Scribd
Upload
33 views

Case Study For Insulation Selection For A Deepwater Development

The document presents a case study comparing insulation options for a deepwater oil production system. It analyzes the steady state temperatures and cooldown times for pipe-in-pipe (PIP) and glassflake syntactic polyurethane (GSPU) insulated flowlines. The PIP system was recommended as it maintains temperatures above wax appearance without inhibition for longer and meets cooldown requirements, while the GSPU option requires continuous wax inhibition and results in short periods of hydrate/gel risk during flushing.

Uploaded by

pasha khan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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
33 views

Case Study For Insulation Selection For A Deepwater Development

The document presents a case study comparing insulation options for a deepwater oil production system. It analyzes the steady state temperatures and cooldown times for pipe-in-pipe (PIP) and glassflake syntactic polyurethane (GSPU) insulated flowlines. The PIP system was recommended as it maintains temperatures above wax appearance without inhibition for longer and meets cooldown requirements, while the GSPU option requires continuous wax inhibition and results in short periods of hydrate/gel risk during flushing.

Uploaded by

pasha khan
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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/ 20

Case Study for Insulation

Selection for a Deepwater


Development
Mustafa Mahmood, Flow Assurance Manager
Kuala Lumpur, 3rd October 2012
Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development

Contents
1. Introduction / Project Background
2. Concept Selection
3. Flow Assurance
4. Conclusions
Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development

Introduction / Project Background


The Case Study presented is for a deepwater oil
production system, tied-back to an existing FPSO.

Project Data
Water Depth 1400 m
Three production centres (P1,P2,P3) / manifolds
20 km subsea tie-back to an existing FPSO
2x7 flexible risers design
Two 8 production flowlines in a piggable loop
Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development

Fluid Data
Crude production from the subsea wells will come pre-
dominantly from 4 different reservoirs. The fluid
properties available for the 4 reservoirs are presented
in the table below.
o
Reservoir Reservoir GOR API Dead Oil Live Oil Dead Oil Live Oil
Temp (SCF/STB) WAT WAT Pour Pour
o o o Point Point
( C) ( C) ( C) o
o ( C)
( C)

1 44 53 655-782 33.4 37.6

2 4754 802-813 35.3-35.7 2 to 12

3 57-64 672-773 31.5-32.1 18 to 29 12 to 15 <0

4 61-65 560-709 28.5-31.7 17 to 31 26 to 28 12 to 18 <0


Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development

Hydrate Curve

Ambient
Temp
Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development

Main flow assurance challenges being :


hydrate,
wax
gel management.

For this Case Study:


Dead Oil WAT = 31 deg.C, (Steady State Conditions)
Dead Oil Pour Point = 18 deg.C (Cooldown Conditions)
Hydrates at 18 deg.C or less. (Cooldown Conditions)
Dead Oil Gel Strength = 250 Pa
Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development

Concept Selection
Concept Screening Workshop narrowed the number of concepts to two
concepts.
a)Dual Pipe in Pipe (PIP) flowlines in piggable loop configuration.
b)Dual glass flake syntactic polyurethane (GSPU) Insulated
flowlines
Insulated Flexibles risers were considered for both options.

A piggable loop pipeline configuration employed to cater for turndown


flowrates, hot oil flushing ,the provision for depressuring either side of a
hydrate blockage and inspection pigging etc.

Only initial concern was Reel-Lay for the PIP option with regional based
installation contractors.
Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development
Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development

Flow Assurance Steady State


The Dual Flowlines options considered with PIP (U=1.2 W/m2.K)
production flowlines or 3 GPSU (U=2.9 W/m2.K) insulated
flowlines and insulated flexible risers (U=2.6 W/m2.K).
The P3 to P2 section was considered to be the most critical from a
steady state point of view since it would experience the lowest
flowrates
Flowrates from P3 could be low enough to justify operation of only
a single flowline from P3 with the other section remaining diesel
filled.

The steady state results for Single and Dual flowlines operating for
the P3 to P2 sections of the flow loop are presented below for the
PIP and GSPU flowline insulation options.
Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development

PIP Single / Dual Flowlines Outlet Temperatures at P2


P3 to P2
Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development

GSPU Single / Dual Flowlines Outlet Temperatures at P2


P3 to P2
Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development

GSPU Single Flowline Temperature Profile

.
P3 P2 P1
Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development

Flow Assurance P3 to P-2 Steady State


A single PIP flowline operating from P3 to P2 operating PIP
maintains fluid temperatures above WAT = 31 deg.C.
For Dual PIP flowlines operating, fluid temperatures fall below
31 deg.C for years 15 to 20 and will require wax inhibition.
Dual GSPU production flowlines cannot maintain fluid
temperatures above WAT = 31 deg.C and will require wax
inhibition continuously from year 1.
For a single GSPU flowline operating from P3 to P2 fluid
temperatures fall below 31 deg.C for years 15 to 20 and would
require wax inhibition.
The riser section for years 1 & 2 fall below 31 deg.C and thus
chemical injection would also be required in these years.
Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development

Flow Assurance - Operating / Insulation Philosophy

Under upset conditions such as unplanned shutdowns, the insulation


is to provide sufficient cooldown time to flush the production flowline
system with diesel/stabilized inhibited crude. This then mitigates any
gel or hydrate risk in the flowlines during shutdowns.

Flush existing system prior to flushing new development.

Use existing flushing pumps or propose new flushing rate.

Cooldown times of 22.5 hrs or 11.1 hrs are required for flushing rates
of 100m3/hr (existing) or 200m3/hr .
Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development

Flow Assurance - Cooldown Analysis

Cooldown plots presented for:


GSPU flowline (single flowline in operation between P3 to P2)
PIP flowline (single flowline in operation between P3 to P2)
PIP flowline (dual flowline in operation between P3 to P2)
PIP flowline (dual flowline in operation between P3 to P2) +
Detailed Riser
Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development

Flow Assurance - Cooldown Analysis


Year 1 GSPU flowline (single flowline in operation between P3 to P2)

P3 to P2 P2 to P1 P1 to Riser
Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development

Flow Assurance - Cooldown Analysis


PIP flowline (single flowline in operation between P3 to P2)

P3 to P2 P2 to P1 P1 to Riser
Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development

Flow Assurance - Cooldown Analysis


PIP flowline (dual flowline in operation between P3 to P2)

P3 to P2 P2 to P1 P1 to Riser
Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development

Flow Assurance - Cooldown Analysis


PIP flowline (dual flowline in operation between P3 to P2) + Detailed Riser

P3 to P2 P2 to P1 P1 to Riser
Case Study for Insulation Selection for
Deepwater Development

Case Study Conclusions


PIP system provides a robust solution and steady state operating
conditions which do not require wax inhibition until Year 15 onwards for
the dual flowlines operating between P3 and P2.
This option was recommended.
GSPU option requires steady state single flowline operation between P3
and P2 and continuous wax inhibition for Yrs 1 & 2 & 15 to 20.
Flushing rate should be increased from 100m3/hr to 200m3/hr to provide a
more acceptable cooldown requirement.
The PIP can comfortably meet cooldown requirements however the GSPU
can just meet cooldown requirements with flushing operations.
For GSPU option flushing operations of the diesel filled section between
P3 and P2 result in short periods (1 to 2 hours) of operation in the hydrate
and gelation region which is normally unacceptable.
Riser cooldown also meets flushing requirements

You might also like