Federal University of Rio de Janeiro Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering Department

International Student Offshore Design Competition 2005

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil

Tiago Pace Estefen Daniel Santos Werneck Diogo do Amaral Macedo Amante João Paulo Carrijo Jorge Leandro Cerqueira Trovoado Faculty Advisor: Prof. Segen F. Estefen
Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil

-1-

CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 Team Organization 2. SYSTEM DESIGN 2.1. Sub-systems, Equipments and Components 2.1.1. Pipes 2.1.2. Umbilical Cable 2.1.3. Control System 2.1.4. Wet Christmas Tree (X-Tree) 2.1.5. Manifold 2.1.6. Pipe Line End Manifold - PLEM 2.1.7. Pipe Line End Termination – PLET 2.1.8. Jumper 2.2. Layout of the System 2.2.1. Semi-submersible 2.2.2. Jacket 2.2.3. Subsea to Beach 3. SUBSEA PROCESSING 3.1. Hydrates 3.2. Types of Thermal Insulation 3.2.1. Thermal Insulation Adopted 3.3. Gas State Properties 3.4. Temperature and Pressure Profile Determination 3.4.1. Temperature Profile 3.4.2. Pressure Profile 3.4.3. Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible 3.4.4. Scenario 2: Jacket 3.4.5. Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach 3.5.Transient Regime 3.6. Mono Ethylene Glycol 3.6.1. Recycle 3.6.2. MEG Calculation 3.7. Concluding Remarks 4. FLOWLINES AND RISERS 4.1. Design of Flowlines and Rigid Risers 4.1.1. Local Buckling Due to Longitudinal Strain and External Overpressure 4.1.2. Propagation Buckling 4.1.3. Local Buckling Due to Bending Moment, Effective Axial Force and Internal Overpressure 4.1.4. Material Properties 4.1.5. Results 4.2 Riser Analyzes Considering Top Motions 4.2.1. Semi-submersible Platform Gas - Production Riser 4.2.1.1. System Configuration 4.2.1.2. Relevant Parameters 4.2.1.3. Soil Data 4.2.1.4. Structural Properties 4.2.1.5. Environmental Data 4.2.1.6. Extreme Offset 05 07 08 14 15 16 18 18 18 18 19 19 19 20 20 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 27 27 28 29 29 31 31 33 36 39 40 41 43 43 44 44 45 47 47 49 49 50 50 50 51 51 51 52 52

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil

-2-

4.2.1.7. Numerical Model 4.2.1.8. Global Analysis Results – Import Riser 4.2.1.9. Considerations about the Results for Import Flexible Risers 4.2.2. Semi-Submersible Platform Gas Export Riser 4.2.2.1. System Configuration 4.2.2.2. Relevant Analysis Parameters 4.2.2.3. Structural Properties 4.2.2.4. Numerical Model 4.2.2.5. Global Analysis Results – Export Riser 4.2.2.6. Considerations about the Results for Export Hybrid Risers 4.3. Pipe installation 4.3.1. S-Lay Method 4.3.2. J-Lay method 4.3.3. Reel Method 4.3.4. Definition of the Installation Method 4.4 Pipe Maintenance - Inspection and Cleaning 4.4.1 Geometric Pig 4.4.2 Corrosion Pig 5. SUBSEA SYSTEM DESIGN 5.1. Wet Christmas Tree (X-Tree) 5.1.2. X-Tree installation Method 5.1.3. X-Tree Arrangement and Operation 5.1.4. Description of selected X-Tree Components 5.1.4.1. Choke 5.1.4.2. Base for the Flowlines 5.1.4.3. Tubing Hanger 5.1.4.4. Vertical Connection Module (VCM) 5.1.5.5. Tree Cap 5.2. Manifold 5.2.1. Manifold Installation 5.2.2. Manifold Arrangement and Operation 5.3. PLEM 5.3.1. PLEM Definition 5.3.2. PLEM Arrangement, Operability and Installation 5.4. PLET 5.4.1. PLET Definition 5.4.2. PLET Arrangement, Operation and Installation 5.5. Control Systems 5.5.1. Hydraulic Direct 5.5.2. Multiplex Electro Hydraulic 5.6 Equipment General Arrangement 5.7. Subsea Compression and Separation 5.7.1. Subsea Separation 5.7.2. Subsea Compression 5.7.3. Process Description 6. RISK ASSESSMENT 6.1. Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible 6.2. Scenario 2: Jacket 6.3. Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach 6.4. Concluding Remarks 6.4.1. Total Production Loss 6.4.2. Partial Production Loss 6.4.3. The Best Scenario 7. COSTS 7.1. Net Present Value (NPV)

52 53 55 55 56 57 57 58 60 62 62 63 63 63 64 64 65 66 67 67 67 68 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 71 71 73 73 73 74 74 74 74 74 75 75 77 77 77 77 79 79 80 82 84 84 85 85 86 86

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil

-3-

Concluding Remarks 8.5.2. CONCLUSIONS 9. Cost Analysis for the Three Scenarios 7.7. Master Schedule 7.4. MEG/Insulation Analysis 7.3. REFERENCES APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C 86 90 91 97 98 100 101 109 111 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil -4- .

16: Temperature and Pressure Profile for Scenario 3 with Flow Rate of 20 million m3/day. Scenario 3.9: Tensile Forces Acting on the Rigid Riser Figure 4.7: Offset Near and Far Figure 4.9: Pressure Profile for Scenario 2 with Flow rate of 10 million m3 / day. Scenario 2: Jacket Figure 3. Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach Figure 3. scenario 3: Subsea to Beach Figure 3.1: System Configuration Figure 4.6: Numerical Model Figure 4.12: J-Lay Method Figure 4.9: Subsea to Beach Arrangement Figure 3. Figure 3. Scenario 2: Jackets Figure 3.14: Thermodynamic State (pressure.4: Single Line Offset Riser Figure 4.3: Pipe Line End Manifold Figure 2.3: Temperature Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day.21: MEG Concentration Figure 4. for Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible Figure 3.7: Temperature Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day. Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach Figure 3.1: Gantt Chart for UFRJ Team Figure 2. Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible Figure 3.11: Temperature Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day. temperature) in the Phase Equilibrium Diagram of Gas Hydrate.6: Thermodynamic State (pressure. Scenario 2: Jacket Figure 3. Figure 3.5: System Configuration Figure 4. temperature) in the Phase Equilibrium Diagram of Gas Hydrate.2: Umbilical Cable Figure 2.8: Basic Diagram of a Collection System.1: Rigid and Flexible Pipes Figure 2.17: OLGA Results for Transient Analysis at Production Shut Down Figure 3.11: S-Lay Method Figure 4.12: Basic Diagram of a Collection System.5: Pressure Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day.13: Reel Method 17 18 19 20 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 28 31 32 32 33 34 34 35 35 36 37 37 38 38 39 39 40 41 42 43 50 53 54 56 57 59 60 61 61 61 63 63 64 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil -5- . Scenario 2: Jacket Figure 3.List of Figures Figure 1.6: Wells Layout for Tucunaré Gas Field Figure 2. Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible Figure 3.20: Photo of MEG Process Figure 3. Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible Figure 3.2: Numerical Model Figure 4.4: Basic Diagram of a Collection System.2: Phase Diagram Showing the Conditions under which Hydrates will Form Figure 3.10: Tensile Forces Acting on the Flexible Riser Figure 4. Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach Figure 3.19: Full Reclamation MEG Process Figure 3.7: Semi-Submersible Platform Arrangement Figure 2.4: Pipe Line End Termination Figure 2.13: Pressure Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day.8: Jacket Platform Arrangement Figure 2.3: Offset Near and Far Figure 4.15: OLGA Results for Scenario 3 with Flow Rate of 20 million m3/day Figure 3.18: Time Required for Pressure Drop. temperature) in the Phase Equilibrium Diagram of Gas Hydrate.1: Hydrate Plug Removed from a Gas Pipeline Figure 3.8: Von Mises Stresses Acting on Rigid Riser Figure 4.5: Jumper Figure 2.10: Thermodynamic State (pressure.

4: Manifold Submarine for 4 wells Figure 5.1: Semi-Submersible Master Schedule Figure 7.2: Vertical X-Tree Figure 5.Figure 4.1: Fault Tree for the Semi-submersible Scenario Figure 6.1: Connection with One VCM Figure 5.5: Manifold Recoverable Module Figure 5.4: Semi-Submersible Probability NPV Analysis Figure 7.14: PIG Prototype Figure 4.16: Corrosion Pig Figure 5.3: Subsea to Beach Master Schedule Figure 7.3: Schematic Representation of X-Tree GLL/DLL Figure 5.7: PLET Arrangement Figure 5.2: Fault Tree for Jacket Scenario Figure 6.5: Jacket Probability NPV Analysis Figure 7.6: Subsea to Beach Probability NPV Analysis 65 66 66 67 68 69 72 73 73 74 76 80 82 84 87 88 89 95 96 96 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil -6- .15: Geometrical Pig Figure 4.6: PLEM Arrangement Figure 5.3: Fault Tree for Subsea to Beach Scenario Figure 7.8: Equipment General Arrangement Figure 6.2: Jacket Master Schedule Figure 7.

22: Model Mesh Table 4.List of Tables Table 1.2: MEG/Insulation Analysis for Scenario 3 Table 7.9: Soil Data Table 4.1: Team Assignments Table 4.7: Subsea to Beach Table 4.12: Model Mesh Table 4.6: Subsea to Beach Cost Analys 16 45 45 46 48 49 49 49 51 51 51 52 53 54 54 55 55 57 57 58 58 58 59 62 90 91 92 92 93 94 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil -7- .5: Jacket Platform Cost Analysis Table 7.23: Curvature Radius Table 7.4: Load Effect Factors and Load Combinations Table 4.18: Rigid Pipe Data Table 4.15: Ratios Between Obtained Results and Limitations for CW/DC Table 4.10: Flexible pipe Data Table 4.8: Data for Static and Dynamic Analyzes Table 4.1: Safety Class Resistance Factor Table 4.19: Flexible Pipe Data Table 4.2: Pressure Load Effect Factor Table 4.11: Flexjoint Data Table 4.16: Ratios Between Obtained Results and Limitations for DW/CC Table 4.3: Fabrication Factor Table 4.6: Jacket Platform Table 4.17: Data for Static and Dynamic Analyzes Table 4.1: MEG/Insulation Analysis for Scenario 2 Table 7.4: Semi-Submersible Cost Analysis Table 7.5: Semi-submersible Platform Table 4.21: Flexjoint data Table 4.13: Results for Centenary Wave Combined with Decenary Current Table 4.20: Buoy Data Table 4.3: Loan Data Table 7.14: Results for Decenary Wave with Centenary Current Table 4.

Water depths decrease reaching 180 m at 140 km from the coast and then progressively up to the beach. Subsea production systems for gas field offshore Brazil are studied. Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach system (without platform). The project consists of a layout for submarine production of a gas condensate field called Tucunaré supposed to enter in operation in four years time. The field is located at a distance of 160 km from the Brazilian coast at a water depth of 500 m. Three different options of subsea production systems are studied: • • • Scenario 1: Semi-submersible distant 160 km from the coast at water depth of 500 m. The report has been organized in order to cover the 8 declared competencies in specific chapters. Reservoir data indicate pressure of 530 bar and average temperature of 140 oC. Production is based on eight subsea wells with initial flow rate of 20 million m3 per day of gas and 2. except for Construction.000 m3 per day of condensate.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY SUBSEA PRODUCTION SYSTEM FOR GAS FIELD OFFSHORE BRAZIL The increase of natural gas in the energy matrix all over the world has posed a strong demand on offshore exploration and production. Although some new concepts for floating gas storage have been proposed. The methodology used to define and develop the design was based on field proven technology and new concepts introduced into the design with the support of both computer simulations and code recommendations for structural integrity. Fabrication and Installation which are treated in chapters 3. heat transfer and risk assessment. Scenario 2: Jacket platform distant 140 km from the coast at water depth of 180 m. -8- . options associated with subsea production system and pipeline export to shore should be better investigated in order to improve performance for the field proven concepts and to propose innovative unmanned subsea design.

suitable for Brazilian offshore environmental conditions. Risk assessment of the designed subsea systems followed the ABS Guide (Risk Evaluation for the Classification of Marine-Related Facilities). reaching 180 meters. as the deck motions are not sensitive to waves and currents. appeared to be another interesting alternative. a 22” rigid pipe is responsible for exportation to shore. The manifold headers are connected to Pipe Line End Manifold (PLEM) by rigid jumpers. Strength and Structural Design as well as Riser Design are included in chapter 4 (Pipelines and Flowlines). The semi-submersible was initially considered due to the water depth of 500 meters and its field proven concept.4 and 5 (Subsea Processing.SLOR) for exportation to shore. In this Summary. two parallel manifolds capable of receiving 4 wells each are employed. the Jacket platform came out as an option. From those equipments. Subsea to Beach. An innovative technological solution represented by an association of subsea production and direct export to the beach. Subsea System Design). -9- . This system presents some advantages in relation to the Semi-submersible. Pipelines and Flowlines. Risers and pipelines have been design in accordance with DnV recommendations (OSF101 and OS-F201). general subsea arrangements were developed. System Design In order to better present the respective system design. Another two similar jumpers connect the PLEM to two independent Pipe Line End Terminate (PLET). From the platform. two rigid 18” flowlines are used as production lines. the main results associated with the 8 declared competencies are outlined below. Due to the well distance from the platform. The subsea arrangement is constituted of 8 satellite wells with 8” flowline/risers for production and a hybrid riser configuration (single line offset riser tower . Since the water depth decreases significantly along 20 km into shore direction.

For these pipelines.Without a stationary production unit. PLEM and PLET were developed to guarantee the safety barriers and operational flexibility in emergency situations. flow assurance and reliability are considered for the gas exploitation. reducing both operational expenditures and human risk. which represents the most challenging scenario for flow assurance. Similar subsea arrangement as employed for the Jacket scenario is used up to the PLEM. hydrate formation in the production system has become a major concern. For the three scenarios a series of analyzes have been carried out to determine the thermodynamic state (pressure and temperature) in the phase equilibrium diagram of gas hydrate to assure that the flow are out of the hydrate envelope.05 W/m2 °C for the two export pipelines (22” diameter). It is designed in a way that safety. crew and continuous support vessels are not necessary. thermal insulation and continuous injection of Mono Ethylene Glicol (MEG). Two solutions were analyzed. using the computer program OLGA for production shut .10 - . it has been estimated the U value of 1. Operational and maintenance aspects were taken into account for the design of the equipments. with flow rate of 10 million m3 per day (by the end of the design life). Subsea Processing As gas wells are being developed.25” and foam inner layer of 1”. two 22” rigid jumpers are connected to the PLETs and two pipelines with same diameters export the gas to the onshore terminal. environment protection. the thermal insulation proposed was the polypropylene. Then. X-Tree. Subsea System Design The subsea system is associated with the overall process and all the equipments involved in the arrangement. manifold. Several options are available to manage hydrate formation. with solid outer layer of 0. Finally. That was enough to insulate the pipeline with an arrival temperature to the onshore terminal of 14 °C. Analyzing Subsea to Beach.

down and consequent pressure drop. Alternatively. Strength and Structural Design / Riser Design The structural design of rigid pipes (flowlines and rigid pipes) for each of the scenarios proposed was accomplished using the ultimate limit state. This dynamic behavior affects the riser structural response. The ANFLEX. it has been confirmed the insulation adequacy.11 - . The necessary quantity of MEG was estimated so that a comparative economic analysis with the pipe insulation can be made. local buckling due to longitudinal compressive strain and external overpressure and propagation buckling. Static and dynamic global analyzes for production and export risers were accomplished. The DNV recommendations were adopted for the three failure modes. was used for these riser analyzes. based on criteria related to rigid pipe local buckling. especial purpose program. centenary wave with decenary current and decenary wave with centenary current. An Excel spread sheet was developed according with DnV criteria and standard thickness selected as in API Specification for Line Pipe. Parameters of interest for design verification are curvature radius. The proposed pipes are in compliance with the both code and manufacturer limitations. continuous injection of MEG was also considered as a tool to prevent the gas hydrate formation. Results for the risers were checked against the correspondent limit values provided by manufacturer in the cases of flexibles and verified using API-RP 2RD for steel pipes. The semi-submersible arrangement is the only one subjected to environmental loads (waves and currents) induced motions. therefore riser structural analyzes under extreme loading were conducted for the semi-submersible scenario. far and transverse. effective axial force and internal overpressure. . local buckling due to bending moment. Offset directions considered were near. taking into consideration wave and current extreme loading conditions with two return period combinations. axial forces and Von Mises stresses.

the scenario 3 can be indicated as the best option for the offshore gas field considered in this project.12 - . Therefore. could mean an outstanding advantage for Subsea to Beach scenario in relation to both Semi-submersible and Jacket scenarios. the satellite wells with dynamic risers (scenario 1) are the less attractive alternative. Manifolds are installed diverless due to water depth beyond 300 m. contributing to optimize the costs due to independent installations of XTree and flowline. In this case. Same approach has been adopted for rigid flowlines with diameters of 18” and 22”.Construction. The reel method is recommended for the flexible pipes. Risk Assessment Risk assessment for the proposed subsea production systems are performed using fault tree analyzes to better understand the respective system weakness and to propose safety improvement measures. based on the qualitative risk assessment for production loss. Fabrication and Installation Installation methods have been evaluated for flexible and rigid pipes. i. Although equivalent in terms of partial production loss. X-Tree installation is performed using the guidelineless procedure with vertical connection module. The possibility of gas/water subsea separation and subsea gas compression. Total production loss has an associated failure probability substantially smaller than that for the partial production loss. .e. installation by J-lay method. before export to onshore terminal. Due to the large diameter of the rigid riser it is recommended the installation by the J-lay method. the most reliable scenario should take into consideration small production losses during the project life cycle. Therefore. All rigid pipes are API X-65 steel grade and with diameter to thickness ratios of 39 for 18” and 35 for 22”. Production loss has been assumed as the top failure event. scenario 3 is more reliable than scenario 2 for total production loss.

Aspects related to subsea equipment reliability and remote control are also of paramount importance for the unmanned Subsea to Beach concept. In addition. Both considerations resulted in positive NPVs for all scenarios. Using prices raised in the market. However. including both capital (CAPEX) and operational (OPEX) expenditures as well as the investment return due to the gas production during the field proposed design life of 20 years. the Net Present Value (NPV) and the total cost were calculated for each scenario. Gantt charts were created to better evaluate each scenario. a cost analysis has been performed about the continuous use of MEG injection or thermal insulation to prevent hydrate formation for scenarios 2 and 3. . considering two possibilities of income. oil barrel as 45 and 20 US dollars. including the schedule of the activities involved. The best return of US$643. Closing Remarks Subsea to Beach scenario is the best option according to the main results from the project.Costs Costs are treated considering the system life cycle.21 million was obtained for Subsea to Beach. Utilizing a loan. Thermal insulation turn out as the winner for both exploitation systems with at least 10% less expenditure.13 - . additional technological developments associated with subsea gas/water separation and subsea gas compression are strongly recommended in order to improve the system reliability and consequently have this option commercially available in the near future.

R. Petrobras • Celso Noronha. for his strong support and experience in Subsea Engineering. EP/UFRJ • M. Special thanks to: • Francisco Quaranta. Petrobras • Igor Victorino. FMC Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . CBO • Cassiano Marins. FMC • Paulo Olinto. Petrobras • Marcos Arcifa. COPPE/UFRJ • Su Jian. Petrobras • Luiz Felipe Assis.T. Petrobras • Elisio Caetano. Camargo. COPPE/UFRJ • Cezar Paulo. COPPE/UFRJ • José Antonio Figueiredo. from Petrobras. Petrobras The UFRJ Team would like to thank the following individuals and companies: • Ana Paula. Petrobras • Paulo Couto.14 - .ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The UFRJ Team acknowledge the project industrial tutor Edson Luiz Labanca. Petrobras • Roberto de Souza Albernaz. Petrobras • Ivan Noville.

Scenario 2: Jacket platform distant 140 km from the coast at water depth of 180 m. Risk assessment is performed based on fault tree analyzes for the three scenarios. Based on these results it is possible to assure that the gas flow is out of the hydrate envelope. The selected top event is defined as the partial production loss. The main objective of this project is to indicate the best alternative for the subsea production system to be implemented in the described gas field. A series of analyzes are performed using commercial software. considering technical feasibility. and analytical solution to describe the thermodynamic state (pressure and temperature) in the phase equilibrium diagram of gas hydrate. Maintenance is also discussed in the context of data acquisition using instrumented pig. Extreme loading conditions associated with waves and currents are considered to estimate the structural response of the production catenary flexible riser and the export hybrid riser configuration (SLOR). Possibility of flow maneuver and maintenance procedures in emergency situations are also analyzed for each scenario. operational reliability and the best financial return for the investment. general arrangements for the subsea production systems are implemented to obtain the respective positions of the equipments. Three different scenarios for the subsea production systems are proposed: • • • Scenario 1: Semi-submersible distant 160 km from the coast at water depth of 500 m.15 - . scenarios 2 and 3 have subsea arrangements including manifolds. PLEM and PLETS. semisubmersible. qualitative risk assessment is then carried out. Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach system (no platform).000 m3 per day of condensate. The subsea arrangement for scenario 1. corrosion and hydrate removal. The general arrangements aim at operational flexibility and system redundancy. Flowlines and risers are designed according to DnV recommendations for rigid pipes. The three scenarios are studied in terms of operational reliability in order to recommend the best option and possible improvements for the overall performance. control umbilicals and long distance pipelines. Differently. Water depths decrease reaching 180 m at 140 km from the coast and then progressively up to the beach. is established by eight satellite wells. including geometric defects. Based on these equipments the respective subsea arrangements are proposed. Cara Fault Tree commercial software is employed to describe all the three subsea scenarios. i. christmas trees (X-Trees). including installation. flowlines. Two solutions are analyzed. jumpers.e. Production will be based on 8 subsea wells with an initial flow rate of 20 million m3 per day of gas and 2. As gas wells are being developed flow assurance is also taken in account in order to avoid hydrate formation which could block the lines and stop production. Vertical X-Tree is employed in all scenarios. The project consists of layouts for submarine production of a gas condensate field called Tucunaré supposed to enter in operation in four years time.1. Aspects related to the installation methods are discussed in order to define the most appropriate ones. gas process plant. production and export risers. operational and accidental loads (propagation buckling). numerical analyzes are performed using the special purpose software ANFLEX. Due to the movements induced on the semi-submersible platform by the environmental loads. Reservoir data indicated pressure of 530 bar and average temperature of 140oC. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . PIPESIM and PVTSIM. such as OLGA. The field is located at a distance of 160 km from the Brazilian coast at a water depth of 500 m. manifolds. Initially. Due to the lack of a reliable data base to perform a quantitative risk analyzes to evaluate the respective failure probabilities. thermal insulation and continuous injection of Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG). INTRODUCTION Subsea production systems for gas field offshore Brazil are proposed. The equipments are selected according to three proposed scenarios.

1 represents the Gantt Charts for the Team organization.1 Team Organization The group of students responsible for the project is constituted of five undergraduate students from the Course in Naval Architecture and Ocean Engineering of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Uncertainties associated with the prices raised from the market are accounted for by utilizing the software @Risk.Team Leader Daniel Santos Werneck Diogo do Amaral Macedo Amante João Paulo Carrijo Jorge Leandro Cerqueira Trovoado The team leader role was to coordinate the team activities and participate in technical discussions with the other members. The process was flexible and everyone has participated in all areas with a continuous exchange of information. Cost analysis is based on both capital and operational expenditures. Finally.1: Team Assignments Area System Design Member(s) Daniel Werneck Tiago Estefen João Paulo Jorge Tiago Estefen Diogo do Amaral João Paulo Jorge Leandro Trovoado Tiago Estefen. 1. production rate. conclusions derived from the above described chapters are presented with focus on different aspects of subsea system design in order to highlight the main features of the considered scenarios and to propose future developments to improve the overall performance. The members are introduced below: Tiago Pace Estefen . Net present value approach is used to estimate the respective scenario profit. The project was conducted in the Submarine Technology Lab – COPPE/Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. He also lead most of the industry contacts. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . Daniel Werneck Leandro Trovoado Subsea Processing Risers and Flowlines Subsea System Design Costs Risk Assessment The Figure 1. shown in Table 1. Table 1. The group was organized in order to cover the eight areas of competencies proposed for the ISODC project.1.Costs play an important role in the definition of the most attractive option for the proposed subsea arrangements. gas price and loan interest rates. Tasks were distributed according to the student ability and availability.16 - .

17 - .1: Gantt Chart for UFRJ Team Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .Figure 1.

1. SYSTEM DESIGN Arrangement optimization.18 - . Equipments and Components 2. They are able to transfer hydraulic pressure and electrical power to operate submerged equipments and valves as well as to retrieve data through electrical and/or optical fiber cables.1. Flowlines are those pipes subjected to static loading.2. since they are rested on the seabed. Umbicals can also be used associated with additional hoses for well chemical injection.1. responding to installation. as shown in the Figure 1. operation and pressure loads. the submarine system design comprises highly reliable sub-systems.1. Risers and flowlines may have either rigid or flexible pipes depending on the respective bending rigidity. therefore being subjected to dynamic loads induced by waves and currents as well as installation and operational loads. Umbilical Cable Umbical cables are employed to control the subsea equipments remotely. operational availability and flow assurance of transported fluid during project lifetime are decisive factors to guarantee success and expected financial return from a huge investment characterized by an offshore system for oil&gas exploitation.2. equipments and related components. Risers are used to connect the stationary production unit (SPU) to the flowlines along the water depth.1. (a) rigid (b) Flexible Figure 2. The pipes can be classified as rigid and flexible.1: Rigid and Flexible Pipes 2.2. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . An example of umbilical is shown in Figure 2. Thus. Pipes Pipes are widely employed for the transportation of the produced fluid. Sub-systems. 2. Flexible pipes comprise several layers with polymeric and metal components and bending rigidity much smaller than that for rigid steel pipes.

operated hydraulically. Control System The control system is employed to control wells by opening and closing the valves installed on the xtrees and other subsea equipments.Figure 2. Manifold Subsea manifold is a set of tubes.3. operated hydraulically. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . Manifold is not a well safety equipment as the x-tree. which assures reservoir natural pressure blockage. are fail safe close. interconnecting the drainage/flow of several wells to the production unit. It comprises basically a set of valves. hydraulically operated through spring return to assure closing in case of hydraulic system depressurization. the production blockage valves.2: Umbilical Cable 2. Hydraulic control system can be direct controlled or hydro-electric multiplex. While the test blockage valves.1. The valves operate through both direct and multiplex hydraulic control systems.1. valves and monitoring instruments assembled on a metal structure. because it is considered as part of the pipe system it is connected. Wet Christmas Tree (X-Tree) It is the equipment installed at the wellhead to guarantee security barriers in case flow interruption is necessary. 2.5. Thus.19 - . 2. fail safe close.1. are fail safe open. thus reducing the number of lines that would be necessary. favoring the production flow in case of control system failure.4. The hydraulic pressure generated at either the platform or the onshore terminal is sent through umbilical hoses to activate submarine valves.

Figure 2.6.20 - . a HUB/MCV for future connection to flexible riser or jumper. Pipe Line End Manifold .4: Pipe Line End Termination Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .1.PLEM The PLEM is a collector / distributor equipment. When used in the arrangement. which is characterized by the incoming or outgoing of more than two pipes. a blockage valve operated by ROV to allow pipe hydrostatic test. Pipe Line End Termination – PLET The PLET makes it possible to connect. Figure 2. It features a flange connection to be interconnected to the extremity of the rigid pipe.3: Pipe Line End Manifold 2.2.1. without divers.7. it allows pipe sharing without operational flexibility. a rigid pipe and an equipment to another pipe.

and also because it has been successfully used offshore Brazil for decades. Therefore. Jacket platform became an option when water depths decreased from 500 to 180 meters after only 20km away from the wells into shore direction. allowing the use of rigid static risers. Jacket (J) and a new innovative system. it is practically unmanned offshore. Subsea to Beach. They can be presented as rigid or flexible pipes. it should be emphasized that the process plant and workers are based onshore with associated risks.2. manifolds. Layout of the System In order to exploit the Tucunaré gas field. PLEM and PLET. The SS arrangement was considered due to the wells water depth of 500 meters. Also.2. Jumper Jumpers are used to accomplish connections between X-Trees. Safety aspects related to the risk to human activities are also substantially reduced. However. was proposed as an alternative without a processing plant on the platform deck.5: Jumper 2. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . Subsea to Beach (SB). Figure 2.21 - . it has showed to be adequate to the motion constraints for production in typical Brazilian environmental conditions.8. reducing costs related to sea crew and supply vessels. were considered. As a fixed system it presents advantages in relation to SS motions induced by waves and currents. three scenarios associated to Semi-submersible (SS).1. The third scenario.

The control system adopted was the direct hydraulic due to the number of wells and their short distances from the SS. which connect the platform to the vertical rigid riser with 22” diameter. 8” diameter. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .2. 2.22 - . Equipments and their distribution on the seabed as well as flowlines and riser have been considered. thermally insulated. Water from the separation process is treated and then disposed into the sea. The eight pairs of production and export risers as well as the umbilicals have been equally distributed along the deck rectangular edge to avoid concentration loads at a few points. The semi-submersible platform arrangement is shown in Figure 2. The gas is dehydrated on the process plant. Semi-submersible The subsea production system comprises eight satellite wells connected to the floating platform by flowlines and flexible risers with 8” diameter. Deck house is located far from the riser connections to minimize the risk of accidents affecting the workers. The hybrid riser is connected to a pipeline to export the gas directly to shore.7.Wells layout for the Tucunaré gas field is shown in Figure 2. compressed and then exported together with condensed gas through a hybrid riser configuration.1. The hybrid riser comprises three flexible risers.6 495 m 500 m W-1 W-2 SHORE DIRECTION W-3 W-4 W-7 W-5 505 m SCALE (Meter) W-8 W-6 0 500 1000 Figure 2.6: Wells Layout for Tucunaré Gas Field Preliminary studies have been performed to define respective layouts for the three scenarios. The subsea system design for each scenario is presented below.

Figure 2.7: Semi-Submersible Platform Arrangement 2.2.2. Jacket The fixed platform subsea production system presents two parallel manifolds, each one connected to four x-trees through flexible flowlines with 8” diameter. Each manifold has two production headers (10”) interconnected to a PLEM in order to allow gas flow through two rigid pipes with 18” diameter each, up to the platform. Two PLETs are used for rigid pipe connection to the platform. The connections among manifolds, PLEMs and PLETs are made by using rigid jumpers. One of the manifolds receives an umbilical while the other receives a service flexible pipe (8”) and another umbilical. The service and umbilical lines are directly interconnected to the manifolds through flowlines. The second umbilical passes through the PLEM, considering that there is a valve used to maneuver the PIG by hydraulic activation. For this scenario, it was decided to use thermal insulation for the production pipes. Due to the need of a MEG injection in case of shut down, one of the umbilicals has an internal hose for chemical injection.

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil

- 23 -

The multiplex electro-hydraulic control system was used due to the distance between the platform and the wells, 20 km, enabling faster valve activation in comparison to a hydraulic direct system. Another advantage of this system is the reduced number of umbilicals attached to the platform. In the process plant, water associated to the natural gas is removed before the gas is compressed and exported together with the condensed gas through a rigid riser (22”). Figure 2.8 shows the Jacket arrangement.

Figure 2.8: Jacket Platform Arrangement

2.2.3. Subsea to Beach Subsea to beach arrangement presents the same configuration of equipments, x-trees, manifolds and PLET connections as in scenario 2 (Jacket), but without using the platform. The exportation to the onshore terminal will be accomplished throughout two rigid pipes with 22” diameter each.

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil

- 24 -

In this scenario, it was also decided to use thermal insulation for the production pipes. Due to the need of MEG injection in case of shut down, once again one of the umbilicals has an internal hose for chemical injection. Due to the distance from the wells to shore, about 160km, the multiplex hydraulic control system was chosen. As reservoir pressure falls both as time goes by and also with the increase of accumulated production, it may be necessary to install subsea separator and gas compressor to guarantee the field production during the project. Figure 2.9 shows the proposed arrangement for Subsea to Beach scenario.

Figure 2.9: Subsea to Beach Arrangement

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil

- 25 -

Two solutions were analyzed. After that. flow assurance study is summarized in three fundamental analyses: thermodynamic. it is possible to determine hydrate formation points. Figure 3. The most adopted methods to avoid hydrate formation are: Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .3. Shut down production and line depressurization will be simulated. Therefore.1 illustrates a hydrate removed from a pipe. These will be used to determine pressure and temperature profile along the line. The analyses of the transient regime will be carried out using the computer program OLGA. Hydrates Hydrates are ice-like solid crystalline normally formed at high pressure and low temperatures in the presence of water. Once defined gas composition. fluid dynamic and heat transfer. Figure 3. In case there is hydrate formation.1. forming a sort of cavity that capsules the gas. They are the result of the combination of natural gas light component molecules with water molecules. with temperature and pressure data along the line. and its volume needed to avoid the hydrate formation will be analyzed. the continuous injection of thermodynamic inhibitor. will be determined using the computer program PIPESIM. 3. In order to obtain thermal insulation that complies with project specifications. SUBSEA PROCESSING This chapter describes the technical challenges and solutions of flow assurance for gas production in accordance to the environmental conditions of the analyzed field.26 - . The thermodynamic analysis defines state properties such as specific heat for constant pressure and constant volume (Cp and Cv) and specific mass (ρ).1: Hydrate Plug Removed from a Gas Pipeline. The pressure profile. in steady-state. temperature profiles in steady-state production conditions for the three different scenarios will be initially calculated based on a theoretical approach. prevention and dissociation methods should be proposed. These gather around the gas molecules. thermal insulation and continuous injection of Mono Ethylene Glycol (MEG). MEG. The biggest problem when studying a gas field is to avoid the formation of hydrates.

After a previous visual inspection of pipes and of pre-heating/ jetting of pipe external surface. which causes heat transfer through convection in these clearances. pressure and temperature data). Thermal Insulation Adopted The thermal insulation proposed. 3. The main advantage of this scheme is the capacity to deal with high insulating capacity materials that cannot be used if they were not protected with an external pipeline. • Primer (1st layer) The function of primer is to form a barrier thin layer closely bonded to the metal surface and with excellent chemical resistance properties. Use of thermodynamic inhibitors. The surface has to be previously cleaned and prepared according to pre-set standards. Line depressurization. synthetic and synthetic-composed materials are used. for rigid pipes consists in a multi-layer antirusty protection applied to pipe surface. Pipe surface fully coating with primer layer provides both high resistance to the cathodic unbounded and a perfect chemical adherence between subsequent layers. Module insulation – it consists of pre-manufactured insulation sections mounted on the structure to be insulated without being directly attached to it. However. Line thermal insulation. the following can be highlighted: i. Fully external insulation – insulation is placed directly on insulated surface and solid. iii. providing the pipe with high resistance to coating peeling. polypropylene foam.• • • • • Water removal. well outflow. several thermal insulation systems are known that vary according to the material used for assembly and insulation. where each layer performs a specific function. iv. 3. generally composed by a solid layer and a foam layer. Types of Thermal Insulation Pipeline thermal insulation is one of the means currently adopted to keep production free of hydrate formation and assure production flow. The advantage of the multi-layer system is that the thickness and density of each layer can be customized to both project’s thermal and structural requirements. where empty space between them is filled up with insulating material. Line heating.1. ii. Pipe-in-Pipe – it involves two tubes concentrically positioned. it has the disadvantage of possible presence of clearances due to faulty fit between the attached parts. Synthetic and syntheticcomposed materials are generally used for it.2. It is particularly appropriate for equipment with a more complex geometry. and it is generally used for water depths up to 600 meters. Multi-layer insulation – it is a kind of fully external insulation. This system is appropriate to offshore installations.27 - . The definition of the thermal insulation is extremely peculiar to the particular submarine system in analysis (distances to be covered. The main disadvantage is in set-up and manufacture costs in comparison with single wall pipes. It is applied by electrostatic guns. thus decreasing the insulation capacity. Among them. One of the advantages of this type of insulation is that it can be removed during its useful life. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . the system is applied as description below. Currently.2. due to its good mechanic and thermal resistance features.

It is applied by lateral extrusion. 500 400 Pressure (Bar) Hydrates 300 200 100 No Hydrates 0 0 5 10 15 Temperature (°C) 20 25 30 Figure 3. Polypropylene Foam (3rd. 3. The thickness of this layer depends on project’s requirements (function of global heat transfer coefficient. Gas State Properties The first step to verify whether flow complies with project specifications is to obtain thermodynamic properties and phase diagram. It provides system with protection against ultra-violet rays. • • For flexible pipe configuration synthetic foam tapes with glass micro spheres are used. Polypropylene Solid (4th.• Adhesive (2nd layer) The function of the adhesive in coating is to optimize adhesion between the subsequent layer of polypropylene foam and the primer layer. providing a perfect chemical adherence. To do that the PVTSIM computer program was used. so that the insulating tape layers can be determined and incorporated to the pipe before the outer layer is applied in the final manufacture stage. It is applied by lateral extrusion. Layer) Polypropylene foam provides excellent thermal resistance properties. Layer) Polypropylene solid is the outer layer of this system. It is applied by lateral extrusion.2. determined by design requirements.28 - . The U value. U value).2: Phase Diagram Showing the Conditions under which Hydrates will Form Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . Hydrate formation occurs on the left side of the curve. through the combination of reactive effects. is provided to the manufacturer.3. as illustrated in Figure 3. Based on a gas typical composition the following phase diagram was obtained.

in steady-state. independent on r.1) Heat transfer rate in radial direction (Fourier’s Law) is expressed by: Q = −kA ∂T ∂r (3. Physical properties for the mixture and the structure are independent on temperature and pressure. that is. as in the equation below. Mixture is idealized homogeneous. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . in function of temperatures on inner and outer surface.4.29 - . The analytical solution of the equation (3. This can be defined as heat transfer rate per unit of inner surface area.2) where k is material thermal conductivity and A is the area normal to thermal flow.4.3) From the solution of equation (3.3. The global heat transfer coefficient U of the composite structure is related to total thermal resistance.θ . U= ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ ⎞ ⎛ t ⎞ R R t solid 1 ⎟ + Ri ln⎜1 + ⎟ + i ln⎜1 + steel ⎟ + i ln⎜1 + hi k steel ⎜ Ri ⎟ k foam ⎜ Ri + t foam ⎟ k solid ⎜ R1 + t steel + t foam ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ ⎠ 1 t foam (3. T f ) and external (sea water. It can also be proved that the heat transfer rate Q is constant. the following expression for global heat transfer coefficient based on Ai is written in the following equation.4) where hi = convection heat transfer coefficient between mixture and pipe inner wall. U= Q Ai (T f − Tw ) (3.1) allows the determination of temperature radial distribution T (r) on the pipe. were determined for the three scenarios. • • • • • Flow steady-state and heat exchange (that is. Unidimensional heat transfer (radial). the equation of heat in cylinder coordinates ( r . considering only heat flow per convection between the mixture and pipe inner wall and disregarding thermal resistance of contact and of the steel. Tw ). Temperature Profile Temperature profiles.1. The theoretical analysis of the problem [1] considered some simplifying hypotheses. by temperature variation between internal fluids (mixture. z ) for each pipe layer is given by: 1 ∂ ⎛ ∂T ⎞ ⎜r ⎟=0 r ∂r ⎝ ∂r ⎠ (3. Temperature and Pressure Profile Determination 3. Thus. Only mixture temperature variation in the longitudinal direction is considered.1). monophase flow. Ai . no problem variable is dependent on time).

Ri = inner radius. To obtain U and temperature profile. whose calculations are presented in the Appendix A. c pf = specific heat of the mixture.6). with onedimensional flow in steady-state. t solid = PP solid thickness. T f = mixture temperature in a determined position along the pipeline.k steel = steel thermal conductivity (inner layer) k foam = PP foam thermal conductivity (intermediary layer) k solid = PP solid thermal conductivity (outer layer).5) is an first order ordinary differential equation with constant coefficients that has a simple analytical solution.30 - . t foam = PP foam thickness. which can be obtained from initial condition T f = T0 in s = 0 . The solution is as follow: T = Tm + (T0 − Tm )e −2πRUs m f c pf (3.5. The equation (3. The equation of mixture energy transportation.7) U values and temperature profiles for the three scenarios will be calculated.5) where & m f = mass flow rate of the mixture. U = global heat transfer coefficient. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . Tw = sea water temperature in a determined position along the pipeline. For the problem being studied. can be written as: & m f c pf dT f ds = −U (2πRi )(T f − Tw ) (3. was chosen s = 0 at well head. the program MATLAB 6. ⎛ T − Tm ⎞ m f c pf U = − ln⎜ ⎜ T − T ⎟ ⋅ 2πR L ⎟ i ⎝ 0 m⎠ (3. idealized as a homogeneous mixture. t steel = steel thickness.6) With a desired exit temperature Tend at s = L the value of U can be estimate by rearranging algebraically the solution (3.

which was enough to insulate the most critical part (longest pipe and flow rate of 10 million m3/day) with an arrival temperature to the platform of 24 °C. in steadystate.3 represents temperature profile corresponding to the calculated U. Pressure profiles. Pressure Profile The analyses were carried out using the computer program PIPESIM [2].3. Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible Through an iterative process. were determined for the three scenarios.4. U equals to 17.2. Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .79 W / m2 °C was obtained.3. 120 110 100 90 Temperature (°C) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 Total distance (m) Figure 3.31 - . Figure 3.3: Temperature Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day.4. 3. Under these conditions it can be assured that the flow (temperature and pressure) will be out of hydrate formation region. The fluid modeling was obtained by appling the state equations in multi-component systems.

Through a modeling of the collection system using the program PIPESIM. as illustrated in Figure 3. Figure 3. Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible For the obtained pressure profile it was considered an arrival pressure to the platform of 60 Bar.4: Basic Diagram of a Collection System. Figure 3.5: Pressure Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day.4.32 - . the pressure profile was determined. for Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .5 illustrates pressure profile. 70 69 68 Pressure (Bar) 67 66 65 64 63 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 Total distance (m) Figure 3.

Although X-tree/manifold links are flexible flowlines. which was enough to insulate the most critical part with an arrival temperature to platform of 33.78 W / m2 °C for the two import rigid pipes (inner diameter equal to 18”). Thermal exchange global coefficient was calculated based on the properties and thickness of the insulation material layer. polypropylene foam and solid thermal conductivity were respectively 45 W / m °C.6 that all the line is at the right of the curve.71 °C.4) the values of thermal conductivity. thickness of 0.4. temperature) in the Phase Equilibrium Diagram of Gas Hydrate.25” was adopted. Through an interactive process. Introducing in the equation (3. inner diameter and material layer thickness. Scenario 2: Jacket All pipes were considered rigid.6: Thermodynamic State (pressure. U equals to 3. 140 120 100 Pressure (Bar) 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 Temperature (°C) Hydrate Curve 80 10 million m3/day 100 120 Figure 3. The values adopted for steel.With temperature and pressure data conditions it is concluded from Figure 3. 0. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .25” for polypropylene foam inner layer was obtained. Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible 3.22 W / m °C. not forming hydrate.84 W / m2 °C was obtained for flexible pipes (well-manifold) and U equals to 3.4. For polypropylene solid outer layer the thickness 0.33 - .025 W / m °C and 0. the same U found for rigid configuration will be provided to manufacturer.

pressure profile was obtained throughout a modeling of the importation system. Scenario 2: Jacket Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .34 - . Figure 3.8: Basic Diagram of a Collection System.7 shows temperature profile. PLEM. Figure 3. considering an arrival pressure to platform of 60 Bar. Scenario 2: Jacket Again.Figure 3. 90 80 70 Temperature (°C) 60 50 40 30 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Total Distance (m) Figure 3. corresponding to the insulation adopted.JACKET.7: Temperature Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day.8 represents the modeling of the system.

temperature) in the Phase Equilibrium Diagram of Gas Hydrate.9: Pressure Profile for Scenario 2 with Flow rate of 10 million m3 / day. it is guaranteed that the hydrate will not form. as indicated in Figure 3. Scenario 2: Jacket With the results obtained for the most critical condition. 70 69 68 67 Pressure (Bar) 66 65 64 63 62 61 60 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 Total Distance (m) Figure 3. Scenario 2: Jacket Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .10: Thermodynamic State (pressure.35 - .9 represents the pressure profile. 75 65 55 Pressure (Bar) 45 35 25 15 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Temperature (°C) Hydrate Curve 10 million m3/day Figure 3.10.Figure 3. longest pipe and flow rate of 10 million m3/day.

thickness of 1” of polypropylene foam inner layer was obtained. 0. For polypropylene solid outer layer the thickness 0. inner diameter and material layer thickness.25” was adopted.11: Temperature Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day.97 °C.3.4.3 W / m2 °C was obtained for flexible pipes (well-manifold) and U equals to 1.05 W / m2 °C for the two import rigid pipes (inner diameter equal to 22”). PLEM-TERMINAL (beach). corresponding to the insulation adopted. Throughout an interactive process.025 W / m °C and 0.11 represents temperature profile.5. Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach The same procedure used for scenario 2 was considered.22 W / m °C. 120 100 80 Temperature (°C) 60 40 20 0 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 Total Distance (m) Figure 3. polypropylene foam and solid thermal conductivity were respectively 45 W / m °C. Introducing in the equation (3. Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . which was enough to insulate the most critical part with an arrival temperature to the onshore terminal of 13.4) the values of thermal conductivity. The values adopted for steel. U equals to 1. Figure 3.36 - .

13: Pressure Profile with Flow Rate of 10 million m3 / day.12 represents the modeling of the system.12: Basic Diagram of a Collection System.37 - . the pressure profile was obtained through a modeling of the system design. Figure 3.13 represents the pressure profile. 60 55 50 45 Pressure (Bar) 40 35 30 25 20 0 20000 40000 60000 80000 100000 120000 140000 160000 Total Distance (m) Figure 3.Considering an arrival pressure to terminal (beach) of 25 Bar. Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach Figure 3. Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . Figure 3.

14 100 90 80 70 P ressure (Bar) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 20 40 60 Temperature (°C) Hydrate Curve 10 million me/day 80 100 120 Figure 3. Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach To validate the results.15: OLGA Results for Scenario 3 with Flow Rate of 20 million m3/day Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . temperature) in the Phase Equilibrium Diagram of Gas Hydrate. hydrates will not form. as indicated in Figure 3.38 - . Figure 3. with flow rate of 20 million m3/day. with the results calculated for the most critical condition.15.14: Thermodynamic State (pressure. The results are presented in Figure 3.Again. one simple analysis was carried out utilizing the program OLGA in steadystate for scenario 3 in the beginning of operations.

a study on operations shut down was made using program OLGA with the entry data being the PVTSIM results.39 - .93 71 12 46 67 .51 36 97 2. respectively. Transient Regime To analyze the transient regime.46 17 4 4.16: Temperature and Pressure Profile for Scenario 3 with Flow Rate of 20 million m3/day. The green and black curves refer to fluid temperature and pressure at the manifold Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 36 01 . are similar to those obtained from OLGA.17: Figure 3. as illustrated in Figure 3.55 75 6 51 11 . 78 139 76 8 88 .41 98 8 5 59 .8 95 8 7 10 .The results obtained from theoretical analysis and PIPESIM for temperature and pressure profiles.3 4 13 0 . This study was made only for the worst case scenario for hydrate formation. 11 674 60 1 7 21 .5.58 79 5 6.16.3 9 Total Distance (m) Pressure Temperature Temperature °C Pressure (Bar) 80 80 .09 57 3 9 69 . which is the Subsea to Beach.0 55 2 24 . 40 07 39 8 0 49 .17: OLGA Results for Transient Analysis at Production Shut Down The simulation considers the situation where the manifold’s and the terminal’s production valves will be closed.3 59 4 3 15 0 . 3. 120 120 100 100 60 60 40 40 20 20 0 0 Figure 3. and the results are shown in Figure 3.09 20 3 1 30 .9 63 7 3 14 5 .

The analysis considered only the distance between manifold and onshore terminal. No gas plant or refinery contamination.18 indicates that it is necessary about 8 hours to the pressure decrease to 25 bar (pressure at the onshore terminal). Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . non toxic. it is possible to conclude that there will be no hydrate formation for at least 60 hours. Corrosion protective. MEG reduces the corrosion rate in the carbon steel pipelines normally used and is well suited as carrier of corrosion inhibitors and pH-stabilizers. Qualified technology. The main benefits of a MEG solution are: • • • • • • Reliable solution. Glycol is also to regenerate and considered being environmentally friendly. Using again the computer program OLGA it has been evaluated the time needed to decrease the pressure.18: Time Required for Pressure Drop. but this time for the terminal. Figure 3. Mono Ethylene Glycol is the state of the art hydrate control method. 3. Closed loop. Analyzing the hydrate curve previously obtained with the coldest temperature together and the higher pressure. If the hydrate block is formed. Mono Ethylene Glycol Another alternative to prevent hydrates formation is the use of chemical inhibitors. in that order. This graphic is used to estimate the shutdown period that insulation provides without hydrate formation. it can be dissociated by depressurizing the line.6. The blue and red ones are also for temperature and pressure.40 - . Today. because of its chemical properties and the use within a closed loop system where the losses are relatively small. Besides preventing hydrates. Scenario 3. non flammable. Figure 3.respectively. Environmentally friendly.

Figure 3.41 - . Both MEG and water are evaporated in a boiler and distilled to give 90-95 wt% Lean MEG and pure water. and it will probably be saturated or supersaturated in respect to FeCO3. The idea is to provoke precipitation in the fluid itself at a location where cold supersaturated Rich MEG meets hot recycled Rich MEG containing FeCO3 particles. Salts that precipitate in the boiler can be separated out. The most important factors determining the corrosion rate of the carbon steel pipeline is the amount of CO2 in the fluid. All salts and non-volatile components remain in the boiler and can be handle in different ways.1. All salts and non-volatile chemicals remain in the MEG and are accumulated. The MEG is returned to 90-95 wt% by boiling off the water at temperatures around 150°C. before being re-injected at the subsea producers. At arrival on shore. pH and temperature.19 shows a full reclamation MEG process. The volumetric flow rates is in favor Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . condensed water is the only water source initially. To minimize problems related to the iron coming into the on-shore plant is necessary to design the MEG process in a way that handles the formation and deposition of particles. SEPARATOR FROM WELLS SLUG CATCHER HEATER RICH MEG FLASH DRUM GAS MEG WATER MEG RECLAMATION/ DESALTER HEATER RICH MEG TANK MEG REGENERATION MEG INJECTION PUMP MEG BOOSTER PUMP LEAN MEG TANK SUBSEA WELLS Figure 3. carbonate will be in the form of ions. II-Full reclamation. This is a low-pressure (100 to 150 mbar) that runs about 110°C. the behavior of added chemicals and production of formation water. Rich MEG arriving at the production unit must be regenerated to Lean MEG quality. like a recycle solution. 90-95 wt% MEG.19: Full Reclamation MEG Process. while small particles and soluble chemicals are more difficult to remove. Accordingly. Such challenges are related to the well fluid being produced creating pipeline corrosion. There are two ways to do that: I-Regeneration by evaporating water only. Fe2+ and CO32-. the solubility of FeCO3 will decrease and iron carbonate will precipitate. the aim is to utilize only pH-stabilized MEG in the early production phase. When pressure is reduced and temperature is increased. which is an alternative if there is a “significant” formation water production.In a closed loop system. For this study case. Recycle There are some obstacles that may create operational problems in a closed loop MEG system. Introducing pH-stabilizer increases the pH of the system and reduces the corrosion rate and solubility of FeCO3 tremendously.6. after [3] 3. if there is a continuous supply.

42 - . and heating takes place in the recycle loop itself to avoid high temperature difference across the heater. Figure 3. Use of centrifugal forces.of the recycle stream.20. Some particle removal alternatives are mentioned below: • • • Use of filters. Settling by gravity using the long retention times in large glycol storage tanks. one or more solutions can be used. A photo of a simplified on-shore MEG process with the recycle heating solution is illustrated in Figure 3.20: Photo of MEG Process Plant [3] Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . To avoid accumulation of particle in the system.

Results are shown in Figure 3.7. such as OLGA. For the design MEG net.21: MEG Concentration Taking the 9ºC sea temperature into the graphic. This difference has a good impact to the project because it serves as a safety factor.52 kg/s.6. the longest pipe with flow rate of 10 million m3/day (by the end of the design life). Being the production 20 million m3/day. In the chapter related to cost analyzes it will be discussed the selection of either pipe insulation or continuous MEG injection. Analyzing Subsea to Beach for the worst case. The methodology used to calculate the necessary amount of MEG in the system is based on the hydrate curves.05 W / m2 °C was obtained for the two export pipelines(22”diameter). Using the properties of the gas.2. U value equal to 1. 3.21.43 - . Concluding Remarks A series of analyses using different tools. given by the multiphasic measurer device installed on each ANM as a part of the control system. Based on these results it is possible to be out of the hydrate envelope by using pipe insulation.2. MEG delivery requirements for each well will be individually determined based on predictions of water production from each well. 550 500 450 400 350 Pressure (Bar) 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 -12 -7 0% -2 3 8 13 18 40% 23 50% 28 Temperature (ºC) 10% 30% Figure 3.3. and the real working pressure used is around 110 bar. MEG Calculation A high-concentration (5% to 50%) of these chemical in the water phase is required to avoid hydrate formation. By doing that. PIPESIM and analytical solution have been carried out for the three scenarios. it is assumed that for each 100 Kg of produced fluid. The calculations are at the appendix A. which was made with the program PVTSIM. the working pressures are obtained for each one of the different MEG percentage curves. the necessary amount of MEG is 0. different concentrations of MEG in the system are determined and then new hydrate curves are generated. 1 Kg is of water. it is possible to conclude that a 30% MEG concentration is acceptable since the pressure given is approximately 150 bar. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .

In this context some equipments to detect geometric defects and corrosion as well as for hydrate removal are presented.4. Pipes for both fixed platform and subsea to beach concepts are under static loading. Pipelines need especial planning program for inspection and maintenance.44 - . The only scenario involving riser top movements is that associated with the semi-submersible platform. DNV [5] recommendations were adopted for three different failures mode: local buckling due to bending moment. Design of Flowlines and Rigid Risers The design was accomplished using the ultimate limit state method. FLOWLINES AND RISERS This chapter covers the design of flowlines and rigid risers for each of the scenarios. The following nomenclature is used to define the criteria: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Pc = collapse pressure Pi = internal pressure Pe = external pressure Pp = plastic collapse pressure Pel = elastic collapse pressure t = nominal wall thickness of pipe D = nominal outside diameter E = Young`s modulus ν = Poisson coefficient σy = yield stress f0 = ovality ε = design compressive strain εc = collapse compressive strain γε = resistance factor. In this chapter was also accomplished a study for the pipe installation and description of the installation methods to be used. which is the main criterion related to rigid pipe local buckling (pipe wall bucking). Therefore. strain resistance pld = local design pressure Md = design bending moment σu = tensile strength to be used in design Sd = design effective axial force ∆pd = design differential overpressure Mp = plastic moment resistance Sp = characteristic plastic axial force resistance Pb(t) = burst pressure αc = flow stress parameter Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . 4. local buckling due to longitudinal compressive strain and external overpressure. the riser response to these movements under extreme loading has been determined for this scenario. The diameters have been established considering flow and pressure values obtained from the reservoir data as previously discussed.1. and propagation buckling. due to the action of waves and currents. Movements on the jacket main deck are neglected and subsea to beach has no riser. Limit states and design equations for this criterion were development based on experimental tests and structural reliability technique. effective axial force and internal overpressure.

The external pressure is given by: Pe = ρ.1) In the analyzed scenarios. Therefore.1. γm = 1.3) The pressure load effect factor.308 High safety class has been assumed in the design. γp.1. is obtained from the Table 4.138 High 1.05 1. the equation is simplified as: Pe ≤ where: γ mγ SC Pc (4. Table 4. The characteristic collapse pressure (Pc) must be calculated by the following expression: γP 1.8 + Pe PC (γ SC ⋅ γ m ) ≤1 D t ≤ 45 and Pi < Pe (4.h. the effect of longitudinal deformation due to the bending can be neglected.2) γm is the material resistance factor.4.00 1.00 was assumed. Local Buckling Due to Longitudinal Strain and External Overpressure Pipe members subjected to longitudinal compressive strain and external overpressure shall be designed to satisfy the following condition: ⎛ ⎜ ε ⎜ ⎜ εC ⎜ γ ε ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 0.g.1: Safety Class Resistance Factor.2: Pressure Load Effect Factor Limit States Serviceability (SLS) & Ultimate (ULS) Fatigue (FLS) Accidental (ALS) In this design γp = 1.2 according to the limit state.1.046 Normal 1.00 (Pc − Pel ) (Pc2 − Pp2 ) = Pc Pel Pp f o D t (4.γ p (4.45 - . γ sc Safety Class γSC Low 1.4) where the elastic collapse pressure and plastic collapse pressure are given by: Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .15 γSC is the safety class resistance factor shown in the Table 4. Table 4.

Table 4.7) The solution for the collapse pressure equation is obtained calculating the equations below: ⎤ ⎥ ⎥ ⎞ 1 ⎛ − b2 ⎥ u= ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ 3 + c⎟ ⎥ 3⎝ ⎠ ⎥ ⎥ D ⎞⎥ ⎛ c = − ⎜ PP2 + PP Pel f 0 ⎟⎥ t ⎠⎥ ⎝ ⎥ ⎥ d = Pel PP2 ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎞ ⎥ 1 ⎛ 2b 3 bc − +d⎟ ⎥ υ= ⎜ ⎟ 2 ⎜ 27 3 ⎝ ⎠ ⎥ ⎥ ⎥ ⎛ −υ ⎞ ⎥ ⎟ φ = a cos⎜ ⎥ ⎜ − u3 ⎟ ⎥ ⎝ ⎠ ⎥ ⎥ ⎛ φ + π ⎞⎥ y = − 2 − u cos⎜ ⎟⎥ ⎥ ⎝ 3 ⎠⎦ b = − Pel (4.93 UOE 0.6) where αfab is the fabrication factor.3.σ y .3: Fabrication Factor.85 α fab UO = pipe fabrication process for welded pipes TRB = three roll bending UOE = pipe fabrication process for welded pipes expanded Fabrication factor for UO & TRB was adopted.⎛ t ⎞ 2E⎜ ⎟ ⎝D⎠ Pel = 1 −ν 2 3 (4. obtained from the Table 4.46 - .8) Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .α fab .5% o D (4.00 UO & TRB 0.5) t D Pp = 2. f ≥ 0. αfab Fabrication Type Seamless Pipe 1. The ovality factor is calculated from the following equation: fo = Dmax − Dmin . (4.

γ m ⎜ M d γ sc.15 3 (4.15.13) (4. Effective Axial Force and Internal Overpressure Pipe members subjected to bending moment.1.5 ⎜ ⎟ γ m * γ SC ⎝ D ⎠ (4.1. Local Buckling Due to Bending Moment. effective axial force and internal overpressure shall be design to satisfy the following conditions: 2 ⎛ ⎛ Sd ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ + γ sc.2. γ sc . u (t ) = 2t 2 σy D −t 3 2 t σu 2 D − t 1.3.12) D t ≤ 45 and Pi < Pe where γm is a material resistance factor.s (t ) = p b.γ m ⎜α M ⎜ α c Sp ⎟ ⎜ c p ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ 2⎞ 2 ⎛ ∆p d ⎞ ⎟ ⎛ ∆p d ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ +⎜ ⎟ ≤1 1−⎜ ⎜ α p (t ) ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ c b ⎠ ⎟ ⎝ α c p b (t ) ⎠ ⎠ (4.It can be simplified as: PC = y − b 3 (4. the characteristic plastic axial force resistance and the plastic moment resistance are given by: S p = σ y π (D − t ) t (4. the safety class resistance factor. γm = 1.10) σy * α fab ⎛ t ⎞ 2.1.11) 4.15) Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . the projected pipe must obey the following equation below: Pc > Ppr where the propagation collapse pressure is calculated as: Ppr = 35 (4.1. Propagation Buckling To satisfy the local buckling verification. pb . was selected in the section 4.14) M p = σ y π (D − t ) t 2 The burst pressure is calculated as: pb (t ) = Min( pb .9) 4.47 - .s (t ).u (t )) pb.

7 1. F and A represent the type of the design loads as indicated in Table 4.4 according to limit state.19) where E. for pld > pe ⎪ qh = ⎨ pp 3 ⎪0 . The load effect factors and load combinations are obtained from the Table 4.05 1.00 1.γC S d = S F γ F . for D / t > 60 ⎩ (4. An Excel spread sheet to check the proposed DnV [5] criteria was developed and presented in the Appendix C.16) ⎧ ( pld − pe ) 2 . for 15 < D / t < 60 ⎪0 .05 1.30 1. The design differential overpressure is calculated as: ∆p d = γ p ( pld − pe ) and the design loads as (4.4 + qh )(60 − D / t ) / 45 .00 If one of the above verifications is not validated. Selected commercial thickness has been adopted according to API-Specification for Line Pipes [6].48 - .00 Pressure loads (γP) 1.γC + S E γ E + S A γ A .10 1.5) and (4. for pld ≤ pe ⎩ Elastic collapse pressure and the plastic collapse pressure were calculated using equations (4. the pipe thickness must be increased.γC + M E γ E + M A γ A .00 Environmental Accidental loads (γE) loads (γA) 0. Table 4.00 1. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .20 1.18) (4.00 1.and the flow stress parameter as: α c = (1 − β ) + β σu σy .6).4.17) M d = M F γ F .γC (4.00 1.4: Load Effect Factors and Load Combinations Limit states SLS & ULS FLS ALS a b Functional loads (γF) 1.4 + qh ) ⎪ β = ⎨(0. for D / t < 15 ⎧(0.

625” Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .5.5: Semi-Submersible Platform Export Pipes Rigid riser Flowline Diameter 22” 22” Thickness 0.562” 0.3 • Yield stress (σo): 448.1.20) 4.28 MPa • Rupture stress (σu): 531.6: Jacket Platform Pipes Production Flowline Production Rigid Riser Export Rigid Riser Export Flowline Diameter 18” 18” 22” 22” Thickness 0.0 MPa Pipe tensile yield can be estimated as: T0 = σ 0πDt (4.562” 0.6 and 4. 2 and 3.7 for scenarios 1.1. 4. respectively. • Longitudinal Young’s Modulus (E): 208000 MPa • Transversal Young’s Modulus (G): 79900 MPa • Poisson coefficient (υ): 0.0 MPa • Proportionality stress (σp): 331.4. Material Properties API X-65 steel with the properties below has been assumed.625” Table 4.438” 0.625” 0. Table 4. the results for flowlines and rigid pipes design were obtained as indicated in Tables 4. Results Using the above material properties and the developed spread sheet.438” Table 4.5.7: Subsea to Beach Export Pipe Flowline Diameter 22” Thickness 0.4.49 - .

taking into consideration wave and current extreme loadings with two return period combinations: centenary wave with decenary current and decenary wave with centenary current.2 Riser Analyzes Considering Top Motions Analysis related to SS export and import (production) riser extreme loading conditions will be presented in the following sections. 4.50 - .1.1. Φ 500m D Figure 4. Semi-submersible Platform Gas – Production Riser Subsea arrangement incorporating flexible risers and satellite wells was defined chosen for gas import to the semi-submersible platform. This is a configuration already established and widely used in Brazil. Static and dynamic global analyses for export and production risers were accomplished. The offset directions considered were near. Riser structural response due to both environmental conditions and top displacements induced by the platform motions are considered. Flexible riser preliminary global analysis associated with semisubmersible installed in a water depth of 500m is performed. ANFLEX computer program [7] developed jointly by COPPE and PETROBRAS was used for these analyses. 4.1: System Configuration Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . Extreme loadings from environmental conditions generate platform movements called offset. and Φ is vertical axis top angle in the connection with the floating unit.2.1.1. where D represents the distance between the semi-submersible platform and the PLET.2.4. The analyzed system is shown in Figure 4. System Configuration The subsea system uses an 8” diameter flexible riser to link the wellhead to the platform in catenary configuration with total length of 1100m. far and transverse.

2597 5.2.35 0.1.51 - . kN) Bending stiffness (EI. Relevant Parameters Relevant parameters considered in the analysis are listed in Table 4.11 Table 4. 4.3679 625500 93.1. kN/m) Axial stiffness (EA.2 1100 * Top angle value for the cases analyzed complies with technical specification [8].415 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . Table 4.10: Flexible Pipe Data Length (m) Internal diameter (m) External diameter (m) Weigth in air (empty.35 0.9: Soil Data Soil Modeling Axial friction coefficient Lateral friction coefficient Axial elastic deflection limit (m) Lateral elastic deflection limit (m) Vertical spring stiffness (kN/m/m) Horizontal 0. The adopted scenario was for 500m water depth. RAO´s and offsets used in the analysis are similar to those obtained from a similar platform to be installed in Campos Basin.m ) 2 1100 0.1.031 0.2. kN. in compliance with Petrobras technical specifications [8].9 refers to soil data and presents the reaction coefficients used for superficial supporting condition.5 0.3. offshore Brazil.8. kN/m) Weigth in water (empty.4.8: Data for Static and Dynamic Analysis Top angle Morrison coefficient Drag coefficient Riser total length (m) 12º * 2. Structural Properties Flexible riser and flex joint data are listed in Tables 4.2.4. Soil Data Table 4.2032 0. Table 4.86 4.2.2896 1.10 and 4.0 1.

1.2.2.08x108 2.5 meters.5 4.m/deg) RZ stiffness (KN. has the following features: • • • • • • Top angle: 12 degrees Number of segments: 3 Flexible riser 1st segment length: 600m Flexible riser 2nd segment length: 500m Total length: 1100m Boundary condition at platform interface: Flexjoint Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 52 .5 4. Extreme Offset Offset value used for global analysis takes the following errors into account: • • • Platform positioning error.7.m/deg) RY stiffness (KN. Numerical Model The numerical model adopted for analysis. 4.08x108 4.2.Table 4.5 4.1. Both in collinear configuration. manifold) equal to 7. Environmental Data Environmental data related to Campos Basin Intermediary Central (IC) region were used in compliance to technical specifications [9] for two extreme condition combinations corresponding to centenary wave with decenary current (CW/DC) and to decenary wave with centenary current (DW/CC).2. Submarine equipment positioning error (well. as shown in Figure 4.08x108 2. Static offset corresponding to 10% of the water depth.11: Flexjoint Data X stiffness (KN/m) Y stiffness (KN/m) Z stiffness (KN/m) RX stiffness (KN. equal to 10 meters.m/deg) 2. 4.5.1.6.

Table 4.2.Figure 4.1.8. A 5% structural damping related to harmonic movement periods was considered in the analysis. Figure 4. The model mesh is described in Table 4. i f 4. Global Analysis Results – Import Riser Static and dynamic analyses were accomplished for near. far and transverse offsets.12: Model Mesh Element 1 2 L (m) 600 500 L (m) – L (m) i f 1–1 1–1 number of nodes 600 500 Being L the initial length of first segment. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 53 .12.3 illustrates how displacements are considered for the near and far offsets. and L the final length of last element.2: Numerical Model A non-linear beam element mesh was adopted.

60 21.49 262.80 332.69 265.30 333. The worst case was verified for loading condition corresponding to centenary wave and decenary current.13 and 4. axial tensile forces and curvature radius due to the applied environmental loads.20 376.33 Table 4.58 339.72 16.54 380.3: Offset Near and Far Obtained results for this configuration are provided as axial compressive forces.13: Results for Centenary Wave combined with Decenary Current Offset Near Far Transverse Static Analysis Tensile Force Curvature Radius (KN) (m) 256.14 include maximum tensile forces and curvature radius for each loading condition.96 7.60 17.30 3. The results in Tables 4.00 5.60 328.00 9. Table 4.40 7.10 4.2 KN.Figure 4.71 Dynamic Analysis Tensile Force Curvature Radius (KN) (m) 227.60 10.14: Results for Decenary Wave with Centenary Current Offset Near Far Transverse Static Analysis Tensile Force Curvature Radius (KN) (m) 256. axial compressive forces were observed.69 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 54 .43 Dynamic Analysis Tensile Force Curvature Radius (KN) (m) 221. where the compressive force reached 21.00 14.42 6. For loading cases with static offset in the transverse direction.

Considerations about the Results for Import Flexible Risers The obtained tensile forces are considerably smaller than those from damaging pull. axial compressive forces were observed. 4.06 2.05 5.16: Ratios Between Obtained Results and Limitations for DW/CC Offset Static Analysis Obtained Force/ Obtained CR / Limit CR Limit Force 0. Table 4. but it indicates the need for local buckling check.75 0.92m and maximum acceptable tensile force (damaging pull) is 4171.4.08 3.2.89 Dynamic Analysis Obtained Force/ Obtained CR/ Limit Force 0. Semi-Submersible Platform Gas Export Riser Hybrid riser configuration system called Single Line Offset Riser (SLOR) was chosen for this scenario.09 0. as expected. For loading cases with static offset in the transverse direction (movement from the connection point off the catenary plan). Compression occurs in TDP (touch down point) region and it occurs only under dynamical loads due to platform motions induced by environmental conditions.1. Numerical results for curvature radius also comply with the limits set by manufacturer.15 and 4. The worst case is still 28% above the limit.00 0.28 Near Far Transverse 4.08 Limit CR 4.37KN. minimum acceptable bending radius is 1. for a more relevant indication of the riser design adequacy.50 Near Far Transverse Table 4.2.06 6.30 0.08 3.06 1.71 0.05 0.68 Dynamic Analysis Obtained Force/ Obtained CR/ Limit CR Limit Force 0.08 1. The associated technology has been developed lately and it has been considered as a much cheaper alternative in relation to the total costs involved for riser system Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 55 . Finally. also. a flexjoint particular design for the relief of stress concentration.92 2.15: Ratios Between Obtained Results and Limitations for CW/DC Offset Static Analysis Obtained Force/ Obtained CR/ Limit CR Limit Force 0.09 2. The greatest value obtained occurs at the interface with the platform.According to data provided by the manufacturer (Technip/Coflexip) for flexible risers (8”).28 0.57 0.64 1.06 7. For some analyzed cases. as illustrated in Figure 4. and it is less than 19% of maximum value indicated by the manufacturer.16 show the ratios between obtained results and the limitations provided by the manufacturer.9. These values are relatively small (smaller than 1 % of the damaging pull force). The Tables 4.2. minimum curvature radius at the connection point with the platform indicates the need of a more detailed study of this region and. it is recommended a more comprehensive study to assure system serviceability regarding to structural life cycle.

System Configuration SLOR system comprises a 22” rigid riser in the vertical position. being adopted 300m in the present design. Another important feature is the possibility of easy disconnection of the flexible lines reaching the deck from the top of the rigid vertical pipe of SLOR configuration. and H corresponds to riser tower height and Φ is vertical axis top angle. soil and extreme offset data are the same adopted for the collect riser analysis.5. Environmental. the hybrid riser transfers only a small amount of the self-weight to the platform. Figure 4.2. The analyzed system is indicated in Figure 4. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 56 . The suggested length for the flexible jumper ranges from 2 to 5 times the offset value.2.construction and installation in such scenarios. in the connection of flexible jumper with floating unit. System stability is assured through the buoyancy generated by a buoy installed at the top of rigid riser.4: Single Line Offset Riser 4. connected to an 8” flexible jumper. whose length is 400m. where D represents distance between semisubmersible platform and PLET.1. In addition to cost reduction.

5588 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 57 . respectively.21 list the main structural data associated with rigid pipe.2.5588 204000000 0. buoy and flexjoint.2.17. Table 4.2.0 1. Table 4.5: System Configuration 4.3. Structural Properties Tables 4. Other relevant parameters are indicated in Table 4.17: Data for Static and Dynamic Analyzes Top angle Morrison coefficient Drag coefficient Riser total length (m) 12º * 2. Relevant Analysis Parameters RAO´s and offsets were the same adopted for the collect riser analysis.2 700 * Top angle value for the analyzed cases complies with Petrobras technical specifications [9].2. 4.18: Rigid Pipe Data Length (m) Internal diameter (m) External diameter (m) Elastic modulus (E. kN/m ) Hydrodynamic diameter (m) 2 400 0.52705 0.2. flexible pipe.500 m Φ H D Figure 4.18 to 4.

as shown in Figure 4.21: Flexjoint data X stiffness (KN/m) Y stiffness (KN/m) Z stiffness (KN/m) RX stiffness (KN.m/deg) RZ stiffness (KN.5 4. Numerical Model The numerical model adopted for analysis. kN. kN/m) Weight in water (empty.20: Buoy Data Buoyancy force (kN) * Weight (kN) Area X (m ) Area Y (m ) Area Z (m ) Morison inertia coefficient Morison drag coefficient * The buoyance force was calculated as: Buoyance force (T) = 2 Psub (4.6.Table 4.m/deg) 2.12) 2 2 2 3230 386 95.2.88 Psub = Psteel + Pfluid– Psubvol (4.4.4 22.5 4.m/deg) RY stiffness (KN.4 95.2032 0.2.1 2.108 4.108 2. has the following features: • Top angle: 12º Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 58 .3679 625500 93.415 Table 4. kN/m) Axial stiffness (EA.08.08.19: Flexible Pipe Data Length (m) Internal diameter (m) External diameter (m) Weight in air (empty.m ) 2 300 0.108 2.5 4. kN) Bending stiffness (EI.13) where: Psub= submerse weight (obtained from ANFLEX program) Psteel= steel weight Pfluid = internal fluid weight Psubvol = submerse volume weight Table 4.0 1.031 0.2896 1.08.

and L the final length of last element. 5% structural damping related to harmonic movement periods was considered.6: Numerical Model A non-linear beam element mesh was adopted. As in the previous analysis.22. The model mesh is described in Table 4. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 59 . Table 4.22: Model Mesh Element 1 2 i L (m) 400 300 f L (m) – L (m) i f 1–1 1–1 number of nodes 400 300 L is the initial length of first segment.• • • • • Number of segments: 3 Rigid pipe segment length: 400m Flexible pipe segment length: 300m Total length: 700m Boundary condition at platform interface: Flexjoint Figure 4.

for clarity.7 illustrates how displacements are considered for near and far offsets.5. only the results from centenary waves combined with decenary currents are presented in Figures 4.10 and in Table 4. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 60 . far and transverse offsets. Extreme conditions corresponding to centenary waves combined with decenary currents and to decenary waves combined with centenary currents. Thus. the obtained results were similar.2. Figure 4. axial force and Von Mises stresses due to applied environmental loads.4. Figure 4.2. In the graphs below are presented the main results for rigid and flexible pipes.7: Offset Near and Far For this type of configuration. results were analyzed in terms of curvature radius. Global Analysis Results – Export Riser Static and dynamic analyses were accomplished for near.23.8 to 4.

8 – Von Mises Stresses Acting on Rigid Riser 400 400 300 Length (m ) Length (m ) 300 200 200 100 100 0 2770 2780 Tensile (KN) offset near offset far 2790 2800 0 2790 2840 offset near Tensile (KN) offset far 2890 transversal 2940 offset transverse (a) Rigid Riser Static Analysis (b) Rigid Riser Dynamic Analysis Figure 4.10 – Tensile Forces Acting on the Flexible Riser Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 61 .9 – Tensile Forces Acting on the Rigid Riser 700 650 Length (m) 600 550 500 450 400 0 20 40 60 Tensile (KN) offset near offset far offset transverse 80 100 700 650 600 550 500 450 400 0 20 offset near 40 60 80 100 Tensile (KN) offset far offset transverse (a) Rigid Riser Static Analysis Length (m) (b) Rigid Riser Dynamic Analysis Figure 4.400 400 300 Length (m ) Length (m ) 310 330 Von Mises Stress (MPa) offset near offset far transversal API 350 370 300 200 200 100 100 0 290 0 290 offset near 310 330 350 370 API Von Mises Stress (MPa) offset far offset transverse (a) Rigid Riser Static Analysis (b) Rigid Riser Dynamic Analysis Figure 4.

Tensile force varied linearly. pipes are welded horizontally and released through a ramp (stinger).3.11.6.53MPa. from this point on.Table 4. especially in deep water.3.1. submerged weight and the local depth to maintain acceptable pipe bending curvature during the installation process. Pipe bending on the stinger end is called overbend and reverse bending in TDP region is called sagbend. Figure 4. the maximum acceptable stress is 358. the obtained tensile forces along the line indicated a nonlinear behavior. present a growth tendency until the connection with the platform. For some of the analyzed cases. presenting maximum values for each offset less than 25% of yield tensile force (12493 KN). welding and inspecting the pipe.7 6. S-Lay Method In this method. The tension system maintains the suspended pipe and the ship installation capacity depends therefore on the line pipe suspended length. The maximum value obtained from the analysis indicated a Von Mises stress of 350 MPa for the rigid riser. assuming that the external/internal pressure has been used for preliminary pipe design as indicated at the beginning of this chapter. 4.2. The S-form is form by pipe configuration along the water depth between the ship stinger and the bottom sea touch down point (TDP). The most common installation technique consisted of fabricating the line pipe on board. This maxim force is inferior to the damaging pull force recommended by the manufacturer (4171. Pipe installation For the installation of the pipes (risers and flowlines) it is necessary to use special purpose ships.87MPa for X-65 steel. the alternative is to fabricate the complete line pipe onshore.56 Dynamic Analysis (m) 6. The fabrication goes on during installation and usually the S-lay or J-lay methods are employed. Considerations about the Results for Export Hybrid Risers Rigid riser behavior in terms of Von Mises stresses and tensile forces was as expected. In an attempt to reduce installation costs. 4. For the SLOR flexible jumper segment. Von Mises stress values are also inferior in relation to the yield stress for X-65 steel. storage it on large diameter reels at installation ships and then transport and launch the line at the offshore site. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 62 .2.23: Curvature Radius Offset Near Far Transverse Static Analysis (m) 7. Considering the yield stress of 447. This segment of SLOR is submitted predominantly to tensile forces. the maximum Von Mises Stress values occur at the connection point with the platform.36 4. it is recommended a more detailed study to investigate this behavior and the design of an appropriate flexjoint/bend stiffener to overcome possible stress concentrations at flexible riser/platform connection.97 6.94 3. is 80% of respective steel yield. the maximum allowed value for Von Mises stress. therefore attending API recommendation. where tensile force presents the maximum value. Therefore. Values decrease towards the buoy up to approximately half length and. According to API-RP 2RD [10].37 KN). then installing the line at the pre-established spot. considering extreme condition.8 5.

although it brings advantages in relation to the S-lay method for deep water. J-Lay method In this method. usually converted from drilling vessels.3.12: J-Lay Method 4. the vessel uses a central tower.12. avoiding the overbending. Reel Method This is the most used method for the installation of pipes with up to 16” diameter. The greatest difficulty in this method is to perform the vertical welding. to perform welding in the vertical position and launch the line progressively from the tower.3. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 63 .2. It is the fastest way of pipe installation reducing considerably the number of days at the sea [11]. many kilometers can be storage in one or more reels onshore and then unreeled relatively quick at installation spot by a special vessel. The connections between the flowline and christmas tree can be made by divers using flanges or especial connections when in shallow waters or by hydraulic systems remotely operated in deep water. Depending on pipe’s diameter.3. Figure 4.Figure 4.11: S-Lay Method 4. The pipe is released in a way that only the sagbending curvature is formed. as shown in Figure 4.

broadly used in Campos Basin. For flexible risers the reel method was chosen due to its time and cost advantages in comparison to other methods.13. The conventional ones just clean. this method was not considered. being prepared for tests in a pipeline closed loop. The intelligent pigs carry a cylindrical vessel with computers and sensors to measure the pipe wall thickness and indicate corrosion and dent points. instrumented. For rigid pipes due to restriction for diameters above 16". Reeling and unreeling operations may increase pipe ovality and magnify possible weld defects. cost and especially frequent use in national offshore activities were taken into account. which should be analyzed in a more elaborated and careful design project in order to avoid future operational problems. Pigs aimed at removing hydrates are more related to flow assurance. removing substances accumulated on the walls. However. was selected as the best option. Recently.Inspection and Cleaning Pipelines need especial planning for maintenance.4. Thus. they are rectified afterwards to compensate plastic deformations.13: Reel Method 4. becoming much easier the welding and inspection activities. the intelligent ones. Definition of the Installation Method For defining installation method to be used. The pigs resemble to a cylinder of diameter slightly inferior to that of the pipeline and go throughout the line. at PETROBRAS Research Center. respectively.Pipes can be fully built onshore. in particular cleaning and inspection techniques to assure both equipment integrity and optimal flow. Once pipes are wounded on the reel. caused by local corrosive process. the J-lay method. Figure 4. make a diagnosis of the pipeline.4 Pipe Maintenance .3. Installation process for the Reel method is shown in Figure 4. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 64 . there has been an increase of instrumented pig passages to measure wall thickness along the pipe and identify points with reduced thickness. therefore reducing ultimate strength and fatigue life. pipes will be submitted to few bending cycles.14 display a picture of a pig prototype. Figure 4. 4.

such as compressed air pumping. debris and poor launching and receiving facilities. The equipment sensors provide much more information in less time thus enabling immediate repairs and reducing labor costs.14: PIG Prototype 4.4. valves. derivations and diameter reductions along pipelines. welds. ovalizations. The Geometrical Pig is showed in Figure 4. Final reports contain a full identification of defects as well as its longitudinal and transversal location in the pipeline. Geometric pig is designed to be used during pipeline construction. bends. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 65 . Using the most advanced technology available they are designed to accurately and quickly identify the position and extension of any geometric anomalies. extreme speed variations. operation and maintenance. dents.15. Digital systems allow for the generation of field reports a few hours after inspection.1 Geometric Pig This tool is equipped with multiple sensors with digital data acquisition and high-capacity compact memory. Pigs high performance allow them to be used in most adverse conditions mainly those common during pipeline construction. tees. buckles.Figure 4.

2 Corrosion Pig The Corrosion Pig is based on the Magnetic Flux Leakage (MFL) technology. The high-resolution pig multiple sensors and digital systems verify metal loss in pipeline wall caused by corrosion. The Corrosion Pig is shown in Figure 4. Moreover such defects may cause product leakage which may be harmful to the operator and to the environment without mentioning the possibility of ecological disasters and/or personal injure in case of severe rupture.16: Corrosion Pig Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 66 .4. Figure 4.Figure 4. Magnetic pigs are designed to detect metal loss defects which are generally caused by the natural corrosion of pipeline walls interacting with the environment and/or with in-line products.15: Geometrical Pig 4. Such defects may risk pipeline operation since its structure may be damaged by normal operating pressure.16. providing accurate and quick information required for pipeline maintenance. Final reports indicate anomalies and its severity as well as its longitudinal and transversal location helping its identification for repairs.

allowing well intervention and production column replacement without its removal. 5.67 - . The vertical X-Tree set comprises production adapted base (PAB).1. tubing hanger.1. This feature was taken into account for choosing the Vertical X-Tree to be included in the proposed subsea arrangements for the three scenarios. Vertical X-Tree provides increased installation and operational flexibility over the horizontal tree. flowline connectors. Due to the 500 meter water depth. especial studies are necessary to optimize the equipment design and to take advantage of its flexibility in benefit of the subsea system design [12]. 5. Figure 5.2. In order to subsidize the Subsea to Beach concept to improve its performance a brief discussion about subsea gas separation and subsea gas compression are presented. In case of complex equipments. The possibility of independent installations of X-Tree and flowlines contributes to optimize the installation costs.1 shows the installation with one VCM. Another important point is the use of only one vessel for the X-Tree installation.5. The latest concept for guidelineless X-Tree uses the vertical connection module (VCM). all methods of installation using divers were discarded. SUBSEA SYSTEM DESIGN In this chapter a more detailed description of the subsea equipment and its selection are accomplished for the proposed gas field exploitation. valves and tree cap. X-Tree installation Method Vertical X-Tree uses a PAB which enables the installation of the lines independently. Wet Christmas Tree (X-Tree) X-Tree can be classified according to control valve layout [13] as: • • Horizontal Wet Christmas Tree Conventional Wet Christmas Tree (vertical) Horizontal X-Tree can be described as a production adapted base with valves mounted on the lateral sides. like X-Tree and manifold. considering that rare interventions are needed. The vertical tree comprises separate modules that can be installed independently. The reliability of the subsea system design is strongly dependent on the specific equipment design. Figure 5. This characteristic does not present an advantage for the gas fields.1: Connection with One VCM [14] Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .

Annulus access lateral valve: W2 (wing 2). For the considered gas field. X-Tree Arrangement and Operation The set of valves from the X-Tree is presented in Figure 5. Production intervention valve: S1 (swab1). Annulus master valve: M2 (master 2). MEG valve (normal operation): MV1.1. Production lateral valve: W1 (wing 1). Pressure regulation: choke. 500 m water depth and 7691 psi reservoir pressure. Annulus intervection valve: S2 (swab 2).000 psi.For the three scenarios considered the same X-Tree are adopted because it depends only on the reservoir characteristics.2 shows the Vertical X-Tree. The Figure 5. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . • • • • • • • • • • • Production master valve: M1 (master 1). MEG valve to flood (shut-down): MV2.3. Down hole safety valve: DHSV. Crossover valve: XO. with one VCM and work pressure 10.68 - . Figure 5.2: Vertical X-Tree 5.3 is constituted of:. the selected X-Tree is the guidelineless.

The choke installation is a good option because it makes possible the MEG injection from the X-Tree. which are other two safety barriers. decreasing the operational pressure and reducing the possibility of hydrate formation.Legend X-Tree PAB Figure 5. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . After that.69 - . For production optimization it is necessary to control the well pressure. In addition it can improve safety acting as a barrier in relation to the high pressure reservoir (500 bar). located in the production column. Annulus valve network is used to equalized the pressure when DHSV is opened. It also close if a high gradient pressure is detected. The flow goes on M1 and W1 valves. the gas passes through the choke responsible for controlling the flow rate and reducing the pressure in the production line connected to the manifold.3: Schematic Representation of X-Tree GLL/DLL The gas flow passes through a DSHV valve. These valves are kept open during normal production operation and can be closed at any time if needed. whose function is to hold the flow of the well in case of accident with the X-Tree or external leaks. M2 and W2 valves are two additional safety barriers.

where the line pressure is smaller. During the normal operation of the system. Base for the Flowlines This equipment supports the flowlines and control lines. it was decided to use a recoverable tree cap for easy maintenance. Distribution Manifold – It distributes the flow from a single pipe to several pipes. the MEG is injected right after the Choke through a MV1 valve.4. The performance principle is based on the pressure drop by choking the section. S1 and S2 valves.4. 5. Tree Cap Tree cap makes the interconnection between the stationary production unit or onshore terminal and the X-tree functions.2. 5. in general.1.70 - .1. to overcome an obstruction caused by hydrate formation. they can be classified as: • • Collecting Manifold – It collects the flow from several pipes into a single pipe. As it is an important control equipment.1. leveling them in relation to the Xmas Tree. is to inject through MV2 valve. The BAP optimizes the intervention resources because the X-tree installation can be performed by a drill barge and pipes and umbilicals by independent installation vessel. 5. 5.The Crossover valve is interconnected between the annulus line and the production line.1. 5. Another way of doing it.1.5. usually to flood the X-Tree lines during shut down. These are intervention valves which are kept closed. Description of selected X-Tree Components 5. for example. located in the production and annulus lines respectively.4.1. Vertical Connection Module (VCM) The vertical connection module (VCM) has a similar function as the MLF (mandril line flow) used in CVD. Manifold Manifolds can be classified according to their function and way of installation.4. 5.2. Finally.5. It has also the function of sealing the annulus formed between the well coating and the production tubing.4. Tubing Hanger It is responsible for the interface between the production tubing and the X-Tree.4.3. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . being used. It supports the weight of the production tubing and it is anchored and locked at the production adapted base. MEG network is used to inject this hydrate inhibitor. Regarding its function.1. being opened only when an intervention in the well is necessary. Choke Chokes are used to obtain flow and pressure control aiming at optimizing production and safety.

71 - .• Mixed Manifold– It has both characteristics above mentioned.2. Recoverable valve modules. The manifold comprises the following parts: • • • • • Sub-base structure. Recoverable control modules (subsea part of the control system). Pipes and valves. Pipe connecting modules. the manifolds are of two types: DA (diver assisted) or DL (diverless). i. thus reducing the pipes costs. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . The main advantages in its application are: • • • Reducing the number of pipes (risers) in the platform minimizing both the space and the load applied on stationary production unit. 5. Optimizing subsea arrangement (clearing the ground next to the platform and its anchor system). Figure 5. Manifold Arrangement and Operation For scenarios 2 and 3 two manifolds in parallel are employed.4 illustrates the manifold with capacity for four wells as adapted in the project. In the proposed scenarios DL manifolds are employed. Installing in advance. Manifold Installation Regarding the way of installation and intervention.2. The DA manifolds can only be installed in water depths of up to 300 m.2. subsea system awaiting platform arrival.1.e. 5.

because it is possible through a maneuver of valves to select the well production for the desired export pipeline. that goes to service pipe in order to test well production.72 - . The other two. considering that product injection needs may differ for each production line. go to their respective production headers. Thus. P1 and P2. In this project. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . One. Size and weight of the manifold are increased by using recoverable modules. four for production and two for the SCM.4: Manifold Submarine for 4 wells For MEG distribution. through the T1valve. it has been decided the use of six recoverable modules. they allow the repair of important components without being necessary to recover the manifold. The two production headers coming out of the manifold arrive at a PLEM and then the production is exported through two pipelines.Figure 5. And also two Subsea Control Module (SCM) responsible each one for the control of two X-Trees. This configuration assures operational flexibility. Production pipe linked to each X-Tree can be lined up for the three headers. flow meters. such as hydraulic valves. However. Components that needed maintenance were installed in the production. in case of one SCM failure only two production wells are lost. pressure and temperature transducers. four chokes are used in the manifold for each X-Tree for separate flow control. It was installed in each manifold one electric hydraulic distribution module (EHDM) for the umbilical vertical connection.

5: Manifold Recoverable Module 5.3. 5.6.73 - .6: PLEM Arrangement Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . Operability and Installation According to the subsea arrangement for scenarios 2 and 3. PLEM 5. PLEM Definition PLEM is basically a collector or distributor for the subsea flowlines. PLEM Arrangement.3.2.1. Figure 5. PLEM is employed as shown in Figure 5. Figure 5.3.5 presents the manifold production recoverable module.Figure 5.

PLET Arrangement.7. Hydraulic Direct This is the simplest. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . Then a jumper is used to connect PLET to PLEM.74 - . PLET was defined as shown in Figure 5. Operation and Installation According to subsea arrangement for scenarios 2 and 3. Except for the Valve Pig (VP) of hydraulic activation.4.In order to easy installation. all the other valves are manually operated by ROV. The VP valve stays closed during normal operation.4. locked and then the valves are open. 5.7: PLET Arrangement This equipment has a flange used for the connection with the rigid pip. It was adopted for scenario 1 due to the number of wells and the small distance between them and the SS. Figure 5. Each X-Tree receives one umbilical from platform containing the necessary electric cables to acquire data and hydraulic hoses to activate valves. PLET Definition This equipment is used to enable line connection without using divers and it depends on the diameters and pipe types (rigid or flexible) used in the project. After manifold installation. 5. therefore the favorite for satellite well control.2. being only used for PIG maneuver.1. the jumpers are positioned. After locking the jumper. rigid jumpers are employed to connect manifold to PLEM. cheapest and most reliable system.5. PLET 5.1. 5. The system has the capacity to collect the production from two manifolds and to send through two lines to the production unit. It is employed to link PLEM to the production line. the only present valve is open by ROV.4. Control Systems 5.5.

8 illustrates the general arrangement of subsea equipments. The main actions executed by this system are: • • • • • Operation of hydraulic valves of the manifold. Multiplex Electro Hydraulic The multiplex control is usually employed in systems with a manifold with a great number of hydraulic functions. This system multiplex the hydraulic functions and the data acquisition from manifold and wells through a central station installed on the platform / onshore terminal and. while the other one goes through the PLEM in other to actuate the VP valve on that equipment. Pressure and temperature monitoring at the well. Pressure and temperature monitoring at X-Tree. Figure 5. also. The cables have double-function.2. Two umbilicals were used in order to give more reliability to the system by giving operational redundancy in case of failure. X-Tree. they transfer power from the processing unit to sensors installed on the manifold and X-Tree. PLEM and of those installed in the wells downhole. The interconnection of the subsystems is done through only four hydraulic hoses and four pairs of electric cables mounted on the umbilical. 5. and they bring to the operational and supervision central station the signals from these sensors. while in the manifold 1 arrives an umbilical and a flexible service pipe. Pressure and temperature monitoring of the import and export fluids and position of the chokes.5. Since there is no need for service and MEG lines to pass through the PLEM.5. they are connected to the other manifold by rigid jumpers. from subsea control modules installed in the manifold.75 - . This system was employed in scenarios 2 and 3 due to both manifold use and the long distance between unit production and the wells. Operation of hydraulic chokes.installed in the manifold.6 Equipment General Arrangement In manifold 2 arrives from the platform or onshore terminal one umbilical with a MEG injection hose included.installed in the manifold. Electronic surface unit (ESU) . Subsea control modules (SCM) . Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . The main components of this system are: • • • Electro-hydraulic distribution module (EHDM) . One of the umbilicals is also connect in that same way.installed in the production terminal unit.

Figure 5.8: Equipment General Arrangement Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 76 .

while there are a substantial number of subsea pump systems in operation. Because it is a totally new technology.3.1. Re-injection of the separated water into the reservoir. 5. Subsea Compression and Separation Reservoir pressure drops throughout the field production lifetime.7. it is necessary to separate the water associated with de gas and the condensate. First. For that. plans for any new design must include qualification to minimize the risk of a new technology. which will be responsible for separating the water. Better field management. Before compression can be made. There are interrelated reasons why the development of subsea separation applications has lagged. Compression of the dehydrated gas. there are only two subsea separation stations installed. a system incorporating new technology carries a higher potential risk. The separation of water would help on hydrate prevention. 5. both durability and ease of maintenance would need to be addressed to reduce the unknown aspect of the risk. This system is focused on the following process [15]: • • • • • Separation of water. One is the Troll Pilot for water separation and reinjection. This will impact production rate and profitability.5. gas and condensate. after approximately 10 years research. so the possibility on using such equipment is set to 2020.2. The second installation is the VASP system for gas-liquid separation and boosting operated by Petrobras in Brazil. as said before. The separated water can be re-injected into the reservoir. Process Description All production is directed to de subsea separator. At this point the mixture is exported through production pipelines to the terminal. subsea separator and subsea compressor. Because of that. conferring profitability and a series of advantages to the Subsea to Beach scenario: • • • Draw out of the field production. Accordingly. 5. Accordingly to the site gepower. Reduced environment impact. Second. The gas is then compressed and put together with the condensate. the use of a subsea compressor was considered. Subsea Compression The subsea compression equipment is the biggest challenge for the proposed implementation. GE and KOP are working to develop a 12. Mixture the compressed gas with the condensate.com. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . especially for the Subsea to Beach case due to the 160km of production pipelines.7.5 MW compression unit with market expectation for 2008. The installation of this two equipments. In addition to undemonstrated performance. the potential risk is high. The separated water is then re-injected in the field. some components of such a system would have to be newly designed and qualified. the condensate and the gas. Yet. would solve the pressure drop problem.7. operated by Norsk Hydro in the North Sea. Export the gas and condensate mixture.77 - . Subsea Separation The economic potential of subsea separation has been known for some time. it is essential to also install a subsea separator.7.

For system optimization, it is better to position the equipments as near to the field as possible. For scenario 3 the appropriated place is near the PLEM.

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil

- 78 -

6. RISK ASSESSMENT
In order to estimate the reliability of the three proposed subsea arrangements for gas exploitation, fault tree analyzes [16,17,18] are performed assuming as the top event the production loss in relation to total production output. The fault tree construction does not consider the processing plant. The subsea equipments taken into account have a limited number of components to make possible the overall reliability analyzes in the present design stage, when the concepts should be better understood and the risks identified. Although the respective fault trees for the considered scenarios could be employed in a latter stage to generate quantitative estimates of the failure probability for the top event, in this study only qualitative reliability analyzes are performed. It is important to emphasize that the access to reliable data base is necessary for a consequent quantitative risk analysis. Otherwise the results could lead to wrong conclusions and mistaken decisions.

6.1. Scenario 1: Semi-Submersible The subsea arrangement based on satellite wells implies that each independent well system (X-Tree/ flowline/riser) is responsible for 1/8 of the total production. Each well system is independent and in case of one main component/process failure the respective production is interrupted. It can be observed that the satellite arrangement prevents the total production interruption because of the direct link between well head and processing unit. Total production loss is only possible if: a) all eigth independent import systems (X-Tree/ flowline/riser) present simultaneously failure, or b) the export riser system presents failure either in the SLOR or in the export pipeline. The fault tree associated with production loss for the semi-submersible scenario is presented in the Figure 6.1.
cence - Not for commercial use PARTIAL PRODUCTION LOSS

Or 1

WELL PRODUCTION LOSS

EXPORT RISER/FLOWLINE FAILURE

Or 2

Basic 12

WELL 1 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION

WELL 2 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION

WELL 3 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION

WELL 4 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION

WELL 5 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION

WELL 6 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION

WELL 7 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION

WELL 8 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

P2

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil

- 79 -

P2

WELL PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION

Or 2

UMBILICAL FAILURE

X-TREE FAILURE

8" FLOWLINE/RISER FAILURE

Basic 1

Or 2

Or 15

AILURE IN THE CONNECTIONS

VALVES FAILURE

HYDRATE BLOCK

STRUCTURAL FAILURE

Basic 6

Or 13

Basic 4

Basic 5

MASTER 1 FAILURE

WING 1 FAILURE

DHSV FAILURE

CHOKE FAILURE

Basic 7

Basic 8

Basic 9

Basic 10

Figure 6.1: Fault Tree for the Semi-submersible Scenario 6.2. Scenario 2: Jacket Subsea arrangement for this scenario presents some tolerances to failure, i.e. failure in the flowline linking manifold to process plant does not cause partial production loss. In relation to total production interruption, it can be observed that this scenario seems to be less reliable than the previous one. In the present scenario there are more equipments prone to cause complete production shut down in case of failure, such as: • 22" export riser/flowline; • 2 x 18" flowline/riser from PLEM to jacket – equipments installed in parallel, the total production interruption depends on failure of both parallel lines; • Umbilicals from jacket to manifold – also installed in parallel with the same redundancy as the lines above mentioned; • Subsea Control Module (SCM) responsible for two X-Trees each – only the simultaneous failure of the four SCM could fully stop production. A particular well shut down seems to have a smaller failure probability for this scenario than for the previous one. It is mainly due to the more reliable link X-Tree / manifold / Jacket than X-Tree / Riser / Semi-submersible, due to the riser dynamic behavior and associated uncertainties. The fault tree for the jacket scenario is presented below.

Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil

- 80 -

Not for commercial use PARTIAL PRODUCTION LOSS Or 1 UMBILICAL (JACKET TO MANIFOLD) WELL PRODUCTION LOSS 18" RISER/ FLOWLINE (MANIFOLD TO JACKET) 22" EXPORT RISER/ FLOWLINE FAILURE And 1 P2 End 2 Basic 3 UMBILICAL 1 FAILURE UMBILICAL 2 FAILURE 18"RISER / FLOWLINE 1 FAILURE 18"RISER / FLOWLINE2 FAILURE Basic 2 Basic 20 Or 3 Or 3 HYDRATE BLOCK STRUCTURAL FAILURE HYDRATE BLOCK STRUCTURAL FAILURE Basic 4 Basic 5 Basic 4 Basic 5 P2 WELL PRODUCTION LOSS Or 17 SUBSEA CONTROL MODULE 1 SUBSEA CONTROL MODULE 2 SUBSEA CONTROL MODULE 3 SUBSEA CONTROL MODULE 4 Or 18 Or 18 Or 18 Or 18 SCM 1 FAILURE WELLS 1-2 PRODUCTION LOSS SCM 2 FAILURE WELLS 3-4 PRODUCTION LOSS SCM 3 FAILURE WELLS 5-6 PRODUCTION LOSS SCM 4 FAILURE WELLS 7-8 PRODUCTION LOSS Basic 12 Or 7 Basic 13 Or 7 Basic 14 Or 7 Basic 15 Or 7 WELL 1 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION WELL 2 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION WELL 3 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION WELL 4 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION WELL 5 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION WELL 6 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION WELL 7 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION WELL 8 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .cence .81 - .

3. although dynamic considerations for jacket risers can be neglected. Exception could be considered for eventual pipeline free span but it could occur also in the other two scenarios with similar probabilities. The main advantage of this arrangement in relation to the jacket scenario is the possibility of not using risers. An additional advantage is associated with the use of two export 22” pipelines instead of one employed in the jacket subsea arrangement.P3 WELL PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION Or 2 UMBILICAL FAILURE X-TREE FAILURE 8" FLOWLINE/RISER FAILURE Basic 1 Or 2 Or 15 FAILURE IN THE CONNECTIONS VALVES FAILURE HYDRATE BLOCK STRUCTURAL FAILURE Basic 6 Or 13 Basic 4 Basic 5 MASTER 1 FAILURE WING 1 FAILURE DHSV FAILURE CHOKE FAILURE Basic 7 Basic 8 Basic 9 Basic 10 Figure 6. which represents a considerable higher probability of hydrate formation and consequent pipeline block as compared with dehydrated gas obtained from the offshore process plant available in both scenarios 1 and 2.82 - .3. The dual pipe system introduces operational redundancy to the arrangement. flow assurance could be maintained without affecting the production. The main disadvantage is associated with the gas transportation without water separation. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . Therefore the fault trees are also similar. In the case of a pipe interruption. The fault tree for Subsea to Beach scenario is presented in Figure 6. All the lines in the Subsea to Beach scenario are subjected to design static loads. Scenario 3: Subsea to Beach Subsea arrangement for this scenario is very similar to that for jacket scenario.2: Fault Tree for Jacket Scenario 6.

cence .Not for commercial use PARTIAL PRODUCTION LOSS Or 1 UMBILICAL (MANIFOLD TO ONSHORE TERMINAL) WELL PRODUCTION LOSS 22" LONG DISTANCE PIPELINES FAILURE And 1 P2 End 2 UMBILICAL 1 FAILURE UMBILICAL 2 FAILURE 22" PIPELINE 1 FAILURE 22" PIPELINE 2 FAILURE Basic 2 Basic 20 Or 3 Or 3 hYDRATE BLOCK STRUCTURAL FAILURE hYDRATE BLOCK STRUCTURAL FAILURE Basic 4 Basic 5 Basic 4 Basic 5 P2 WELL PRODUCTION LOSS Or 17 SUBSEA CONTROL MODULE 1 SUBSEA CONTROL MODULE 2 SUBSEA CONTROL MODULE 3 SUBSEA CONTROL MODULE 4 Or 18 Or 18 Or 18 Or 18 SCM 1 FAILURE WELLS 1-2 PRODUCTION LOSS SCM 2 FAILURE WELLS 3-4 PRODUCTION LOSS SCM 3 FAILURE WELLS 5-6 PRODUCTION LOSS SCM 4 FAILURE WELLS 7-8 PRODUCTION LOSS Basic 12 Or 7 Basic 13 Or 7 Basic 14 Or 7 Basic 15 Or 7 WELL 1 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION WELL 2 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION WELL 3 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION WELL 4 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION WELL 5 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION WELL 6 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION WELL 7 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION WELL 8 PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 P3 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .83 - .

Scenario 3 presents advantage in relation to the scenario 2.84 - . For scenarios 2 and 3.3: Fault Tree for Subsea to Beach Scenario 6. failure probability.4. Concluding Remarks Based on the above fault trees two different situations in relation to production loss are analyzed: total production loss and partial production loss. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . consequently.4. The satellite wells contribute to decrease the probability of a complete shut down. However. due to the transportation of the gas/water mixture. 6. which have separation process to dehydrate the gas. Another advantage for scenario 3 is the redundant export pipelines adding operational flexibility to the subsea arrangement. Dynamic riser systems for production and export are subjected to environmental loads increasing uncertainties and. Total Production Loss The conceptual probability of failure for the total production loss indicates that scenario 1 presents the best result. scenario 3 presents higher probability of hydrate formation than scenarios 1 and 2. The possibility of a shut down depends on export pipe system failure. there are additional possibilities of failure associated with subsea multiplexed control and manifold. In relation to the total production loss it can be concluded that the most reliable subsea arrangement system is that represented by scenario 1.1. since the failure of one pipeline does not imply in production loss.P3 WELL PRODUCTION INTERRUPTION Or 2 UMBILICAL FAILURE X-TREE FAILURE 8" FLOWLINE/RISER FAILURE Basic 1 Or 2 Or 15 CONNECTIONS EMPTYING VALVES FAILURE hYDRATE BLOCK STRUCTURAL FAILURE Basic 6 Or 13 Basic 4 Basic 5 MASTER 1 FAILURE WING 1 FAILURE DHSV FAILURE CHOKE FAILURE Basic 7 Basic 8 Basic 9 Basic 10 Figure 6. followed by scenarios 3 and 2.

Therefore.4.3. although in this scenario there is no pipeline redundancy. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . Partial Production Loss The partial production loss considers only one well interruption. In general.6. Analyzing the subsea arrangements and respective fault trees it can be observed that scenarios 2 and 3 are more reliable than scenario 1.4. The satellite wells associated with dynamic risers again put the scenario 1 as the less attractive alternative. could mean an outstanding advantage for Subsea to Beach scenario in relation to both Semi-submersible and Jacket scenarios. Although scenario 3 has two redundant export pipelines. In this case it is difficult to distinguish scenarios 2 and 3. The Best Scenario Considering that the total production loss is associated with a failure probability substantially smaller than for the partial production loss. the scenario 3 can be indicated as the best option for the offshore gas field considered in this project. it can be concluded that scenarios 2 and 3 are more reliable than scenario 1 for partial production loss. However. In addition. before export to onshore terminal. based on the qualitative risk assessment for production loss. scenario 3 is more reliable than scenario 2 for total production loss. As already mentioned the advantage of on-bottom import system using manifolds and electrohydraulic multiplex control reflects on smaller failure probability if compared with the import and export dynamic risers in scenario 1. 6. the possibility of only one export pipeline could be considered for the Subsea to Beach scenario for dehydrated gas.85 - . the indication of the most reliable scenario should take into consideration small production losses during the project life cycle.2. the transport of water/gas mixture increases the probability of hydrate formation if compared with scenario 2. the possibility of gas/water subsea separation and subsea gas compression. Although equivalent in terms of partial production loss.

the group developed each scenario Master Schedule. Master Schedule In order to organize the cost study. Net Present Value (NPV) This method measures the present value of all future income or expense during the project’s life cycle. product price. operational expenditures (OPEX). To do that. frequency of component failures and intervention vessels [19]. which helped determining the payments period for use of the NPV method. equipments and pipelines) would be the one with the best prices.3 respectively for scenarios 1. production rate. Projects with positive NPV values mean the investment worth more than it costs.2 and 7. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .1. a market research was made to find out delivery and installation times for the subsea equipments. and assumed a bid process to take place in order to get the best combination of price and time delivery in the market. so the capability of generating profit is of paramount importance. The total cost when developing a subsea exploitation field is a function of several income and expense factors such as capital expenditures (CAPEX).1. To do that. Marine related industries commonly use Gantt charts to organize a project by breaking down its complexity. To better resume the information that was gathered. Because the value of a project is based on its capability to generate future cash flow. Cost analysis to implement each scenario and all the other costs associated with operation and maintenance aspects are treated. Also. which will be considered in this chapter. NPV = − I + ∑ t =1 n CFt (1 + K ) t where I = inicial investment CFt = cash flow at time t K = discount rate t = time (period) 7. COSTS When determining the best subsea system design. By doing this. the costs always play an important role. Profitability is one of main objectives of an investment. pipelines and platforms. 7.86 - . 7.2. the delivery times would be guaranteed. The next pages show the preliminary Master Schedule in Figures 7. competition was assured since the winner for each project area (platform construction. With that in mind.7. the team felt it was necessary to create a construction Master Schedule of each scenario. the investment alternatives can only be compared if measured at the same time. economists use a well know method called Net Present Value (NPV). 2 and 3. Gantt charts were used.

Figure 7.1: Semi-Submersible Master Schedule Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil 87 .

2: Jacket Master Schedule Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .88 - .Figure 7.

3: Subsea to Beach Master Schedule Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .Figure 7.89 - .

00 Pipeline 18" (40 km) 27.017.3.000.000.506. respectively.661.00 Pipeline installation 38.000.750. Even though the flexible line is more expensive then the rigid one. When using insulation.000.000.126. The insulation requires more initial expenditure.000. but installation costs are the same.800.000.00 111.601.13 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . If using continuous MEG injection.000.000. the cost of the pipes increase because of the insulation layer itself.705.90 - .00% 147.419.000.00 Umbilical with MEG (20 km) 10. a flexible 6” flowline is required for MEG transportation.000.00 MEG inicial cost 4. another vessel would have to be contracted. the fact that it is possible to install this line together with the umbilicals makes the overall installation expenditure better.00 Umbilical and MEG installation 2. The analysis were made only for scenarios 2 and 3 due to the long distances from the wells to the Jacket platform or to the onshore terminal. On the other hand the continuous injection of MEG requires much less CAPEX but its maintenance adds to the OPEX.000.00 10.800. For scenario 1 the insulation concept was readily adopted because of the short distance from the wells to the SS. MEG/Insulation Analysis In order to prevent hydrate formation. two possibilities were considered.00 Umbilical instalation Pipeline instalation MEG inicial cost 2.00 MEG monthly cost MEG annual cost Discount rate Total cost 466.00 5. Tables 7. increasing the CAPEX.000. Table 7.00 38. If it were a rigid pipe.00 Flexible 6" MEG riser (200 km) 12.000.000.1 and 7.000. These two methods have different impacts on the project cost.96 MEG process plant 4.49 Total cost 90.000.13 Without Insulation Item Cost Umbilical (40 km) 12.7.2 show the performed study to compare the alternatives for each scenario.000.1: MEG/Insulation Analysis for Scenario 2 Jacket With Insulation Item Cost Umbilical (20 km) 6.800.00 Pipeline 18" (40 km) 33. the continuous injection of MEG and the thermal insulation of the production pipelines.600.000.419.

00 Pipeline 22" (320 km) 288.000.000. the cost analysis was made considering the use of loans based on Price method.000.00 Umbilical instalation Pipeline instalation MEG inicial cost 12.00 Umbilical and MEG installation 17.06 In the continuous MEG injection option.370.45 MEG process plant 4.000. it is possible to get an 80% loan for a 20 years pay period with a 6% year interest rate. According to Brazilian market.2: MEG/Insulation Analysis for Scenario 3 SubSea to Beach With Insulation Item Cost Umbilical (160 km) 48.00 891.601.91 - . which determines constant payments.792. The other difference is the fact that there is no MEG process.000.400. industry prices were raised to specify each system component and installation costs.06 Without Insulation Item Custo Umbilical (320 km) 96. C.3 and C.00 Pipeline 22" (320 km) 360. Doing that. since there will be no recycling due to minimal injection.5 kg/s MEG injection rate determined in the previous flow assurance study. Like discussed before. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .00 MEG inicial cost 32.000.000.000.3 summarizes the main loan characteristics. For the insulation option.4.353. The loan debt increases till operations begin and payments start. Analyzing the results.Table 7. Striving for a more realistic study. The NVP method was used when calculating the total MEG OPEX cost for a 20 year field operation. Table 7.00 310.000.353. The monthly MEG cost was calculated based on the 0. Cost Analysis for the Three Scenarios Having all subsea designs defined.000.000. in Appendix C show the calculated loans for each scenario.000.4. it is possible to see that the use of insulation is the best option for both scenarios.291.00 MEG monthly cost MEG annual cost Discount rate Total cost 466. pipe prices increase but installation remains the same. the initial investments are greatly reduced since only 20% of CAPEX is paid at the end of each semester.00% 891.1 in Appendix C summarizes all costs.2.00 Pipeline installation 310. 7. Tables C.000. the initial MEG cost refers to the volume of a 1” hose inside the umbilical plus 10% of that calculated value to be stored at the production unit.000. Table C.98 Total cost 811.800.400.000.00 5.00 Umbilical with MEG (160 km) 80.00 Flexible 6" MEG riser (160 km) 96.000.000.000. the initial MEG cost refers to the initial volume necessary to fill up the 6” MEG line plus 10% of that volume to be store at the production unit.000.165.600.000.00 10.255.

92 - .69 6. all costs are in US$ million.00 155. Table 7.6 were created.4.00 618.3: Loan Data year 6. 7.96 108.75 for US$45.00 5.00 100.00% 40 semester 2.00% 20.36 30.20 12.00 100.00 8.00 100.00 5. the payments were distributed in semester periods accordingly to its payments estimated date.00 147.00 5.45 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .00 14.00 3.72 60.00 5.96% Financial interest Own expenditure Financed expenditure Project Life Utilizing the Gantt charts for each scenario implementation.29 144.5 and 7.00/petroleum barrel Period 1 0 2 Year 3 1 4 5 2 – 22 6 . With that in mind. Tables 7.Table 7.00/petroleum barrel for US$25.00% 80.4: Semi-Submersible Cost Analysis Item Platform 1st payment X-Tree1st payment Platform 2nd payment X-Tree 2nd payment Platform 3rd payment X-Tree 3rd payment Umbilical Hybrid riser 8" flexible riser 22" rigid riser Platform 4th payment X-Tree 4th payment Plataform installation X-Tree installation + 2 tool kits Flexible risers + umbilicals installation Rigid riser installation OPEX Semestral income NPV (US$ million) Semestral income NPV (US$ million) Cost 100.00 5.

70 110.00 596.00 15.00 5.00 5.438) Platform 4th payment Manifold 3rd payment X-Tree 4th payment Manifold installation X-Tree installation + 2 toll kits X-Tree-Manifold lines installation PLEM installation PLET installation Jumpers installation Flexible flowlines installation 18" Risers installation 22" Risers installation OPEX Semestral income NPV (US$ million) Semestral income NPV (US$ million) Cost 120.00 113.93 - .00/petroleum barrel Period 1 0 2 Year 3 1 4 5 2 – 22 6 .59 26.20 108.00 5.20 38.25 1.80 56.00 0.00 110.00 15.20 2.00 for US$45.00 110.00 125.00 8.00 2.00 1.00 20.00/petroleum barrel for US$25.50 22.00 5.00 12.72 60.00 5.00 6.55 27.Table 7.00 5.5: Jacket Platform Cost Analysis Item Platform 1st payment X-Tree 1st payment Platform 2nd payment Manifold 1st payment X-Tree 2nd payment Platform 3rd payment Manifold 2nd payment X-Tree 3rd payment PLEM PLET Umbilicals Flexible 8" flowlines Rigid 18" riser Rigid 22" riser (t=0.45 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .

00 5.00 8.00 5. In order to estimate income.08 60. the platform or the OPEX for example. first it was necessary to know which components have a higher impact on the NPV. which is much lower than the present one.00.55 360. Finally.00 0.6: Subsea to Beach Cost Analysis US$ million 5. the 20 million m3 / day were converted to equivalent number of oil barrels. Another variable that plays an important role on assuring investment return is the adopted discount rate of 15%.00 643.50 132.25 1.00 1. and analyzing the impact on the calculated Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .00 5.00.21 for US$45.45 All equipments and installations till beginning of operations are treated as CAPEX.00/petroleum barrel for US$25.94 - . To run the analysis. the other one is US$25.00 5.00 6. but it gives more reliability to the project capital return. For that a sensibility study was made.00 15.00 172. This study consists of varying the value of one component. Then the total amount of barrels were multiplied by 30 days and then 6 months in order to acquire the total semester income.00 20. The two income considerations were made when two oil barrel prices were used. to better understand the NPV return value behavior. This was particularly necessary due to the fact that the prices obtained for each component can fluctuate. one is the market price nowadays. approximately US$45. Two NPV values were calculated for each scenario because of two possible income considerations. The OPEX was calculated for a six month operation.02 138.625) Manifold 3rd payment X-Tree 4th payment Manifold installation X-Tree installation + 2 toll kits X-Tree-Manifold lines installation PLEM installation PLET installation Jumpers installation Flexible flowlines installation 22" Risers installation OPEX Semestral income NPV (US$ million) Semestral income NPV (US$ million) 2 1 4 5 2 – 22 6 .00/petroleum barrel Period 1 1 0 Year Item X-Tree 1st payment Manifold 1st payment X-Tree 2nd payment Manifold 2nd payment X-Tree 3rd payment PLEM PLET Umbilicals Flexible 8" flowlines Rigid 22" riser ( t=0.00 5.00 310.40 0.Table 7.20 17. a risk study for the cost study was performed.41 108.00 15. If instead it were used 12%.00 2. projects NPV values would be even greater.

14 0.4.5 and 7. triangular functions were determined for each of the selected components of the three scenarios. This was made using a plug-in for Microsoft Excell called @Risk.00. 7. 0.NPV. the mean value and the maximum value (10% more).95 - .08 0. 2 and 3 respectively.06 0. Basically.1 Probability 0. and their prices were defined with a minimum value (10% less).12 0. Figures 7.02 0 80 94 10 8 12 2 13 6 15 0 16 4 17 8 19 2 20 6 NPV (US$ million) Figure 7. where the program randomizes the component values with costs inside the determined periods.4: Semi-Submersible Probability NPV Analysis Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .6 show the probability graphics obtained for scenarios 1.000 iterations were assumed in the analysis. The outcome of the study is that the most important components are the platforms. The next step was to run the risk cost analysis. The analysis was made for the NPV considering the oil price per barrel as US$20. and all pipeline costs for buying and installing them. Then 10.04 0. the OPEX and semester income valor.

the Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .6: Subsea to Beach Probability NPV Analysis It is possible to conclude that the Subsea to Beach has the higher NPV values probability.02 0 40 56 72 88 10 4 12 0 13 6 15 2 16 8 21 2 18 4 22 6 NPV (US$ million) Figure 7.08 Probability 0.96 - . The SemiSubmersible has a lower returning range values.14 0.1 Probability 0. with the higher 11% chance of returning 177 million .06 0.04 0.08 0. ranging from 114 million to 233 million.12 0.12 0. but it shows the higher probability of 12%.1 0.0.5: Jacket Probability NPV Analysis 0.06 0.02 0 10 0 11 4 12 8 14 2 15 6 17 0 18 4 19 8 NPV (US$ million) Figure 7.04 0.

the most obvious aspect is the proximity of the obtained results.00 millions for the Jacket platform scenario.97 - . A step forward in this direction was the probability analysis. with a range of 64 to 192 million.5.00. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . US$172. the results indicate Subsea to Beach scenario as the best economical option. Again. Even though the Subsea to Beach has the best NPV.20 millions and US$596. Concluding Remarks After calculating the capital return for each scenario. from which it is possible to evaluate the economic behavior of the scenarios.21 millions for US$45. these are only 10% greater than the lowest ones of US$125.41 millions for the barrel oil price of US$20. and US$643.00. a more detailed study about installation and operation costs are recommended. The Jacket platform shows the lowest values. it is not possible to guarantee the Subsea to Beach scenario as the most profitable investment. To better decide about the most profitable scenario. Because of that and the fact that there are uncertainties for the component costs.biggest one over the three scenarios. 7.

8. X-trees and manifolds are to be installed diverless due to the water depth of 500 m. For the flexible pipes (8”) the conventional reel installation is indicated. subsea processing. Analyzing the subsea arrangements and respective fault trees it can be observed that scenarios 2 and 3 are more reliable than scenario 1. The results indicated both tensile forces and curvature radius within the safety margins. Structural and strength analyzes have been performed for the flowlines and risers in order to determine thickness requirements for the rigid steel pipes and to verify the structural response of flexible pipes in relation to the limit values provided by the manufacturer. Risk assessment has been conducted for production loss. Installation procedures have been discussed in relation to flowlines/risers. Considering that the total production loss is associated with a failure probability substantially smaller than for the partial production loss. although in this scenario there is no pipeline redundancy. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . The satellite wells associated with dynamic risers put the scenario 1 as the less attractive alternative. Analyzing Subsea to Beach for the worst case. Although equivalent in terms of partial production loss. In order to analyze the subsea processing different tools. X-trees and manifolds. such as OLGA. The partial production loss considers only one well interruption. The critical structural check is related with the dynamic risers in the SS scenario. Aspects related to structural integrity. the transport of water/gas mixture increases the probability of hydrate formation if compared with scenario 2.05 W / m2 °C was obtained for the two 22” pipelines. The conceptual probability of failure for the total production loss indicates that scenario 1 presents the best result. In the case of the X-trees the guidelineless procedure associated with vertical control module is recommended to allow independency between flowline and X-Tree installations. Jacket platform (J) and Subsea to Beach (SB). In general. The considered scenarios considered Semi-submersible platform (SS). risk assessment and costs have been considered to provide the necessary support for the development of the subsea production systems. Extreme loading represented by wave and current loads were considered in the analyzes. reducing costs with additional vessel mobilization. Therefore. CONCLUSIONS Three subsea production systems have been proposed for a gas field offshore Brazil. The possibility of a shut down depends on export pipe system failure. As already mentioned the advantage of on-bottom import system using manifolds and electrohydraulic multiplex control reflects on smaller failure probability if compared with the import and export dynamic risers in scenario 1.98 - . Due to the pipeline diameters (18” and 22”) J-lay method is recommended. Although scenario 3 has two redundant export pipelines. PIPESIM and analytical solution have been employed for the three scenarios. In relation to the total production loss it was concluded that the most reliable subsea arrangement system is that represented by scenario 1. it can be concluded that scenarios 2 and 3 are more reliable than scenario 1 for partial production loss. Flow assurance are feasible for all scenarios. Fault trees constructed for each scenario have been analyzed in terms of qualitative risk approach. the indication of the most reliable scenario should take into consideration small production losses during the project life cycle. the longest pipe with flow rate of 10 million m3 per day (by the end of the design life). For scenarios 2 and 3. U value equal to 1. In this case it is difficult to distinguish scenarios 2 and 3. there are additional possibilities of failure associated with subsea multiplexed control and manifold. The most critical scenario is the SB because it needs either pipeline insulation or MEG continuous injection. Based on these results it is realized that the gas mixture can be maintained out of the hydrate envelope by using appropriate pipe insulation. The satellite wells contribute to decrease the probability of a shut down. followed by scenarios 3 and 2. scenario 3 is more reliable than scenario 2 for total production loss.

However. additional technological developments associated with subsea gas/water separation and subsea gas compression are strongly recommended in order to have this option commercially available in the near future. These are only 10% greater than the lowest ones for the Jacket scenario. Subsea to Beach has the best NPV. US$172. the scenario 3 can be indicated as the best option for the offshore gas field considered in this project.21 millions for US$45.41 millions for the oil barrel oil of US$20. Cost analysis indicates close capital returns for the three scenarios. Aspects related to subsea equipment reliability and remote control are also of paramount importance for the unmanned Subsea to Beach concept. before export to onshore terminal. could mean an outstanding advantage for Subsea to Beach scenario in relation to both Semi-submersible and Jacket scenarios.00. As general conclusion the Subsea to Beach scenario is the best option according to the main results from the project. the possibility of gas/water subsea separation and subsea gas compression.based on the qualitative risk assessment for production loss.00. and US$643.99 - . However. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .

J. and Hendriks. [17] Kuo. Offshore Standard. [12] Labanca. New Orleans. [7] ANFLEX4914/ User’s Manual – Version 5. [3] Borrehaug. Baker Jardine Petroleum & Software. J. R. LLP ed. 2004.Sc. R. Norway. [13] Albernaz. R. Submarine pipeline systems.Flow Assurance Challenges and Solutions. DOT.Rev A. Ormen Lange – Flow assurance challenges. A. OMAE 02/ Pipe-28491. [16] Rausand. London. M. [15] Fantoft. COPPE/UFRJ. – Wet Christmas Tree. M. Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . Thesis. K-P.00-1500-960-PPC-003.W. R. 1998. 2000.Rev 0. maintenance and repair strategy for Ormen Lange. – Developing an offshore inspection. H.S. 1998. 2004 [4] Wilson. 2004. – Effects of the Installation Process on the Structural Strength of Sandwich Pipes. – Deepwater subsea to beach gas developments.. F. Holm. [10] American Petroleum Institute – Design of Risers for Floating Production Systems (FPSs) – Recommended Practice 2RD – First Edition. – Managing Ship Safety. COPPE/UFRJ. X. [14] Garcia.7. C. 2004. 2005 (In Portuguese).9.. and Anthonsen. and Figueiredo.100 - . [6] American Petroleum Institute (API 5L) – Specification for Line Pipe – 2000. Thermal analysis of combined active heating and passive insulation of deepwater pipelines. June 2003. DOT. [19] Gustavsson. Raghavendra.00-6500-291-PPC-001. New Orleans. 2005 (In Portuguese). Thesis.Sc. 1999. – Data Bank Proposition for Wet Christmas Tree Reliability Study..L. – Methodology to Select Subsea Layout Based on Operational Efficiency. Thesis. and Waalmann.L. NTNU. M. A. Loken. E. REFERENCES [1] Su J.2000.E.G. 2001. M. [9] Petrobras`s Technical Specification ET-3010. [18] American Bureau of Shipping – Guide for Risk Evaluation for the Classification of MarineRelated Facilities. T. Petrobras Notes. H. K. Eriksen. OTC 16555. [8] Petrobras`s Technical Specification ET-3549. and Botto A. December. – Risk and Reliability in Subsea Engineering. [11] Castello. C.. COPPE/UFRJ. CENPES/PDEP/MC.. Technical Notes.2002. 2001. [2] PIPESIM User Guide . M. August 1999. – Deepwater subsea separation – Technical challenges and solutions. 2005 (In Portuguese). New Orleans. [5] Det Norske Veritas. DOT.Sc. 2000. Regis.

2 J kg ⋅ K kg ⋅ K Condensated specific heat: cp c = 1960 J Mixture mean density: ρ m = 0.101 - .1W Mixture mean viscosuty: m3 m⋅K ν m = 0.0001m s 2 Gas Flow Rate • Flow rate: 6 3 Q = 10.7 + 16) = 35.21 kg mol g Gas molecular weight: Mwgás = 17.Determination of the Temperature Profile Fluid Produced Properties • • • • • • Gas specific heat : cp g = 2111.89 g Air mass Flow rate: Mg air = Q ⋅ ρ air = 140.81 mol Mw gás Gas relative gravity: γ gas = = 0.35 kg Prandtl number: Pr = 0.79 Mixture thermal conductivity: K m = 0.94 kg s 24 ⋅ 3600 Mc Mass flow rate for each well: Mc w = = 1.APPENDIX A: FLOW ASSURANCE A.12 kg s 8 m3 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .5 kg Mass flow rate: Mc = • Qc ⋅ ρ c = 8.79 kg s 8 Condensed Flow Rate • • • 3 Flow rate: Q = 1000 m c dia Condensed density: ρ c = 772.10 m air dia m3 • • • • • • • Air density: ρ = 1.34 kg s Mg Mass flow rate for each well: Mg w = = 10.1 .5 ⋅ (54.05 kg s 24 ⋅ 3600 Gas mass flow rate: Mg = Mg air ⋅ γ gas = 86.6165 Mw gás Air molecular weight: Mwair = 28.

102 - .4 − 9 ⎞ = 17.2032 m Lenght of the biggest pipe: L = 3600m Well head temperature: To = 115°C Sea water temperature: Tw = 9°C Forced convection coefficient calculating (WELL-MANIFOLD) • h= Nu ⋅ Km Di where the Nusselt number is calculated by using the Petukhov-Kirilov-Popov correlation: f ⋅ Re⋅ Pr 2 Nu = 0.5 2 ⎞ ⎛f⎞ ⎛ X + 12.SUBMERSIBLE Characteristics Problems of the Pipe (WELL-PLATFORM) • • • • • Inner diameter: Di = 8 ⋅ 0.0254 = 0.0254 = 0.0254) ⋅ 4300 ⎝ SCENARIO 2.SCENARIO 1: SEMI .79 W 2 0 → U = − ln⎜ ⎟⋅ m ⋅ C 115 − 9 ⎠ 2 ⋅ π ⋅ (8 ⋅ 0.49 ⋅10 4 o o 2.7 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ Pr 3 − 1⎟ ⎟ ⎝2⎠ ⎜ ⎝ ⎠ • Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil . JACKET Characteristics Problems of the Pipe (WELL-MANIFOLD) • • • • Inner diameter: Di = 8 ⋅ 0.49 ⋅ 10 4 ⎛ 26.2032 m Lenght of the biggest pipe: L = 4300 m Well head temperature: To = 115°C Sea water temperature: Tw = 9°C Arrival temperature at the platform: T p = 24°C U calculation ⎛ T f − Tm ⎞ m f c pf U = − ln⎜ ⎜ T − T ⎟ ⋅ 2 ⋅π ⋅ R ⋅ x ⎟ i ⎝ 0 m⎠ → m f c pf = Mg w ⋅ cp g + Mc w ⋅ cp c = 2.

f.103 - .the friction fator. of fully develop turbulent flow is: • and • 1 f 1/ 2 = 1.562' ' PP foam thickness: t foam = 0.44 → h = 443.2W m⋅K ⎞ (Di / 2 ) ⎛ t solido ⎟+ ln⎜1 + ⎟ k ⎜ (Di / 2 ) + t + t solido aço espuma ⎠ ⎝ t aço ⎞ (Di / 2 ) ⎛ 1 (Di / 2 ) ⎛ + ln⎜1 + ln⎜1 + ⎜ (Di / 2 ) ⎟ + k ⎟ ⎜ (Di / 2 ) + t h k aço espuma aço ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ 1 t espuma ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .45 m → S = π ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ = m2 → υ f = ⎝ s S ⎝ 2 ⎠ → Re = 6.0031 X = 1.25' ' PP solid thickness: t solid = 0.025W m⋅K PP solid thermal conductivity: K solid = 0.79 then: • Nu = 901.79 ⋅ 10 5 • Pr = 0.3946 → f = 0.25' ' Steel thermal conductivity : K steel = 45W PP foam thermal conductivity: K foam m⋅K = 0.63 =1 − Re 1 + 10 ⋅ Pr the Reynolds number and the Prandtl number of the flow of the produced fluid in the flowline are defined by: • Re = υ f ⋅ v f ⋅ Di µf ⎛ Mg w Mc w ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ + 2 ⎜ ρ ρc ⎟ f ⎛ Di ⎞ ⎠ = 9.62 U Calculation (WELL-MANIFOLD) • • • • • • U= steel thickness: t steel = 0.7372 ⋅ ln(Re⋅ f 1 / 2 ) − 0.07 + 900 0.

79 ⎛ Mg w Mc w ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ + 2 ⎜ ρ ρc ⎟ f ⎛ Di ⎞ ⎠ = 14.99 • • f ⋅ Re⋅ Pr 2 Nu = = 3181 0.44 C 24975.93 m → S = π ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ = m2 → υ f = ⎝ s S ⎝ 2 ⎠ • Re = 2.999 Re 1 + 10 ⋅ Pr = 1.U = 3.63 − = 0.0254) ⋅ U ⋅ 3600 ⎞ 0 → T (3600) = 9 + (115 − 9 ) ⋅ exp⎜ − ⎟ = 83.3946 → f = 0.5 2 ⎛f⎞ ⎛ 3 ⎞ X + 12.7 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ Pr − 1⎟ ⎟ ⎝2⎠ ⎜ ⎝ ⎠ h = 695.7372 ⋅ ln(Re⋅ f 1 / 2 ) − 0.104 - .2 ⎠ ⎝ Characteristics problems of the pipe (PLEM-JACKET) • • • • Inner diameter: Di = 18 ⋅ 0.53°C Sea water temperature: Tm = 9°C Convection Coefficient Calculating (PLEM .0254 = 0.41 ⋅ 10 6 • • X = 1.JACKET) • Pr = 0.4572m Lenght of the biggest pipe: L = 20000m Exit PLEM temperature: To = T (3600) − 1 = 103.74 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .07 + 1 f 1/ 2 900 0.84 W m2 ⋅ K Determination of the Temperature Profile (WELL-MANIFOLD) ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ π ⋅ D ⋅U ⋅ x ⎟ T = Tm + (T0 − Tm ) ⋅ exp⎜ − o i ⎟ ⎜ m f c pf ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ • ⎛ π ⋅ (8 ⋅ 0.

7372 ⋅ ln(Re⋅ f 1 / 2 ) − 0.0031 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .JACKET) U= t aço ⎞ (Di / 2 ) ⎛ 1 (Di / 2 ) ⎛ + ln⎜1 + ln⎜1 + ⎜ (Di / 2 ) ⎟ + k ⎟ ⎜ (Di / 2 ) + t h k aço espuma aço ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ 1 t espuma ⎞ (Di / 2 ) ⎛ t solido ⎟+ ln⎜1 + ⎟ k ⎜ (Di / 2 ) + t + t solido aço espuma ⎠ ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ U = 3.78W m2 ⋅ K Determination of the Temperature Profile (PLEM-JACKET) ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ π ⋅ D ⋅U ⋅ x ⎟ T = Tm + (T0 − Tm ) ⋅ exp⎜ − o i ⎟ ⎜ m f c pf ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ • ⎛ π ⋅ (18 ⋅ 0.07 + 1 f 1/ 2 900 0.U calculation (PLEM.79 ⋅ 10 5 • • X = 1.105 - .3946 → f = 0.0254) ⋅ U ⋅ 20000 ⎞ 0 → T (20000) = 9 + (103.53 − 9) ⋅ exp⎜ − ⎟ = 33.0254 = 0.63 − = Re 1 + 10 ⋅ Pr = 1.2032 m Lenght of the biggest pipe: L = 3600m Well head temperature: To = 115°C Sea water temperature: Tw = 9°C Forced Convection Coefficient Calculating (WELL .MANIFOLD) • Pr = 0.6 ⎝ ⎠ Scenario 3: SUBSEA TO BEACH Characteristics problems of the pipe (WELL-MANIFOLD) • • • • Inner diameter: Di = 8 ⋅ 0.45 m → S = π ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ = m2 → υ f = ⎝ s S ⎝ 2 ⎠ • Re = 6.79 ⎛ Mg w Mc w ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ + 2 ⎜ ρ ρc ⎟ f ⎛ Di ⎞ ⎠ = 9.71 C 99900.

MANIFOLD) U= t aço ⎞ (Di / 2 ) ⎛ 1 (Di / 2 ) ⎛ + ln⎜1 + ln⎜1 + ⎜ (Di / 2 ) ⎟ + k ⎟ ⎜ (Di / 2 ) + t h k aço espuma aço ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ 1 t espuma ⎞ (Di / 2 ) ⎛ t solido ⎟+ ln⎜1 + ⎟ k ⎜ (Di / 2 ) + t + t solido aço espuma ⎠ ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ U = 1.5 2 ⎛f⎞ ⎛ 3 ⎞ X + 12.0254) ⋅ U ⋅ 3600 ⎟ 0 → T (3600) = 9 + (115 − 9 ) ⋅ exp⎜ − ⎟ = 104.53 C o ⎜ ⎟ m f c pf ⎝ ⎠ Characteristics Problems of the Pipe (PLEM-TERMINAL): • • • • Inner diameter: Di = 22 ⋅ 0.• f ⋅ Re⋅ Pr 2 Nu = = 901.5588m Lenght of the biggest pipe: L = 160000m Exit PLEM temperature: To = T (3600) − 1 = 103.299W m2 ⋅ K Determination of the Temperature Profile (WELL-MANIFOLD): ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ π ⋅ Di ⋅ U ⋅ x ⎟ T = Tm + (T0 − Tm ) ⋅ exp⎜ − o ⎟ ⎜ m f c pf ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ • ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ π ⋅ (8 ⋅ 0.62 • U Calculation (WELL .0254 = 0.44 0.53°C Sea water temperature: Tm = 9°C Forced Convection Coefficient Calculating (PLEM .97 ⋅ 10 6 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .79 ⎛ Mg w Mc w ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ + 2 ⎜ ρ ρc ⎟ Di ⎞ f ⎛ ⎠ = 10 m → S = π ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ = m2 → υ f = ⎝ s S ⎝ 2 ⎠ • Re = 1.106 - .TERMINAL) • Pr = 0.7 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ Pr − 1⎟ ⎟ ⎝2⎠ ⎜ ⎝ ⎠ h = 443 .

63 − = 0.7 ⋅ ⎜ ⎟ ⋅ ⎜ Pr − 1⎟ ⎟ ⎝2⎠ ⎜ ⎝ ⎠ h = 133 .999 Re 1 + 10 ⋅ Pr = 1.0254) ⋅ U ⋅ 20000 ⎞ 0 → T (160000) = 9 + (103.TERMINAL) T = Tm + (T0 − Tm ) ⋅ exp⎜ − ⎛ ⎞ ⎜ π ⋅ Di ⋅ U ⋅ x ⎟ ⎟ o ⎜ m f c pf ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ • ⎛ π ⋅ (22 ⋅ 0.6 ⎝ ⎠ Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .3946 → f = 0.0026 • f ⋅ Re⋅ Pr 2 Nu = = 747.7372 ⋅ ln(Re⋅ f 1 / 2 ) − 0.07 + 1 f 1/ 2 900 0.9 C 99900.• • X = 1.047 W m2 ⋅ K Determination of the Temperature Profile (PLEM .TERMINAL) U= t aço ⎞ (Di / 2 ) ⎛ 1 (Di / 2 ) ⎛ ln⎜1 + ln⎜1 + + ⎜ (Di / 2 ) ⎟ + k ⎟ ⎜ (Di / 2 ) + t h k aço espuma aço ⎝ ⎠ ⎝ 1 t espuma ⎞ (Di / 2 ) ⎛ t solido ⎟+ ln⎜1 + ⎟ k ⎜ (Di / 2 ) + t + t solido aço espuma ⎠ ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ U = 1.107 - . • U Calculation (PLEM .53 − 9) ⋅ exp⎜ − ⎟ = 13.5 2 ⎛f⎞ ⎛ 3 ⎞ X + 12.7 0.

67 Kg Considered water percentage in the reservoir : 1% Water mass flow rate: Qw = Q f ⋅ 0.6164 28.81 = 0.89 s Mixture mass flow rate: Q f = γ ⋅ Qair = 0.09 = 172.73 Kg s Amount of MEG enough to assure that it will not have hydrate formation for P= 150bar and T=9 °C: 30% MEG flow rate required: QMEG = Q w ⋅ 0.2 .01 = 1.09 Kg s 24 ⋅ 3600 Air molecular weight: Wair = 28.6168 ⋅ 280.81 Mixture density relative: γ f = Wf Wair f = 17.A.89 mol g mol Mixture molecular weight: W f = 17.MEG Calculation 6 Mixture flow rate: Q = 20 ⋅ 10 m 3 day Kg m3 Air density in normal conditions of temperature and pressure: ρ air = 1.108 - .21 ⋅ 20 ⋅ 10 6 = 280.21 Air mass flow rate: Qair = ρ air ⋅ Q 24 ⋅ 3600 g = 1.52 Kg s Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .3 = 0.

562 0.73E-03 4.03E+06 0.406 0.42E+06 5.13E+07 0.0057 0.56E+06 5.469 0.88E+21 9.500 0.0143 0.49E+14 1.40E+07 2.BUCKLING VERIFICATION Submarine pipeline systems(DNV) .6581 2.72E+13 1.95E+05 8.688 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .500 0.8432 2.438 0.16E+13 3.01270 0.87E+06 1.58E+13 2.109 - .8700 2.2 2.226 0.45E+21 5.36E+06 4.9715 4.53E+14 5.27E+06 1.61E+06 2.00E+02 5.40E+21 1.0 Propagation Buckling Verification t (in) Ppr Pc Possible thickness (in) thickness (API 5L) Propagation Pressure Collapse Pressure 0.469 0.469 0.5 643680.50E+21 -2.36E+06 1.74E+06 6.0159 35.625 0.9980 0.61E+21 1.0175 32.00E+02 5.03E+06 2.01427 0.45E+05 5.2265 4.81E+14 -7.90E+07 5.37E+07 0.52E+21 2.08E+20 1.00574 0.9224 3.80E+05 6.APPENDIX B .1802 0.6512 2.7803 0.26E+14 9.9740 0.Pipe design Local Buckling Verification due to External Pressure t (in) (nominal) t (m) (nominal) t (m) (reduzida) alpha_gw P_el (N/m2) P_p (N/m2) b c d u ν Ф y Ec Pc (N/m2) H(Eps) P (N/m2) P*Gsc*Gm / Pc Possible thicknes (in) D/t Collapse Pressure Depth thickness (API 5L) thickness (API 5L) t-t*tolmin-tcor 0.8 2377919 2941658 3558877 4247833 0.66E+07 3.13E+14 3.80E+20 9.42E+06 1.78E+07 4.42E+06 3.03E+06 2.36E+14 -9.562 0.4 0.56E+20 1.61E+07 Welding factor Elastic Collapse Pressure Plastic Collapse Pressure -7.00E+02 5.0103 0.87E+06 2.05E+07 2.03E+20 1.01113 0.00E+02 5.625 0.8802 1.57E+06 4.76E+06 5.21E-05 4.0119 0.61E+06 -1.00E+14 -2.0111 0.8085 7.5708 0.25E+06 5.60E-03 2.93E+20 1.31E+06 1.54E+07 2.438 0.7586 0.38E+06 5.60E+06 3.438 0.5 0.0175 0.46E+06 9.00E+02 5.74E+20 1.0138 5.63E+19 2.31E+06 1.0127 0.08E+06 8.32E+14 4.00E+02 5.90E+14 1.85E+14 6.57E-02 7.97E+06 5.226 0.03E+06 0.01748 0.03E+06 1.14E+19 1.562 1011763 5844591 0.688 0.2939 1.3 542529.6977 3.0159 0.95E+05 8.226 103755 444896.00E+02 5.03E+06 16.05E+07 -1.2 755375.93E+20 1.03E+06 1.8163 1.7600 5.26E-02 5.03E+06 3.94E+06 5.8480 1.60E+06 1.01588 0.00E+02 5.7888 1.406 0.84E+06 5.406 0.88E-02 9.688 1677680 9968376 448800.7309 4.93E+21 1.01031 0.32E-03 3.57E+14 -3.625 1319587 7764238 0.13E+14 2.95E-03 2.1249 0.40E+07 -5.36E+14 9.01191 0.

0 5.00E+07 1.1 2.00953 0. Effective Axial Force and Internal Overpressure t (in) (nominal) t (in) (nominal) t (m) (reduzida) Pp (N/m2) qh D/t beta alpha_c pb.34E+07 0.37E+07 7.33E+06 0.44E+07 3.59E-02 1.80E+07 1.05E+06 4.20E-01 58.0175 2.562 0.78E+07 9.12E+07 3.37E+06 0.85E+07 2.95E+07 1.0159 2.9 1.74E-01 1.59E+06 0.66E+07 1.0119 1.2043 0.70E+06 0.0321 2.0201 2.3891 0.0027 0.03E+07 3.01191 0.03E+07 0.0127 1.80E+07 2.01031 0.6250 35.90E-01 1.0111 1.5000 44.10E+07 2.21E+06 0.2 5.44E-01 1.Pipe design Local Buckling due to Bending Moment.26E+07 0.71E+07 0.u pb (Dpd/(alpha_c*pb))^2 Sp Flow Stress Parameter Yielding Limit State Bursting Limit State Burst Pressure Thickness (nominal) (API 5L) Thickness (nominal) (API 5L) t-t*tolmin-tcor Plastic Collapse Pressure 0.18E-02 35.4690 46.09E-01 1.5620 39.2 6.54E-02 1.98E-02 39.96E+06 0.97E-02 44.10E+07 0.0 gsc.2 4.41E+07 0.110 - .01748 0.0410 2.17E+07 2.90E+07 8.0143 2.57E-02 46.7159 0.625 0.406 0.0 2.71E+07 2.34E+07 3.54E+07 1.7 1.13E+07 7.1 6.s pb.4380 50.0266 2.0017 1.41E+07 2.42E+07 1.32E+07 2.02E-01 50.0535 3.2 7.Submarine pipeline systems(DNV) .0122 1.01427 0.469 0.6030 0.0 1.688 0.4060 54.52E-02 32.2472 0.95E+07 0.61E+07 6.7 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .01270 0.6880 32.22E-01 1.10E-01 54.3750 0.60E-01 1.02E+06 0.3063 0.01113 0.438 0.0022 0.0040 0.2 2.0103 0.5131 0.01588 0.48E+07 2.375 0.26E+07 2.0028 1.9 5.500 0.0480 3.gm(Sd/(alphac*Sp))^2 Possible Thickness (m) Not Greater than 45 D/t 58.4444 0.0095 0.80E+07 1.0047 0.2 1.0035 0.0056 Characteristic Plastic Axial Force Resistance 4.0067 0.

625 0.562 0.PLEM (jumpers) PLEM .5 50 20 6 30 4 PIPES: (Ship price per day = U$100.00 U$/month 20.PLET (jumpers) Days 10 2 2 each each each Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .Manifold (flowlines) Manifold .111 - . millions Installation 1 0.75 Cost Unit km/day km/day m Water Depth 500 500 m Water Depth 180 500 180 500 Embarcações de Apoio 80.00 0.00) X-Tree .75 0.1: Price Estimates Platforms millions Semi Submersible 400 Jacket 450 PS: 6 months of preparations plus 2 years for construction of base and processing plant in parallel.000.00 Others 210 180 + 180 days days (fabrication + preparation) Material 650 900 812.5 1125 Service 400 970 400 970 Thickness 0.562 Service 667 1 Cost Unit M km/day Service 500 1 Cost Unit M km/day Umbilical with MEG Umbilical without MEG Service 0.75 U$/m 22" rigid without insulation 22" rigid without insulation 22" rigid with insulation 22" rigid with insulation Time for pipes delivery: flexible rigid OPEX: Crew Quantity 200 U$/crew/month 10.000.438 0.000.25 5 Days Delivery 300 300 450 420 + 30 each - Equipments PLEM PLET (2) Manifold X-Tree (8) 2 tool kits Hybrid riser MEG processing plant Hardware 5 2.70 Time for subsea equipment connections installation: (Ship price per day = U$100.APPENDIX C: COSTS C.00 RSV Manuntenção Planta PS: Equivalent barrel = 1000 m3 U$/barril equivalente SS and J Sub to S 1.625 Service 970 970 Thickness 0.438 0.000.000.00) U$/m 6" rigid 6" flexible Material 200 600 U$/m 8" rigid 8" flexible Material 267 800 U$/m Material 300 500 U$/m 18" rigid without isolation 18" rigid with isolation Material 675 843.

620 446.170 3.379 17.359 18.112 - .523 213.907 17.359 18.342 15.359 18.997 18.190 15.983 108.887 15.445 18.359 18.472 2.757 603.370 16.235 541.947 618.359 18.207 17.121 17.316 196.359 18.359 18.893 0.153 1.359 18.952 381.011 510.574 430.036 17.573 15.359 18.C.541 0.266 15.680 247.966 16.313 2.207 16.660 1.718 0.474 478.644 161.067 0.024 178.783 16.492 1.408 1.616 16.359 18.094 3.359 18.786 2.359 18.359 18.359 18.492 588.359 18.630 2.359 18.127 16.182 0.981 315.731 557.10 6% 40 n° 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Amortization 15.743 1.131 348.359 18.466 17.177 18.273 0.576 1.000 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .359 18.359 18.363 0.268 0.818 17.254 90.867 16.941 2.708 2.699 16.625 125.651 15.951 17.551 2.630 0.452 0.061 633.359 18.323 1.359 18.359 18.451 16.644 230.091 Payment 18.288 16.448 414.359 18.293 17.808 15.359 18.359 18.393 2.662 526.2: Semi-Submersible Loan Calculation Total financed valor Interests (year) Number of payments 664.864 2.587 462.321 3.240 397.152 2.534 16.359 18.087 18.359 18.359 18.496 15.597 331.729 17.359 18.553 17.359 18.359 18.359 18.071 1.990 1.908 1.532 36.233 2.499 281.282 494.359 18.980 0.238 1.419 15.583 365.359 18.359 18.245 3.826 1.359 18.729 15.268 Installment Interests 3.150 572.359 18.017 2.114 15.359 18.282 298.641 17.436 72.046 16.178 143.632 264.039 15.359 Debt Ballance 649.806 0.359 18.529 54.

894 2.945 19.756 17.618 19.685 1.126 2.505 1.618 19.274 528.382 511.618 19.306 3.151 16.300 2.492 17.204 18.618 19.570 677.241 407.618 19.618 19.757 18.951 1.C.571 18.195 0.618 19.618 19.977 2.521 Installment Interests 3.114 18.618 19.188 644.3: Jacket Platform Loan Calculation Total financed valor Interests (year) Number of payments 709.472 2.061 17.502 58.466 190.394 16.618 19.231 153.876 628.618 19.327 19.618 19.944 209.618 19.476 16.831 264.641 16.861 0.387 3.954 0.140 1.502 354.040 19.944 282.213 2.039 1.944 19.000 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .232 1.468 3.424 19.618 19.618 19.580 17.965 442.618 19.618 19.147 17.387 18.618 19.618 19.623 115.749 390.024 18.405 17.626 246.070 16.618 19.726 2.197 459.557 2.618 19.474 134.767 0.618 19.724 16.934 18.618 19.082 545.060 2.664 18.319 17.618 19.976 17.618 19.479 18.331 227.895 172.618 19.170 372.668 17.595 1.548 3.558 16.323 1.618 19.312 16.618 19.845 17.892 16.047 0.521 0.863 1.902 318.291 0.774 1.388 0.419 661.618 19.806 562.618 19.64 6% 40 n° 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Amortization 16.344 477.642 2.414 1.808 16.224 3.386 2.295 18.135 19.618 19.271 38.232 17.578 0.113 - .142 3.746 336.618 19.447 578.482 612.637 77.968 300.618 19.483 0.618 19.618 19.677 96.618 19.618 19.231 19.673 0.851 18.098 Payment 19.405 494.618 19.618 19.810 2.647 425.618 Debt Ballance 693.231 16.006 595.

701 3.071 22.386 24.315 2.741 22.102 21.719 0.852 21.081 351.738 740.200 23.311 4.389 3.386 24.386 24.386 24.386 24.531 1.386 24.094 1.954 0.997 21.411 4.168 571.804 3.480 20.124 842.990 463.386 24.772 167.024 24.084 23.121 Payment 24.789 656.049 821.777 396.284 3.181 22.417 1.386 24.386 24.386 24.751 2.682 677.386 24.635 21.123 96.386 24.176 20.386 24.482 0.386 24.386 24.969 23.386 24.386 24.958 418.549 23.000 Subsea Production System for Gas Field Offshore Brazil .208 21.10 6% 40 n° 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Amortization 19.470 698.859 2.265 Installment Interests 4.221 528.425 2.386 24.072 2.966 2.792 635.314 21.242 0.4: Subsea to Beach Loan Calculation Total financed valor Interests (year) Number of payments 882.156 719.205 2.114 - .685 20.516 22.087 190.937 306.386 24.982 1.386 24.386 24.870 1.144 24.565 328.842 484.596 781.386 24.601 0.386 24.409 24.789 20.690 614.339 143.287 214.976 20.873 801.432 23.277 20.404 22.482 593.386 24.893 20.302 1.362 0.386 24.433 48.386 24.070 0.386 24.906 3.386 24.667 23.643 2.597 3.210 4.485 374.790 120.586 506.420 21.534 2.645 1.386 24.582 20.C.316 23.386 24.378 20.386 Debt Ballance 862.292 22.961 22.371 237.341 260.337 72.758 1.628 22.743 21.748 550.386 24.109 4.265 0.178 3.386 24.527 21.386 24.386 24.386 24.218 760.075 20.837 0.785 23.008 3.196 283.386 24.029 440.855 22.493 3.904 24.386 24.386 24.186 1.386 24.