Hydrate Prevention and
Removal in Ultradeepwater
Drilling Systems
With the number of deepwater wells
increasing, hydrate blockages
impairing well-control equipment is
a possibility that can no longer be
ignored. Because chemical inhibition
of drilling mud is only partially effec-
tive, a sound strategy to prevent and
remedy hydrate incidents during
Deepwater Drilling and Completions
drilling operations must be imple-
mented. The full-length paper pro-
poses procedures, methods, and
equipment modifications to avoid or
mitigate hydrate formation. Depres-
surization, thermal, chemical, and
mechanical methods to remove a
hydrate plug are discussed. Use of
existing equipment and requirements
for specific tool and well-control
equipment design are highlighted.
Introduction
With an increasing number of wells
drilled in water depths approaching
3000 m or in frontier environments
where sea-bottom temperature is below
0°C, chemical inhibition of drilling
mud can no longer be considered a safe
and practical solution to prevent
hydrate formation. An important sec-
tion of the wellbore and drilling riser is
exposed to hydrate clogging during
long cooling-off periods. The economi-
cal and environmental risk of a hydrate
incident escalation is sufficiently seri-
ous to justify development of a strategy
for hydrate prevention and removal.
Hydrates
Hydrates are ice-like compounds of gas
and water. Natural-gas hydrates are
formed when pressure increases and
temperature decreases. Natural-gas
hydrates may remain stable well above
water freezing temperature. Mechanical
and physical properties of methane
hydrates are very similar to ice. Hydrates
can be formed with any gas and even
This article is a synopsis of paper OTC
12962, “Hydrates Prevention and
Removal in Ultradeepwater Drilling
Systems,” by Thierry Botrel, SPE,
TotalFinaElf, originally presented at the
2001 Offshore Technology Conference,
Houston, 30 April–3 May.
40
condensate with the right combination
of pressure and temperature. The pres-
ence of some nonhydrocarbon gases
such as hydrogen sulfide and carbon
dioxide promote hydrate formation at
lower pressure and higher temperatures.
When dissociating, hydrates generate
high volumes of gas, approximately
170 std m3/m3 of methane hydrate.
Once formed, hydrates are difficult to
remove. Approximately two times more
heat is required to melt hydrates than is
required to melt ice.
Hydrate Prevention
When chemical inhibition is not possi-
ble, only limited options are available
for hydrate formation prevention. These
include excluding gas and water from
the drilling system, maintaining pres-
sure below hydrate stability pressure,
and maintaining temperature above
hydrate formation temperature.
Absence of gas is a matter of good
drilling practices. However, a gas kick or
gas migration may happen. Water-free
drilling mud exists but is costly and dif-
ficult to maintain. Maintaining pressure
below hydrate formation pressure is not
an option during drilling operations.
Risk Mitigation
Full prevention of hydrate risk is near-
ly impossible to achieve. Ways should
be found to minimize and mitigate the
risk. Only methods and equipment
modifications that are easy and cost-
effective for implementation on exist-
ing drilling rigs will be described.
During Shutdown. There are many
circumstances when the well must be
closed for a long time period without
the open hole being plugged properly.
Such circumstances may allow only a
limited time to secure the well. Because
hydrate formation is impossible to pre-
vent, hydrate formation where removal
is easy is the desired condition. It is
thought that hydrates form in the well-
bore and migrate to the blowout pre-
venters (BOP’s) because they are lighter
than drilling mud. Experiments con-
ducted with a sapphire pressure cell
found that an oil/water interface pre-
vented hydrate migration to the top of
the cell. The authors concluded that
even if the effectiveness was not fully
proved, it was good practice and eco-
nomical to spot 100 m of base oil pill
across the BOP.
During Well Control. According to
the Intl. Assn. of Drilling Contractors’
deepwater well-control guidelines, the
driller’s method is the well-control
method of choice because circulation
begins almost immediately and
reduces the time for equipment to cool
and gas to migrate. This method has
several drawbacks for hydrate preven-
tion and mitigation. Friction losses in
kill lines and chokelines are so high
that the slow circulation rate is very
low and the system cools rapidly.
Because both kill lines and chokelines
are used to circulate out the kick, both
are at risk for hydrate plugging.
A new well-control method was
developed that mixes the circulating
mud with an additional-flow-rate
(AFR) fluid of lower density at the
BOP level. Density and rheological
properties of the mixture entering the
chokeline are lower than the original
drilling mud properties and cause a
decrease in hydrostatic head and fric-
tion losses inside the chokeline. With
proper setting of the slow circulation
rate and the AFR, the effect of choke-
line friction losses can be reduced,
nullified, or even inverted.
The AFR method keeps the same
pressure margin at the casing shoe and
allows a much higher flow rate than the
driller’s method, resulting in reduced
system cooling. The high rate clean
fluid inside the kill line and across the
BOP flushes hydrates out constantly.
The correct amount of hydrate
inhibitors can be added to the AFR
fluid without compromising well- con-
trol precision, and the AFR fluid can be
easily heated before being pumped.
Remedial Action
External or internal heating, depres-
surization, chemical dissociation, and
mechanical destruction can clear a
hydrate plug. Even if a chemical heat-
JULY 2001
 ing collar could be deployed by use of
a remotely operated vehicle, the
hydrate plug must be located and its
extent defined. Pressure buildup
caused by heating the gas may exceed
the capacity of the equipment.
Internal heating seems more feasible
and less risky than external heating
because the hydrate plug will start to
melt from the top allowing gas to
expand freely. An electric downhole ele-
ment combined with a methanol pump
has been run and successfully melted a
hydrate plug in a producing well. Such
a low-cost and easily deployable tool
might be useful to clear a blockage in a
dent increases as water depth and the
number of deepwater wells increase.
2. Because of their design, subsea
well-control systems are vulnerable to
hydrate accumulation and plugging.
3. Spotting light-density water-free
fluids below the BOP during long
shut-in periods might help hydrate
plugs stay inside the wellbore where
they are easier to remove.
4. The AFR method may significant-
ly decrease the risk of a hydrate plug
occurring during gas-kick circulation
and protect the kill-line circuit.
5. Mechanical actions such as jetting
or drilling are preferred when practical
because of the risks associated with
other methods. JPT
Please read the full-length paper for
additional detail, illustrations, and ref-
erences. The paper from which the
synopsis has been taken has not been
peer reviewed. Copyright 2001
Offshore Technology Conference.

Deepwater Drilling and Completions

kill line or chokeline. Several compa-
nies market a heat-generating mixture
that combines acid and basic liquid.
Depressurization is the only efficient
method to clear part of the well-con-
trol system. Depressurization is easy to
achieve by use of conventional means
such as coiled tubing and nitrogen.
Chemical dissociation by use of
methanol has been used to successful-
ly clear a blocked wellhead connector.
However, it is difficult to keep the
chemical in contact with the hydrates
in the BOP and chokeline. Chemical
dissociation is very slow and there are
safety concerns about storage and han-
dling of a large quantity of methanol
aboard a drilling unit.
Mechanical removal by drilling or
jetting seems to be the safest way to
remove a hydrate plug. The hydrate
plug will be circulated out and the risk
of hydrate forming again is mini-
mized. The preferable way to clear a
hydrate plug inside a kill line or
chokeline mechanically is by use of
coiled tubing fitted with either a noz-
zle or a mud motor.

Equipment Modification
Some equipment modifications have
been proposed to minimize hydrate
formation risks and improve the
chance of fast recovery. A third flow
path to the BOP can be added by
upgrading the boosting line. Use of
new composite materials will make
this modification possible without a
weight increase. Thermal insulation
properties of composite materials also
may allow heated fluid to be pumped.

Conclusions
1. Although there are only a few
documented incidents of hydrates
clogging BOP’s, kill lines, and choke-
lines, the probability of such an inci-

41
JULY 2001