SPE 121461

Applying Well-Remediation Techniques to Subsea Flowlines in Deepwater

Gulf of Mexico
Lisa A. Hudson and Gregor J. Bowen, Schlumberger, and Truman A. Breithaupt, Shell Exploration & Production

Copyright 2009, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the 2009 SPE/ICoTA Coiled Tubing and Well Intervention Conference and Exhibition held in The Woodlands, Texas, USA, 31 March–1 April 2009.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE 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 Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its
officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers 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 SPE copyright.

Abstract

Flow assurance in subsea production flow lines is becoming more prevalent as deepwater well developments continue to
grow. Coiled tubing (CT), though traditionally used in wellbore environments, can be utilized to address flow assurance.
Complications are possible when applying CT technology in a nonconventional environment. Connection tie-ins and
available deck area are typically incompatible with intervention-type activities, and challenging issues such as weight
limitations, nature of blockage, and weather sensitive environments lead to the need for elaborate planning with multiple
contingencies to address the uncertainties. Our study investigated the operational planning and logistical requirements
associated with the radiation of the flow assurance for the Serrano flowline.
The Serrano flowline is located in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM), in 3,500 ft of water and is tied back 6 miles to the Auger
TLP. Three subsea wells have produced through the electrically heated Serrano flowline since 2001. In November 2006, there
was an unplanned shutdown of the flowline and despite numerous attempts to restart, the wells had failed to flow.
In December 2007, after 6 months of intensive and complex planning, a standalone CT operation was successfully
performed while drilling operations continued on the main rig. The operations consisted of utilizing a unique small footprint
compensation frame to allow access to the flowline from a confined area. Then a 1-1/2-in CT string was deployed into the
flowline to retrieve a sample of the blockage for diagnostic purposes. The analysis of the sample dictated the optimal cleanout
strategy which was to combine a specialized rotary nozzle with pumping diesel and solvents to successfully clean out the
flowline. The blockage was breached at a depth of 3,700 ft after cleaning almost 1,000 ft in less than 24 hours. The flowline
was reinstated and gas production restored to >2,000 bbl/d and 8 MMcf, thus preventing the client from losing the lease.

Introduction

The Serrano flowline is tied back six miles to the Auger TLP platform and consists of 3 wells. The flowline is a single 6 in
by 10 in pipe-in-pipe insulated flowline. The flowline and its counter part the Oregano are not only the first pipe-in-pipe
single flowline systems but also the first use of an electrical heating flowline system. This heated system was used to aid in the
reduction/elimination of potential hydrate formation due to subsea temperatures.
In August 2005, the hurricane Katrina evacuation caused a shut-in of the flowlines for 17 days. The flowlines were brought
back online without incident. Shortly after the August shut-in, hurricane Rita, November 2005, caused another shut-in for a
total of 78 days. The comparison of the well tests completed before each shut-in showed that production values were
comparable and little to no loss was seen. The third shut-in was done in July 2006 for 2 days after which a small but noticeable
reduction in productivity was seen. The flowline was shut in for 1 week in November 2006. Generator power to the EH
(electrical heating) system was lost. Once the flowline was opened back up for restart, it would not flow. It was suspected that
a hydrate formed in the flowline during the shut-in period, but other possibilities were sand and paraffin buildup. Pressure
(2,800 psi) was applied from the riser side of the blockage; however, it failed to dislodge the plug. Methanol was then pumped
down the riser to further prevent hydrate formation since it was possible that the EH system was not functioning properly. The
top of the plug has been estimated to begin at approximately 2,200 ft to 3,500 ft, based on the fluid volumes pumped into the
flowline from the TLP. There were some variations during the November 2006 shutdown compared to the previous shutdown
operations, which include a blowdown of the flowline, a Chilly Choke back pressurization upon restart, and the injection of
approximately 24 bbl of MeOH injected into the riser section.
2 SPE 121461

Once it was clear that the available methods to restart the flowline were not working, CT was determined to be the best
option for intervention. CT would be used to determine the composition of the plug and to remove the obstruction from the
flowline.

Job Design for CT Equipment

When working on a TLP or other floating structures, it is important to understand how the vessels’ movement will
potentially affect an operation. The platform moves in direct relationship with underwater currents and tidal movement. While
a small movement due to tidal forces and other applied forces to the flowline may seem insignificant (a few degrees), this
could translate into a much more destructive force as it is translated to the riser section and further upward to the injector head
of a CT well control stack. For example, 1 degree of angular movement at the flowhead would result in 14 inches of lateral
movement at the injector head, which is 65 ft in height from the flowhead. For this operation, the CT equipment would be
staged on the mezzanine deck (Mez Deck). The flowline tie-in point was approximately 38 ft below this Mez Deck. Riser
would be used to reach the tie-in point and support equipment would be rigged up on top of the Mez Deck, resulting in a total
height of approximately 69 ft. Due to the direct correlation between weather and platform movement, the time of year in which
the project is to be completed should also be considered. The project was scheduled in the winter months of 2007. During this
time, there are more frequent winter storms and thus tidal development intensifies. These storms ultimately increase the
probability of wellhead movement and must be considered.
Another major issue when working on TLP platforms or other deep water structures is space availability for intervention
operations. When these platforms are designed, it is uncommon for intervention contingencies to be taken into account for
flowline access, etc. Intensive preplanning, small footprint equipment, and logistical planning are essential for operating in
these areas. For this particular operation, the allotted space above the tie-in point for the flowline was very compact and had
restricted access (See Figure 1) in which the well is offset. This limited space increases the difficulty in rigging up the well
control stack.
To mitigate the possible damage due to movement of the well head as well as addressing the space limitations, a
specialized compensating frame was used. (See Figure 2). The compensating frame utilizes hydraulic cylinders, which are
connected to accumulators. The system is a hydraulic type spring with a defined coefficient based on specific relative motions
and volume. These values can be specified and set to compensate after a certain applied force is achieved. The frame can be
operated in both manual and automatic modes for ease during rig up and hands free during the operation. To secure the
compensating frame to the deck, a more severe modification had to be made to the access area. Originally, the tie-in location
was inaccessible because a pig catcher system had been installed during the flowlines construction. Prior to mobilization of the
intervention equipment, the pig catcher was removed and specialized deck plating was constructed to properly secure the
compensating frame to the deck. Once the modifications were made, the tie-in point was ready to receive the deck loading and
well control stackup with compensating frame.
The engineering design also directly affects the equipment needs and planning. Since this particular blockage was
unknown, many contingencies were put into place to prepare for any of the possible obstructions (sand, hydrate, or
paraffin/wax). To address these possible blockages, several types of fluids were sent to concentrate on each particular
obstruction. To limit the amount of fluid required and to act in the most efficient and economical manner, a solids handling
system was implemented into the design. This would allow the fluid to be filtered and recirculated in order to save on tank
storage and fluid volume. This system is composed of a mongoose shaker, mud gas separator, degasser, desilter, auto choke
system, and solids holding cutting boxes. The system allowed for easy access to the returns for volume monitoring and also
allowed for the recirculation of fluid.
To ensure environmental considerations are taken into account, the deck loading and containment were also addressed. The
Mez Deck where the equipment would be staged was composed of iron grating and, therefore, could cause serious
environmental impact if not mitigated. Since the contingency plans included pumping large quantities of diesel, the entire Mez
Deck was covered with layers of plywood, visqueen, and tar paper to create a sufficient barrier. In conjunction with this
layered decking, spill containment burms were utilized under the pumps, tanks, choke, and separation system to capture any
leaks in the treating lines and connection points during the operation. All treating lines that fell outside the spill containment
burms were lined with visqueen for a secondary barrier to the decking.

Engineering Design for Cleanout

Due to the history on this flowline, there were many possible causes for the blockage. Based on the restart program, the
history of the wells production, and using the ideal gas law, the blockage was estimated to be approximately 2,225 ft MD in
the flowline. Since the wells had a history of sand production, that was the probable cause of the blockage. The other possible
scenario includes a hydrate formation. It was possible that the electric heating element had failed in a particular section and
allowed a hydrate plug to form. The other possible blockage was a paraffin plug. Each particular scenario was planned in
detail so that each could be eliminated on location once the blockage was found and analyzed.
SPE 121461 3

Since the well had no survey data like a drilled well, the tubing forces calculated for the operation had to be extrapolated
from the data available (x, y, and z coordinates). Calculated tubing forces analysis allowed the CT support team to anticipate
the total depth achievable by the CT alone and with tractor assistance. The total anticipated depth that the CT could reach
without assistance was 6,000 ft. The total length of the flowline is approximately 34,320 ft. The additional distance that could
be achieved with the aid of a CT tractor BHA was 3,000 ft. A yard test was done at the onshore facility to determine the
required pump rate to activate the tractor as well as to determine that the BHA could pass through the 4.5-in ID as per the job
design with an 18-degree deviation. In the event that the tractor had to be used, the proper pressures and rates had been
confirmed on surface to ensure better accuracy when the intervention was underway.
The first run to be completed would be a bailer run to obtain a sample of the obstruction and to best select the go forward
plan for the intervention. Once on location, the bailer run proved to be successful and provided a significant amount of fill
sample to use for onsite testing. If the blockage was paraffin/wax substance, diesel would be used in conjunction with an
aromatic solvent. This solvent has been successful in cleaning out paraffin and wax debris world wide, is also coded as a green
chemical with a health coding of 2, and is partially biodegradable. Due to the potential for hydrate formation, it was critical not
to put water-based fluids in the flowline. In the event that sand was the primary blockage, diesel would still be utilized to
prevent a hydrate formation. This diesel would be a specialized gelled system to carry the sand particles back to surface. In
both methods the separation system would be used to reduce the amount of diesel in the operation.
To ensure the plug had been removed and full communication had been established throughout the flowline, the downhole
pressure gauge would be monitored at all times to determine when breakthrough would occur. Throughout the operation, full
communication with the control team would be in place with radios to get constant updates on the changes in the bottomhole
pressure gauge.

Results and Discussion

Initial operations were completed as planned and no injectivity could be established into the flowline. A 3-in bailer was run
to obtain the sample of the obstruction and determine the go-forward plan regarding the cleanout fluids needed. After the run
was completed, the tubing force plots were compared to the calculated forces and weights. (See Figure 3). The initial tubing
forces plot indicated that the CT pickup weights were significantly higher than originally predicted. There are a few potential
causes for such a scenario. Probable causes include a lower fluid level in the flowline than originally predicted, increased
friction due to paraffin buildup, or riser movement causing an increase in contact points and thus increased friction. Overall,
the analysis that was made using the coordinate system to map the trajectory of the well and to simulate the tubing forced
proved accurate for this type of flowline intervention. The predictions were reasonably close to the actual tubing forces seen
during the operations.
Once the sample was collected, it was immediately determined to be dehydrated paraffin. (See Figure 4). A basic
dissolution test was performed on location to determine the best fluid composition for the cleanout portion of the operation. A
total of three solutions were made: A: diesel, B: 50/50 diesel and aromatic solvent mixture, and C: aromatic solvent. (See
Figure 5). The same approximate amounts of the paraffin were placed in each bottle and agitated for a few minutes each. In
monitoring for settling, it appeared that all paraffin fell to the bottom fairly quickly in all the samples. It did, however, float in
H20; thus the paraffin blockage weighed between 6.84 lbm/galUS and 8.34 lbm/galUS. Each sample was mixed for
approximately 30 seconds and then allowed to sit. The initial observation showed minute amounts of dissolution in the diesel,
with significantly more in the aromatic solvent, which was expected. After about an hour, the samples were looked at again
and the sample in the diesel had broken up significantly, but had not dissolved into solution. The 50/50 mixture showed more
dissolution than the diesel and resulted in a finer powder-like particulate. The aromatic solvent was far more aggressive and
showed almost a complete dissolution of the paraffin with a small residual powder-like substance at the bottom of the
container. All the particulates sank to the bottom of the container and would not suspend in solution. (See Figure 6).
None of the tests could simulate the aggressive jetting action of the specialized rotary wash nozzle BHA that was to be used
for the cleanout. When this was taken in to account, it was decided that since the diesel did show some degradation of the
particle in combination with the jetting power of the BHA, it would be sufficient to perform the cleanout. Due to the
availability of the solids separating system, it was not necessary to completely dissolve the paraffin in solution since the
particles would be separated out, and allowing the fluid to be recirculated as planned. The aromatic solvents’ aggressive
dissolution of the paraffin and the time necessary to bring the Serrano flowline back online once the cleanout was completed
would allow for better paraffin prevention to lay in a 50/50 mixture of aromatic solvent and diesel into the flowline instead of
voiding the vertical section with N2 as originally planned. This would degrade any residual paraffin in the flowline that was
not within the area cleaned by the CT and would continue to prevent hydrate formation.
The second run commenced and the cleanout was successful. Returns were seen once a depth of 267 ft was reached. The
returns were a thick pasty consistency, which made for very easy removal with the shakers. Small bridges were encountered at
920 ft and breakthough indicated there was approximately 36 ft of fill. Significant resistance was seen during the first run,
which indicated that the walls of the tubing contained the paraffin deposits and, therefore, caused more friction points as the
CT moved in and out of the flowline. Cleanout was completed and communication was established with the downhole
pressure gauge at 3,700 ft. The CT was pulled out of hole to surface while lying in aromatic solvent/diesel 50% mixture.
4 SPE 121461

It was then decided to pressure test the flowline and ensure good communication at the downhole pressure gauge. The
pressure test was done to 500 psi and the increase was seen downhole. It was a slow process most likely due to the
compression of gas in the flowline. After the pressure testing was confirmed, the equipment was rigged down and backloaded.

Conclusions

The planning of this operation was extremely thorough. The extensive planning enabled the operation to run smoothly and
safely. The following are the lessons learned from the planning process:
• X, Y, Z coordinate system can be converted and utilized to simulate anticipated tubing forces for CT operations.
• Compensation for flowline movement must be considered and applied when intervening on a deepwater vessel.
• Small footprint equipment and spotting must be considered and prejob rig evaluations need to be conducted well in
advance to ensure that modifications to the rig can be made before the planned intervention.
• Later lab results proved that the aromatic solvent used would have completely dissolved the paraffin solution over
time and, therefore, was a positive choice to be left in the flowline while waiting on the startup of production. This
fluid, in combination with diesel, is not likely to form hydrates and would help dissolve any residual paraffin left
in the flowline.

During the project, an approximate total of 35 bbl of paraffin wax was removed from the flowline during the cleanout
process. The paraffin had been dehydrated as a result of the methanol pumped into the flowline during earlier tests, but the
combination of diesel and the specialized rotary wash nozzle BHA were sufficient to remove the debris. The flowline was
brought back online and began producing at > 2,000 bbl/d and 8 MMcf, which prevented the client from losing the lease
This study proved that, with enough planning, such intervention operations can be performed from a TLP platform. The
flowline was brought back online at a better production rate that initially anticipated and the overall intervention was a great
success.

Acknowledgment

The authors would like to thank the management teams of Shell and Schlumberger for allowing this useful information to
be published. Finally we would like to acknowledge the crews of all the involved parties for the hard work and their
commitment to putting safety first.

Reference
Alsyed S., Larsen H., Johnston P., Schaider F., Lounsbury J., Smith J.; 2000. Pipeline Intervention From a Dynamically
Positioned Mono-Hull Vessel via a Flexible Riser. SPE 60728.
Patton, B., Escobar J.C., Schuurman R., Mallalieu R., Polsky Y; 2005. Taking Coiled-Tubing Heave Compensation to the
Next Level. SPE 94350.
Symon, W., Hudson, L.; 2007. Welltec Well Tractor Yard Testing. Schlumberger Internall Document.
SPE 121461 5

C lie n t: S h e ll
C o ile d T u b in g S e rv ic e s W e ll:
In sta lla tio n:
S e rra n o F lo w lin e
Auger TLP
D a te : 3 rd D e c 2 0 0 7
C o ile d T u b in g M e zz D e c k L a y o u t D ra w n: L is a W e b e r
R e visio n: Rev 7

M I- M I- T o ta l W e ig h t D R Y = 3 5 1 K lb s
S w aco S w aco
S kip S kip M I- T o ta l W e ig h t W E T = 4 5 9 K lb s

105bbl Tank
Treating Iron
#19 # 19
Basket S w aco
M I-S w a co

#23
#13 MGS N o te :
2 4 ft P F M S S y ste m #18 T h is as su m e s a ll ta nk s a re
#17
1 0 0 % flu id fu ll, n o rm a lly
U n u sa b le o p e ra tin g w ill b e o n ly b e 5 0 -
#8 S p a ce 7 5 % fu ll

CPump
#14
C o n ce n tric
1 0 0 b b l D ie se l
Tank #20

8 2 ft #8 #8
Walkway

M o o n P o ol
3 9 ft 500 H H P
A
F ra m e
F lu id F lu id C ra ne
P um p Pum p
#6 #5

In je cto rh e a d -JM C F ra m e -B O P S ta ck 3 0 ft
2 4 ft
9 0K N 2
Pum p #15

CT Reel
BOP In je cto r

#4
T ra n sp PFM S
T ra n sp o rt
o rt S kid C h o ke N 2 Tank
S kid # 9 4 5 ft
#10 M fo ld #16
2 4 ft #20 # 21
Tool box CT N 2 Tank

PPack
CT
C ab #16

#8
S ta irs #1
N 2 Tank
#16
C ra n e B e a m P a cka g e
Page 1 of 4

Figure 1: Actual Rig Up of System to Scale

Figure 2: Compensating Frame Located on Customized Deck Plating.

6 SPE 121461

Figure 3: TFM (Tubing Force Module) Plot for Sample Bailer Run1 (Auger Serrano)
SPE 121461 7

Figure 4: Paraffin Sample from Dump Bailer Run.

Figure 5: Three Solutions Made for Onsite Dissolution Testing

8 SPE 121461

A B C

Figure 6: Settling Test

Figure 7: Hydraulic Compensating Frame with Injector Head Installed.

SPE 121461 9

Figure 8: View of Decking and West Mez Deck Rig Up (Reel and Console).

Figure 9: View of Decking and South Mez Deck Rig Up (Pumps).

10 SPE 121461

Figure 10: View of East Mez Deck Rig Up (Shaker System).

Figure 11: Boarding Valves Tie-In Point for Riser System (38 ft Below Mez Deck).