Originally March 2006 issue, pgs D-7D-10.

appreared in: Posted with permission.

Understanding wax problems leads

to deepwater ow assurance solutions
Interpretation of lab measurements provides pigging and treating rules of thumb.
Thomas S. Golczynski and Elijah C. Kempton, Multiphase Solutions, Inc.

Increased exploration and production
activity from the worlds deepwater fields
have brought flow assurance issues to the
forefront. Concerns about wax deposi-
tion, wax gelation and hydrate formation
play a significant role in concept selec-
tion for deepwater and ultra-deepwater
development projects. Water depth, long
distances from the reservoir to the host
facility via subsea tiebacks, dry tree ris-
ers and extended export pipelines in cold
ambient water temperatures all pose risks
for operators to consider when planning
their development scenarios. Under
these adverse conditions, it is important
to understand multiphase fluid proper-
ties and the design options to prevent or
mitigate deepwater flow assurance chal-
lenges. This article focuses on wax-re-
lated problems.
WAX DEPOSITION
AND GELATION
Wax deposition and wax gelation are
two potentially catastrophic issues in
crude oil and gas/condensate systems that
can render a pipeline unusable. While
typically confined to oils, gas/condensate
discoveries in Southeast Asia have shown
waxing and/or gel formation.
The deposition of n-paraffin will
commonly occur along the pipe walls
when the temperature of produced fluids
falls below the Wax Appearance Temper-
ature (WAT) or cloud point, the point
tion can completely block the pipeline.
During restart operations, there might
not be sufficient pressure available at the
pipeline inlet to break the gel and al-
low the pipeline to flow. The pipeline, at
that point, may be rendered useless.
LABORATORY MEASUREMENTS
Laboratory measurements are impor-
tant in establishing predictive models to
determine wax deposition rate and degree
of wax gelation. In both instances, inter-
pretation of the data and understanding
of the testing procedures are critical.
Wax deposition. The WAT is perhaps
the most important laboratory measure-
ment for determining the extent of the
wax deposition problem in the subsea sys-
tem. It is essential to understand the dif-
ference in test results that can be obtained
by using live oil versus stock tank oil.
Typically, stock tank measurements
are conducted (with a redundancy rec-
ommended to ensure consistency in the
results) to evaluate the severity of the
problem. For most systems, the stock
tank oil WAT is the design point that
is commonly used, but it is inherently
conservative. Stock tank oil samples are
typically much more readily available
than live oil samples. Under normal
(live) production conditions, the actual
WAT may be some 10C (50F) lower,
as light-ends dissolve into solution with
increased pressure, effectively reducing
the WAT.
When designing a production system,
consideration must also be given to the
temperature required to re-dissolve any
wax that forms. Because of the kinetic
effects of deposition, wax doesnt always
return to solution once temperatures are
elevated above the WAT. Instead, produc-
tion fluid temperatures might need to be
elevated 20C (68F) or more above the
WAT to melt any wax that has deposited.
Viscosity has a major impact on the
wax deposition rate. As viscosity increas-
es, wax deposition rates decrease because
wax particles diffuse less easily to the pipe
wall. Therefore, care needs to be taken if
chemicals are injected to reduce viscos-
ity for hydraulic performance improve-

at which the first wax crystals start to

precipitate out of solution. Deposition
rates can be attributed to many factors
including paraffin content, fluid viscos-
ity, flowrates, gas/oil ratio and the heat
transfer coefficient (U-value).
Wax gelation is less common in

steady-state than is wax deposition, but
it can have even greater impact if, dur-

ing production system shutdowns, fluid
temperatures cool below the fluid pour
Fig. 1. Two uids with similar wax appearance temperatures can have different wax
point, allowing the formation of a can- contents and deposition rates.
dle or solid wax column. This condi-
MARCH 2006 World Oil


they are more highly concentrated with

high carbon number paraffins) and re-
quire pigging at 12 mm thickness to

prevent the pig from becoming stuck in
the pipe.




Wax gelation. Pour point is a princi-
pal factor in gel formation, as it defines

the temperature gels form. For example,

Fig. 2. Fluid temperatures can drop precipitously in a short period during a dry tree
riser shutdown.
ment, as these chemicals might increase
the wax deposition rate.
Determining the deposition rate is
perhaps the most complicated of the par-
affin-related laboratory tests, with multi-
ple ways of quantifying the rate. The goal
of each method, however, is to determine
the deposition rate to the pipe walls. Be-
cause the wax deposition rate is governed
to a large degree by the temperature gra-
dient between the production fluid and
the ambient surroundings, there must be
a positive heat flux across the pipe. If the
fluid temperature reaches ambient condi-
tions, or falls below ambient conditions,
no wax deposition will occur.
Analog data, based on known fluid
properties, can also be used to estimate
wax deposition rates. Using this key infor-
mation and comparing it with the depo-
sition properties of similar fluids within
geographic proximity can provide a close
match against the fluid in question. It can
also be used to infer the deposition rate
in lieu of laboratory testing. To utilize
this approach, however, it is imperative
that all key parametersincluding WAT,
viscosity, API gravity, molecular weight
and wax contentbe considered to accu-
rately determine the deposition rate. As
Fig. 1 illustrates, two fluids with similar
WATs can have different wax contents
and deposition rates because of varying
viscosities and other factors. It is, there-
fore, necessary not to rely solely on only
one fluid property for fluid matching.
Once the wax deposition rate is mea-
sured and interpreted, the results can be
during a long shutdown after the produc-
blocked or present significant difficulties
cooling rate, with fast rates predicting
entered into a fully integrated, thermal
model for predicting the location of any
deposit, the deposit thickness as a func-
tion of time, the net pressure drop in-
crease and the total volume of wax need-
ing removal during pigging operations.
The modeling will assist operators
in determining the pigging frequency
needed for a specific field configuration.
In general, wax deposition models are
conservative, over-predicting wax depo-
sition rates. The results from the mod-
els should be used as a guide to pigging
frequency, with operations fine-tuning
the actual pigging program as the field
comes onstream.
Pigging frequency can be determined
by using the deposition rate prediction
and various rules of thumb, including:
Limiting pressure drop across the
pig to 50100 psi
Limiting total wax volume in front
of the pig to 50 bbl
Limiting total wax thickness to
~10% of the cross-sectional area
Limiting total wax thickness to
~14 mm, depending on the deposition
rate.
The last rule of thumb depends to a
large extent on pipeline U-values. A fast
deposition rate with high U-values (i.e.,
bare pipe) is often softer and easier to re-
move, with higher concentrations of oil.
This condition can permit the operator
to pig when the thickness reaches 4 mm.
Conversely, slow deposition rates with
low U-values (i.e., pipe-in-pipe) produce
deposits that are usually harder (because
MARCH 2006 World Oil
tion fluid has cooled to ambient temper-
atures, a pipeline can become completely
when being restarted.
In laboratory measurements, the
pour point is the temperature at which
the fluid no longer moves once inverted
in a sample container. The pour point
measurement is highly susceptible to
higher pour points than slow cooling
rates. Therefore, the cooling rate used in
the laboratory should match closely with
the anticipated cooling rate in the field,
based on the insulation expected.
Laboratory tests are usually conduct-
ed on a tank stock or, preferably, a live oil
sample cooled at a given rate and tested
periodically at certain temperatures to
determine whether or not it will flow.
The pour point measurement, as with
the WAT measurement, is pressure re-
lated and, as gas is added to the fluid, the
pour point decreases.
If the fluid has a pour point below
ambient seabed temperatures, typically
no additional testing is recommended. If
this is not the case, the cooling rate and
pressure effects are more important and
need to be evaluated further.
While pour point testing helps iden-
tify the risk of restart problems, yield (or
gel) strength tests are useful in determin-
ing the pressure required to break the gel
during restart. The wax candle need not
yield in its entirety for restart to occur, as
generally a domino effect will occur at
significantly lower restart pressures.
Pour Point Depressant (PPD) might
be required for continuous system treat-
ment when the pour point is above sea-
bed ambient temperatures and restart
pressures are excessive. PPD may be se-
lected to either reduce the pour point
below ambient temperature or, in cases
of very high dosages or high pour points,
to reduce the restart pressure below ac-
ceptable levels.
In these cases, a gel may still form, but
it would be weak enough to break easily.
Additionally, PPD might have an adverse
impact on wax deposition rates. There-


fore, if PPD is utilized, labora- system for round-trip pigging

tory testing should be complet- or utilizing continuous paraf-

ed to verify that PPD will also
fin inhibitor to reduce the rate
reduce wax deposition rates. of wax deposition.

The economic impact of

FIELD CONDITIONS a subsea flowline blockage is
Once there is a basic un- considerably greater than with
derstanding of the challenges dry tree risers. While the lower

associated with wax deposi- achievable heat transfer coef-
tion and wax gelation risks and ficients (U-value) of subsea tie-
how they can be identified in backs might suggest improved
the laboratory, it is necessary to thermal performance, this alter-
apply this information to par- native might be cost-prohibi-
affin-related issues in the field. tive with lengthy tiebacks. As


with dry tree risers, any paraf-
Dry tree risers. It is generally fin inhibitor must be injected

assumed that dry tree risers have at 10C (50F) above the WAT,

fewer flow assurance issues than which may require downhole

subsea tiebacks, as they provide injection. Thus, the subsurface/
easier access (direct vertical) to completion design of the tub-

the reservoir and production ing will be impacted by the wax
system. In deepwater and ultra- management strategy.
deepwater projects, however,
Wax deposition. Looped
insulating dry tree risers to pre- flowlines allow for pigging op-

vent wax and hydrate problems tions; however, the cost of lost

can be a challenge. production time for round-

Wax deposition. Under trip pigging, as well as the cost
steady-state conditions, where of a second line to create the
the fluid arrival temperature Fig. 3. (Top) An uninsulated pipelines temperature drops piggable loop, may outweigh
is below the WAT, wax depo- toward ambient, wax buildup insulates, extending the
temperature prole. (Bottom) As wax is deposited, its
insulation and chemical in-
sition can occur in the tub- insulating properties make the temperatures warmer and hibition costs. Variables that
ing string. The problem then move the deposit further down the pipeline. must be considered are tieback
becomes how to remove the length, pig velocity and nomi-
deposit. Remediation options nal production rate. The insu-
include insulation to maintain fluid With multiple well configurations, the lation costs to lower the U-value (with
temperatures above WAT, chemical inhi- scenario is complicated, as the operator a pipe-in-pipe solution, for instance), or
bition and physical/mechanical means, must treat all wells. For large, multi-well inhibitor costs, must be analyzed against
such as scraping the tubing. developments, this may require simulta- the savings of less-frequent pigging.
External insulation, low-pressure an- neous operations. Wax deposition modeling is valuable
nulus gas and/or gelled fluids in the an- Operating procedures must be initi- in determining the likely location of wax
nulus can be used to maintain tempera- ated to shut in wells once the flow rate buildup and in recommending a suitable
ture. With single-casing risers, care needs drops below the rate needed to maintain insulation and pigging frequency pro-
to be taken when gas and liquids are used cooldown time. As the profile in Fig. 2 gram. Fig. 3 depicts the impact of par-
as insulation, as natural convection with- shows, fluid temperatures can drop pre- affin buildup in a subsea tieback on its
in the fluids can greatly degrade the dry cipitously in a short period during a dry temperature profile and wax thickness,
tree risers thermal performance. tree riser shutdown. respectively. Fig. 3, top, shows the tem-
Wax deposition rates can be reduced PPD injection, if used continuously, perature of an uninsulated pipeline over
by continuously injecting a paraffin in- will help retard gel formation. As with time (as wax deposition occurs). The pro-
hibitor. However, to be effective, a par- a typical paraffin inhibitor, the PPD file quickly drops toward ambient, but
affin inhibitor should be injected at a should be injected at some margin above wax buildup actually provides insulating
temperature of 10C (50F) above the the WAT/pour point. Active heat could properties, thus extending the tempera-
WAT. This may require deep-set injec- be used during a shutdown to maintain ture profile. Fig. 3, bottom, shows a high
tion mandrels in the well. Active heat temperature and re-melt the gel prior to wax buildup rate near the pipeline inlet.
may also be used to maintain a temper- restart. Lastly, displacement of produced As the wax deposits and the insulating
ature above WAT. For these cases, it is fluids back in to the formation using an properties of wax make the temperatures
advisable to consider the temperature re- inert fluid (other than dead oil) is also a warmer, the wax deposit location moves
quired to melt the deposited wax, when possible solution to gelation. further down the pipeline. Once ambi-
designing the active heat system. ent temperatures are reached, there is no
Wax gelation. Maintaining fluids Subsea tiebacks/export pipelines. wax buildup.
above the pour point is critical. The Typical wax-related control practices in Wax gelation. The plugging of a
cooldown time to the pour point might deepwater subsea developments are insu- subsea pipeline with gelled paraffin
be very short, as little as four to six hours. lating the flowlines, providing a looped could be catastrophic. A looped flowline
MARCH 2006 World Oil


might be required to allow produced

fluid displacement to remove all of the
in-situ production fluid prior to gel for-
mation. The insulation selected should
provide sufficient cooldown time for
non-problematic system restart and
fluid circulation through the flowlines,
as well as sufficient storage volume for
the displaced and circulation fluids.
These can be complicated for minimal
facility system designs. Pipelines should
be preheated prior to restart to retard
wax gelation until the production fluid
warms above the pour point. Whichever
heat medium is usedhot water, heated
diesel or treated hot production fluid
each has its own challenges.

CONCLUSION
Wax deposition and wax gelation
problems can cause serious flow assur-
ance concerns for operators in deepwater
installations. To help combat these issues,
laboratory measurements are required
to develop an understanding of fluid
characteristics and temperature require-
ments. Intelligent data interpretation of
these measurements can provide rules of
thumb and accurate models for establish-
ing pigging and treating programs.
Modeling can also provide key indi-
cators for profiling pipeline temperatures
and wax buildup. These tools can greatly
assist the operator in making economic
decisions and exploring multiple design
options. Current modeling technology
includes real-time, online pipeline moni-
toring and advisory systems that help
manage a myriad of flow assurance is-
sues. A number of operators worldwide
have deployed such systems. WO

THE AUTHORS
Thomas S. Golczynski is general manager,
Services, with Multiphase Solutions, Inc. (MSi)
in Houston. He is technical lead for all ow
assurance studies carried out within MSi and
provides ow assurance analysis for deepwater
and ultra-deepwater developments. Golczynski
earned a BS degree in chemical engineering
from the University of Michigan.

Elijah C. Kempton is a staff ow assurance

consultant with Multiphase Solutions, Inc.
(MSi) in Houston. He previously served as
MSis parafn deposition laboratory manager,
supervising all laboratory procedures and per-
forming extensive parafn-related analyses,
including diffusion coefcient determinations,
wax deposition predictions and gel formation
measurements. Kempton earned a BS degree
in chemical engineering and petroleum rening
from the Colorado School of Mines.

Article copyright 2006 by Gulf Publishing Company. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A.