Integrated Approach To Flow Assurance & Transportation

I.F.J. Nash, Peritus International Ltd, P.M. Roberts, VerdErg Ltd., C.Teh, Peritus International Ltd.
Pertius International Ltd, Export House, 6 Cawsey Way, Woking, Surrey, UK, GU21 6QX
Ian.nash@peritusint.com

Abstract
In the present day of increasing hydrocarbon demand, the direction of oil exploration has moved to ever increasing
offshore depths and more remote land masses with harsher environments. To this end, our industry has to adapt to
the increasing challenges that have to be faced to ensure that these hydrocarbons can still be economically
recovered. The flow assurance strategies that are currently being deployed to achieve successful hydrocarbons
recovery from these increasing technically challenged areas, increasingly demand an integrated approach to the
design of the transportation systems. It is no longer the case that each element of a hydrocarbon development can
be designed in isolation.

Flow Assurance is not just an analytical routine to predict the pressure and temperature profiles of single and multi-
phase pipelines, but an advanced tool-set that models the flow of hydrocarbons from the well bore all the way to
the process facilities and beyond. The tools now used in Flow Assurance have improved the engineer‟s insight into
the critical parameters to the point where informed design improvements can be made that could not previously
have been justified.

The paper will consider the problems faced by today‟s ever more extreme transportation requirements, review
current advanced methodologies for flow assurance for transportation systems and show how integration of flow
assurance into systems design vastly improves and in some case enables hydrocarbon developments.
Observations will be provided in the form of three short case presentations that have implemented advanced
techniques to achieve robust solutions. Specifically:

 Flow assurance issues and implications for ultra deep transportation pipelines
 Planning for the removal of hydrates from wet gas field developments
 Understanding Carbon Capture and Storage transportation systems

Introduction
From the early beginnings of the offshore oil and gas industry, exploration and production activities have moved
from shallow water of 100 m (1960‟s) to deepwater of ca. 500m (1980‟s) and now to ultra-deepwater of ca. >2,000
m (2000‟s)as shown in Figure 1. Hydrocarbon reserves are now being recovered from high pressure-high
temperature reservoirs in excess of 690 bar/150°C (10,000 psia/300°F), increasingly cold water environments of
around 4°C and with increasingly heavier crudes (APIs < 20°), in order to satisfy the continuing and growing
demand for oil and gas to sustain world economies. Similarly onshore exploration and production activities have
also moved to more remote land masses with harsher environments.

This shift in exploration frontiers in turn required the industry „players‟ i.e. operators, drillers, equipment
manufacturers/suppliers, oil field chemical suppliers, engineering design and installation contractors and
researchers to keep pace by having to identify the additional flow assurance and design challenges to be faced
and to overcome them by improving the technology and developing new and robust integrated design and
operating strategies to avoid/mitigate/remediate these challenges.
2

1991 Zeepipe IIB 40'' Installed

1992 Campos Bain 10''
1993 Transmed 26''
1993 Auger 12'' Under Construction
1994 Marlim 12''
1995 Troll Olienor 10''
1995 Popeye 6''
1996 Mars 8''
Year and Field 1996 Mensa 12''
1997 Europipe 2 42''
1998 Roncador 10''
1999 Allegheny 12''
2000 Agaba 30''
2000 Malampaya 16''
2000 Ursa 18''
2000 Diana 18''
2000 Horn Mountain 12''
2001 Mica 8''
2001 Blue Stream 24''
2002 Canyon Express 12''
2004 Ceasar 24''
2004 Cleopatra 16''
2005 Cleopatra Lateral 16''
2005 Ceasar Lateral 24''
2005 Proteus 24''
2006 Okeanos Lateral 20''
2006 Atlantis Lateral - Ceasar 24''
2006 Atlantis Lateral - Cleopatra 16''
2006 Independence Hub - Atlas 8''
2009 Perdido 10''
2009 MedGaz 24''
2009 Cascade-Chinook 14''
2010 Block 31 - PSVM 12''
2009 Galsi 24''
2009 Jack-St.Malo 24''
2010 Southstream 32''
2010 MEIDP (SAGE) 24''

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

Water Depth (m)

Figure 1 Movement of Fields into Ultra Deep Water

Historical Perspective
Early flow assurance in transportation systems utilized the 1845 Darcy-Weisbach equation (Eqn. 1) [Ref. 7] and
developments of this such as the 1949 Lockhart-Martinelli method [Ref. 8] to determine the head loss or pressure
loss, due to friction along a given length of pipe to the average velocity of the fluid flow under single and 2-phase
conditions.

𝐋 𝛒𝐕 𝟐
(Eqn. 1) 𝚫𝐩 = 𝐟𝐃 . .
𝐃 𝟐
2
Where the pressure loss due to friction Δp (units: Pa or kg/ms ) is a function of:
 the ratio of the length to diameter of the pipe, L/D;
 the density of the fluid, ρ (kg/m3);
 the mean velocity of the flow, V (m/s), as defined above;
 Darcy Friction Factor; a (dimensionless) coefficient of laminar, or turbulent flow, fD.

Thermal profile analysis is the determination of the temperature profile along the pipeline as the contents are
cooled by conduction of heat through the pipe to the sea/surroundings. For steady state flow conditions, constant
fluid properties, uniform insulation and uniform ambient temperature along the pipeline section the thermal profile
will follow an exponential decay (Eqn. 2).

(Eqn. 2)
−𝐡𝐭𝐨𝐭 . 𝐱
𝐓 𝐱 = 𝐓𝐚𝐦𝐛 + 𝐓𝐢𝐧 − 𝐓𝐚𝐦𝐛 . 𝐞𝐱𝐩
𝐟𝐥𝐨𝐰𝐦𝐚𝐬𝐬 . 𝐂𝐩𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐭
Where:
 T(x) is the contents temperature at distance x along the pipeline
 Tamb is the ambient seawater temperature
 Tin is the flowing inlet temperature
 flowmass is the contents mass flow rate
 Cpcont is the contents specific heat capacity

With the advent of powerful programmable calculators, such as the HP 41CV, it became relatively simple to
devope pressure drop and thermal profile calculators for single and two phase flow, which were used extensively in
the 1970‟s and early 1980‟s
 3

Todays Requirements
Todays exploration frontiers have much more onerous requirements than just calculating pressure and
temperature profiles and require the flow assurance engineer to have a detailed understanding of the way in which
hydrocarbon fluids react and changes as their environment changes. This need to understand in detail the
hydrocarbon fluid extends from the base of the well bore through to topsides process facilities and beyond.

Factors of significance can include:

 Wet Gas Multiphase systems (Corrosion, slugging and hydrates)
 Heavy Crudes (Wax, asphaltenes and emulsions)
 CO2 (Corrosion, impurities, dense phase)
 HPHT (Thermal management, cooling and heating)
 Ultra-Deep (High pressures, Joule-Thompson cooling and flow velocities
Todays requirements to understand hydrocarbon fluids through their journey from the well to the topsides
processing facility needs much more complex calculation tools than programmable calculators. Detailed modeling
tools have been developed by SPT, Schlumberger and others for steady state, multiphase, thermal-hydraulic
simulation of both single-line and network models. Two such steady state programs are:

® ® ®
PIPESIM and PIPESIM-NET (with MULTIFLASH PVT) – Steady State

® ® ® ®
PIPEFLO and WELLFLO (with ATI or VMG PVT) – Steady State

®
OLGA transient multiphase simulator is generally used for dynamic simulations to assess system operability in
terms of hydraulic flow stability (regular, terrain-induced and severe slugging), liquid management (pigging slugs,
liquid and gas surge loads into separator or slug catcher), hydrate and wax management during field start-up,
shutdown, depressurization and restart).
 OLGA (with PVTSIM ) – Transient, Wax Composition tracking, Cooldown
® ®

Figure 2 Todays FA Software Tools

The Integrated Approach to Flow Assurance

For many field developments and challenging export system projects, flow assurance is one of the first and most
crucial activities to be undertaken. An in-depth knowledge and extensive experience in dealing with the most
complex flow assurance problems is essential right from the start, with system operability driving all design and
operational issues Figure 3.
4

Wax

Hydrates Asphaltenes

Slugging
System Emulsions,
Operability Soaps

Corrosion Scale

Sand

Figure 3 Integrated approach

Typically, the flow assurance work that will be undertaken during project design engineering phases are presented
in Figure 4 and depending on the specific hydrocarbon properties will include some or all of the following design
activities:

• System design including networking and thermal-hydraulic simulation to assess layout credibility
• Thermal/hydraulic analysis of individual pipeline systems and networks, both steady state and
transient multiphase
• Product flow related issues such as slugging prediction, slug catcher sizing and slug catcher design
• System operability design including simulations for steady state flow, planned start-up/shut down,
emergency shutdown and other unplanned scenarios, HIPPS studies
• Hydrate prediction, inhibition, and remediation
• Product chemistry related issues such as scaling, waxing and asphaltenes
• Solids deposition e.g. sand production
• Preparation of operating and maintenance manuals

Figure 4 Flow Assurance Design Phases

Emphasis should be placed on taking a systems engineering approach when organising the flow assurance scope.
A typical workplan would consist of the following activities:
• Gather basic design information to define the modeling constraints for the system interfacing with Sub-
surface, Completions and Host facilities process disciplines
• Steady state thermal-hydraulic flow modeling of wellbore complications, multiphase pipeline and riser
transport systems to select optimum pipeline sizes or to verify pipeline sizes, insulation requirements,
flag potential flow assurance issues such as unacceptable slugging behavior, excessive J-T cooling,
hydrates/wax risk whilst interfacing regularly with both mechanical design and process disciplines
 5

• Identify early to relevant disciplines possible areas to improve system flow performance e.g. wellbore
gas lift optimization, line size optimization, drag reducers etc and also flag any operational constraints
or bottlenecks to be resolved e.g. available FWHPs, FWHTs arrival pressures and temperatures
• Dynamic simulation modeling studies to confirm slugging and hydrate/wax risks and system operability
covering the full range of production operations, both steady state and transient scenarios
• Provide pressure /temperature/velocity profiles, slugging characteristics in terms of expected mean
and maximum slug volumes and associated slug velocities to materials and mechanical design
disciplines to assess erosion/corrosion, slug loads and forces on bends and piping supports, subsea
pipeline and riser dynamics
• Provide production oil/water/gas outlet flowrates and velocity time histories to the Host Facility Process
Design disciplines as input to topsides dynamic modeling activities to investigate system performance
operability/stability and process control systems tuning
• Provide input to process disciplines on chemical injection rates and chemical storage volumes (e.g.
hydrate and wax inhibitors), liquid surge volume handling requirements for slugcatcher or 1st stage
separator and export pumping requirements and any liquid surge handling requirements at reception
facilities
The interrelated nature of flow assurance activities are presented in Figure 5

Figure 5 Flow Assurance Integration

The depth of flow assurance analysis required depends on the engineering phase.

During the APPRAISE and SELECT phases, the thermal-hydraulic simulation scope of work is designed to
produce a high level assessment of the system performance as a basis to compare different concept options in
terms of line sizes to meet thermal performance and deliverability requirements and system operability such as
hydraulic stability, hydrates, wax and pigging as typically shown in Figure 6.
6

Water Injection
Production

c W c W c W c W c W

Option 1 Option 2 Option3 Option 4 Option 5

Flow Assurance: System Operability Comparison Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

Line sizes required (FPSO Turret Arrival Pressure= 13 bara) 2 x 8” (C) 12” (C) 14” (C) 2 x10” (C) 2 x 10” (C)
2 x 6” (W) 8” (W) 8” (W) 8” (W)

Arrival Temperature above WAT & HFT at Max Turndown     

Ability to Test Individual Well via Test Separator (C), (W) only
 X X possible with twin 
lines

Ability to mitigate hydrate risks / remediate hydrate blockage (C), (W) only with
by depressurisation from both ends  Service line required Service line required twin lines or service 
line

Ability to pig lines for wax management, cleaning and  Round trip
inspection  Round trip pigging possible (C) and  Round trip
 From Subsea  From Subsea
option possible with twin lines possible
required (W)

Hydraulic Flow Stability (Ranking) Potential Severe Potential Severe Potential Severe Potential Severe
Most stable slugging risk at slugging risk at slugging risk at slugging risk at
turndown turndown turndown turndown

Ability to manage low temperature risks during cold well Problematic(C & W). Problematic(C & W). Displace residual
start-up.  Displace residual production with  Displace residual
production with Possible to use Possible to use stabilised crude production with
stabilised crude service line to service line to flushing from FPSO stabilised crude
flushing from FPSO and displace residual displace residual and start-up by flushing from FPSO
start-up by turret production with production with turret choking.  and start-up by
choking methanol prior to methanol prior to for (C) and twin turret choking
start-up. start-up. lines for (W)

Ability to provide minimum cooldown time of 16 hours  Subsea flowline only  Subsea flowline  Subsea flowline  Subsea flowline  Subsea flowline
following an unplanned shutdown (SOR specification) at design rate - only at design rate - only at design rate - only at design rate - only at design rate -
external Insulation and external Insulation external Insulation external Insulation external Insulation
trench/back-fill and trench/back-fill and trench/back-fill and trench/back-fill and trench/back-fill

Ability to provide minimum cooldown time of 16 hours  Subsea flowline only  Subsea flowline  Subsea flowline  Subsea flowline  Subsea flowline
following an unplanned shutdown (SOR specification) at design rate - only at design rate - only at design rate - only at design rate - only at design rate -
external Insulation and external Insulation external Insulation external Insulation external Insulation
trench/back-fill and trench/back-fill and trench/back-fill and trench/back-fill and trench/back-fill

Figure 6 Example of Concept Screening Study

During the DEVELOP (Front End Engineering Design) and EXECUTE (Detailed Design) phases, further flow
assurance studies are undertaken to confirm the system performance for the selected concept. The thermal-
hydraulic simulation scope of work is designed to establish the operating envelope for the system within boundary
limits on available system pressure, erosion velocity, avoidance of wax deposition, avoidance of hydrate formation
and avoidance of severe slugging during normal operation as shown in Figure 7.
Liquid Flow Rate

Operating Envelope

Gas-to-Liquid Ratio

Figure 7 Example of System Operating Envelope

 7

Production/Flow System Operability

System operability issues where the primary objective is to develop operating philosophies, strategies and
procedures to avoid hydrate or wax formation at any time during system operation, are of major importance.
“Operability” means ensuring that design provisions and operating strategies are in place so that the production
system can be started, operated, and shut down under all conditions (planned and unplanned) throughout the
operating life of the total system and is central to the overall Flow Assurance/System Design Process.

A major effort early in the design process will be to establish the design basis. All aspects of the system, such as
fluid characteristics, reservoir behavior, site characteristics, and host facilities will be reflected in the design basis.
The design basis should include sufficient conservatism to offset poor or missing data.

During the early stages of engineering design where a considerable percentage of the system input data has been
either taken from similar project analogues or based on best-guess assumptions, the amount of detail in the
models and the results and conclusions drawn from the simulation results will be relatively cursory. At this stage,
large number of models can be run in a short period of time to bracket the solution boundaries with sensitivities on
reservoir pressure and temperature, tubing and flowline diameter and insulation, number of flowlines, flowline
routes and platform arrival pressures.

As the system design moves into SELECT and EXECUTE phases, the flow assurance effort will shift towards more
detailed analyses to support operating procedure development and hardware and facilities designs and
evaluations. At the same time, systems engineers will assure that system design changes that might affect flow
assurance and operability provisions are thoroughly evaluated in the flow assurance context. System economics
and risk management are over-riding considerations in the design process and are continuously evaluated.

Dynamic assessments are done primarily to confirm/validate results obtained from steady state work whilst taking
into account transient operations such as flowrate changes, system shutdown, system restart, cooldown, pigging
operations, etc.

Typical assessments will investigate the following:

 Liquid handling requirements and slugging risks in the pipeline system including verification of
size of slug catcher and/or production separator
 Hydrate risks
 Wax deposition risks
 System behavior during turndown, ramp-up, shutdown, restart and pigging operations
 Ability to depressurize the subsea production system to avoid hydrate formation and to
remediate hydrate blockages
 Interactions between pipeline flow transients and process reception equipment topsides or
onshore to verify/optimize process control schemes
 Provide response to HAZOP actions
 Fine-tune operating philosophies and develop operating procedures

Case Study – Middle East to India Deepwater pipeline.

The Middle East to India Deepwater Pipeline (Ref. 11) will carry sales quality dry sweet natural gas over a distance
in excess of 1200km and reach a maximum depth of 3450m, with more than 90% of the route being greater than
2000m. Preliminary steady state thermal hydraulic studies have been carried out to confirm the pipeline sizes and
flow characteristics (gas velocity, temperature and pressure profiles, joule Thompson cooling), covering two export
options being considered for MEIDP from MECS to GPRT.

Export Option 1 assumes an intermediate pressure boosting station (OGCS) to be located at 340m water depth
above the Qualhat seamount approximately 300 km from Oman. Two arrival pressure conditions at the station
have been considered i.e. LP arrival at 50 barg or HP arrival at 200 barg. The export pipeline from downstream of
the OGCS to the receiving terminal at Gujarat (GPRT) assumes an available supply pressure of 400 barg and a
final destination pressure of 50 barg.

Export Option 2 represents the direct transmission of gas from MECS to its final destination at GPRT without any
intermediate pressure boosting i.e. in „free flow‟ mode.

The route profile considered for option 1 is presented in Figure 8.

8

Figure 8 Pipeline Route Profile (Option 1)

Of the two OGCS arrival pressures considered, the 50 barg arrival pressure case is not feasible because the
pipeline peak gas velocity arriving at the OGCS is excessive (28 m/s) and the greater gas expansion cooling
accompanied by high velocity gas flow is predicted to generate unacceptably low arrival gas temperatures
(between -9°C to -18C) at the OGCS as presented in Figure 9.

Figure 9 Flow Velocity, Temperature and Pressure Profiles at Seamount (Option 1)

The flow assurance work confirmed that raising the arrival pressure to 200 barg at the seamount would reduce
significantly the velocities in the pipeline to 6 m/s with a gas arrival temperature at the offshore station of between
4°C to 7°C depending on the thickness of the anti-corrosion coating assumed.

The direct export (free-flow) option which avoids the need for a midline compression station is also considered
feasible from an operational standpoint as the normal operating velocity and temperature profiles in the pipeline
are also within acceptable limits.

The flow assurance work also established there is no risk of condensed liquids in the export pipeline during normal
operation for all export options considered based on a typical sales gas composition spec and water content
assumed in the study. Based on an off-spec („rich‟) gas composition assumed for this study, there is a potential for
hydrocarbon liquids condensation in the export line (Figure 10. This shows maintenance of gas specification in the
pipeline is important to avoid the potential development of liquids.
 9

Figure 10 P-T Conditions in the pipeline under Winter conditions for “Off-Spec” Gas

Hydrate Prediction, Inhibition, and Remediation

The prediction of hydrate formation temperatures/pressures and the design of the overall system to prevent plug
formation during system start-up, steady state operation, and shutdown (both controlled and uncontrolled) are
fundamental to the design and operability of subsea production systems.

In the absence of laboratory measured hydrate test data, associated PVT software packages from Neotec (VMG or
® ® ®
ATI) in PIPEFLO , Calsep (PVTsim) in OLGA and Infochem (Multiflash) in PIPESIM can be used to generate
the theoretical hydrate dissociation curves for the reservoir composition (assuming free „desalinated‟ water
present) to assess the hydrate risks for the subsea production system. If required, the impact of salinity in the
formation water can also be taken into consideration in the theoretical predictions.

The selection of the optimum hydrate management strategy for the system usually involves a review of thermal
and chemical management strategies. For gas dominated production systems, the strategy to prevent hydrate
formation is typically using hydrate inhibitors on a continuous basis with a recovery unit. For oil dominated
production systems, the typical strategy involves some combination of keeping the fluid warm (insulation) during
normal operation and either hydrate inhibition, electrical heating, depressurisation or fluid displacement strategies
to handle extended shutdown and restart operations.

Further analyses are performed to determine the thermodynamic hydrate inhibitor (THI) dosage (using methanol or
glycols) to avoid hydrate formation following an extended (unplanned) shutdown. The use of alternative „low
dosage‟ hydrate inhibitors (LDHI) such as kinetic hydrate inhibitor (KHI) and anti-agglomerate hydrate inhibitor (AA)
are also considered.

Deposition

AA
prevents
Agglomeration

Crystal Growth

KHI
delays
onset
of
Nucleation

Figure 11 Low Dosage Hydrate Inhibitors

10

Hydrate Curve
250

200
Subcooling extended with THI + KHI Subcooling
with THI

Pressure (bara)
150

100

50

0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Temperature (°C)

Un-inhibited with THI with THI+KHI

Figure 12 Application Example of Low Dosage Hydrate Inhibitor

Hydrate management strategies that have been used include:

 Using thermodynamic hydrate inhibitors (THI) such as methanol or glycols (Ref. 6) or low dosage hydrate
inhibitors (LDHIs) such as kinetic inhibitors (KHI) and anti-agglomorants (AA) to condition the fluids prior to
initiating planned shutdowns;
 Using direct electric heating of pipeline (Ref. 10) to heat the trapped contents in the pipeline following a
shutdown to maintain the fluid temperature in the pipeline above hydrate conditions or even above its wax
appearance temperature if it has a strong tendency to deposit wax. This option avoids the need to
depressurize the pipeline and flaring its large inventory to the HOST facility;
 Displace pipeline production fluids with stabilized crude or diesel following unplanned or extended
shutdowns;
 Where practicable, depressurize pipelines to below a minimum threshold pressure to safely avoid hydrate
formation even after the residual hydrocarbon inventory in the pipelines has eventually cooled down to
ambient temperature. This may not be a feasible strategy for deepwater pipeline/riser systems as the
minimum pressure required to be safely outside hydrates risk < 50 bar (based on 4°C sea temperature).

A combination of pipeline insulation with an inhibition strategy using methanol or glycols such as MEG is used
widely for hydrates management as these are fully field proven strategies. There is however a recognition of the
operating limitations using THIs in terms of being uneconomic for managing operations at high watercuts, incurring
significant operating costs, large storage volume capacity and if glycol is used, glycol regeneration package to be
provided at the host facility. The normal maximum operating watercut range using methanol is typically around 30-
40%. LDHIs (Ref‟s. 2,3,4) are now becoming more and more commonly used as the required concentration rate is
so much lower typically no more than ca. 1- 3 wt% in water phase.

KHIs as its name implies, work by slowing down the kinetics of the nucleation process and delaying the formation
of hydrate crystals over a finite period commonly referred to as „hold time‟ (Figure 11 & Figure 12). Its efficiency is
dependent on the degree of sub-cooling (difference between the ambient temperature and the hydrate formation
temperature required at any given pressure) and also on the residence time of the water in the hydrate formation
zone. The efficiency of KHI is indirectly proportional to the sub-cooling range required but has an absolute
subcooling limit above which hydrate formation will be instantaneous, whatever the dose rate of the KHI. From a
recent survey carried out in 2008, the sub-cooling limit for commercially available KHI‟s is considered to be around
14°C. However if KHI is used in combination with MEG or Methanol as shown below (Fig. 9), it can be used to
extend the sub-cooling limit and enable the treatment of higher production watercuts and with less MEG. Due to its
limited sub-cooling range, KHIs are generally considered to be viable for deep and ultra-deepwater developments
and operatiors have focused their efforts towards utilizing AA-LDHIs instead.

Recent work by Alapati et al (Ref. 4) has demonstrated the successful use of a second-generation AA-LDHI that is
st
completely (>99%) oil-soluble hence overcoming the 1 -generation associated water quality issues and can also
handle watercuts up to 80% using continuous injection at a dosage rates ranging between 0.5 vol% to 1.3 vol% in
the water phase. Other deepwater fields in the GoM area where this improved AA-LDHI has been successfully
used for hydrate management (Ref. 2), are the BP Horn Mountain field at 1646m water depth, BP-Shell Holstein
Field at 1310m water depth.

The application of AA-LDHI on HP/HT fields will need to take into account its viscosity behavior at these operating
 11

conditions. The viscosity measured at 1035 bara (15000 psia) and 93°C (200°F) has been reported by BP (Ref. 5)
to be three times higher and its impact on pressure drop needs to be taken into consideration when sizing the
umbilical and downhole chemical injection lines. There is no information available to indicate if AA-LDHI has been
used in HPHT fields at present.

Case Study West Delta Deep Hydrate Mitigation

For long distance subsea tie backs such as West Delta Deep Marine (WDDM) Flow assurance was of paramount
importance in ensuring the successful phased development of the various associated fields. Initial phases of the
development Scarab/Saffron and Simian/Sienna came onstream in 2003 and 2005/6 respectively. Further phases
have been added to the development, which has seen an incremental extension both by infilling individual wells
into existing infrastructure and by adding new field areas in a daisy chain manner to existing subsea facilities. The
water depth of the development ranges from 500m to 1000m, with the farthest part of the development located
135km from the onshore terminal (Ref. 9, 12).

In 2005 the WDDM development was the longest tie-back in the world at 135km. The hydrocarbon fluids, if left to
their own devices would be subject to hydrates forming in the flowlines, manifolds and pipelines. It was therefore
necessary to plan for and actively manage hydrate mitigation. The hydrate mitigation regime adopted by the project
is to use methanol during start-up and warm up conditions and then continuous injection of glycol (MEG) into the
gas stream at each tree was adopted, with dosage rates being determined by maximum potential gas flowrates, an
assumed level of water production, minimum expected temperature and maximum shut in pressure. MEG is
distributed to each of the field centers from onshore through small diameter dedicated pipelines. From the field
centre to the trees the MEG is distributed in dedicated small bore tubes contained within the control umbilical. As
the Methanol used in the development is only required during startup and purging activities, the amounts required
are limited and are delivered from onshore by dedicated tubes within the control umbilical.

One key concern of the project was the reliance on the inhibitor injection system and the potential for malfunction.
In order to allow for a malfunctionand to predict the onset of hydrate formation, flowing conditions such as an
increase in the wellhead pressure drop, large pressure fluctuations and/or a decrease in the flow of gas are
continuously monitored. In the WDDM system, there are two downhole pressure measurements, two upstream and
two downstream (of choke) pressure measurements, one downhole venturi meter and the inference meter system.
The system has also been configured to allow for a 4” Vent line to allow the system to be depressurized, to
dissociate a hydrate plug if required.

Production Chemistry Issues Such as Wax and as Asphaltene Deposition

Chemical suppliers generally recommend likely candidate chemicals based on generic produced fluids descriptions
to prevent or inhibit wax and asphaltene deposition. However, the selection process will require actual produced
fluid samples to be provided to the chemical suppliers in order to confirm suitability and the injection rates required.

Chemical inhibition issues strongly influence flow system design, chemical inhibition design, and system operating
philosophies/strategies and procedures. For instance, the technical issues and the costs and benefits of chemical
inhibition, wellbore and flowline insulation, and pigging for deposition control all have to be considered together to
arrive at a design solution.

A key to success is developing a reliable design/operating strategy to manage these solid deposition issue e.g.
using system insulation (to retain heat, reduce the radial temperature gradient, reduce the temperature difference
between fluid and pipe wall) and regular pigging to limit the amount of wax that does accumulate. This is especially
true if insulation is needed for other reasons (e.g., hydrate control). It is often prudent to include injection capability
in the system design so that chemicals can be injected if found to be necessary.

Slug Prediction and Slug Catcher Sizing

Liquids management of onshore and offshore production systems often require provision of a slug catcher in order
to provide system flexibility to manage normal operational (regular or severe Figure 13) slugging, rate change/start-
up slugs as well as large liquid slugs removed as a consequence of a pipeline pigging operation if deemed to be a
requirement.
12

Liquid Flow Rate at Pipeline Outlet

Accumulated Liquid Volume Flow
Figure 13 Example Time History of Regular and Severe Slugging Flow

For offshore floating and/or platform-based systems in particular, slug catchers may not be desirable due to weight
and space constraints. Where possible, and particularly for oil/gas systems, it may be preferable to use separator
inlet chokes (possibly brought into play by the level control circuitry) to control separator liquid inflow, oil/water
drainage rates to be within the surge volume handling capacity.

The slug catcher (or separator) size is checked against the maximum slug volume to be accommodated based on
liquid and gas production flowrates resulting from normal operation, production rate changes and pipeline pigging
operations whilst taking into account the maximum available liquid drain rate of the receiving slug catcher or
primary separator (if designing for two-phase separation) or the drain rate of the oil and water phases (if designing
for three-phase separation). During the conceptual design phase, an initial assessment of the slug catcher surge
volume handling requirement for rate change operations can be quickly performed by the Cunliffe method as this
method only requires output data of the steady state liquid content in the system predicted from either PIPEFLO or
PIPESIM simulations.

For SELECT and EXECUTE phases, more detailed analysis is performed to verify the slug catcher size using
transient simulation to confirm the maximum surge volume generated from rate change operations and from
hydrodynamic slugging during normal production (Figure 14). With the improved functionality of transient
®
simulation software packages like OLGA to extend the pipeline system model to include reception facilities like a
slug catcher and downstream production separators with pressure/level/flow controllers, it is fast becoming a
standard approach to use this extended model of the production flowpath to assess system operability during
transient operations and verify/optimize process control schemes in greater detail.

Net Surge Volume

Build-up in Slug Catcher
based on 3 Production
Lines Slugging

Figure 14 Example of Slug Catcher Sizing using Transient Analysis

Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS)

With the world‟s current dependence on fossil fuels and ever increasing energy demands in emerging economies,
the control of carbon dioxide emissions into the environment has become an important focus area for all countries
in response to the global movement to address climate change. Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) is the
 13

commonly used term to describe the process for capturing carbon dioxide (CO 2) from large industrial sources such
as coal-fired power stations and oil & gas refineries before it is released to the atmosphere, and to safely transport
the CO2 either for storage in mature oil and gas reservoirs, deep geological formations such as aquifers or for
enhanced oil recovery (EOR) operations in existing fields.

Flow Assurance issues in CO2 pipeline transport systems revolve mainly around modeling the effects of impurities
present with the CO2 as these have a significant impact on its physical properties resulting in changing the width
and shape of its phase envelope i.e. the 2-phase flow region and also its critical pressure and temperature (see
graph below). Whilst the normal operating mode for CO 2 transport pipelines is in dense-phase, there will be
transient conditions that can occur (e.g. pipeline depressurization, rupture, shutdown and restart operations) where
the operating conditions will either be initially outside the dense-phase region or drop out of the dense phase
region into its 2-phase region i.e. resulting in two-phase conditions present in the pipeline (Figure 15). It is
important to assess low temperature risks during any blowdown scenario as these sudden temperature drops can
potentially result in metal embrittlement and formation of CO2 hydrates affecting pipeline integrity and system
operability.

To rigorously model phase behavior in CO2 transport lines resulting from transient operations, dynamic modeling is
required (e.g. to assess phase behavior during shutdown/blowdown or in the event of a pipeline rupture). For
single component fluid systems where there is no phase envelope or, even if minor impurities (< 2%) are present,
the phase envelope is very narrow and hence phase changes will be abrupt and result in very sudden change (or
non-linearity) in fluid properties at pressure/temperature conditions straddling its saturation line or phase boundary.
Such abrupt changes cause numeric instabilities using the basic transient computational solvers whilst with the
single component solver, advanced numerical smoothing algorithms have been developed to cope with the non-
linear changes in fluid properties around these regions.

CO2 COMPOSITION PHASE ENVELOPES

90

80

70

60
Pressure, bara

50

40

CO2 composition 1

30 CO2 Composition 2

8%Comp2 + 92%Comp1

21%Comp2 + 79%Comp1
20
Pure CO2

10
-20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Temperature, C

Figure 15 Effect of Impurities in CO2 on Phase Behavior

Case Study – North Sea CCS Project

This flow assurance study involved carrying out a feasibility study to transport captured CO2 from an Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle (IGCC) plant on the site of several Power Stations for storage in either an offshore oil
field or saline aquifer. The compressed CO2 will be transported via pipeline to be injected into a saline aquifer
and/or to existing Platforms out in the North Sea where it is injected downhole and stored in depleted oil field
reservoirs. These existing platforms will be modified to allow the CO2 to be injected into the existing reservoir using
the existing wells.

The CO2 gas contains impurities which include hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon monoxide and some inert elements. In
addition, it is also expected to contain some amounts of water and hydrogen sulphide as shown above. From the
phase envelopes of the two compositions provided (Figure 15), Composition 2 exhibited the largest shift in critical
point. Compared with pure CO2, the critical temperature has reduced slightly from 31°C to 29°C whilst the critical
pressure has increased from 74 bara to 81 bara. As the operating pressure-temperature range in the pipeline is
between 100 barg and 190 barg and between 4°C and 30°C, the CO2 transportation pipeline network will be
operating safely inside the supercritical and dense phase regions.
14

In a separate CCS study, dynamic simulations using OLGA® were performed to assess the flow assurance issues
of operating a 350 km dry CO2 pipeline (with captured CO2 from a power station being sent to an offshore oil
platform for injection and storage downhole) at low pressure during its early period of operation when the depleted
oil field reservoir is at low relatively pressure. The objective was to identify the cases when the pipeline is operating
either in single phase or two-phase conditions and to highlight operating conditions when two-phase flow
conditions occur downhole in the injection well.

As shown in Figure 15, during early field life operations when the reservoir pressure is between 10 bara to 40 bara,
two phase conditions are predicted to occur along part of the pipeline length. However, at the platform, where the
arrival pressure is lower and the CO2 has cooled down to near ambient seabed temperature, the CO2 will arrive in
the vapour phase. It is therefore important to ensure that the CO2 is adequately dried in order to prevent corrosion
in the CO2 transport pipeline. At higher reservoir pressures later during field life (> 40 bara), the CO2 pipeline
operating pressure will be relatively constant with two-phase flow conditions predicted along the pipeline and also
upon arrival at the platform. Although the predicted flow regime is stratified flow during normal operation, a liquid
management strategy will still be required to handle potential slugging at low flowrates as well as liquid surge
generated when restarting following a shutdown. For these reasons, it is recommended that two-phase arrival
conditions from the pipeline to the platform should be avoided.

During the early injection period when the reservoir pressure is at 10 bara to 20 bara, the injected CO2 in the well
tubing transitions from single phase initially and then to two phase before finally to vapour phase by the time it
reaches bottomhole sandface. This can be attributed to significant gas expansion cooling as it flows downhole.
Although the liquid volume fraction in the two-phase section of the tubing is less than 1%, the resultant gas velocity
in the tubing is exceptionally high. There is a low temperature risk when injecting downhole during early field life
operation for reservoir pressures of 10, 20 and 30 bara. Simulation results indicate that during low pressure
injection operations, there is significant expansion cooling of the CO2 gas as it flows downhole. At 10 bara
reservoir pressure, the predicted gas temperature at bottomhole can be as low as -27°C (Figure 17). At reservoir
pressures of 20 bara and 30 bara, the bottomhole gas flowing temperature is less cold but is predicted to be still
sub-zero. To manage these low temperature risks, some pre-heating of the gas at the platform prior to injection
will be necessary.

With pre-heating available at the platform to achieve an inlet temperature of 50°C at the wellhead (downstream of
the choke), dynamic simulations have shown that the injection of CO2 downhole will be entirely in the vapour
phase (see Figure 18). There is some margin available to optimize (lower) the inlet temperature required to
achieve single phase conditions in the well and reduce the heater duty. Pre-heating of the gas prior to injection at
the platform increases the wellhead injection pressure requirement because the tubing pressure loss is less as a
result of operating in the vapour phase.

Pressure-Temperature Profiles for CO2 Pipeline

Wellhead Choke Fully Open
80

70

60

50
Phase Diagram (Pure CO2)
Pressure (bara)

10 bara
40 20 bara
30 bara
40 bara
30
50 bara
Critical Point
20

10

0
-140 -120 -100 -80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60

Temperature (oC)

Figure 16 Impact of Low Pressure Operation on CO2 Phase Behaviour in the Pipeline
 15

Pressure-Temperature Profiles for CO2 Well Tubing vs Res. Pressure

(No Heater & Wellhead Choke Fully Open)
80

70

60

50
Phase Diagram (Pure CO2)

Pressure (bara)
10 bara
40 20 bara
30 bara
40 bara
30
50 bara
Critical Point
20

10

0
-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 40
Temperature (C)

Figure 17 Impact of Low Pressure Operation on CO2 Phase Behaviour in the Wellbore

Pressure-Temperature Profiles for CO2 Well Tubing vs Res. Pressure

(with Heater @ 50 C Outlet Temperature & Wellhead Choke Fully Open)
80

70

60

50
Phase Diagram (Pure CO2)
Pressure (bara)

10 bara
40 20 bara
30 bara
40 bara
30
50 bara
Critical Point
20

10

0
-50 -30 -10 10 30 50 70
Temperature (C)

Figure 18 Impact of Low Pressure Operation on CO2 Phase Behaviour in the Wellbore with Pre-heating

HPHT Challenges
HPHT oil and gas fields have been successfully developed over the years. These reservoirs are defined as
hydrocarbon accumulations with reservoir pressure > 690 bar and reservoir temperature > 150 °C according to
NORSOK D-SR-007 (Ref. 1). A large number of HP/HT fields have been and are being developed around the
world as shown in Figure 19.

Canada Norway
Sable Island Asgaard,Embla, Gulfaks, Huldra,
Kristin, Kvitebjorn

UK North Sea
Gulf of Mexico Appleton, Beinn, Brae, Braemar,
Lian, Conger, Gyrfalcon, Cook, Dunbar, Egret, Elgin,
Nile, Tahiti, Thomaswille, Erskine, ETAP, Franklin, Gleneig,
Frontrunner, Halley, Heron, Jade, Judy,
Thunderhawk, Lorien Jasmin, Kessog, Kingfisher,
Mallard, Marnock, Penguin,
Puffin, Rhum, Seal, Shearwater,
Thelma
Venezuela
Ceuta Brunei
Maharaja Lela

Brazil Angola
Guanabara Bay HPHT Kuito

Figure 19 Present and Future Global Offshore HPHT Projects

The flow assurance challenges in HPHT developments are primarily associated with (a) managing the extremes in
16

operating pressure to within the design handling limits of current equipment e.g. high wellhead flowing pressure
during initial start-up, early life normal production periods when reservoir pressure is high, (b) managing the
extremes in wellhead flowing temperatures within the design handling limits of the subsea flowline/pipeline/riser
systems and avoid excessive Joule-Thompson cooling and (c) solids deposition handling such as wax, scale,
asphaltenes and hydrates.

A review of typical developments HPHT operational conditions and typical equipment limits are presented in Figure
20 and Figure 21.
HTHP Fields

450 Mobile Bay

430
Fandango
Shearwater Triassic
410 Singa Norphelt
Tuscaloosa
Glenelg
390 Mary Ann
Resevoir Temperature (°C)

McLean Jade Thomasville

Franklin
370 Elgin
Shearwater
22/25a
Erskine
350 Kessog Trecate
Egret Heron
Judy Matagorda Appleton Kristin Ceuta
330 Ursa Block C D E
Sable Island
Cook Embla West Cameron
Marnock Halley Mallard Puf f in
310 Malossa
Kvitebjorn
Huldra Rhum
Devenich Tengiz
290 Kingf isher Crathes
Brae
Braemar Beinn
270 Crazy Horse

250
9000 10000 11000 12000 13000 14000 15000 16000 17000 18000 19000 20000
Resevoir Pressure (Barg)

Shallow Water Depth > 100m Lower Intermediate Water Depth 101m to 500m
Upper Interm ediate Water Depth 501m to 1000m Deep Water Depth >1001m

Figure 20 Typical HPHT Dveelopments

Subsea Components Availability/Development

0 5000 10000 Pressure (psi) 15000 20000 25000
400 752

Hydraulic Control System Downhole Gauges

350 662

300 572
Pressure Sensors
Temperature Sensors
Combined P & T Sensors
Control Fluid
250 482
Temperature (°C)

Temperature (°F)
Down-hole Valves Downhole Valves
Down-hole Valves
Hydraulic Control System Control Fluid
200 392
Wet Gas Flow Meters Downhole Gauges
Trees
Flexible Pipe
HIPPS
150 Flexible Pipe 302
Flexible Pipe

100 212

Current Components
50 Umbilicals Umbilicals 122
1 to 3 yrs Development
3 to 5 yrs Development

0 32
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800
Pressure (barg)

Figure 21 Subsea Components Availability/Development

Whilst there is commonality with shallow and deepwater developments in the flow assurance issues that needs to
be managed such as hydrates and wax management, the additional flow assurance challenges that are unique to
HP/HT environments are:
 Pressure management
 Temperature management

To achieve a robust flow assurance strategy, it is important to get representative data on the wellhead flowing
temperature and pressure performance to be able to ensure that all subsea equipment including flowlines,
pipelines and risers are adequately qualified for these operating conditions.
For offshore developments, typical strategies that are being used to overcome the flow assurance challenges
relating to high pressure and high temperature management include:
 Having a subsea production system fully rated for its operating pressure range as it provides a safe
solution. However, if following a shutdown where the topsides isolation valve fails to close, the unloading of
the hydrocarbon inventory of a fully packed line to the facility will be undesirable.
 17

 For fields where the operating pressure or temperature limits are marginally above current limits of subsea
equipment, the existing designs had to be qualified to handle the higher operating limits on pressure and
temperature. As the pressure and temperature range for these reservoir types gets even higher, there will
be a point when new designs for the subsea equipment will have to be sought.
 Provide a high integrity pressure protection system (HIPPS) for the subsea system to isolate the
downstream system from being packed by the upstream system in the event of an unplanned shutdown
that could occur as a result of hydrate blockage, process trip at the host facility or inadvertent valve closure
either subsea or at topsides
 Installing a cooling spool between the wellhead and the pipeline to handle HPHT fields where the wellhead
flowing temperature exceeds the design temperature limits for the pipeline and a P-I-P system will no longer
be suitable. As the contents in this spool will rapidly cool down to ambient temperature following a
shutdown, to avoid the risk of forming hydrates, these spools are usually designed to be inclined so as to
promote self-draining of liquids towards the insulated section of the pipeline if flow is stopped.

For some HPHT fields with shut-in pressures between 690 and 862 bar (10,000 to 12,500 psi), it may be
possible to justify avoiding the need for subsea HIPPS where the initial high shut-in pressures are short-lived
i.e. rapidly declining reservoir pressure. It may be possible to have the flowlines re-qualified for a higher design
pressure and the 10,000 psi rated subsea trees, subsea valves and flowline connectors re-rated to the higher
pressure using the existing body design with only minor hardware component changes and also modifying the
control system software to achieve the required improvement in response times to production upset scenarios.
Table 1 gives examples of some flow assurance solutions to HPHT field developments.

Production WHSIP WHFT Water Depth Flow Assurance Solutions used for Pressure &
HP/HT Fields Operator Location
Fluid (bara/psia) (°C/°F) (m) Temperature Management

Subsea template wells tied back to platform;

Manifold HIPPS ; Pipeline bundle with active
Gulfaks StatoilHydro NCS Gas 689 / 9990 149 / 300 136
heating using hot water circulation for
temperature/hydrate management
Template wells with manifold HIPPS for
pressure management; Low insulation spec
Kristin StatoilHydro NCS Gas 740/ 10730 162 / 324 315 - 375 flowline to keep temperatures within riser
design limit; DEH used for hydrate
management during shutdown and start-up
Unmanned wellhead platform with production
transfer via multiphase pipeline to Judy
Jade Conoco Phillips UKCS Gas Condensate 759 / 11000 160 / 320 100 platform; Dry Trees with Tree HIPPS; Methanol
injection for hydrate management;
Wax/Scale/Corrosion inhibitor injection
Subsea Tieback via twin Super-Duplex
pipelines to Brae Platform; Subsea HIPPS;
Kingfisher Shell UKCS Oil/Gas 689 / 9990 120 / 248 106
Temperature/hydrate management (no details
available)
Satellite wells to subsea manifold and pipeline
to Platform; Manifold HIPPS; Trenched and
Rhum BP UKCS Gas Condensate 709 / 10280 120 / 248 109
buried infield P-I-P flowlines and P-I-P pipeline
design for temperature/hydrate management

Table 1 Examples of Flow Assurance Solutions with HIPPS used in HP/HT Field Developments

For HPHT fields where the operating pressure and temperature range is manageable using standard equipment,
the high wellhead operating temperature offers the opportunity to develop fields much further away from the host
facility by using better insulated pipe-in-pipe (P-I-P) designs. The lowest U-value achieveable using P-I-P system is
ca. 0.7 W/m2/K.

With HPHT fields, it is not untypical to experience reverse Joule–Thompson (J-T) or expansion heating
phenomena during early field life (Ref. 10) when reservoir pressures are still high, resulting in tophole flowing
temperatures above reservoir temperature during this period (Figure 22). It is not until the reservoir pressure has
declined sufficiently or until the wellhead flowing pressure drops below a threshold value (inversion pressure) that
normal J-T expansion cooling will then prevail. Hence the temperature management strategy for these fields needs
to take into account these high temperatures during this early production period.

If the riser design temperature only has been exceeded, then a conventional insulated pipeline system is used but
with its insulation specification lowered accordingly to ensure that the arrival temperature at the base of the riser is
acceptable. However, with reduced insulation in the pipeline, the available cooldown time for the subsea system
following a shutdown is likely to be unacceptable for hydrates management. A back-up strategy e.g. electrical
heating of the pipeline is used to manage the hydrates risk during shutdown.
18

Downstream Temperature

Downstream Pressure

Figure 22 Joule-Thompson Expansion Heating / Cooling

:
Conclusions
Today‟s ever more extreme hydrocarbon developments have lead the industry in general and flow assurance
practitioners in particular to develop advanced methodologies for modeling and understanding the flow assurance
characteristics for transportation systems from the well bore all the way to process facilities, be they offshore or for
long distance tie-backs, to the beach. This detailed understanding of the way the product changes and reacts to its
conditions as it passes through the system has allowed an integrated, overall systems design approach to be
adopted. This flow assurance integration into systems design vastly improves and in some cases enables
hydrocarbon developments.

The software tools available today are able to model steady state single and multiphase conditions in both single
line and network systems. Transient analysis software tools are available to simulate dynamic conditions and
assess system operability in terms of hydraulic flow stability (regular, terrain-induced and severe slugging), liquid
management (pigging slugs, liquid and gas surge loads into separator or slug catcher), hydrate and wax
management during field start-up, shutdown, depressurisation and restart).

The ability to understand the driving flow assurance parameters associated with extreme hydrocarbon
developments has allowed:

 design of advanced thermal insulation to avoid or manage hydrate/wax blockage/buildup

 definition of the design limits for subsea equipment to enable the development of HPHT fields
 definition of the transient design parameters to assess and mitigate pipeline walking and buckling
 definition of requirements to successfully develop heavy oil systems
 build appropriate remediation measures into systems
 planning for the memoval of hydrates from wet gas field developments
 understanding the requirements for and optimized sizing of slug catchers

Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank colleagues at Peritus International for providing information updates on current limits for
the various technologies discussed in this paper.

Abbreviations
AA Anti-Agglomerate
DEH Direct Electic Heating
FWHP Flowing Wellhead Pressure
GPRT Gurarat Pipeline Receiving Terminal
HIPPS High Integrity Pressure Protection Systems
HPHT High Pressure High Temperature
J-T Joule Thompson
KHI Kinetic Hydrate Inhibitor
LDHI Low Dosage Hydrate Inhibitor
MEG Mono Ethylene Glycol
 19

MEIDP Middle East to India Deepwater Pipeline

MECS Middle East Compression Station
NCS Norwegian Continental Shelf
OGCS Offshore Gas Compression Station
®
OLGA Dynamic simulation software tool for flow assurance studies
OVIP A research and development program for validation and improvement of OLGA
P-I-P Pipe-in-Pipe
PVT Pressure Volume Temperature
THI Thermodynamic Hydrate Inhibitor
UKCS United Kingdom Continental Shelf
VASPS Vertical Annular Separation and Pumping System
WHSIP Wellhead Shut in Pressure
WHFT Wellhead Flowing Temperature
WDDM West Delta Deep Marine
XHPHT Extra High-Pressure High-Temperature

References

1 NORSOK Standard D-SR-007 Well testing systems Rev 1, Jan 1996

2 L. Cowie et al. Optimal hydrate management and new challenges in GoM deepwater using Best-in-Class Technologies OTC 17328,
2005
3 Jean-Louis Peytavy et al. Qualification of low dose hydrate inhibitors (LDHIs): Field cases studies, Proceedings of the 6th
International Conference on Gas Hydrates, ICGH 2008
4 R. Alapati et al. Two field studies demonstrate that new AA-LDHI chemistry is effective at high watercuts without impacting oil quality
OTC 19505, 2008
5 C. Curran. High Integrity Pressure Protection Systems (HIPPS) Development for the Gulf of Mexico: Update on Deepstar, API 17O
and Industry Developments, OTC 19703, 2008
6 C. Internet Sites
Perdido Field, http://www.subseaiq.com/data/Project.aspx?project_id=125
BC-10 Field, http://www.subseaiq.com/data/Project.aspx?project_id=365
Tordis and Gulfaks Fields, http://www.subseaiq.com/data/Project.aspx?project_id=198
Marlim Field, http://www.subseaiq.com/data/Project.aspx?project_id=299
Pelegrino Field, http://www.subseaiq.com/data/Project.aspx?project_id=432
Tyrihans Field, http://www.subseaiq.com/data/Project.aspx?project_id=317
Troll C Field, http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/
F/Frontiers_magazine_issue_4_Shifting_to_the_seabed.pdf
Perdido Field, http://memagazine.asme.org/Articles/2010/December/1300_Fathoms.cfm
LDHI, http://www.pennenergy.com/index/petroleum/display/155581/articles/offshore/volume-62/issue-9/news/ldhi-
advances-enable-longer-tiebacks.html#
Jade Field, http://www.pennenergy.com/index/petroleum/display/100601/articles/offshore/volume-
61/issue-5/news/hp-ht-technology-unmanned-jade-development-pipeline-tackling-hp-ht-conditions.html
Rhum Field, http://www.bp.com/liveassets/bp_internet/globalbp/STAGING/global_assets/downloads/U/
uk_asset_rhum_factsheet.pdf (Rhum)
Badejo Field, http://www.energy-business-review.com/news/
petrobras_inaugurates_heavyoil_fpso_in_badejo_field
Grane Field, http://www.offshore-technology.com/projects/granefieldnorway/
DEH, http://www.offshore-mag.com/index/article-display/5861162981/articles/offshore/volume-
69/Issue_8/Flowlines_Pipelines/Direct_electrical_heating_maintains_subsea_production_flowline_throughput.html (DEH)

7 Manning, Francis S.; Thompson, Richard E. (1991), Oilfield Processing of Petroleum. Vol. 1: Natural Gas, PennWell Books, ISBN 0-
87814-343-2, 420 pages. See page 293
8 Y.S. Muzychka and M.M. Awad, Asymptotic Generalisations of the Lockhart-Martinelli Method for two phase flows, Journal of Fluids
Engineering, ASME MARCH 2010, Vol. 132 / 031302-1
9 Neil Dutton, Simian/Sienna & Sapphire Engineering Manager, BG Group, West Delta's deep marine challenge E&P Magazine July 4,
2004
10 Jan Hundseid et al. Subsea system design for the HPHT Kristin Field Development, OTC 16688, 2004
11 I.F.J. Nash, Peritus International Ltd.; P. Roberts, South Asia Gas Enterprise PVT Ltd. MEIDP - The Deep Sea Gas Route to India,
OTC 21259, May 2011
12 Ian Nash & Dave Smith, Subsea Engineering for Oil & Gas West Delta Deep Development, SUT Presentation Mumbai India, 25 th Nov
2009.