You are on page 1of 6

Proceedings of the Fifth (1995) IntenuJtional Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference

The Hague, The Netherlands, June 11-16, 1995

Copyright 1995 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
ISBN 1-880653-16-8 (Set); ISBN 1-880653-17-6 (Vol I)
Hydrate Problems in Pipelines:
A Study from Norwegian Continental Waters
David Lysne and Roar Larsen
SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway
Are K. Thomsen
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Stavanger, Norway
Are Lund
SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway
This study was undertaken by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
and SINTEF to identify hydrate problems occurring in pipelines on
the Norwegian continental shelf. A brief review of hydrate
dissociation theory is given. Three major techniques for hydrate
removal are discussed, as well as hazards related to hydrate plug
removal. Questionnaire answers from 15 companies operating in
Norwegian waters 'show three specific of hydrate plugs in
the North Sea. Problems from other geographical areas are also
discussed. Hydrate problems are reported for a wide variety of pipe
lengths, diameters, profiles, insulation characteristics and fluids. Most
problems occur during normal operation.
KEY WORDS: hydrate, pipeline, North Sea, plug, removal, procedures,
In 1990 the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD) was responsible
for carrying out a study covering different operat?rs on
Norwegian Continental Shelf regardmg hydrate formatIOn dUrIng
drilling operations, in processing equipment and in offshore pipelines
or flowlines (Johnsen, 1990). The aim of the study was to map the
extent of hydrate formation and get an overview of hydrate problems
occurring in petroleum activities. The different comP!IDies
the Norwegian continental shelf answered a questionnaIre deahng WIth
different aspects regarding hydrate formation and removal. In total, 68
occurrences of hydrate formation were reported, and ,6 of them were
related to pipelines. A general conclusion from the su:,dy was that
hydrates do occur 'and that the frequency of occurrence mIght be larger
than previously suspected.
Development of potential oil or gas fields on the Norwegian continental
shelf will require transportation of multiphase flow over increasing
distances. The infrastructure in the North Sea is rather well developed
and marginal fields can be connected to existing fields by means of
multiphase pipelines. In such pipelines hydrate formation can be a
potential problem. Taking this into consideration and the fact that NPD
wanted to get art overview over hydrate problems in existing pipelines, it
was decided to carry out another study in 1993 to cover the period from
1990 to 1993. The study was related to hydrate problems in
pipeline systems only. This time the develop.ment of
and evaluation of the answers from the operatmg companIes was carned
out by SINTEF.
Another important factor for undertaking the study was the fact that
NPD has no regulatory requirements regarding reporting of hydrate
formation which does not lead to a hazardous situation. NPD has little
information inhouse regarding extent and frequencies of hydrate
formation. NPD also saw a need for gaining more knowledge about
hydrate formation in pipeline systems, frequencies and different
methods for removing hydrates. The study should also consider
potential risk involved during removal of hydrate plugs. One experience
from the study undertaken in 1990 was that the questionnaire had to be
more detailed regarding technical information about the pipeline
Natural gas hydrates are part of a class of compounds called clathrates.
They consist of a crystal lattice built of hydrogen-bonded water
molecules. The lattice forms cavities which are occupied by non-polar
gas molecules, which are needed to stabilize the structure. The
forming components in natural gas are methane, ethane, propane, ISO-
butane, hydrogen sulphide, nitrogen and carbon dioxide.
Natural gas hydrates consist of two different kinds of lattice structures,
called structure I and II. Both contain two kinds of cavities, small and
large. The small cavities are the basic building blocks, and the residual
voids form large cavities which are different between the two structures,
with the one in structure II being the largest. Methane and ethane form
structure I hydrates alone, but in the presence of propane or iso-butane,
structure II hydrates are formed due to the cavity size needed.
II is therefore the most common hydrate structure encountered m North
Sea hydrocarbon production.
Hydrate equilibrium theory is essential to understanding hydrate
problems. In most North Sea developments, the well fluids are tested to
find the so-called hydrate curve. The hydrate curve gi.ves the
thermodynamic eqUilibrium conditions between three phases (od,. water
and hydrate) above the oiUgas phase envelope, and four phases (od, gas,
water and hydrate) inside it, at temperatures above OC. If the
temperature pressure or the composition of the surrounding medium is
changed so 'that hydrate is brought the
of a fluid system, the hydrate phase will try to reach equlhbnum. GIven
an adequate amount of hydrate, equilibrium conditions will be obtained.
Hydrates may be dissociated by means of pressure reduction, heat
addition and inhibitor injection. The processes involved in these
phenomena are iinportant, as they are also coupled to potential hazards.
The most comprehensive review of gas hydrates can be found in Sloan
It will be seen that on a small enough scale, the three described
processes of gas hydrate dissociation are essentially equivalent.
Pressure reduction
A schematic description of hydrate dissociation by pressure reduction is
shown in Figure I, assuming a mixture of oil, gas, water and hydrate.
Starting with the pressure and temperature conditions given by point A
in the figure, the pressure is first lowered to the eqUilibrium pressure
corresponding to the ambient temperature (point B). So far nothing has
happened to the hydrate phase. During the next step the pressure is
lowered to point C, which is below the hydrate eqUilibrium curve. A
molecular description of this effect on the hydrate phase is not found in
the literature. The macroscopic behaviour is however known through a
few studies, including work by Lysne (1995). The following description
is mainly based on that work.
Hydrate dissociation requires energy which is taken as heat from the
hydrate phase itself and the surrounding medium. The macroscopic
indication of these phenomena is a temperature drop in the part of the
system which is exposed to the pressure reduction. This is shown in
Figure 1 as line C-D. Provided that the pressure is now kept constant, the
temperature in the hydrate phase will be equal to To as long as there is
any hydrate left. The hydrate phase, which is at thermodynamic
equilibrium, will hence have a temperature constantly below the ambient
temperature, and both convective and conductive heat transfer to the
hydrate phase from the surroundings will occur. The rate of dissociation
will be strongly dependent on the heat transfer resistance. Insulation of
a pipeline will slow down the dissociation of a hydrate plug inside it.
Constant pressure requires that water and gas produced from hydrate
dissociation are removed continuously. At constant volume conditions
after the pressure reductions the produced gas and water from
dissociating hydrate will increase the pressure and consequently the
temperature, along the hydrate equilibrium curve, described by curve
D-B in Figure 1. At point B, the hydrate phase is at thermal and
thermodynamic equilibrium with the surroundings, and the dissociation
Temperature increase
Figure 2 shows a schematic description of hydrate dissociation by
temperature increase, still assuming a mixture of .oil, gas, water and
hydrate. Starting with the pressure and temperature conditions given by
point A in the figure, the temperature is first increased to the hydrate
equilibrium temperature corresponding to the given pressure, TB The
hydrate is at thermodynamic equilibrium and has not yet started to
dissociate. As the ambient temperature is increased beyond the hydrate
equilibrium curve to Te, the hydrate phase starts to melt.
The temperature of the hydrate phase. cannot be higher than the
eqUilibrium temperature, and if the pressure is kept constant, the
pressure and temperature at point B on Figure 2 persists in the hydrate.
However, if the dissociation takes place at constant volume conditions,
the water and gas produced from the dissociating hydrate will increase
the pressure. As the pressure inside the constant volume increases, the
equilibrium temperature also increases, and the dissociation process
follows curve B-D in Figure 2 until thermal equilibrium with the
surroundings is obtained, and the overall dissociation stops - showing
the same behaviour as for an initial pressure reduction.
Inhibitor injection
The third known method for melting hydrates is inhibitor injection.
Among the inhibitors applied for hydrate control in the North Sea,
methanol has the ability to dissociate existing hydrates. Figure 3 shows a
schematic description of hydrate dissociation by addition of methanol.
The main effect is that the thermodynamic equilibrium at a given
pressure is changed towards lower temperatures. The original hydrate
eqUilibrium is shown to the right on Figure 3 and the new hydrate
Figure 1.
Ta Temperature
Hydrate dissociation by pressure reduction.
T a is the ambient temperature
eqUilibrium curve after methanol injection is the leftmost curve. There is
a paucity of data in the literature as to what happens to the hydrate on
both the molecular and the macroscopic level after the addition of
methanol. The following analysis of the process is a hypothesis based
on general experience with hydrates over the years at SINTEF.
Starting with hydrate at thermal equilibrium (no temperature gradients),
mechanical equilibrium (no pressure gradients) and thermodynamic
equilibrium (no chemical potential gradients) at point A on figure 3,
there are severa! options for the behaviour of the hydrate phase after
injection of methanol. If the pressure is kept constant, a process
described by line A-B is most likely to happen.
Provided that a constant rate of methanol is supplied to keep the local
concentration constant, the temperature on the interface between
hydrate and the inhibited phases is equal to TB. The equilibrium
temperature is then below the ambient temperature, and the dissociation
process will be controlled by the heat transfer to the hydrate phase.
If, however, only a single batch of methanol is injected, and the pressure
is kept constant, the hydrate interface will initially have a new
equilibrium condition given by point B. The temperature of the hydrate
near the interface with the surrounding medium will decrease from
point A towards point B. The methanol will be hydrogen-bonded to
water molecules coming out of the hydrate phase, and will therefore be
diluted in the inhibited fluid phases. The inhibiting effect of the injected
methanol will diminish, and the inhibited hydrate equilibrium curve will
start to move towards the original hydrate equilibrium curve. If enough
hydrates are present, the two curves will merge into one in point A
(theoretically, with an infinitesimal difference due to an infinite dilution
of methanol in the aqueous phase). Thermal and thermodynamic
equilibrium will be obtained, and the dissociation process will stop. The
main difference between the two states in point A, before and after
methanol injection, is that some of the hydrate phase has been
dissociated. This may, or may not, be enough to e.g. regain partial flow
in a plugged pipe.
On the other hand, if the presslire is not kept constant in the case with
batch-addition of methanol (i .e. constant volume conditions), a process
described by the curved line A-C is most likely to happen. The
equilibrium temperature on the interface between hydrate and the fluid
phases (point B) will immediately after methanol injection be lower than
the ambient temperature, and the temperature of the hydrate phase will
start to decrease. The hydrate phase will start to dissociate. The pressure
will increase because water and gas are produced from the hydrate, and
as described above, the inhibited hydrate eqUilibrium curve will start to
move towards the original (uninhibited) hydrate equilibrium curve. At
some point, the pressure and temperature development (along curve A-
C) will meet the inhibited hydrate eqUilibrium curve, and the hydrate

Figure 2
Ta Temperature
Hydrate dissociation by temperature increase.
T a is the ambient temperature.
phase will be at thermodynamic eqUilibrium, but because the hydrate
phase is not at thermal equilibrium with its surroundings, more hydrate
will dissociate until all phases are at thermal and thermodynamic
equilibrium at point C. The dissociation process will stop, and the main
difference between the two states before (point A) and after methanol
injection (point C) is that some hydrate has been dissociated and the
pressure has been increased.
One aspect of hydrate plug melting by pressure reduction which needs
special attention, is that the heat which is most readily available is the
one coming in through the pipe walls from the surrounding medium
(sand, water etc.). This means that the part of the plug which melts first,
is the outermost layer along the wall. This is the part that is keeping the
plug in place. If there is a large pressure difference across the plug,
there is a possibility that it will be shot through the pipe like a projectile
when it comes loose from the wall. This is a possible explanation for a
number of accidents in connection with hydrate plug removal. Often,
the pressure has been reduced on one side only (down to atmospheric
pressure), and the plugs have come loose and caused large amounts of
material damage and even fatalities (Kent and Coolen, 1991).
A hydrate plug in a pipeline will have a porosity depending on the fluid
system. In general, a gas system will produce low porosity plugs, while
an oil system will result in higher porosity because of inclusion of w'ater
and oil droplets. During the melting of porous plugs, the melting rate in
the plug interior might be of the same order as the rate along the wall.
This results in a slushy, grainy snow-like mass, which has less potential
for damage if the plug comes loose. If the pressure on one side is
reduced to a level where the corresponding hydrate equilibrium
temperature is below O'C, the water produced in the pores will freeze.
This process will release heat, and the temperature of the plug is not
likely to drop below OC. The ice may close the pores in the plug, and
eventually stop the propagation of the pressure reduction. The melting
will then take place mainly along the wall. A wedge-shaped melting
zone will move along the plug-wall interface, reduCing the contact area
between plug and pipe wall. At some point this contact area will become
too small to hold the plug, which may be shot through the pipe with
high kinetic energy, damaging pipe and equipment.
One way of avoiding this is to depressurize both sides of the plug if at
all possible. The plug will then be stationary, and the melting process
will be both safer and quicker. Lowering the pressure such that the
equilibrium hydrate temperature is below O'C should be avoided. Ice
formation will prolong the melting process substantially. This sets a
bound for the attainable melting rate, as generally only a relatively small
temperature difference in relation to the surroundings can be obtained
__ --____
Figure 3
Ta Temperature
Hydrate dissociation by methanol
injection. Ta is the ambient temperature.
at sea bottom conditions. During two-sided depressurization it might be
advantageous to retain a small pressure difference, to be able to detect
the melting of the final blockages.
It is also possible to combine pressure reduction with inhibitor injection.
Several advantages are obtained with this powerful hydrate plug removal
First of all, if. an inhibitor is injected upstream the hydrate plug,
It WIll be transported mto the porous plug when the pressure is reduced
downstream. Water produced into the pores of the plug will then be
inhibited and may not be able to form ice, and the porosity of the
hydrate plug will increase continuously. If an inhibitor like methanol is
applied, the dissociation rate will increase even more; with much lower
probability of hazardous situations.
Temperature increase is not generally an applicable method for removal
of hydrate plugs in subsea pipelines, but a short look at hazardous
situations caused by the temperature increase method in process
equipment might be useful.
A common way of removing hydrate plugs in process equipment (pipes,
valves, scrubbers, separators etc.) is heating the plugged unit with hot
water or steam. This is a very effective way, but caution is required.
When the ambient temperature is increased beyond the hydrate
equilibrium temperature for the given pressure, the hydrate starts to
dissociate, and produced gas and water will raise the pressure. A
pressure-temperature development described by curve B-D in Figure 2
will occur. This means that as long as there is hydrate left to dissociate,
and the fluids are not able to escape, the pressure will increase to the
eqUilibrium pressure corresponding to the temperature of the hot water,
which normally is at a dangerous level. In laboratories at the university
of Moscow, pressures of several thousand bar have supposedly been
produced in this way (Makogon, 1994). Catastrophic rupture of process
equipment may occur.
The heat added will first dissociate the hydrate closest to the pipe wall. If
this process takes place along the whole plug - which can easily happen
for short plugs in process equipment - the plug may come loose from
the pipe wall and may again be shot through the pipe as a projectile, if
care is not taken to equalize pressures upstream and downstream.
Injection of methanol is a common way of dissociating hydrate plugs in
the North Sea, usually in combination with pressure reduction.
Inhibitors used in combination with pressure reduction will reduce the
risk of developing hazardous situations. No hazardous situations
connected to hydrate plug dissociation have yet been attributed to
inhibitor injection alone.
All petroleum companies active in Norwegian continental waters were
sent a questionnaire regarding hydrate problems in pipelines.
Experience from the previous inquiry (Johnsen, 1990) indicated that
very detailed questions on pipe diameter, length, fluid composition,
pressure and temperature conditions etc. were needed to analyze the
reports. In addition, questions on production history leading up to the
problems, estimates of hydrate amounts, removal procedures and
general company procedures, awareness and experience transfer were
included. A full report on the inquiry is found in Lysne et al. (1994).
The relatively low number of reported incidents (three companies) must
be seen in relation to the short period of only three years. A total of six
incidents of hydrate problems in pipeline transport were reported in the
earlier study (Johnsen, 1990).
The received data were mostly adequate to fulfil the main goals of this
study; to chart incidents and company procedures and awareness. The
answers vary from short denials of any problems, to hundreds of pages
of documentation of pressure and temperature conditions, detailed
pipeline profiles, etc. A summary appears in Table 1.
More than half the companies (8) report no problems with hydrate
formation in pipelines. Some of them indicate extensive research efforts
resulting in procedures and knowledge used to avoid possible problems,
while others describe the need for hydrate awareness as small, and rely
on e.g. "warmer climates" to avoid problems.
Table 1 Summary of received questionnaire answers
Company Problems Type Solution Experience
(NS: North transfer
1 No
- -
2 Yes onshore MeOH+ No formal
plugs depres-
3 No - - N/A
4 No
- -
5 Yes subsea Inhibitor + None
plugs depres-
6 No - -
7 Yes (NS) subsea MeOH+ None
plugs Alcohol
8 Yes (NS) subsea MeOH, heat Extensive
plugs and course
9 Yes onshore Heat + Publication
plugs depres- of
surization experience
10 Yes subsea and Inhibitor + Courses
onshore depres-
plugs surization
11 No
- -
12 Yes (NS) subsea MeOH+ N/A
plugs depres-
13 No - -
14 No - - None
15 No
- -
A group of four companies describe hydrate problems and incidents
from other geographical locations than the North Sea. On-shore gas
pipelines with diameters from 3" to 12" and lengths of 8 km to 80 km
are described as having hydrate problems when ambient temperatures
have been low. One company reports problems with a 3", 4.5 km
subsea gas pipeline in a more southern climate. A common feature of
the reported incidents from another company is that their onshore lines
had been shut down at low temperatures and high pressures, and
problems occurred at start-up. Wet gas lines, of different lengths,
diameters of 2" to 19", and with rather "bumpy" profiles are reported
as having hydrate problems whenever sea temperatures are low enough.
It is of special interest to note that one company sometimes uses pigging
to clear "hydrate slush" from the pipes. This procedure is generally
not advisable at all, because of the danger of packing the hydrates
together and creating plugs.
Only three of the companies discuss hydrate problems in the North Sea
in their reports. One describes a large-diameter gas pipeline of 350 km
length which was completely plugged. This was due to an ice plug used
to isolate another pipe branch accidentally entering the pipe and acting
as a nucleation site for hydrates. Inhibitor injection for several weeks
was needed to clear the plug. Another company offers documentation
of two separate plug incidents in the North Sea. One took place in a 9"
oil and gas pipeline of 12 km length, with a very bumpy profile. The
plugging was due to a faulty valve, letting water enter the stagnant
pipeline. Pressure reduction and a large batch of methanol was used to
remove the hydrates over a period of 24 hours. The other incident took
place in a 6", 12 km un insulated test- and service pipeline. After an
inhibited shut-down, the line was restarted without the proper
procedures for inhibitor injection being followed. Hydrates were
localized close to the processing facility, and were quickly removed by
methanol injection downstream, and by spraying of hot water on the
outside of the exposed pipe. The third company discusses aspects of
hydrate formation in as", 7 km flat-profile oil pipeline. Temperature
drop and unplanned shut-downs are identified as critical factors.
Procedures for organizing and transferring hydrate knowledge differ
between the companies, from no procedures in one company, to an
extensive package with hydrate courses specialized and adapted for all
relevant technical levels within one of the others.
All companies which have hydrate activities seem to evaluate the
possibility for hydrate formation by the use of so-called handbook
methods or different advanced computer programs. The handbook
methods are usually reliable if a liquid hydrocarbon' phase
(condensate/oil) is not present. The computer programs which are used,
are mainly based on hydrate theory from van der Waals and Platteeuw
(1959), which is known to give satisfactory results for most engineering
Glycols (usually monoethylene glycol) are most often used for
continuous hydrate inhibition. These chemicals also often behave as
corrosion inhibitors. Methanol is used or going to be used by about half
of the companies which need inhibitors. The same chemicals are used at
shut-down or start-up.
The methods used for calculation of the total amount of inhibitors
needed, have only, been given by one company, which has developed a
multiphase computer program handling the inhibitor distribution in all
phases. Many computer programs in use only give the amount of
inhibitors needed for the water phase, ignoring inhibitor distribution to
gas and liquid hydrocarbon phases. The additional amount of inhibitors
needed has to be evaluated from tables or experimental data. The
received answers do not indicate whether or not this is done.
Four of the 15 companies have described formal procedures for
treatment of hydrate problems. Other companies seem to make field
specific proc,edure's as needed. .. .
The usual ways to treat hydrate problems an a pipeline seem to be;
for a partly clogged pipeline, methanol is injected upstream the
for a completely clogged pipeline, depressurization is used prior to
methanol or glycol injection.
Table 2 Range of system characteristics for reported
hydrate problems in pipeline transport.
Pipeline Characteristic Extreme values reported
Pipeline length 5 - 350 km
Pipe inner diameter 2" - 30"
Insulation From none, to both coating and
Fluids Gas system - oil system
Pipeline profile From flat, to extremely buckled
One interesting trend to note, is that companies having experienced
severe hydrate problems, seem generally much more aware of the risks
in later operations, and have better procedures ready in case of re-
occurrences. From the information. received, it is clear that problems of
hydrate formation in pipelines are not restricted to special cases, special
fluids or special pipe characteristics. Table 2 shows the range of
different characteristics which were reported for problematic pipelines.
The clearest indication of beginning hydrate problems for a pipeline in
operation seems to be an increasing pressure drop. It is important that
operators learn to recognize this sign, in addition to knowing the
hydrate-favouring pressure and temperature conditions. If the hydrates
are identified at an early stage, inhibitor injection or production rate
increase may be enough to remove them before a hydrate plug is
Start-up of pipelines after long shut-downs where fluids have reached
ambient sea temperature, is one of the major trouble areas. To start the
flow, the line, has to be, pressurized, and temperature and pressure
conditions will often be well inside the hydrate stability region. It is
important to try and inhibit the fluids before such a shut-in, and also
before the start-up is performed - although this often presents practical
Pressure reduction and methanol injection are clearly the most favoured
methods of removing hydrates once they have formed. A method which
is not often possible to use on transport pipelines (especially subsea
ones) but all the more usual in process facilities, is the spraying of hot
water or steam on the pipe outside to melt hydrates. All these
procedures and their accompanying possibilities for hazardous
situations were discussed earlier.
It is worth noting that most of the reported incidents of hydrates have
occurred during normal operation (including shut -down and start-up),
and are seldom due to abnormal events or pure accidents. It seems
about 75% of hydrate problems occur during normal operation.
However, this number is not entirely accurate, due to several companies
lumping incidents together in their reports.
In relatively short pipelines, hydrate formation conditions are usually
only reached in the case of low flowrate or during a shut-down. As an
example, Figure 4 shows the' temperature profile of the pipeline from
Tordis to Gullfaks C in the North Sea, at different times after shut-down,
from steady state simulations with the OLGA multiphase flow simulator
(Lysne et al., 1992).
Figure 4 shows that the temperature at the Tordis manifold and at the
Gullfaks C riser reaches possible hydrate formation conditions about 9
hours after shut-down.
For long pipelines, insulation characteristics are generally of low
importance. The flowing fluids will fairly rapidly (especially at shut-
down) reach ambient temperatures. For subsea pipelines, this is well
inside the hydrate envelope at most operation pressures. Other measures
have to be taken to avoid hydrates - mostly chemical inhibition. One
company reports operating in "warmer climates" as enough to avoid
hydrate problems altogether. This is a false sense of safety, as sea-
bottom temperatures can be low on most continental shelves. This sense
of security should also vanish in light of reports of hydrates occurring
't. Hydrate temperature
o ~ r ~ p
Figure 4
4015 8015 12015
Fluid temperature profiles along the Tordis-Gullfaks C
flowline as a function of shut-down time
(Lysne et aI., 1992).
in subsea pipelines in the Mexican Gulf, the Mediterranean and the
Persian, Gulf.
The reported occurrences of hydrate formation show that the problem
appears more frequently than in the previous study, even if the last
study was undertaken for a relatively short period of time. The two
studies together make it clear that it is also important that awareness of
potential risk during removal of hydrate plugs is recognized. A
minority of the companies state that they have formal procedures in
place for hydrate removal. The general knowledge about hydrate and
hydrate related problems vary widely in the different companies, and
hopefully this is an area for improvement in the future.
It has been found that hydrate problems occur for a wide variety of pipe
lengths, diameters, profiles, insulation characteristics and fluids. Most
problems occur during normal operation.
Johnsen H.K. (1990). "Kartlegging av hydratproblemer i
petroleumsvirksomheten", Report for the Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate (in Norwegian).
Kent, R.P., Coolen, M.E. (1991). "Hydrates in Natural Gas Lines",
paper presented at Mobil safety conference.
Lysne D., Sa:ther G., Lund A. (1992). "Evaluation of potential hydrate
problems for Tordis field development", Multiphase Transportation
ill - Present Application & Future Trends, conference at Rf/lros, Norway.
Lysne D., Larsen R., Lund A. (1994). "Hydrate problems in pipelines -
An inquiry among petroleum companies with operational responsibility
on the Norwegian continental shelf, 1991-93", report. no.STFII
F94008, SINTEF, Trondheim, Norway
Lysne D. (1995). "Hydrate plug dissociation by pressure reduction", thesis, Norwegian Institute of Technology (NTH), preprint.
Makogon Y. F. (1994). "Russia's Contribution to the Study of Gas
Hydrates", Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sciences Vol 715, pp 119-145, New York.
Sloan E. D. (1990). "Clathrate Hydrates of Natural Gases", Marcel
Dekker Inc., New York.
van der Waals, J. H., Platteeuw, J. C. (1959). "Clathrate Solutions", Adv.
Chem. Phys. 2, pp 1-57.