OTC-28704-MS

Flow Assurance Engineering in Deepwater Offshore - Past, Present, and

Future

John Bomba, Genesis; Doreen Chin, SET; Ashutosh Kak and Weihong Meng, Genesis

Copyright 2018, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas, USA, 30 April–3 May 2018.

This paper was selected for presentation by an OTC program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of
the paper have not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Offshore Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Offshore Technology Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of OTC copyright.

Abstract
The objective of this paper is to provide a review of the evolution of the flow assurance discipline over
the years as it applies to the design of gathering and export pipeline systems. In the early days, pipeline
design was essentially a job for one engineer when pipelines were on land or in shallow water, not in a new
geological province, flowing temperatures / pressures were not abnormal, and had no multi-phase flow or
contaminants.
This paper will identify events or circumstances that affected how "~Pipeline Hydraulics" were designed.
Flow Assurance Engineering has evolved from two fundamental pillars – thermo-hydraulic analysis of fluid
flow in production systems, and production chemistry.
Today, flow assurance engineers in a project not only provide predictions, but also prevention strategies,
and remediation methods for:

• Fluid characteristics

• Flow hydraulics and thermal behaviors

• Performance of the production system

• Guidance of operation strategies

• Identification and management of solid deposition issues:

◦ hydrates

◦ paraffins (waxes)

◦ asphaltenes

◦ scales, etc.

They interface with multiple disciplines involved with the project, including subsurface, pipeline and
risers, subsea hardware, topsides process facilities, chemical vendors, the fluid laboratory, etc.
2 OTC-28704-MS

Beginning in the late 1940s, pipelines began transporting hydrocarbons over long distances onshore
(conversion of the Big Inch Crude and Little Inch product pipelines to natural gas service for example) when
unforeseen flow problems began to occur. Exploration gradually moved to nearshore drilling, and finally,
to shallow water. Additional flow problems increased in complexity and magnitude.
To track how these increasingly complex flow problems affected pipeline design, this paper presents:

• The evolution of Flow Assurance from simple hydraulics calculations to a well-defined engineering
discipline
• The critical responsibilities in current deepwater development - Greenfield and Brownfield projects

• The re-shaping of Flow Assurance Engineering by digital revolution and big data technologies

• The evolution of the discipline applying new technologies to unlock new reserves with longer,
deeper tiebacks

In the Beginning
In the early days, before the oil and gas industry began exploring offshore, reservoir fluids were relatively
"clean" with comparatively low pressures and temperatures. Pipeline hydraulic calculations and mechanical
designs were simple. As the industry progressed, moving into deeper water, reservoirs and reservoir fluids
became more complicated. Pressures and temperatures were higher as the producing formations were being
drilled deeper.
The large majority of fields were onshore, but occasionally, a field would extend into a lake or ocean.
Drilling would continue offshore made from wooden trestles or artificial islands. Some notable examples
were the Canadian side of Lake Erie, Santa Barbara, California, and St. Mary's Lake in Ohio.
Caddo Lake, between Texas and Louisiana, was drilled after some oil field hands in a boat crossing the
lake noticed gas bubbles rising to the lake's surface. They proceeded to ignite these bubbles all the way to
shore and convinced their company to drill.
The first recorded oil exploration well was drilled in 1846, in Bibiheybat Azerbaijan. The modern oil
field development started with the Drake Well, which was 69.5-foot-deep drilled in Cherrytree Township,
Venango County, Pennsylvania, by Edwin Drake in 1859.
In 1810 gas hydrates were identified in laboratory experiments by Humphrey Davy. Hydrates became
pipeline problems in field gathering lines installed in the early 1900s. At that time, they were not considered
a significant problem because there was little or no market for natural gas. In fact, the gas was normally
flared in the field. The maximum water content in sales gas was not specified since it was unnecessary.
In 1927 paraffins were identified as a nuisance to the upstream oil industry due to their precipitation and
accumulation on the wall of the well tubing string, and on the sand face to plug the pores, which resulted
in congealing of oil in the transportation lines and on tank bottoms (Reistle, 1927).
The major event directly impacting the development of Flow Assurance (then called hydraulics) was the
Second World War. Before World War II, crude oil and petroleum products were transported from the oil
fields and refineries in Texas to the northeastern states by sea using tankers. After the United States entered
the war, this vital link was attacked by German submarines in Operation Paukenschlag, threatening both
the oil supplies to the northeast and its onward transshipment to Great Britain. Between January 11 and
February 28, 1942, 74 ships were attacked and all but one were sunk or damaged – with no losses to the
U-boats. See Figure 1.
OTC-28704-MS 3

Figure 1—Sunk or damaged tankers on 26 Mar 2042 Source: https://www.pinterest.com/pin/368591550728561392/

To bypass these U-boats operating off the east coast, two pipelines, the Big Inch (24-inch diameter) and
the Little Big Inch (20-inch diameter), were built from near Longview, Texas to refineries in New Jersey.
The Little Big Inch line was later converted to a gasoline service line and eventually shut down. Prior to
United States involvement, Harold Ickes, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, had argued that "the
building of a crude oil pipeline from Texas to the East might not be economically sound; but that in the
event of an emergency it might be absolutely necessary". The Big Inch project was the longest, largest and
heaviest project of its type then undertaken; the Big and Little Big Inch pipelines were 1,254 and 1,475
miles (2,018 and 2,374 kilometers) long respectively, with 35 pumping stations along the route. The map
in Figure 2 depicts the routes of the two pipelines. Construction of the Big Inch began August 3, 1942, and
was completed on August 14, 1943. Little Big Inch construction began April 23, 1943, with the placing of
the last pipe on the East Coast on October 8,1943 just six months later.

Figure 2—The Inch Pipelines’ Routes

Following the end of World War II in 1945, several major events occurred as follows:

• The need for natural gas in the East Coast of the United States rose exponentially

• Exploration for oil worldwide took off in earnest

• Exploration in areas outside the existing knowledge base, i.e. The Middle East, North Africa,
offshore west coast of India (Bombay High Field), Persian Gulf--Pars Field Iran, Das Island (Umm
Shaif), Zakum field, Abu Dhabi
4 OTC-28704-MS

To satisfy this perceived demand, the two large diameter pipelines were converted to natural gas service.
Initially, a gas supplier leased the Little Big Inch, but installed no compressors because gas flow relied
on wellhead pressure alone. The lease was relinquished back to the government, who concluded that
the pipeline system must be sold. Compressors were later added to the Big Inch (24 inches) after the
Texas Eastern Gas Transmission Co. purchased the system. Wet gas in these pipelines resulted in hydrate
formation. The operational experience with these pipelines led to the standards for water vapor content in
sales gas.
Pipeline hydraulics now involved compressible fluid flow, Joule-Thomson effects, hydrates, and waxy
solids in the well stream (sand). Data required for design now included comprehensive reservoir data (P,
T, viscosity, composition, etc.) as well as temperatures expected along the pipeline, and water content in
the flow stream.
An unstated benefit resulting from the construction of the Big Inch system was the fact that large diameter
pipe could be installed and safely used. A 12 -inch pipe was considered "big" prior to the Big Inch system.
Today, 56-inch or 60-inch diameter pipelines are occasionally installed.
The late 1940s saw the industry begin moving offshore; first to the bays, then into the shallow water Gulf
of Mexico. Seismic work in the 1930s had indicated many promising features onshore near the shoreline
and some located nearshore.
Between 1950 and 1990, increasing demand for power sent oil companies into new areas in all parts of
the world. It seemed as if something new happened almost every day affecting every phase of petroleum
development from exploration to drilling, through production, through Processing and Refining, and
pipelining. Exploration depths increased from 200 feet water depth, to 300, to 600, and then to 1000 feet.
The practical limit to conventional platform installation was 1,500 feet (Bullwinkle platform). This is also
the point in time where subsea completions became popular, which became another complicating factor.
Lockhart & Martinelli (1949) proposed a correlation for multiphase pipe design. Baker (1954) developed
the flow pattern concept for design of gas pipelines. See Figure 3.

Figure 3—Bake (1954) Flow Pattern Map

OTC-28704-MS 5

Between 1955 and 1966, tests indicated that the rate of deposition due to the precipitation of wax
could be controlled with additives (Shock, et al., 1955; Jorda, 1966). Tests showed that most smooth, non-
paraffinic plastics can reduce paraffin deposition downhole, but flexible non-paraffinic plastics were better
for providing long-term resistance to downhole deposition if the flow stream contained abrasive materials.
The 1970s and 1980s saw a major increase in empirical correlation development through experimental
data methods based on Friction Factor simplifying the application of the Moody diagram (Churchill 1973,
1977). Taitel (1976) started the trend of mechanistic modeling of multiphase flow. Others tinkered with
the formulation of the equation with the aim of improving accuracy. Improvements to computational fluid
dynamics (CFD) and multiphase flow (MPF) software began in earnest along dual paths—the Petroleum
path and the Nuclear Power path. Computer hardware became physically smaller, faster, and less expensive.
Programable calculators decreased in size and increased in capabilities, with some being programmable
with Basic Code. Geophysical modelling improved with three-dimensional models.
Reservoir fluid sampling methods improved allowing operational Flow Assurance to improve, which
in turn, improved production. Methods of maintaining heat in flowing fluids were developed and
improvements to existing techniques were undertaken.
As the facilities started to be developed in deeper water, the process and facilities engineers started
specializing in solving issues related to the flow of reservoir fluids. This led to the development of the flow
assurance discipline. Projects that pushed the barrier by developing technologies were Marlin the first asset
for Petrobras in > 3000 ft water depth (Cardoso 2003) and various Norwegian shelf projects that prompted
Statoil to partner with IFE and other major operators to develop the technology. These projects proved that
production from deepwater was feasible provided proper emphasis was given to developing the right flow
assurance technologies.
Petrobras developed some of the procedures and techniques in this period, coining the term "Flow
Assurance" in the late 1980s.

1990s −2000s
This period saw continual improvement in the science of flow assurance. Computers were more powerful
and faster, engineers developed a better understanding of what was important in design and, later, to track
during operations continually tweak operating parameters, increasing production as they improved their
personal efficiency and the efficiencies of their software and computers.

PVT and Phase Equilibrium

Currently the most widely accepted equations of state for phase equilibrium modeling are SRK (Soave,
1972), Peng-Robinson (Peng, 1976) and SAFT (Statistical Associating Fluid Theory) (Chapman, 1989).
The PVT modelling software packages, PVTSIM, and MultiFlash, are well-respected in the Flow Assurance
community. A Flow Assurance engineer performs the following tasks:

• Characterization of a fluid from compositional or black oil data

• Simulation and fitting of the model to data from the most common PVT experiments (constant
mass expansion, constant volume depletion, differential liberation, multi-stage separator test) and
viscosity measurements
• Quality Check of the PVT data and underpinning of errors and inconsistencies

• Elimination of mud contamination and generation of a representation of the decontaminated sample

Flow Assurance technology is related to understanding the design and operations of multiphase
production and transportation activities (Buller et al., 2002). The aspects of Flow Assurance in the oil and
gas industry are listed in Table 1.
6 OTC-28704-MS

Table 1—Flow Assurance Aspects

Fundamentally, Flow Assurance relies on the theories of prediction of fluid properties, spatial distribution
of phases (oil, gas, water and solids) and the multiphase flowing conditions (pressure, temperature,
velocities) so that we can understand the flow conditions. The benefits of this understanding can only be
realized through implementation of this data in the design and operation of multiphase production systems
during startup, shutdown, pigging, metering, leak detection etc.

Multiphase Flow Modeling

Multiphase flow modeling or thermo-hydraulic analysis is one of the two pillars of Flow Assurance
Engineering. In multiphase flow studies, a geometric distribution of the phases (gas, liquids, solids) in a
pipe is called a flow pattern or flow regime. In the 1950s flow patterns (Baker, 1954) were observed and
used for pressure and flow calculations in multiphase pipes as summarized in references (Brennen, 2005;
and Brown, 1980). Different flow patterns are observed from experimental tests and field/plant multiphase
pipes. Use of regimes improved the prediction accuracy, but inconsistencies of calculated pressures existed
near the transition boundary due to the use of different sets of correlations in different flow regimes.
Before 1976 the industry and academia developed many correlations based on experimental data and
field data. Dimensionless analysis was used to expand the applications range. The transport properties of
the multiphase fluids are calculated from Black Oil models. Beggs and Brill (Beggs, 1973) correlations are
one of the widely used multiphase system calculations.
The governing equations of fluid flow in pipe are the Navier-Stokes equations for a multiphase flow
system. However, a direct solution of the equations is impossible even using the most powerful computers.
In the quest for accurate, but sufficiently simple approaches to the solution of two phase flow problems
modeling is of utmost importance. The term "Mechanistic Modeling" was adopted for modeling where the
OTC-28704-MS 7

physical phenomenon is approximated by taking into consideration the most important processes while
neglecting other less important effects that can complicate the problem but do not add considerably to the
accuracy of the solution. "Mechanistic Modeling" should be sufficiently close to the natural phenomenon
because the flow pattern involved should not be overlooked. Yet it will be sufficiently simple so that
the solution is amenable with reasonable analytical or numerical efforts (Taitel, 1994). Most mechanistic
models begin with an assumed flow regime present. By solving the momentum balance equations for certain
quantities that determine its characteristics, the stability of the flow pattern is examined. If the chosen flow
pattern is shown to be stable, the procedure is terminated because the pressure drop and phase volume
fractions are obtained directly from the momentum balance equations. If the flow pattern cannot exist under
the specified conditions, a new flow pattern is assumed and the procedure is repeated until a stable flow
pattern is determined. A brief history is illustrated in Figure 4 (Shippen, 2012).

Figure 4—Evolution of multiphase flow modeling, showing a selection of the more widely used models. The timeline (x—
axis) is associated with two criteria: Flow Equation Formulation (upper) and Engineering Application (lower). The vertical
axis increases with model complexity and is subdivided into live general "categories". The various models credited in this
figure, from bottom-left (the earliest) to the top-right, arc as follows: Single-Phase: Darcy4 (1857) and Weisbach5 (1845),
Moody6 (1944) (sec the work of Brown7 for historical development). Empirical "A": Lockhart and Martinelli8 (1949); Poettmann
and Carpenter9 (1952); Baxcndcll and Thomas10 (1961). Empirical "B": Drift flux (Zubcr and Findlay,11 1965; and Holmes,12
1977); Hagcdorn and Brown13 (1965); Flanigan14 (1958), Eaton et al.15 (1967), and Dulder16 (1969); Gray17 (1974). Empirical "C":
Duns and Ros18 (1963); Orkiszcwski19 (1967); Boggs and Brill20 (1973); Mukherjee and Brill21 (1985); SLB Drift-Flux22,23 (2005).
Mechanistic: Aziz, Govicr, and Forgarasi24 (1972); Taitel and Dukler25 (1976); Hasan and Kabir26 (1988); Xiao et al.27 (1994);
Ansari ct al.28 (1994); Petalas and Aziz29 (2000); TUFFP Unified30,31 (2003); Bcndiksen et al.32 (1990); Danielson et al.33 (2005).

Multiphase flow is unstable in nature, such as in slug flow, prediction of liquid inventory and liquid rate
are required for facility design and they are constantly changing in a wide range. Since 1990 research started
to tackle the transient solutions of the multiphase flow in pipes, such as Taitel and Barnea (1997). Three
different models were implemented (Masella, et al., 1998):

• Two Fluid Model (TFM), based on one momentum conservation equation for each phase

• Drift Flux Model (DFM), based on one momentum conservation equation and an algebraic slip
relation
8 OTC-28704-MS

• No Pressure Wave (NPW) model, based on an algebraic relation for the pressure drop and an
algebraic slip relation
A review of the development of transient simulators was published by Danielson (2012). Several joint
industry projects have been initiated to validate and improve the transient models.
Several transient codes were developed during the late 1980s and early 1990s as shown in Table 3.
Gharaibah, et al. (2015, October 27) reviewed CFD methods and applications in multiphase flow pipelines
in the oil and gas industry. Table 2 lists the Research Consortia related to Flow Assurance for Deepwater
Development.

Table 2—Research Consortia related to Flow Assurance for Deepwater Development

OTC-28704-MS 9

Table 3—Transient Simulators

Pipeline Configurations for Flow Assurance

Pipeline insulation is required to keep the production fluids warm to manage the solids. The types of
insulation are summarized as follows:

• External insulation (wet insulation)

• Jacketed insulation (PIP or bundle)

• Burial as supplemental insulation

• Phase change material in PIP configurations

• Electrically heated or hot fluid heated

• Flexible pipelines – uninsulated or insulated, electrically heated

Table 4 lists the pipeline configurations.

Many full-scale thermal tests were conducted on different pipeline configurations in terms of overall
heat transfer coefficient, including the field-joint. Table 5 presents typical overall-heat transfer coefficients.
Figures 5 through 10 illustrate some of the pipeline design concepts. More detailed insulated pipeline
information can be obtained from the Offshore magazine poster (Offshore, 2016).

Figure 5—Three-layer PE/PP Coating

10 OTC-28704-MS

Figure 6—Flowline Bundles

Figure 7—PIP with Stapped-on Half Shell Block Insulation (Wang, et al., 2000a)
OTC-28704-MS 11

Figure 8—Hot water heated pipeline

Figure 9—Active Heating System for PIP [Denniel and Laouir, 2001]

Figure 10—Insulated flexible pipe

12 OTC-28704-MS

Table 4—Pipeline design concepts

Table 5—Typical Overall Heat Transfer coefficients for Different Design Concepts

An insulation material should have low thermal conductivity in the production environment, should be
low cost and be easily applied on flowlines. Various foams and composite materials meet these requirements.
The properties necessary for an insulation material are thermal conductivity, density, permeability, strength,
flexibility and long-term stability. Aging, pressure and temperature have significant effects on the thermal
performance of an insulated flowline (Wang, et al.,2000).
Many tests were conducted on insulation materials for mechanical and thermal properties. Table 6 lists
the thermal properties of insulation materials frequently used by the industry.
OTC-28704-MS 13

Table 6—Typical Thermal Conductivity of Insulation Materials

In the last two decades, flow assurance studies were usually led by operators in collaboration with
academia and contractors. Extensive experiments and tests were conducted to validate the flow assurance
concepts in terms of insulation materials, pipeline configurations and multiphase flow modeling tools
(software packages). Those achievements made it possible to move project developments from 1000 m
water to 3000 m water depth.

The Present
Flow Assurance became a mature engineering discipline for engineering and operation support with
recognized simulation tools, knowledgeable teams of operators and contractors, laboratories and
manufacturers. Few new concepts have been initiated since 2013 due to the drop in oil prices. The focus has
moved to lowering development costs by reducing conservatism in Flow Assurance Engineering design and
operations support. Flow Assurance evolved from using qualitative guidelines in facilities design to using
quantitative methods. A risk-based flow assurance decision concept has been proposed (Morgan, 2015; and
Chaudhari, 2015).
14 OTC-28704-MS

Some operators have lowered development costs by shifting the responsibility from its flow assurance
engineers to EPCI contractor's flow assurance engineers. The following summarizes the current
understanding of Flow Assurance's roles in science and engineering.
Historically, Flow Assurance was considered as a sub-branch under Process Engineering or Production
Engineering. Flow Assurance has evolved as an independent Engineering Discipline in the oil and gas
industry. Figure 11 presents the building blocks of Flow Assurance Engineering, illustrating an integrated
team picture and key factors contributing to Flow Assurance engineering.

Figure 11—Flow Assurance Engineering Building Blocks

Flow assurance was not clearly defined from the day it gained its name. With time, the question of "what
is Flow Assurance About?" became more and more understandable. Nowadays, the commonly accepted
definitions are:

• Flow Assurance are the technologies and sciences that help the industry ensure the safe and
economical production of hydrocarbon fluids from reservoir to endpoint over the life of a field in
any environment
• Flow Assurance Engineering means a Flow Assurance engineer applies the science and
technology of Flow Assurance to project design, and is responsible for the continuity of flow in
an asset by defining:

◦ Key mechanical parameters

◦ Operating conditions (envelopes) and strategies

◦ Chemicals and delivery systems required to maintain production and asset integrity

Flow Assurance Science

Fluid and flow modeling describes the fundamentals and applications of the transport of gas, liquid, and
solids (either as single phase or multiphase flow) in wells, pipelines, and facilities.
Fluid modeling includes fluid analysis and simulations, fluid characterization, PVT properties, rheology,
organic solids properties, and deposition rate. The analytical and simulation technologies have matured, and
commercial software such as PVTSim and Mutiflash, can provide satisfactory results for most cases.
OTC-28704-MS 15

Flow modelling includes single phase flow, multiphase flow (2, 3 and 4 phases); heat and mass transfer at
interfaces; flow system dynamic behaviors; operation scenarios, upset scenarios; fluid-structure interaction
(internal); and sometimes Computational Fluid Dynamics. Multiphase analysis addresses thermo-hydraulics
and fluid-related effects and flow system behaviors. Multiphase flow can be:

• Two phase flow – oil/gas, oil/water; gas/water. The analyses and simulation technologies are well
developed and mature. Commercially available software (such as OLGA and LedaFlow) have been
developed to provide accurate results
• Three phase flow – oil/gas/water; liquid/gas/solid (sand, other particles). The analysis and
simulation technologies for oil/gas/water are mature. Commercially available software provides
satisfactory results for certain conditions. Simulation technologies for liquid/gas/solids are still
under development
• Four phase flow - oil/gas/water/sand; oil/gas/water/suspended hydrate particles (if an Anti-
Agglomerant (AA) low dosage hydrate inhibitor is applied). The analytical and the simulation
technologies remain under development
• Five phase flow - oil/gas/water/sand/suspended hydrate particles (if AA applied). The analytical
and the simulation technologies remain under development
Fluid and flow simulation combined can provide solid deposition rates and locations. Fluid and flow
modeling are critical to Flow Assurance Engineering and impact every phase of the project.

Flow Assurance Engineering

This applies to the outcome of fluid and flow analyses to the:

• Design of components and systems

∘ Sizing of pipelines, flowlines, risers, and umbilicals
∘ Integrated design of the subsea system (trees, manifolds, umbilicals, controls, and flowlines)
• Development of strategies to ensure optimal, uninterrupted production from the wellbore to the
processing facility, both onshore and offshore
• Determination of subsea production system performance/operating/design envelopes etc.

• Surveillance during operations, particularly during start-ups and shutdowns

Basic information required for Flow Assurance Engineering includes:

• Fluid Properties

• System Architecture. There is a direct interplay between FA strategies and system architecture,
with architecture dictating available strategies. In many cases, those strategies force changes
to architecture. Critical components include single or dual flowlines, in-solution, chemical
injection systems, pigging systems, and piping configurations that permit or prevent mechanical
interventions
• Production Conditions: Wax is controlled largely by temperature and only secondarily by pressure.
Temperature is controlled by insulation, line length, and liquid/gas flow rates. Since rates vary
significantly over the life of field, it is necessary to evaluate all life stages and weigh the risks
accordingly
Key factors contributing for Flow Assurance Engineering success include, but are not limited to:
16 OTC-28704-MS

• Characterization of fluids and fluid-related risks identified at an early stage for production and
injection. The higher the uncertainty, then more risks, more built-in flexibilities, and higher capital
cost
• Accuracy of prediction depends on quality of subsurface work

• All issues fully addressed in concept selection, FEED and design

• All technical solutions in place to deal with uncertainties in operation phase.

• Contingency plan

Flow Assurance Engineering drives system selection, design concept, and operation strategy of deepwater
fields. It is a transverse and multidisciplinary approach/process, coordination of inputs and feedbacks from
Flow Assurance specialists, and from many other disciplines - from reservoir engineers to operations, as
shown in Figures 12 and 13.

Figure 12—Flow Assurance Engineering interfaces in Deepwater Projects

Figure 13—Examples for Flow Assurance Engineering in Deepwater

Projects from FEED beyond - interface with other disciplines.

Flow Assurance Engineering impacts cost especially during concept selection and FEED phases. Robust
Flow Assurance Engineering can help the project reduce CAPEX and OPEX by following the principles of
elimination, simplification, and standardization. Figure 14 illustrates how Flow Assurance Engineering can
impact the apparent and hidden costs during concept selection and design. For example, 8-inch vs. 10-inch
flowline; single flowline vs. dual flowline system, wet insulation vs. PIP (pipe-in-pipe), passive thermal
OTC-28704-MS 17

management vs. active heating (hot fluid circulation or electrically heated pipeline system), chemical
solution vs. thermal solution for hydrates, etc. These decisions impact not only the apparent CAPEX such
as material and hardware costs, but also the not so apparent cost for the concept selection, FEED phase
and OPEX.

Figure 14—Flow Assurance Engineering impact on development cost

During the past three decades Flow Assurance science and engineering techniques have developed and
matured, from exploring, investigating – experimentally and analytically. Along this path, Flow Assurance
has evolved as an industrial discipline, different from Process Engineering.
In recent years, the industry has started a new trend, the major and independent oil companies have been
shifting the engineering work of Flow Assurance to engineering service firms. This is mainly driven by
the factors below:

• The maturation and standardization of Flow Assurance Engineering practices

• Recent years the low oil price that forced the oil company to reduce engineering costs, to adopt
industrial best practices, and avoid internal own "Gold-Plated" design standards. Engineering
service companies have mastered flow assurance engineering knowledge, can deliver the best
practices with simplified, low-cost solutions, including flow assurance engineering

Production Chemistry
Production chemistry has been another pillar of Flow Assurance Engineering since the early days of the
petroleum industry. It deals with issues that occur as a result of the chemical and physical changes in the
overall oil and gas production and processing systems, especially changes to the well stream fluids as they
are transported from the reservoir to the sales point. The influence areas of Production chemistry starts from
the reservoir, to wells, flowlines, processing facilities, and sale point. From a project life cycle perspective,
it enters the project during Pre-FEED and stays until the end of field life when the production system is
decommissioned.
Fluid characterization and production chemistry encompasses a wide range of simulation and modelling
techniques. In this process, experimental data is used to tune molecular parameters to match the physical
properties of the fluids and generate corresponding simulated pseudo components including:

• Equation of state matching and non-linear regression for optimized fluid characterizations and
accurate PVT behavior prediction.
• Characterization of heavy oils, unconventional fluids and heavily mud contaminated fluid samples.

• Characterization of multiple, dissimilar fluid samples and minimization of computational burden.

18 OTC-28704-MS

• Prediction of the precipitation of waxes, asphaltenes and other solids.

• Hydrate management, including the use of thermodynamic inhibitors, such as MeOH and MEG,
and kinetic inhibitors, and the interactions with dissolved solids and production salts.
• Analysis of hydrate, wax and gel interactions, and transient modeling of plug melting kinetics.

• Advanced equation of state modeling and complex hydrocarbon interactions with unconventional
fluid injection such as carbon dioxide and polymers.
Figure 15 illustrates the thermodynamic equilibrium boundary of petroleum fluid and associated
compounds for Flow Assurance risks – phase diagram, hydrate curve, asphaltene flocculation, wax
appearance curve, viscosity, and how they may influence the production system flow assurance from
reservoir to topsides. Production chemistry also involves extensive test processes. Common tests include:

• BS&W

• Brine preservation

• Density

• Karl Fischer (KF) titration water content

• Viscosity

• Rheology

• Crude salinity

• Crude assays

• Ion chromatography

• Gas chromatography

• Gas dewpoints

• Distillations

• Mass spectrometry

• Mercury in gases or liquids

• Sulfate reducing bacteria

• Trace sulfur analysis

• Others
OTC-28704-MS 19

Figure 15—Thermodynamic equilibrium boundary of petroleum fluid and associated compounds for FA risks.

The service provided by Production Chemistry is vital for profitable oil and gas fied development and
production. Their application is essential across the whole project life cycle.
As the major part of flow assurance strategy, chemicals are used for controlling corrosion, emulsions,
foaming, mineral scales, paraffins (waxes), asphaltenes, gas hydrates, hydrogen sulfide, and water quality.
The discipline delivers expertise to all development projects, and plays a key role in optimizing production
from existing assets. It is a broad and challenging discipline, providing unique inputs in the areas ranging
from subsurface to surface operations, and playing key roles in production flow assurance and asset integrity,
ensuring that produced oil and gas meets the sales contract specifications. In general, production chemistry
issues include:

• Solid precipitation and deposition - asphaltenes, scales, wax, gas hydrates, naphthenates, bio-
growth, etc.
• Facility processing - foaming, emulsion, water quality (including injection water quality in case
of waterflood), hydrogen sulfide, etc.
• Material integrity - material corrosion from production fluids, microbial activities, artificially
introduced fluids (completion fluids, chemicals, etc.)
• HSSE - water discharge, toxicity, radio-active scales, H2S, etc.

• Flow assurance risk characterization

Typical production chemicals are

• Thermodynamic Hydrate Inhibitors (TDI)

• Low Dosage Hydrate Inhibitors (LDHI)

• Asphaltene Inhibitors

• Paraffin Inhibitors

• Corrosion Inhibitors

• Scale Inhibitors

• H2S Scavengers
20 OTC-28704-MS

• Demulsifiers

• Defoamers

• Drag Reducing Agents

• Water treatment chemicals (wet agent, clarifier, etc.)

• Biocides.

Before any treatment can be applied, it is important to conduct a proper and thorough investigation of the
problems, their root causes, and any implications of the recommended treatments. A robust facility design
and correct choice of materials can significantly reduce production chemistry issues later in field life. To
perform a proper risk characterization, the following measures are often necessary:

• Proper fluid sampling and analysis - the sample needs to be representative, free of contamination,
and properly sampled/preserved/handled/analyzed
• Surveillance - pressure, temperature, chemical residuals, water analysis, corrosion coupons, bio-
coupons, online probes, etc
• Modeling - hydrate phase diagram, scaling potential, etc

• Production chemistry solutions

Hydrates
Gas hydrate deposition in pipelines were found in the early 1930s. Since then, large efforts were invested
into the research to understand hydrate (the compound, the equilibrium conditions, structures, etc.), and
to discover the methods to control them. Table 7 lists the milestones in hydrate research and inhibitior
development (Sloan, 2004; Kelland, 2006).

Table 7—Milestones of hydrate and inhibition research driven by flow assurance

Historically, the formation of gas hydrates in subsea production facilities have been managed by keeping
the fluids warm, removing water, or by injecting thermodynamic inhibitors. The most common of these
hydrate inhibitors are methanol (MeOH) and glycols such as monoethylene glycol (MEG). Thermodynamic
inhibitors suppress the point at which hydrates form, much like an antifreeze for water-ice, allowing
protection under the most severe hydrate formation conditions.
OTC-28704-MS 21

A disadvantage is that the greater the subcooling, i.e., more severe the hydrate problem, the more inhibitor
is required. As such, production facilities can reach a rate limit of methanol treatment due to supply, storage,
and injection constraints, resulting in non-optimum production and increased risk of hydrate plug formation.
Capital and operating costs together with production feasibility for new facilities design are also negatively
impacted where large volumes of methanol are required.
The most prominent advance in hydrate inhibitors is the evolution of the Low Dosage Hydrate Inhibitors
(LDHI). LDHIs were first successfully used in the early 1970s by a Russian Engineer – Kuliev who tested
commercial surfactants to solve hydrate problem in his gas well. LDHIs have improved over the past four
decades. A brief history and key milestones of LDHI development is summarized below:

• 1980s - Most research was spearheaded by Colorado School of Mines (CSM), French Petroleum
Institute (IFP), and SINTEF. Two individual KHIs were patented by IFP and Conoco
• 1990s - The oil companies started actively developing LDHI products. BP and Exxon focused on
developing KHIs, whereas Shell focused on developing Anti-Agglomerants. Various products were
patented, and field trials of both were conducted in ETAP, Holland, Great Britain, New Zealand,
and in the Gulf of Mexico. In the same decade, chemical vendors started developing LDHI products
through their own efforts or in joint efforts with the oil companies
• 2000 - Substantial work was done in partnership between CSM and University of Tulsa to further
the understanding of hydrate kinetics and plugging tendencies
• 2000 - Research resulted in new or improved LDHIs, and more products were patented. Oil
companies started to deploy the products to their facilities and field developments
• 2010s and beyond - LDHIs have been applied to projects worldwide

LDHIs have provided significant benefits compared to thermodynamic inhibitors. They significantly
lower the inhibitor concentrations and therefore dosage rates, lower the inhibitor loss caused by evaporation,
particularly compared to methanol. They reduce CAPEX through decreased chemical storage and injection
rate requirements; and reduce OPEX in many cases through decreased chemical consumption and delivery
frequency. Using LDHIs can sometimes increase production rates, where inhibitor injection capacity or
flowline capacity is limited.

Asphaltenes
Asphaltenes have been a production issue from the earliest days of the industry, but only became a significant
issue in deepwater exploration in late 1996. Defined as the fraction which precipitates upon the addition of
an excess of n-alkane, the diversity of asphaltene production issues arises from the variety of oil types, their
maturation and charge history, the chosen production schemes, and physical conditions. These variables
combine to produce an enormous number of permutations under which asphaltenes may be or may become
an issue.
Pressure, composition, and temperature are the driving factors for asphaltene precipitation (the formation
of a solid phase from a homogeneous liquid) and deposition (the adherence of the solid phase to rock
or production equipment surfaces). Among them pressure and composition have the most significant
impact. Precipitation and deposition increase in severity with pressure decreasing until reaching the bubble
point, whereupon the asphaltene solids tend to re-dissolve. However, this redissolution can be slow and
incomplete. The two main driving forces - pressure and composition - of precipitation and deposition are
superficially similar, but result in different precipitated fractions, and with different behaviors. Observations
indicate that the composition-driven precipitation has a higher tendency to form deposits than the pressure-
driven precipitation; the mechanisms of this are yet to be investigated.
The complex nature of asphaltene, and unpredictability of deposit formation have made management of
asphaltene risk in wells a challenging task. Asphaltene deposition tends to occur above the bubble point,
22 OTC-28704-MS

concentrating this flow assurance hazard to the wellbore and near-wellbore formation, and occasionally
to the wellhead or upstream flowline. These locations are more difficult to monitor and access than those
topside, while associated remediation costs are at least an order of magnitude higher.
Below the bubble point, the precipitated agglomerates may settle in low velocity or dead-space volumes
such as separators, reducing their efficiency; they may contribute to the stabilization of foams and emulsions,
increasing liquid carry-over and separation times; or they may contribute to other deposits, forming wax-
asphaltene or scale-asphaltene composites which impair system components. These phenomena, while
costly, tend to occur in relatively accessible areas, with both upstream and downstream access or injection
possibilities.
For onshore and shallow water wells, managing asphaltene deposition may need a different approach;
the typical solution may be either drill new wells or replace the pipelines. Precipitation and deposition in
the surface facilities could be either manually removed or washed out with aromatic solvents, and these
treatments are not prohibitively expensive.

Paraffins/Waxes
Paraffins/waxes are primarily of high-molecular-weight, long chain, saturated hydrocarbons with carbon
chain lengths of C18 to C75+. Waxes precipitate from petroleum fluid as the temperature reduces below
the wax appearance temperature, and deposit to the contact surface when the surface temperature of the
well tubing, flowline, pipeline or vessel falls below the critical wax deposition temperature. They are a
production problem for many crude oils because of their tendency to precipitate in the bulk fluids and/or
deposit on pipe walls. Wax precipitation and deposition is one of the problems that can cause significant
production problems.
When waxes precipitate from the flowing fluid, wax deposition to the pipeline wall may not occur if
the surface temperature of the well tubing, flowline, pipeline or vessel does not fall below the critical wax
deposition temperature. For the wax to deposit on the wall, there must be a temperature differential between
the bulk fluid and the surface, establishing a liquid-phase wax concentration gradient, which drives the
transport of dissolved wax to the wall, where it crystallizes to form a solid deposit. The deposition on the pipe
wall will decrease the open cross-sectional area of the flow path, which will increase the flowing pressure
drop in the system. If not under control, it is possible for the wax deposits to block the flow path completely.
Wax deposition can be prevented, delayed, or minimized using paraffin inhibitors such as crystal
modifiers or dispersants. The former are chemicals that interact with the growing crude-oil waxes by co-
crystallizing with the native paraffin waxes in the crude oil that is being treated. These interactions result
in the deformation of the crystal morphology of the crude-oil wax. Once deformed, these crystals cannot
undergo the normal series of aggregation steps. The wax dispersants are chemicals that keep the wax nuclei
from agglomerating, which are generally surfactants that can keep the pipe surface water wet, minimizing
the wax adhesive tendency.
Wax management is one of the important parts of flow assurance strategies for a development project of
which fluid has sufficient wax content and deposition tendency. Table 8 shows applicable methods for wax
management, some of which are often considered with a hydrate management strategy.
OTC-28704-MS 23

Table 8—Wax management strategy application

Inorganic Scales
The industry has a long history in dealing with scale deposition in production systems. Scale is the deposit
of inorganic mineral components found in water. The major causes of scale formation are the deposits
from produced brine (formation water) due to changes in temperature and pressure, the combination of two
incompatible waters (formation water and sea water), and the addition of methanol or glycol. The elements
of scales can be calcium carbonate (CaCO3), calcium sulfate or gypsum (CaSO4), barium sulfate or barite
(BaSO4), iron scales (system corrosion), halite (water flash off or methanol addition). The other can also
be, if in high temperature wells - calcium fluoride, lead sulfide, zinc sulfide, etc., and calcium napthenates
if the crude has high TAN (Total acid number).
Scale formation in production systems can reduce the tubing and/or flowline inner diameter, cause
well impairment, cause valve malfunction, reduce multiphase meter performance, cause host separations
difficulty.
hermore, it can be a hazard due to naturally occurring radioactive material (NORM) - most commonly
Radium (Ra).
Scale occurring in downhole and flowlines can be controlled by injecting scale inhibitors. The typical
concentration is 10 – 100 ppm. The inhibitor can be added continuously or by periodic squeeze treatments.
Most inhibitors for inorganic scales are phosphorous compounds, such as inorganic polyphosphates,
organic phosphate esters, organic phosphonates, organic aminophosphates, and organic polymers, etc. These
chemicals have commonly been used to prevent carbonate and sulphate scales.
The scale inhibitor selected to treat a particular scaling problem should be based on the following:

• Inhibition effectiveness - It is effective at practical concentrations to provide protection for the

required time window
• Compatibility - It is compatible with the scaling fluid to be treated, including any other chemicals
that may be present (e.g. corrosion inhibitor, paraffin inhibitor, LDHI, asphaltene inhibitor, etc.)
• Stability - It needs to be sufficiently stable at the relevant temperature and pH, to remain active for
the required period, and not to decompose to yield precipitates
• Dosimetry - the inhibitor can be dosed cost-effectively into the fluid stream

Scale Remediation often is required once scale deposition forms. Remediation can be chemical
dissociation by injecting a chemical, and mechanical methods such as milling with coiled tubing, jetting,
water blasting, scraping, etc.

Chemical Systems Engineering (CSE)

In development projects, the production chemicals need to be identified and the injection rate determined.
Table 9 summarizes typical production chemical applications provides general information for chemical
system design, injection location, and dosage rate. Chemical distribution systems need to deliver to
the injection points - downhole, subsea, and topsides. This involves Chemical Systems Engineering
24 OTC-28704-MS

(CSE), which is a part of flow assurance and corrosion control strategies using chemicals. Chemical
Systems Engineering focuses on the design of chemical storage and delivery systems, detecting and
preventing chemical-to-chemical and chemical-to-materials compatibility problems, improving chemical
system deliverability such as combining chemical products, determining most effective injection locations.

Table 9—General Production Chemical Applications

CSE is also responsible for developing surveillance strategies, including sampling, performance
monitoring, chemical vendor selection and support. Table 10 provides a general guide for production
chemical compatibility. The actual product compatibility may deviate from Table 10, depending on the
vendors and their products, and the advances in the products developed.

Table 10—General guide for production chemical compatibility*

Production System Review

After first oil/gas, the production rates and efficiency of the facilities should be reviewed and optimized.
A whole production system review should include a collection of production rates, water, oil, gas quality
OTC-28704-MS 25

monitoring reports, facilities inspection reports, production system modeling, fluid sampling, production
chemical tests and usage reports. Periodic review will increase production system uptime and lower
operation costs as demonstrated by Meng et al. (2011).

What's Next?
As an industry, we are moving further offshore into deeper waters. The most difficult challenges are:

• Long distance pipelines – heat management and solids deposition (hydrates, wax, etc.)

• High pressure high temperature (20 kpsi and 400 deg. F)– understanding of fluid behavior under
HPHT and materials selection for wellhead equipment, manifolds, jumpers and pipelines
• High H2S content

• Subsea processing, boosting and compression technologies

• Electrical heating

In terms of the science of Flow Assurance we still have a long way to go as an industry to understand
some key issues. In our view, here are some immediate challenges we face today:

• Sampling: Obtain clean samples and test methods of accurate fluids composition definitions

• Paraffins: Testing methods and prediction tools for the design of pigging frequencies

• Hydrates: Though there has been tremendous effort put into understanding hydrate kinetics and
transport of hydrates, we as an industry mostly relied on avoidance.
• Asphaltene: Industry still does not have enough confidence in precipitation or deposition models to
rely on them for design work. We still rely on experimental data and always question the reliability
based on sample handing practices.
• Flow Modeling: Slug prediction is still an enigma with a lot of effort being put into fine-tuning
the current models.
Current design of production facilities can collect a large amount of data from the field operation. New
data processing techniques are being developed to fully utilize the data collected.

Thoughts for the Future

Digital revolution and Big Data Technology are driving vast improvements in human life as well as in oil
and gas industry. These technologies include:

• Industrial internet of things (IIoT)

• Mobile connectivity

• Cloud computing

• Big data analytics

• Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML)

In this new era, an unprecedented amount of data is collected in the oil and gas industry, where
data processing technologies are disrupting traditional business models, and perhaps further the project
engineering and design.
26 OTC-28704-MS

These trends have enabled the emergence of Big Data and Advanced analytics, which is rapidly becoming
an extensive industry. The Oil and Gas industry lags the leading industries when it comes to broad based
adoption.
How Flow Assurance Engineering will be impacted by these new digital technologies is not yet known,
but the trend is unavoidable.
We've come a long way from simple pipeline hydraulics calculations to today's flow assurance.

References
Assayag, M.I. et al (1996), Technological Innovation Program on Deepwater Exploitation Systems - PROCAP 2000,
SPE-35347-MS, International Petroleum Conference and Exhibition of Mexico, 5-7 March 1996, Villahermosa,
Mexico.
Baker, O. (1954), Design of Pipelines for the Simultaneous Flow of Oil and Gas, Oil and Gas J. (July 26 1954) p. 185–195.
Beggs, H. D., and Brill, J.P., (May 1973), A Study of Two-Phase Flow in Inclined Pipes," JPT, 607–617.
Bendiksen K., Brandt I., Jacobsen K.A. and Pauchon C. (1987), Dynamic simulation of multiphase transportation systems,
Multiphase Technology and Consequences for Field Development Forum, Stavanger, Norway
Bendiksen K., Malnes D., Moe R. and Nuland S. (1991), The dynamic two-fluid model OLGA: Theory and application.
SPE Production Engineering, 6, 171–180.
Berger, R. K. and McMullen N. D., (2001), Lessons learned from Troika's Flow Assurance Chaleenges, OTC 13074
Black P.S., Daniels L.C., Hoyle N.C. and Jepson W.P. (1990), Studying transient multiphase flow using the Pipeline
Analysis Code (PLAC). Journal of Energy Resources Technology, 112, 25–29.
Brennen, Christopher E., (2005), Fundamentals of Multiphase Flows, Chapter 7, Cambridge University Press ISBN 0521
848040.
Brown, K.E., and Beggs, H. D., (1980), The Technoogy of Artificial Lift Methods, Volume 1, PennWell Books,
Buller, A.T, et al, (2002), Flow Assurance, Research and Technology Memoir No.1, Statoil ASA.
Cai, J., (2016) Non-chemical products offer effective flow assurance solutions, 04/18/2016, Offshore Magzine.
Candelier, C. et al, (2015), Subsea Pipeline Electrical Heat Trace (Eht) – "Active" Heating – Application For A Deep
Water Brown Field Evelopment, presented at the 12th Offshore Mediterranean Conference and Exhibition in Ravenna,
Italy, March 25-27, 2015.
Cardoso, C. B., et al, (2003), Management of Flow Assurance Constraints, OTC 15222
Carroll, A., Clemens, J., Stevens, K., and Berger, R., (2005)., Flow Assurance and Production Chemistry for the Na Kika
Development, Offshore Technology Conference, 2 May-5 May 2005, Houston, Texas.
Chapman, W. G., et al. (1989), SAFT: Equation-of-state solution model for associating fluids. Fluid Phase Equilibria
52: 31–38
Chaudhari, P.N. (2015), Development of Hydrate Risk Quantification In Oil And Gas Production, Ph D thesis, Colorado
School of Mines.
Chin, Y. D., et al, (2000), Multiphase Flow and Thermal Analysis Of An Insulated Multiple Flowline Bundle, Proceedings
of ETCE/ OMAE 2000 Joint Conference Energy for the New Millennium, February 14-17, 2000, New Orleans, LA
Churchill, S.W. (1973,) Empirical expressions for the shear stressing turbulent flow in commercial pipe. AIChE Journal
19(2), pp. 375–376
Churchill, S.W. (1977). Friction factor equation spans all fluid-flow regimes, Chemical engineering. 84 (24): 91–92.
Denniel, S. and Laouir, N. (2001) Active Heating for Ultra-Deepwater PIP and Risers. OTC 13138. Offshore Technology
Conference, Houston, Texas, USA, April 30 – May 3, 2001.
Danielson, T. J. (2012) Transient Multiphase Flow: Past, Present, and Future with Flow Assurance Perspective, Energy
& Fuels 2012 26 (7), 4137–4144. DOI: 10.1021/ef300300u
Gallup, D.L., Smith, P.C., Star, J.F., Hamilton, S., (2005), "West Seno Deepwater Development Case History - Production
Chemistry", SPE International Symposium on Oilfield Chemistry, 2-4 February 2005, The Woodlands, Texas.
Gharaibah, E., Read, A., & Scheuerer, G. (2015), Overview of CFD Multiphase Flow Simulation Tools for Subsea Oil
and Gas System Design, Optimization and Operation. Offshore Technology Conference. doi:10.4043/26326-MS
Goldszal, A., Monsen, J. I., Danielson, T. J., Bansal, K. M., Yang, Z. L., Johansen, S. T., & Depay, G. (2007, June 13).
Ledaflow 1D: Simulation Results with Multiphase Gas/Condensate and Oil/Gas Field Data. BHR Group.
Gomez, L.E. et al, Unified Mechanistic Model for Steady-State Two-Phase Flow: Horizontal to Vertical Upward Flow,
SPE-56520-MS, SPE J. Vol. 5 No. 03, Sept. 2000.
Goodlad, M. Bundle Technology for the Future, SPE-166561-MS, at the SPE Offshore Europe Oil and Gas Conference
and Exhibition held in Aberdeen, UK, 3–6 September 2013.
OTC-28704-MS 27

INTECSEA, INC (2016), 2016 Survey of Offshore Non-Chemical Flow Assurance Solutions, Products & Systems
Methodologies, Offhore Magzine, April 2016
Jorda, R. M., (1966), Paraffin Deposition and Prevention in Oil Well's, JPT 1605, Trans., AIME, 237, 1966.
Kelland, M. A. (2006), History of the Development of Low Dosage Hydrate Inhibitors, Energy & Fuels, An American
Chemical Society Journal, Vol. 20. No.3.
Kelland, M. A. (2009), Production chemicals for the oil and gas industry, CRC Press.
Lakatos, I., and Lakatos-Szabo, J., (2008), Age of Chemistry in Production of Conventional and Unconventional
Hydrocarbons, 19th World Petroleum Congress, June 29 - July 3, 2008, Madrid, Spain
Lakehal, D. (2013), Advanced Simulation of Transient Multiphase Flow & Flow Assurance in The Oil & Gas Industry,
The Canadian J. of Chemical Engineering, Volume 9999.
Larsen, M., Hustvedt, E., Hedne, P., & Straume, T. (1997, January 1). PeTra: A Novel Computer Code for Simulation of
Slug Flow. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/38841-MS.
Lockhart, R.W. and Martinelli, R.C., (January 1949) Proposed Correlation of Data for Isothermal Two-Phase, Two-
Component Flow in Pipes, Chemical Engineering Progress p. 39–48.
Masella, J.-M. et al, (1998), Transient Simulation Of Two-Phase Flows In Pipes, Revue De L'institut Français Du Pétrole,
Vol. 53, N° 6, Novembre-Décembre 1998
Meng, W., Ogea, P., & King, M. (2011). Changes of Operating Procedures and Chemical Application of A Mature
Deepwater Tie-back -Aspen Field Case Study. Offshore Technology Conference. doi:10.4043/21402-MS
Morgan, J.E.P. and Zakarian, E, (2015), Development of a Quantitative Approach to Risk Based Flow Assurance, OTC
25786, Offshore Technology Conference, 04-07May, Houston, Texas, USA
Offshore Magzine, (2001), Flowline Insulation with Heat Storage Increasing Cool-Down Time, a summary of a technical
paper to be presented at the Deep Offshore Technology Conference in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil in October 17-19, 2001.
Pauchon C., Dhulesia H., Lopez D. and Fabre J. (1993), TACITE: A comprehensive mechanistic model for two-phase
flow. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Multiphase Production, Cannes, Francea.
Peng, D. Y.; Robinson, D. B., (1976), "A New Two-Constant Equation of State". Industrial and Engineering Chemistry:
Fundamentals. 15: 59–64
Reistle, C. E. (1927, December 1). Summary of Existing Information on Handling Congealing Oils and Paraffin. Society
of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/927227-G.
Shippen, M. and Bailey, W. J., 2012, Steady-State Multiphase Flow—Past, Present, and Future, with a Perspective on
Flow Assurance, Energy Fuels, 26 (7), pp 4145–4157
Shock, D. A., Sudbury, J. D., & Crockett, J. J. (1955, September 1). Studies of the Mechanism of Paraffin Deposition and
Its Control. Society of Petroleum Engineers. doi:10.2118/384-G
Soave, (1972), G. Equilibrium Constants from a Modified Redlich-Kwong Equation of State, Chem. Eng. Sci., 27,
1197–1203.
Taitel, Y. and Dukler, A.E., (1976), A Model for Predicting Flow Regime Transitions in Horizontal and near Horizontal
Gas-Liquid Flow, AIChE J., 22, 47–55
Taitel, Y., (1994), Advances in Two-Phase Flow Modeling. Society of Petroleum Engineers, SPE 27959-MS, January 1.
Taitel, Y. and Barnea, D., (1997), Simplified transient simulation of two phase flow using quasi-equilibrium momentum
balances, Int. J. of Multiphase Flow, Vol. 23, Issue 3, June 1997, Pages 493–501.
Wang, et al. (2000a), Convection Heat Losses through Installation Gaps between Pipe and Insulation and between
Insulation Half Shells, OTC 12033, presented at the 2000 Offshore Technology Conference held in Houston, Texas,
1–4 May 2000s
Wang, et al. (2000b), Aging, Pressure and Temperature effects on the Thermal Performance of an Insulated Flowline, IPC
2000 conference, October 1-5, The Palliser, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Zhang, H., et al, (2003), A unified mechanistic model for slug liquid holdup and transition between slug and dispersed
bubble flows, International Journal of Multiphase Flow, Volume 29, Issue 1, January 2003, Pages 97–107.