser top, riser base, and each manifold
from before the original shutdown right through until after the aborted re-start (Figure 9).
The analysis was helped by the ability to separate the dP across the riser and the dP
across the flowline, which was possible because of the riser base pressure measurements.

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
31-Dec 01-Jan 02-Jan 03-Jan 04-Jan 05-Jan 06-Jan 07-Jan 08-Ja
Timeline
S4
RB
RT
Steady
state
Shutdown
Riser top valve
closed
Shutdown
Start of liquid
ingress
Flowline full, riser
filling
Production restart
Riser top valve
opened
Cool down
M2-1
M2-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(days)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Timeline
S4
RB
RT
Steady
state
Shutdown
Riser top valve
closed
Shutdown
Start of liquid
ingress
filling
Production restart
Riser top valve
opened
Cool down
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Timeline
S4
RB
RT
Steady
state
Shutdown
Riser top valve
closed
Shutdown
Start of liquid
ingress
filling
Production restart
Riser top valve
opened
Cool down
M2-1
M2-1
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(days)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
(days)

Figure 9 - M2-1, riser base and riser top pressures through whole period

7.1 Absolute pressure in the system
In previous shutdowns, the pressure after cool down was constant until the next re-start.
However, in this case it can be seen on Figure 9 that the pressure at M2-1 began to rise
shortly after the cool down condition was reached. It continued to rise slowly for three
days, and then at an increased rate. This change of pressure gradient was found to be
coincident with the shutting of the riser top boarding valve previously mentioned. This
new rate of pressure rise continued until the sudden drop in pressure coinciding with the
opening of the riser top boarding valve in preparation for re-start. Given that this system
was shut down, the unexpected increase in pressure was not noticed by the operators.

P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

(
b
a
r
a
)

Pressure drop over flowline - RB-S4, S4-S3, and S3-S2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,

b
a
r
dP required to drive
production through
M2-1M2-2 on restart
M2-1M2-2 starts filling
M2-1M2-2 full
Rapid drop of dP on shutdown
RB-S4
M2-2M2-3
M2-2M2-3
M2-1M2-2
RB-M2-1 starts filling
RB-M2-1 full
Production start-up
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Timeline (days)
RB M2-1 M2-2 M2-3
M2-1M2-2
Pressure drop over flowline - RB-S4, S4-S3, and S3-S2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,

b
a
r
dP required to drive
production through
M2-1M2-2 on restart
M2-1M2-2 full
RB-S4
M2-2M2-3
M2-2M2-3
M2-1M2-2
RB-M2-1 starts filling
RB-M2-1 full
Production start-up
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Timeline (days)
RB M2-1 M2-2 M2-3
M2-1M2-2

Figure 10 - dP across flowline sections RB-M2-1, M2-2-M2-1 and M2-3-M2-2

7.2 Pressure drop over flowline
The plot of dP from M2-1 to the riser base is shown in Figure 10. Given that there is no
flow, this dP equates to a head of liquid, indicating the liquid left in the low point of the
system after the shutdown, as previously mentioned. It then shows the steady increase in
liquid head for the time when the riser top boarding valve was open, and then a reduced
rate of increase once that valve was closed late on day 6. This is followed by a period of
almost constant dP (9.5-10 bar) over the flowline, consistent with the flowline being full
of liquid, much of which was denser than oil. Production then re-started, with an
increase in flowline dP up to 14 bar as the rates increased, then returning to 10 bar on
shut down.

The dP plots for M2-1-M2-2 and M2-2-M2-3 show that after the shutdown there is no
liquid in these sections. As liquid filling occurs the upstream gas is compressed and
liquid moves towards M2-3, eventually passing M2-2 and filling ~4 km upstream of M2-
1 before re-start.
Riser and flowline dPs using RB lower gauge
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,

b
a
r
Previously observed cooldown effect
Riser top valve is closed
Gas bubbling through liquid in riser
Flowline full, and
liquid starts up riser
Production start-up
riser dP is ~20 bar
Flowline filling
Riser liquid displacement
around flexible
Production start-up
Shutdown
RISER
FLOWLINE RB-S4
Timeline (days)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
M2-1
Flowline dP after
shutdown no
blockage
Riser and flowline dPs using RB lower gauge
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
,

b
a
r
Previously observed cooldown effect
Riser top valve is closed
Gas bubbling through liquid in riser
Flowline full, and
liquid starts up riser
Production start-up
riser dP is ~20 bar
Flowline filling
Riser liquid displacement
around flexible
Production start-up
Shutdown
RISER
FLOWLINE RB-S4
Timeline (days)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
M2-1
Flowline dP after
shutdown no
blockage

Figure 11 - dP across riser (also showing dP across flowline section RB-M2-1)

7.3 Pressure drop over riser
Figure 11 shows the dP over the riser. On initial shutdown the pressure dropped rapidly
at first, and then slowly for an additional 12 hours. Once flow had stopped, this dP gives
an indication of the liquid column remaining in the riser. After cool down a pressure
increase is observed to 8.5 bar, followed by a slower rate of increase. There was a slight
increase in the rate of pressure increase after the closure of the riser top boarding valve.
This was followed by a period of rapid pressure increase over the riser starting late day 6
(the two drops in dP are due to brief valve openings on the M2-3 manifold). The riser
top boarding valve was opened and production re-started (early day 8), with a fairly
rapid increase in riser dP up to a steady level of 140 bar (Figure 8). This was maintained
for 30 minutes until the further dP increase up to 159 bar, and the second shutdown.
Riser base pressure stayed at 159-160 bar after this shutdown, and through SIV closure.

7.4 Interpretation of pressure drop information
On the first shut down there was a rapid reduction in pressure as expected, with the
flowline depressurising down to 40 bar at M2-1 (riser top open to 28 bar) and some oil
leaving from the riser top. Most of the remaining oil drained out of the riser into the
flowline. Some oil was trapped in the low point of the flexible riser, and some above a
low point in the swan neck at the riser base. As the gas upstream in the flowline cooled
to equilibrium with the external sea water (4C) it contracted, and some of this oil moved
back into the flowline. This gave a further reduction in M2-1 pressure down to 35 bar,
and reduced the riser dP to the lowest value. The gas-oil interface was some 3.4 km
downstream from the low point near M2-1, as previously described.

Soon after this equilibration, significant amounts of additional liquid began to enter the
system. As this additional liquid entered the flowline, it displaced gas downstream and
into the riser. This gas bubbled through the oil at the riser base and added to the gas
volume in the riser. This displaced the oil trapped in the low point of the flexible riser
forward such that there was a manometer effect, with the downstream leg of the flexible
riser holding more oil than the upstream, registering as an increase in riser dP to 8.5 bar.
Some gas was thereby also displaced out of the riser top. Eventually the oil here was
displaced sufficiently for gas to bubble up continuously through the downstream leg and
on out of the top of the riser at roughly constant pressure.

Then after the closure of the riser top boarding valve, liquid continued to enter the
system, thereby compressing the remaining gas. The gas compression resulted in an
increased rate of system pressurisation, but a slower rate of liquid entry. This process
continued until the M2-1 to RB flowline section was filled with liquid (with M2-1 to
M2-3 part filled), at which point the riser began to fill, thereby generating an increase in
pressure drop across the riser up to ~20 bar (corresponding to the gas-oil interface
reaching ~250 m up the riser). When production re-started this interface was pushed
more quickly up the riser, generating increasing back pressure due to the increasing
liquid head. The flowline remained essentially full of liquid until the second shutdown.

7.5 Partial displacement of riser contents
In parallel with the work on the pressure data, a procedure was developed and carried out
to inject methanol into the base of the riser through existing connections into the RBGL
system. This addition of liquid was intended to displace existing liquid out of the top of
the riser to allow sampling and testing in order to determine the nature of the fluids in the
riser. About 150 m at the top of the riser was found to contain oil, with the rest of the
riser being filled with seawater.

7.6 Identification of source of seawater ingress, and movement of seawater
From the pressure data, the liquid ingress rate was estimated as 2-3 m
3
/hr. Using the
flexibility of the overall subsea system valving, it was possible to isolate sub-sections of
the flowline to watch for pressure change, and then either depressurise slightly, or re-
pressurise (by addition of methanol). A sub-section was found in which the pressure
would rise up to the external seawater head. Eventually a small seawater flow path was
identified, through an incorrectly installed clamp covering a vent port on a future tie in
slot on one of the manifolds. Records had documented a difficulty during assembly.
The ingress was then possible through this flow path because the connected umbilical
core pressure for a time had not been maintained above ambient seawater pressure.

On initial entry into the flowline, this seawater had 3.4 km of oil above it in the flowline
section towards the riser, and a small amount of oil (up to 0.5 km) above it in the section
towards M2-2. As the water continued to flow in, the oil-water interfaces moved
towards the riser base and M2-2 respectively.

7.7 Cause of high riser base pressure
On the re-start of production after the extended shutdown, roughly 3.2 km of oil was
present in the flowline leading up to the riser base, with oil already ~0.2 km up the riser.
The remainder of this 6 km flowline section contained seawater (2.9 km). As production
re-started the oil was pushed up the riser, eventually completely filling the riser, leading
to the riser base pressure of 140 bar, and then producing oil into the process plant. The
oil-water interface, initially some 3.2 km back in the flowline, was pushed towards the
riser base, taking some 90 minutes to arrive.

When the oil-water interface reached the riser base, seawater began to enter the riser.
Given the higher density of seawater compared to the oil, the overall liquid head in the
riser started to increase. For a riser completely full of seawater, the dP would be ~130
bar. Given that the operators shut down the system when the riser base pressure was 159
bar (a dP of 127 bar), this is consistent with the findings of the displacement of riser
contents, that the oil - water interface had reached to ~150 m from the top of the riser.
The oil-water interface had therefore moved some 4.5 km during the re-start.

7.8 Established sequence of events
In summary, the established sequence of events is as follows:
flowline-riser 2 was shut down, with depressuring of riser top to 28 bar
~4 km of crude oil collected in flowline, with a gas pocket trapped upstream
seawater slowly entered the subsea system, filling many kilometres of
flowline
at production re-start the gas-oil interface was some 0.2 km up from the base of
the riser, and the oil - water interface some 3.2 km back down the flowline
production was re-started, moving these interfaces forward
the gas-oil interface reached the process, and oil began to be produced
the riser was full of oil until the oil-water interface reached the base of the riser
some 90 minutes after production re-start
the oil-water interface progressed up the riser, increasing the riser base
pressure, followed by operator initiated shutdown that happened to be when the
oil - water interface was only 150 m from the top of the riser


8 PREPARATION FOR RE-OPENING OF SIV

Given the understanding developed above, there was a very high degree of confidence
that the riser was not affected by any sort of blockage, and so plans for reopening the
SIV and then re-starting production again could be made.

8.1 Investigation of possible trapped gas volume in flowline
Just after the second shutdown, the dP between the riser base and M2-1 was ~10 bar,
consistent with being essentially liquid filled, with a high proportion of water. However,
given the uncertainty as to the proportions of oil and water in that section of the flowline,
and uncertainties in the movement of gas after the production re-start, it was not possible
to state categorically that the line contained no gas. This left the potential for there to be
a gas pocket trapped upstream of the SIV. The length of any such gas pocket could have
been in the order of a few tens of metres, given the uncertainties because the riser base
pressure measurements were downstream of the SIV.

If there was any gas trapped upstream of the SIV, it would be at or close to the flowline
pressure at the time of shutdown (159 bar). This led to two possible issues on opening
the SIV, as a function of the position of the riser top boarding valve.

8.2 Potential for hydrate formation on opening SIV
Given that the riser was almost full of seawater at the time of the second shutdown, it
was very likely that on opening the SIV any gas pocket would mix with the seawater and
form hydrate. Two measures were taken to protect the riser against this. Firstly,
additional methanol was injected into the riser base via the gas lift system to inhibit the
seawater (although uncertainties in mixing, and the possibility of some bypassing, were
noted). Secondly, in order to protect the length of riser under the point of entry of the
gas lift system down to the SIV, a sufficient volume of TEG was injected to displace that
volume. Two injection locations were utilised - firstly, through the gas lift system
chemical supply line previously used for methanol, and secondly through a 50mm drain
valve immediately downstream of the SIV that was accessed by ROV.

8.3 Potential for high pressure gas movement on opening SIV
If the riser top valve remained shut, then on opening the SIV any gas pocket would
proceed up the riser but be constrained to constant volume. The pressure of this volume
on arrival at the riser top would therefore still have been ~160 bar, and in turn the
pressure at the riser base would then have been ~290 bar (but well within the maximum
operating pressure). This high gas pressure would have required careful depressurisation
and variations from the normal topsides operating procedures, given the significant J-T
cooling from this pressure.

If the riser top valve was left open, then on opening the SIV the gas would have moved
up the riser, expanding (because of the decreasing liquid head above it) to slug-catcher
pressure, and could have generated a substantial liquid and gas surge into the process.

The latter option was selected, but with the mitigation measure of setting the riser top
valve partially open in order to throttle back any liquid production. This was backed up
by OLGA simulations of movement of a potential gas pocket sitting upstream of the SIV,
looking at a conservative gas pocket size.

9 ANALYSIS OF SYSTEM STATUS AFTER SECOND SHUTDOWN

In order to complete the understanding of the status of the system after the second
shutdown, it was necessary to attempt to reconcile the amount of production of oil and
gas into the system between the re-start and the second shutdown with the gas-oil and
oil-water interface movements. This was by nature a qualitative effort with a number of
uncertainties to be taken into account. All numbers are indicative only.

9.1 Upstream gas volume in flowline
On the original shutdown with oil at the low point in the flowline, there was a gas
volume (~5.5 km) trapped upstream from M2-1 to M2-3, at a lowest pressure of 35 bar.
As the seawater entered and the pressure rose (reaching ~70 bar just prior to opening the
riser top boarding valve and production re-start) this gas volume was compressed to ~2
km (accounting for compressibility, but assuming no gas went back into solution, given
the lack of mixing). With 0.5 km of oil already present, 3.5 km of water had been added.

As production re-started, and oil was pushed up the riser, the back pressure on this gas
mass increased to ~160 bar, further reducing its length to ~1 km. Additional gas and oil
(see next section) were also being added at M2-3, M2-1, and M2-2. Production from
M2-3 was into the gas filled region, and from M2-1 into seawater filled flowline.

9.2 Reconciliation of production data with measured fluid volume available
Given previous calibration of choke settings to production rates, estimates were made
(Table 2) of the fluids added at M2-1, M2-2, and M2-3 after the re-start. Given the
combination of pressure changes and gas added (~1 km), the upstream gas bubble length
on second shutdown was estimated as ~2 km (again assuming no gas produced goes back
into solution on cooling). The oil added at M2-2 / M2-3 occupied 1.8 km, and at M2-1
2.5 km, and the gas at M2-1 ~1.2 km. Total fluids added would have occupied ~6.5 km.

The volume available to contain the production was estimated from the distance the
downstream oil-water interface moved (~4.5 km, section 7.7), combined with the volume
available due to the compression of the original trapped gas from 70 to 160 bar (~1 km).
Given the fluid mass added and the pressure and temperature conditions prevailing in the
flowline it became clear that the total gas and oil volumes produced were greater than
that apparently available by approximately the volume of gas produced at M2-1.

As mentioned in the preceding section, the production fluids at M2-1 flowed into a
seawater filled line, with almost 2 km of seawater passing M2-1 during their production.
Given the high pressure and low temperature of the seawater, it is virtually certain that
all of the gas produced into the system at M2-1 would have formed hydrate, thereby
occupying virtually the same volume as the water converted. This is supported by the
rough reconciliation of the production volumes with the available space in the flowline.

9.3 Final understanding of fluid locations prior to re-opening SIV
During the analysis to determine the nature and location of the fluid ingress, a number of
further changes to system inventory and pressures were made. There were two small
depressurisations of gas at M2-3, and several additions of methanol (used to assess and
confirm the remaining gas volume by observation of the pressure increase due to
addition of a known volume of liquid).

10 RE-OPENING OF SIV

10.1 Pressure conditions prior to the re-opening
At this time the pressure at the riser base was 130 bar, and near the flowline low point at
M2-1, 160 bar. For a liquid filled flowline (as inferred from the line condition just after
the second shutdown, and subsequent methanol additions) this would imply a pressure of
~150 bar immediately upstream of the SIV. The expected pressure differential across the
SIV was therefore 20 bar. With the riser top boarding valve closed, the opening of the
SIV was expected to result in a measurable pressure increase at the riser top.

10.2 Effect of re-opening the SIV
However, on reopening the SIV there was no change to the riser top, riser base or M2-1
pressure measurements. There was now a pressure retaining blockage in the flowline
somewhere between M2-1 and the riser base.

10.3 Assessment of fluid/blockage conditions in the flowline
Given that the system was flowing, without excessive frictional pressure drop, prior to
the second shutdown, there was no discernible blockage at that time. During the weeks
between that shutdown and the reopening of the SIV, the mixture (some 3-4 km in
length) of hydrate, oil, and seawater (and possibly emulsion), resulting from the
production of fluids at M2-1 into seawater, had formed a pressure retaining blockage.

11 REMEDIATION ACTIVITIES

11.1 Assessment of depressurisation options
Given the high likelihood of the presence of hydrates in the blockage, several
depressurisation options were investigated. The starting point was for depressurisation at
both ends of the flowline, as per standard practice with hydrate blockages to avoid the
risk of sudden and rapid movement of the blockage constituents.

Riser base gas lift was available to lift liquid out of the riser to depressure the
downstream end of the flowline. The upstream end of the flowline could be
depressurised either back to the host, or to a vessel through a work over riser at M2-1.

The option of single-ended flowline depressuring by gas lifting liquid out of the riser was
also considered. This became the primary option as it was possible to isolate the
flowline at M2-1, with the section from M2-1 to the riser base largely free of gas, as per
discussions earlier in the paper. Therefore in the event of blockage release there was no
driving force, due to the absence of upstream pressurised gas in that section.

11.2 Detailed consideration of single-ended flowline depressurisation
This option was worked extensively, given the potential for some small gas pockets to be
in the line. Calculations were done to estimate possible fluid movements for various gas
pocket locations and sizes. Even for a blockage close to the riser base, with a gas pocket
immediately upstream, there was a known minimum length of 150 m of liquid between
the SIV and the gas lift injection wye that would be ahead of any moving hydrate plug.
The mass of this liquid was sufficient to limit any possible acceleration. The conclusion
was that this option, in this particular set of circumstances, was acceptable.

11.3 Using riser base gas lift to depressure the flowline
A procedure was developed to use cycles of gas flow rates to lift the seawater/methanol
mixture out of the riser. The first rate would be applied through to a steady state riser
base pressure and then shut off, allowing any residual liquid in the riser to settle out.
Then the second rate would be applied, shut off, and then finally the third cycle would be
carried out. OLGA modelling carried out prior to the procedure gave confidence that the
depressurisation procedure would be successful.

The maximum lift gas volume flow rates used in the first two cycles were 425 and 481
SMm
3
/d. OLGA predictions of the effect of this gas lift on residual liquid content in the
riser, and the actual measured amounts, are given in Table 3. Slight repressuring of the
riser was done after each cycle to manage J-T effects in the riser base gas lift system.

After the second cycle, the pressure at the base of the riser was 15 bar. The pressure at
M2-1 remained at ~170 bar, giving a pressure differential of >150 bar across the
blockage. Figure 12 shows that on initiation of the third gas lift cycle the blockage then
released, with no discernible fluid movement, and RB-M2-1 dP settled out at ~10 bar.

Depressuring using riser base gas lift
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 00:00
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

-

b
a
r
55 bar dP
First RBGL cycle
Second cycle
Methanol injection at S4 raises pressure
Steady pressures, with no
communication S4-riser base
(fluid filled would be 10 bar)
Pressure communication
reestablished, 15 mins after third
RBGL cycle, and after 4 hours at
>100 bar dP
10 bar dP, liquid head
(RBGL)
Third cycle
dP >100 bar
M2-1 - RB
M2-1
RB
at M2-1 raises pressure
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 00:00
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

-

b
a
r
55 bar dP
First RBGL cycle
Second cycle
>100 bar dP
(RBGL)
Third cycle
dP >100 bar
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
06:00 09:00 12:00 15:00 18:00 21:00 00:00
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e

-

b
a
r
55 bar dP
First RBGL cycle
Second cycle
>100 bar dP
(RBGL)
Third cycle
dP >100 bar
M2-1 - RB
M2-1
RB
at M2-1 raises pressure

Figure 12 - Effect of riser base gas lift on riser base and M2-1 pressures

Interpretation of this may be either of a very small hydrate blockage that dissociated
quickly to equilibrate the pressure, or a longer length of viscous oil/ hydrate/ seawater/
emulsion mixture through which a pressure wave slowly propagated given the high dP.

11.4 Flow line displacement and return to service
Once pressure communication was re-established the flowline was displaced with dead
crude and returned to service.

Table 1 - Steady state flowrates (for flowline - riser systems 1 and 2)
FR
1
Oil
rate
Sm
3
/d
Gas
rate
SMm
3
/d
Water
rate
Sm
3
/d
FR
2
Oil
rate
Sm
3
/d
Gas
rate
SMm
3
/d
Water
rate
Sm
3
/d
M1-4 1956 313 0 M2-3 3275 928 0
M1-3 5030 655 254 M2-2 2385 404 295
M1-2 2633 292 70 M2-1 4293 684 0
M1-1 2339 357 231
Table 2 - Flowline - riser 2 fluid added during re-start
Gas, kg at
140 bar, 80C
Gas, km at
140 bar, 4C
Oil, kg at
140 bar, 80C
Oil, km
at 140 bar, 4C
M2-2+M2-3 5900 0.9 85000 1.8
M2-1 8100 1.2 117000 2.5

Table 3 - OLGA predictions of riser emptying
Riser base gas lift cycle
maximum flowrate
Predicted
liquid left, m
Measured liquid
left, m
425 SMm
3
/d (15 MMscfd) 47 177
481 SMm
3
/d (17 MMscfd) 18 54


BHR Multiphase Conf - Steady-State and Interrupted Production in Deep Water Oil System

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

BHR Multiphase Conf - Steady-State and Interrupted Production in Deep Water Oil System

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Steady-state, and interrupted, production through

a deep water black oil system

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi