Optimisation of the flow assurance strategy for a HPHT

subsea tieback
S R Davies, T Lockett, R G Chapman, G Cristofoli, O Smith
BP Exploration Operating Company Ltd., UK

There was a desire to optimise the minimum acceptable flow rate for an existing HPHT
gas-condensate tieback and to reduce the volume of hydrate inhibitor that is used during
start-ups or restarts. Transient multiphase flow simulations were benchmarked against
current operating data and were then re-run for the proposed future operating state to
demonstrate that the system could be maintained outside the hydrate region for steady
state and shut-in conditions. Compositional tracking simulations were performed to
optimise the required inhibitor injection requirement (rate and duration) for restarts.
1

INTRODUCTION

BP is the operator of a HPHT gas-condensate field tied back to a receiving platform.

Pipe-in-pipe insulation is used to ensure that the fluids in the tieback remain outside of
the hydrate formation region for steady state operation, provided that the system is
operated above a minimum operating flow rate, and for short duration shut-ins. No
chemical hydrate inhibition is used for steady state operation which minimises the
chemical storage requirements at the receiving facility. For longer duration shut-ins the
line is depressurised at the receiving platform. Restart requires the injection of a
thermodynamic hydrate inhibitor - Industrial Methylated Spirits (IMS) at the wellhead.
IMS principally consists of ethanol, it partitions into the export oil and is known to give
operating issues at the onshore terminal. IMS was selected as the preferred hydrate
inhibitor early in the design phase due to process constraints at the receiving facility.
There was a desire to operate the system at flow rates significantly below the original
minimum operating flow rate and to reduce the volume of IMS that is used during restart
by accounting for the actual sea-bed temperature history rather than assumed minimum
temperature of 4C, and for the lower shut-in well head pressures than at the start of field
life.
A transient multiphase model of the system was developed in OLGA 5.3.2.4 and was
validated against available field data from this system of steady-state operation and
restart. Compositional tracking was used to model the local concentrations of IMS within
the system as a function of time. The local system pressure and the local IMS
concentrations were then used to estimate a hydrate equilibrium temperature in order to
determine whether hydrate formation in the tieback could be avoided. The reliability of
predictive tools for hydrate inhibition by IMS was uncertain, particularly at the low
temperatures that were anticipated downstream of the choke valve during restart. It was
therefore necessary to benchmark the available thermodynamic models against the
limited experimental data that were available on the suppression of the hydrate
equilibrium temperature by IMS. Restart scenarios were then investigated using the
current IMS dosing strategy. Alternative restart strategies were then proposed and tested
in order to optimise the IMS requirement.

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

133

BASIS OF THE TRANSIENT MULTIPHASE MODEL

The tieback consists of three HPHT wells that are connected to a subsea manifold via
three well flowlines, each 6.5 inches internal diameter and between 2 and 3 km in length.
The manifold is connected to the processing platform via a 14-inch internal diameter
flowline that is 45 km in length. The separator on the processing platform was
represented by a constant pressure boundary condition. All of the flowlines use pipe-inpipe insulation to conserve heat during steady-state operation and for short duration shutins; the thermal behaviour of the flowlines was represented using a series of wall layers
which followed the flowline design. A wall roughness of 110-5 m was also taken from
the original design. Short bare steel pipes known as ambient spools connect the wellhead
choke valves to the well flowlines; the spools are between 50 and 90 meters in length.
The ambient spools have a high heat transfer coefficient to ensure that the fluid from the
wellhead warms up above the minimum acceptable operating temperature during restart.
The length of the ambient spool is critical: too short and the flowline temperature would
drop below the minimum design temperature during restart, too long and the excessive
cooling would negate the intention of the pipe-in-pipe to keep the fluid outside of the
hydrate region during steady state flow. To regulate the flow, each wellhead is fitted with
a choke valve with a flow coefficient (Cv) of 241. The local water depth is approximately
120 meters and the reservoir has a temperature of approximately 150C, a pressure of
570 barg and is located at a total vertical depth of approximately 4.6 km below the
seabed. The ambient temperature of the subsurface was assumed to vary linearly with
elevation between the reservoir and the seabed. The ambient temperature of the sea was
set to 8C based on the minimum recorded seasonal temperature over 5 years of operation
and the topsides were assumed to be at the minimum expected ambient temperature of 5C.
The well performance was modelled using the reservoir conditions and then applying
simple Productivity Indices (PIs). PIs are rarely use for compressible fluids; this type of
model is rarely used for gas systems but was applied due to the limited available data.
There are also issues associated with applying PI models to transient scenarios as
discussed in Section 4. The Productivity Indices (PIs) for the well models were adjusted
to provide the currently observed steady state gas flow rates. The predicted temperatures
and pressures for two of the wells upstream and downstream of the choke valve are
shown in Table 1 along with the measured data. The agreement between the models and
field data was excellent for these conditions. Unfortunately no measurements of the
bottom-hole pressure and temperature were available for comparison. The arrival
temperature at the host platform was predicted to be 50.1C at a pressure of 33 barg
which was also in agreement with field measurements.
Table 1: A Comparison of the Steady State Model Predictions
to Field Data for Steady State Operation

Gas Rate (MSm3/d)

Reported
3.1

Well 1
Predicted

Error

Reported
3.4

Well 2
Predicted

Error

Condensate Rate (Sm3/d)

98

104.0

6%

142

144.9

2%

Water Rate (Sm3/d)

33

33.2

1%

66

63.3

4%

Upstream T (C)

102

98.9

3%

102

104.0

2%

Downstream T (C)

90

87.5

3%

101

95.0

6%

Upstream P (barg)

111

122.0

10%

133

140.9

6%

Downstream P (barg)

107

118.0

10%

127

129.8

2%

134

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

VALIDATION OF THE HYDRATE PREDICTIONS

Hydrates consist of a hydrogen bonded lattice of water molecules which enclathrates

suitably sized gas molecules into cavities or cages within the lattice. The two most
common hydrate structures are structure I (sI) and structure II (sII). Both structures
contain large and small cages. The small cage (512) is the same for both sI and sII and
consists of 12 pentagonal faces. However, the number and the size of the large cage is
different: sI hydrate has 3 large 51262 cages to every small 512 cage, and sII has 2 small
512 cages for every large 51264 cage, See Figure 1 [1]. The structure of hydrate that is
formed depends on the composition of the feed and sometimes on the pressure and
temperature of the system. Typically sII forms in industry due to the relative abundance
of larger gas molecules such as ethane and propane which help to stabilize the larger
51264 cage. The fluid in this study is a sII hydrate former.
51262

512

Cubic

sI
2/cell

6/cell

512

51264

Cubic

sII
16/cell

435663

51268

Hexagonal

+
3/cell

136 H2O

8/cell

512

sH

46 H2O

2/cell

34 H2O

1/cell

Figure 1: A Schematic Representation of the Three Most Common Hydrate

Structures [1]
Little experimental data is available for hydrate inhibition by ethanol, the most prevalent
component of Industrial Methylated Spirits (IMS): all of the data that is available in the
public domain relates to sI methane hydrate [2]. In an attempt to close this gap, BP
recently commissioned some hydrate equilibrium data in the presence of ethanol, for an
industrially relevant gas composition which forms sII hydrate [3].
In the benchmarking exercise, two commonly used prediction tools were selected for
comparison against experimental data for both sI and sII hydrate. The first model was
PVTSim version 18 (SRK Peneloux) and the second model was Multiflash version
3.8 (Cubic Plus Association). The results are shown in the following figures. The sI data
for methane-water is compared to the model predictions in Figure 2. The sII hydrate
equilibrium data for a gas with an industrially relevant gas composition is compared to
the corresponding predictions in Figure 3. Both models give reasonable predictions of the
hydrate formation data. The first model gave a better fit to the sI hydrate equilibrium data
and the second model gave a marginally better fit to the sII hydrate equilibrium data. It
was decided to use the second model for the remainder of this study.

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

135

500

500

5.6 mol% in water

5.6 mol% in water

8.9 mol% in water

450

8.9 mol% in water

450

30 mol% in water

30 mol% in water
40 mol% in water

40 mol% in water
Prediction - 5.6 mol%

400

Prediction - 5.6 mol%

400

Prediction - 8.9 mol%

Prediction - 8.9 mol%

Prediction - 30 mol%

Prediction - 30 mol%

350

Prediction - 40 mol%

300

Pressure (bara)

Pressure (bara)

350

250

200

Prediction - 40 mol%

300

250

200

150

150

100

100

50

50

0
-30

-20

-10

10

20

-30

-20

Temperature ( C)

-10
0
Temperature (oC)

10

20

45

45

40

40

35

35

30

30
Pressure (bara)

Pressure (bara)

Figure 2: A Comparison of sI Hydrate Equilibrium Data for Methane and Water [2]
against Predictions from the First Model (left) and the Second Model (right)

25

20

0 wt% in water
20 wt% in water
40 wt% in water
60 wt% in water
80 wt% in water
Prediction 0
Prediction 20
Prediction 40
Prediction 60
Prediction 80

15

10

25

20
0 wt% in water
20 wt% in water
40 wt% in water
60 wt% in water
80 wt% in water
Prediction 0
Prediction 20
Prediction 40
Prediction 60
Prediction 80

15

10

0
-30

-20

-10

10

20

-30

-20

Temperature (oC)

-10

10

Temperature (oC)

Figure 3: A Comparison of sII Hydrate Equilibrium Data for the Specified

Composition and Water [3] against Predictions from the First Model (left)
and the Second Model (right)

136

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

20

RESULTS

4.1 Optimising the minimum acceptable flow rate

The minimum acceptable flow rate is constrained by a number of factors including the
minimum acceptable arrival temperature during steady state operation, the time taken for
the system to cool to the hydrate temperature (cool-down time) for a shut-in, and the
liquid handling capacities at the receiving facilities particularly during restart. The liquid
handling considerations are not presented in this manuscript. Steady state and shut-in
simulations were performed to assess the arrival conditions and cool-down times of the
flowline for separator pressures of 33, 12 and 8 barg and for gas flow rates of 6, 2 and 1
MSm3/d. The steady state arrival conditions were found to be outside the hydrate
formation region for all 9 cases as shown in Figure 4.
Two types of shut-in were considered: planned and unplanned. In planned shut-ins, both
wells are isolated from the flowline by gradually closing the choke valves; the flowline
pressure is allowed to equilibrate with the inlet separator pressure. The sequence of
events for unplanned shut-ins varies but as a minimum, the Emergency Shutdown Valves
(ESDVs) on the both of the wellheads and on the receiving platform are rapidly closed.
In this instance, the pressure at the riser base increases as the pressure in the flowlines
equilibrates. The unplanned shut-in represents the most onerous case from a hydrate
management perspective. When the tieback is shut-in, the riser, wellhead spools, flowline
tie-in spools, the riser and riser base spool cool quickly. However, these locations have
been designed to ensure free liquid drainage into the pipe-in-pipe flowlines and so these
locations do not present a significant risk of hydrate blockage. The pipe-in-pipe flowlines
are predicted to give a cool-down time of several days as shown in Table 2.
100
90

Hydrate Equilibrium Line

80

Arrival Conditions at Steady State

Pressure (barg)

70
60

Ambient
Seawater

50
40

33.2

33.1

33.6

30
20

12.1

12.2

8.1

8.2

12.6

10
0
-40

-30

-20

-10

10

8.6

20

30

40

50

60

Temperature ( C)

Figure 4: Comparison of the Steady State Arrival Conditions to the Hydrate Phase
Boundary; Numbers show Arrival Pressure (barg) and Gas Flow Rate (MSm3/d)
Table 2: Predicted Cool-Down Times for the Pipe-in-Pipe for Unplanned (ESD)
Shut-ins
Arrival Pressure (barg)
Gas Flow Rate (MSm3/d)
Cool Down Time (days)

8
1

8
2

8
6
5

12
1

12
2

12
6
4.9

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

33
1
2.8

33
2
7.6

33
6
4.5

137

4.2 Benchmarking the model against restart data

The current restart procedure from a depressurised state advises that Well 2 be started
first since this well has the longest and most onerous topography. Well 2 is used to
inhibit the pipeline with IMS and then to pack the pipeline from the initial flowline
pressure of 9-15 barg up to the desired separator pressure of 33 barg. The increased
flowline pressure provides a higher back pressure against which the other wells can be
started, which leads to less Joule-Thomson cooling of wellhead fluids from those wells.
The restart of the first well therefore requires the majority of the IMS volume.
One of the areas at greatest risk of hydrate formation during a cold restart is the area
immediately downstream of the choke valve where the Joule-Thomson cooling is
highest. Figure 5 shows the measured pressure-temperature path of the pipe work
downstream of the choke valve as it moved from the shut-in condition (start) to the
flowing condition (end) during a recent restart. Hydrate curves for various concentrations
of IMS are superimposed on the plot for comparison. At one point in the restart, the
required IMS concentration was greater than 15 kg per kg of water (94 wt%); this is well
outside the range of available experimental data.
100
90
80

Pressure (bara)

70
60
50
40
30

Downstream of Choke
Start
End
No Inhibitor
1 kg IMS per kg Water
2 kg IMS per kg Water
3 kg IMS per kg Water
5 kg IMS per kg Water
7 kg IMS per kg Water
9 kg IMS per kg Water
11 kg IMS per kg Water
13 kg IMS per kg Water
15 kg IMS per kg Water

20
10
0
-100

-80

-60

-40

-20

20

40

60

Temperature (oC)

Figure 5: A Pressure-Temperature Plot Showing the Conditions Downstream of the

Choke Valve during the Restart Compared to Hydrate Equilibrium Curves for
Various IMS Concentrations
The initial conditions for the restart simulations were based on the results of a previous
cool down simulation. The downstream boundary conditions were set to the measured
separator pressure and temperature; a control valve was used to ensure that there was no
negative mass flow from the separator to the flowline during packing of the line. The
injection rate of IMS was represented in the simulation by a mass source of ethanol. The
flow rate of ethanol was matched to the measured injection rate. Compositional Tracking
was used to simulate how the IMS behaved within the flowline.
The flow of gas from the well initiated at a time stamp of 31.25 hours; in the simulation,
this was represented by opening the wing valve on Well 2 at a time stamp of 31.25 hours
over a period of 15 minutes. Two strategies were considered for simulating the choke
valve behaviour: in the first strategy the choke valve opening was adjusted using a
controller to follow the measured pressure upstream of the choke valve. In the second

138

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

strategy, the position of the choke valve was matched to the measured opening position
from the field data using the Cv curve of the choke valve. The trim of the choke valve
had recently been replaced so this curve was considered to be reliable.
The simulation results from Strategy 1 are compared to the field data in Figures 6, 7 and
8 for the gas flow rate, the temperature and the pressure upstream and downstream of the
choke valve. The initial well restart occurred at 31.25 hours. Operational issues led to
large deviations in the flow rate, pressure and temperature from 55 hours onwards (24
hours after starting flow).
3.5

Gas Flow Rate (MSm /d)

Data
Acquisition
Error

Field Data
OLGA Prediction

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
30

35

40

45

50
55
Time (hours)

60

65

70

75

Figure 6: Comparison of Model Predictions from Strategy 1 to Field Data

for the Gas Flow Rate during a Recent Restart of Well 2
140
120

Temperature ( C)

100
80
60
40
20
0

Field Data - Upstream of Choke

Field Data - Downstream of Choke

-20

OLGA Prediction - Upstream of Choke

-40

OLGA Prediction - Downstream of Choke

-60
30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

Time (hours)

Figure 7: Comparison of Model Predictions from Strategy 1 to Field Data for the
Temperature Upstream and Downstream of the Choke Valve during a Recent
Well 2 Restart

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

139

600

Pressure (barg)

500

400

300

Field Data - Upstream of Choke

Field Data - Downstream of Choke

200

OLGA Prediction - Upstream of Choke

OLGA Prediction - Downstream of Choke

100

0
30

35

40

45

50
55
Time (hours)

60

65

70

75

Figure 8: Comparison of the Model Predictions from Strategy 1 to Field Data for
Pressure Upstream and Downstream of the Choke Valve during Recent Restart
of Well 2
A good agreement was obtained between the predictions and the observations: the
pressure and temperatures agreed well, but the flow rate was slightly higher than the
model prediction. It is believed that this discrepancy is due to the treatment of the well
Productivity Index (PI) within the simulator as discussed in Section 2; the PI relates the
flow rate from the well to the pressure difference between the bottom of the wellbore and
the reservoir. At steady-state operation where the PIs are valid, a significant pressure
drop occurs within the formation itself. For restart operations however, the pressure drop
within the formation is initially much lower so the well can provide a higher flow rate
than would be predicted by a PI model.
For Strategy 2, the predicted gas flow rate is shown in Figure 9. The simulation
significantly under predicted the gas flow rate. The Cv curve for the choke valve is
considered valid since the trim had only recently been replaced; this discrepancy might
therefore indicate an error in the recorded stem position of the valve or could indicate a
problem with the choke model in OLGA.
The fluctuations in pressure, temperature and flow rate from 55 hours onwards (24 hours
after starting flow) were not part of the typical restart procedure and are not considered
further. The well restart procedure stated that the choke should initially be set to an
opening corresponding to a gas flow rate of 1.53 MSm3/d. In practice the gas flow rate
took several hours to reach this value; prolonging the time that the downstream
temperature was below the hydrate equilibrium line. The procedure required an initial
IMS dose rate of 5.2 m3/hr that was to be reduced to 1.2 m3/hr after the well had been
flowing for 1 hour, or when the wellhead temperature reached 20C. IMS injection was to
continue at the reduced rate for a further 11 hours. The actual IMS injection rate is
compared to the IMS injection rate from the procedure in Figure 10. Time values less
than 31.25 hours are before the well was restarted. IMS injection during this time
corresponds to pre-dosing. In the actual restart, several instances of IMS injection were
recorded prior to the well being opened, possibly due to operational issues on the
receiving platform. The flow rate was slightly above the prescribed IMS flow rate of 5.2
m3/hr when the well was opened and the rate was decreased to 1.2 m3/hr when the well

140

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

head temperature reached 20C, as per procedure. The IMS injection rate then dropped
off almost linearly over time and fell significantly below the prescribed flow rate of 1.2
m3/hr.
3.5
Field Data

Gas Flow Rate (MSm /d)

OLGA Predictions

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
30

35

40

45

50
55
Time (hours)

60

65

70

75

Figure 9: Comparison of the Model Predictions from Strategy 2 to Field

Observations for the Gas Flow rate during a Recent Restart of Well 2
8

120
Recorded IMS Flowrate

IMS Flowrate from Procedure

80

Temperature ( C)

IMS Flowrate (m /hr)

100

Wellhead Temperature

60

40

2
20

1
0

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Time (hrs)

Figure 10: Comparison of the Measured IMS Rate for the Restart of Well 2 to that
Specified in the Procedure; the Measured Well head Temperature is Also Shown
Simulations predicted the water flow rate and the IMS concentration downstream of the
choke valve during the restart as shown in Figure 11. The model predicted that the IMS
that had been injected into the line prior to the restart was produced almost immediately
as a slug of IMS through the choke valve. The IMS flow rate had been reduced 45
minutes after the restart. The water flow rate through the choke valve increased at
approximately 2 hours after the restart and this rapidly diluted the remaining IMS
concentration to 25 wt%. The IMS concentration continued to fall, reaching 5 wt% at 40

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

141

hours. It was of interest to determine if sufficient IMS was present to inhibit hydrate
formation during this period. The hydrate equilibrium temperature is a function of both
pressure and the concentration of IMS in the water phase. Pressure-temperature curves
were produced using the Multiflash CPA model for a range of IMS concentrations and
the hydrate equilibrium temperature was found by interpolating between the adjacent
pressures and compositions at each time step and location.
35

IMS Slug

30
25

0.7
0.6

20

IMS Mass Fraction

0.5

Water Mass Fraction

0.4

Water Flow Rate

15

0.3

10

0.2

Water
Breakthrough

0.1

0.8

Volumetric Flow Rate (m /hr)

Mass Fraction in the Water Phase

0.9

0
30

32

34

36

38

40

Time (hrs)

Figure 11: Predicted Water Flow Rate and IMS Concentration as a Function of
Time Downstream of the Choke Valve for the Model Simulation of the Restart
The fluids temperature downstream of the choke valve is compared to the local hydrate
equilibrium temperature in Figure 12. The system was predicted to enter hydrate region
for approximately 3 hours, at a simulation time of 33 hours (1.75 hrs after starting flow
from the well). This coincided with an increase in the water flow rate from the well. The
100
80

Fluid Temperature - Predicted

Hydrate Temperature - Multiflash

Startup

Wellhead T = 20C; IMS Reduced

Water Breakthrough

40

Temperature ( C)

60

Fluid Temperature - Measured

20
0
-20
-40
-60
30

32

34

36

38
Time (hrs)

40

42

44

Figure 12: A Comparison of the Predicted Fluid Temperature to the

Inhibited Hydrate Equilibrium Temperature Downstream of the
Choke Valve for the Restart

142

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

46

IMS flow rate had already been reduced at approximately 32 hours once the wellhead
temperature reached 20C as per the procedure. An alternative procedure might be to
flow the IMS until the temperature downstream of the choke valve increases above the
hydrate temperature at the flowline pressure during restart (50 barg) of 12C.
4.3
Optimisation of the restart procedure
It is of interest to try to minimise the amount of IMS required for a successful restart
while still protecting the flowline from hydrate formation. Several potential restart
procedures were considered. For simplicity only the last two variations are described in
this paper and are referred to as Option 1 and Option 2. The hydrate temperature at the
riser base is 8.7C at the desired operating pressure of the inlet separator of 33 bar. It is
necessary to protect this section of the flowline from hydrates until the cold fluid from
the restart has left the flowline and the temperature at the receiving platform increases
above 8.7C. Simulations suggested that it could take approximately 35 hours from
initiating the flow before the cold fluid would leave the flowline. It was found to be
necessary to dose the system with a small volume of IMS for 24 hours after the initial
restart in order to avoid the hydrate formation region during this period.
Option 1 of the restart procedure for Well 2 for a separator pressure of 33 bar is as
follows: set the separator pressure to 12 bar; inject IMS at the wellhead at 5.2 m3/h; start
the well at 1.53 MSm3/d; continue dosing the IMS until the temperature downstream of
the choke exceeds 12C; continue injecting IMS at a rate of 0.15 m3/h for 24 hours; keep
the separator pressure at 10 bar until the temperature downstream of the choke exceeds
50C; pack the line to 33 bar; increase the flow rate from the well once the line has been
flowing with IMS injection for 24 hours. The results simulating Option 1 are shown in
Figures 13 and 14. The predicted fluid temperature downstream of the choke is compared
to the hydrate equilibrium temperature in Figure 13. The fluid temperature at the riser
base is compared to the hydrate equilibrium temperature in Figure 14. Option 1 of the
restart procedure avoided the hydrate region at both locations for the duration of the
restart with a desired arrival pressure of 33 bar.
70

30

Temperature ( C)

50

10

-10

Fluid Temperature

-30

Hydrate Equilibrium
Temperature

-50
0

0.5

1.5

2.5

3.5

4.5

Time (hrs)

Figure 13: Comparison of Predicted Fluid Temperature to Inhibited Hydrate

Equilibrium Temperature Downstream of Choke Valve for Option 1 with
33 bar Separator Pressure

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

143

20
15

IMS Stops
Arriving

Temperature ( C)

10
5
0
-5

Fluid Temperature
Hydrate Equilibrium Temperature
Line Packing

-10

Cold Fluid from Startup

-15
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Time (hrs)

Figure 14: Comparison of the Predicted Fluid Temperature to the Hydrate

Equilibrium Temperature at the Riser Base for Option 1 with a Separator
Pressure of 33 bar
Figure 15 shows the temperature profile along the flowline from the manifold to the riser
base at 3 hours after the first well had been started using Option 1 of the procedures. A
section of the flowline is clearly inside of the hydrate formation region at this point in
time. Since the line packing occurred 7 hours into the simulation, this part of the
simulation is independent of the intended separator pressure. A section of the flowline
was also found to be inside the hydrate formation region 26 hours after the restart for
both the 10 and the 33 bar separator pressures.
20
15

Temperature ( C)

10
5
0
-5
Fluid Temperature

-10

Hydrate Temperature
-15
-20
0

10

20

30

40

50

Distance from Manifold (km)

Figure 15: Comparison of the Fluid Temperature in the Flowline to the Hydrate
Equilibrium Temperature 3 Hours after the Start of the First Well with Option 1

144

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

In order to prevent the system entering the hydrate region, it was necessary to dose the
flowline with a reduced IMS flow rate of 1.2 m3/h for a further 8 hours after the initial
5.2 m3/h. If the separator pressure is to be increased to 33 bar then IMS would also be
required at a rate of 0.15 m3/h in order to inhibit the riser base for a further 16 hours as
before. This second revision to the restart procedures is termed Option 2 and the
corresponding plot of fluid temperature versus the hydrate temperature is shown in
Figure 16.
20
15

Temperature ( C)

10
5
0
-5
Fluid Temperature

-10

Hydrate Temperature

-15
-20
0

10

20

30

40

50

Distance (km)

Figure 16: A Profile Plot Comparing the Fluid Temperature in the Flowline to the
Hydrate Equilibrium Temperature 3 Hours after the Start of the First Well with
Option 2 of the IMS Injection Strategy
In the previous simulations, the pressure in the inlet separator was increased from 10 to
33 bar 7 hours after the well had been started. It was of interest to see if this criterion
could be reduced since the gas would have to be flared at arrival pressures below 33 bar.
Figure 17 shows the predicted fluid temperature and pressure profiles in the flowline as
the line is packed between 7 hours and 8 hours into the simulation. The pressure and
temperature path is compared to the hydrate region. As the line is packed, both the
pressure and temperature of the fluid increase and the inhibition requirements of the fluid
are similar at each stage of the line packing process. This suggests that packing the line
should not incur any additional risk of hydrate formation.

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

145

50
45

Hydrate Curve 0 kg IMS / kg Water

Pressure (bara)

40

Hydrate Curve 0.1 kg IMS / kg Water

35

Hydrate Curve 0.2 kg IMS / kg Water

30

Hydrate Curve 0.3 kg IMS / kg Water

25

Hydrate Curve 0.4 kg IMS / kg Water

20

Hydrate Curve 0.5 kg IMS / kg Water

15

7 hrs

10

8 hrs

9 hrs

0
-20

-10

10

20

30

40

50

Temperature (oC)

Figure 17: A Profile Plot Comparing the Fluid Temperature and Pressure in the
Flowline during the Line Packing Process to the Hydrate Equilibrium
Temperature at Various Times
The profile plots of the pipeline were compared to the local hydrate equilibrium
temperatures at various times into the simulation and it was confirmed that the flowline
would not enter the hydrate formation region using the revised IMS injection strategy,
even if the flowline was pressurised 1 hour after the restart. Figure 18 confirms that the
fluid temperature at the riser base is outside the hydrate formation region if the line is
packed after only 1 hour instead of 7 hours.
20

Fluid Temperature

Temperature ( C)

15

Hydrate Temperature

10

-5
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Time (hrs)

Figure 18: Comparison of Predicted Fluid Temperature to Inhibited Hydrate

Equilibrium Temperature at Riser Base for Option 2 with 33 bar Separator
Pressure and with the Line Packed at 1 Hours Rather than 7 Hours

146

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

80

CONCLUSIONS

This paper has investigated the IMS requirements for hydrate mitigation during the
restart of the wells on a HPHT tieback to a receiving platform. It was of interest to try to
minimise the amount of IMS required for a successful restart in order to reduce the
problems caused for the downstream process. It was suspected that the volume of IMS
that was specified in the original procedure could be reduced if the lower shut-in well
head pressure and the warmer sea bed temperature were considered.
Recent experimental data was used to validate the available predictive tools. One model
was found to best predict structure I hydrate equilibrium data and a different model was
found to best predict structure II hydrate equilibrium data.
In the original restart procedures, the IMS injection requirements had been based on the
well head temperature measurements and the time after restart. Recent field data
indicated that the well had been started-up slower than was expected in the operating
procedure. The model predicted that this slower restart extended the duration for which
the system was subcooled and caused the piping downstream of the choke valve to enter
the hydrate region some time after the IMS injection rate had been reduced by the
operators. Fortunately no hydrate plug had formed during the restart.
Subsequent simulations allowed the IMS requirements to be optimised; larger quantities
of IMS were required initially but the injection rates could be reduced to much lower
flow rates than those specified in the original procedures while still protecting the
flowline from hydrate formation. Revised procedures were proposed in which the IMS
injection rates were based on the temperatures downstream of the choke valve. These
procedures were intended to be more robust and less sensitive to the rates at which the
wells are started-up. The revised procedures would require approximately 8% less IMS
than the original procedures provided that the wells were started up quickly.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank BP for permission to publish this data.
REFERENCES
1.
2.
3.

Sloan E.D., Koh C.A. Clathrate Hydrates of Natural Gases Third Edition, CRC
Press, 2008.
Anderson R. et al. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Gas Hydrates,
Vancouver, July 2008.
Private Communication, Centre For Gas Hydrate Research, Hydrate
Thermodynamic Measurements, Heriot-Watt University, July 2005.

BHR Group 2011 Multiphase 15

147