Proceedings of the Twenty-third (2013) International Offshore and Polar Engineering www.isope.

org
Anchorage, Alaska, USA, June 30–July 5, 2013
Copyright © 2013 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-99–9 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set)

Pigging Simulation Analysis of Deepwater Gas Tieback Flowlines in South China Sea
Xichong Yu, Bin Xie, Qingping Li and Bing Cheng
Deepwater Key Lab, CNOOC Research Institute
Beijing, China

operation parameter selection , while OLGA software simulation results

can be used. The South China Sea deepwater gas field is in a remote
ABSTRACT location offshore China, in 1,500 meters water depth. Final
development plan of South China Sea deepwater gas fields is that
Pigging operation is an important part of flow assurance for deepwater subsea wells tied back to a fixed shallow water host platform by parallel
tieback pipeline. In this paper, OLGA software is used to simulate dual 22in flowlines system, approximately 79km. In this paper, OLGA
pigging transient flow characteristic of a 79km dual flowlines system of software is used to simulation pigging transient process and influence to
a deepwater gas field. Simulation before pigging shows that low central separator operation on shallow platform. Different factors during
platform (CEP) pressure can decrease minimum stable flow rate. In pigging, such as arrival pressure, gas flowrates, different dry recycle
production late, properly reducing CEP pressure and keeping mixing gas flowrates from shallow platform, topside choke opening on shallow
gas flow rate of recycle gas(RG) and full wellstream (FWS) as platform, are considered in pigging simulation. Important focus on
minimum stable flow rate can improve pipeline flow assurance. During liquid holdup, liquid peak outlet rates, pigging velocity, gas and liquid
pigging it can also reduce total liquid volume, gas supply MEG making starvation time, pigging frequency and surge volume are simulated by
up. Meanwhile efficient measures are adopted to handle liquid such as OLGA software.
using CEP closed drainage system.
BASIS OF STUDY
KEY WORDS: Pigging simulation; minimum stable flow rate; flow
assurance; OLGA software. (1) Fluid compositions
The field gas composition used in this study has a condensate-gas-ratio
INTRODUCTION (CGR) of 25 stb/MMscf and water-gas-ratio (WGR) of 3 bbl/MMscf.
The gas composition was derived by mixing the gas and liquid phases
Pigging has been used for many decades to perform various tasks such to achieve CGR of 25 stb/MMscf at stock tank conditions. MEG was
as pipeline inspection and cleaning. Numerous pipeline systems rely on also added into the composition with ratio of 1.4 bbl MEG/bbl water
pigging as a major flow assurance control for hydraulics (liquid (90wt% MEG).
inventory management), corrosion management (under deposit The dry gas composition used to represent the recycled gas was
corrosion and/or top of line corrosion), and solid management such as extracted from shallow platform.
wax, asphalting, sand and scale control. As oil/gas production continues
to move to deepwater, pigging of long subsea tie-backs to manage (2) Pipeline parameters
liquid holdup and terrain slugging/liquid surge due to long risers is a Table 1 shows the assumptions made in the transient hydraulics
significant flow assurance challenge. Production risks include a modeling of the main 22-in tieback pipelines to the central
separator trip caused by a surge in liquids/solids into topsides platform(CEP).
equipment, and the potential for lost production due to a stuck pig in the
offshore flowline. Table 1 Pipeline Parameters
Parameter Unit 22-in Pipeline
Pigging operation is an important part of flow assurance for deepwater
tieback wet gas condensate offshore pipeline, and also one of main parts Total Pipeline Length km 79
for the transient hydraulics analysis. Periodic pigging helps to keep the Riser Height (above
pipeline free of liquid, to reduce the overall pressure drop, and thereby m 45
MSL)
increase the pipeline flow efficiency. Improper pigging operation can Nominal Diameter in 22
seriously cause separator normal operation, therefore, it is important to Wall Thickness in 1.0
detailed pigging simulation. Because complicated flow mechanics of Internal Wall Roughness in 0.0018
pigging operation, no standards or codes are available for pigging

736

(3)Simulation software
OLGA version 7.1 was used to perform the analysis. OLGA is a
transient multiphase pipeline hydraulic simulator widely used in
deepwater pipeline. The equation of state used for predicting fluid
thermodynamics and phase behaviors was Peng-Robinson (PR) with
volume correction, as provided by PVTSim version 20.
OLGA PIGGING MODEL
OLGA transient simulator has been used to simulate pigging operation
for high and low gas flowrate with recycle gas and without recycle gas.
(1)The pressure drop over the pig: the pressure drop over the pig, dpp,
is negative.
dpp is given by:
(1)
Where mp g cosf is the gravitational force due to the mass of the pig, A
is the cross section area of the pipe and fpw is the friction force between
the pig and the wall given by:
(2)
Where
(3)
Up is the pig velocity. f0, f1 and f2 are user specified friction constants.
(2)The pig velocity relative to the fluid:
(4)
Rp is a user given leakage factor and rp is the mean upstream density.
Note that no slip is assumed between the phases passing over the pig,
entailing that Up,r is a total superficial drift velocity.
INITIAL STEADY STATE SIMULATION ANALYSIS
BEFORE PIGGING
1)Minimum stable flow rate
If pipeline size is determined, as gas flowrate reduces, liquid content
in pipeline increases and lead to high liquid accumulation in the 22-in
pipeline. This may then lead to large quantity of liquid to be expelled
from the pipeline during production ramp up and may present liquid
management difficulties at the downstream reception facilities.
Therefore the determination of minimum stable flow rate is very
important.
In this paper, considering CEP=75 barg and 25 barg respectively,
minimum stable flow rate for single 22 in pipeline is determined. With
the same CEP pressure, liquid holdup content and Pipeline End
Manifold (PLEM) pressure with different gas flowrate is simulated.
The results are shown as Fig. 1 and Fig. 2.
Simulating results are shown as following:
(1)Liquid holdup content decreases with gas rate increasing, and PLEM
pressure increases with gas rate increasing while gas rate higher
minimum stable flow rate, but decreases with gas rate increasing while
gas rate lower minimum stable flow rate.
(2)CEP pressure can effect minimum stable flow rate, low CEP
pressure can decreases minimum stable flow rate. While CEP pressure
is 75barg and 25barg, minimum stable flow rate in single 22 in pipeline
737
is 300MMSCFD and 100 0MMSCFD respectively. Gas recycle
operation will be implemented by creating a recycle loop using the two
22-in pipelines system. Dehydrated gas will be injected at the PLEM
using one of the pipelines and the gas compression facilities on the CEP
while production through the other pipeline is turned down.
2)Transient simulation analysis before pigging
In order to analysis pigging operation, firstly Transient simulation
analysis before pigging is carried out. 10 typical cases are selected
including without gas recycle and with gas recycle and considering
CEP pressure is 75barg and 25barg.
10 typical cases and OLGA simulation results are shown as table 2.
Simulating results in table 2 are shown as following:
(1)Without recycle gas(RG=0.0),liquid holdup content and PLEM
pressure in single 22-in increases with FWS gas rate decreasing, but
liquid rate into CEP separator decreases. The reason is that gas flow
velocity decreases and liquid content in single 22-in tieback pipeline
increases. In production late, PLEM pressure can increase with FWS
gas rate decreasing and can result in no transporting gas into CEP and
result in flow assurance. CEP pressure effects on pipeline running, CEP
pressure is lower and liquid content in single 22-in tieback pipeline is
less with same FWS gas rate, therefore in production late, reducing
CEP pressure can reduce liquid content and PLEM pressure and
improve pipeline flow assurance.
(2)In production late, keeping mixing gas flow rate of RG and FWS as
minimum stable flow rate (300MMSCFD) in single 22-in tieback
pipeline, can efficiently reduce liquid content and PLEM pressure and
can safely transport gas into CEP and delay installation subsea wet
compressor.
(3) While no pigging, liquid flow rate into CEP separator is less than
365 m3/hr and no effect on separator normal operation at all production
periods.
PIGGING SIMULATION ANALYSIS
After a period of steady state operation to obtain a steady state velocity,
a pig is launched from the CEP. Pig inserted at time equals to 5
hours at the PLEM, simulation is continued until pig is received at
the CEP, or longer to establish the time required for the liquid to re-
establish to its original steady state condition. In this paper, pigging
simulation is carried out to investigate the range of liquid hold up
during the production period, and investigate the surge volumes
generated from pigging the tieback pipeline during the production
period from high and low CEP operating pressure and provide an
operating envelope for pigging from the PLEM and CEP, and highlight
level of upset conditions arising from the pigging activities and their
impact on CEP such as liquid surges, gas and liquid starvation periods,
and establish the viability of operational and inspection pigging.
10 typical cases are simulated to pigging operation in the single 22-in
tieback pipeline . The results are shown as table 3.
Simulation results in table 6 are shown as following:
(1)Without recycle gas(RG=0.0) and keeping CEP pressure
constant(CEP=75barg) , as FWS gas flow rate decreases, total liquid
volume during pigging is larger and pig moves slower and pig travel
time is longer and average liquid flowrate into CEP is less and max
slug length is larger, gas and liquid starvation time is longer, and refill
time after pigging is longer and pigging periods is larger. Hence gas
supply make up from other producers may be required to cover the gas
starvation period. The period of gas starvation is followed by a period
of liquid starvation as the system reinstate to its initial equilibrium
liquid hold up. Additionally, the aqueous mixture of water and MEG
will also be held up in the pipeline until equilibrium is established, REFERENCE
hence additional MEG make up is required for hydrate management
during these liquid starvation period. 1. Worley Parsons, MMJ(2010). “Pigging Simulation Studies Report” ,
Design Report.
(2)Without recycle gas(RG=0.0) and keeping FWS gas rate
constant(FWS=200MMSCFD) , as CEP pressure decreases, total liquid 2. Lima H Yeung,Montgomery J (1999),. “Modeling of multiphase
volume during pigging is less and pig moves faster and pig travel time pigging operations”. BHR Group Mltiphase, pp 385-405.
is shorter and average liquid flowrate into CEP is larger and max slug
3. Yu Xichong((2005). “A numerical simulation study on pigging
length is less, gas and liquid starvation time is shorter, and refill time
process in multiphase subsea pipeline”, China Offshore Oil and Gas,
after pigging is shorter and pigging periods is shorter. Hence CEP
Vol. 17, No.3, pp203-208.
pressure appropriate decreasing can reduce gas supply making up from
other producers and additional MEG making up. But average liquid
flowrate into CEP is larger as CEP pressure decreasing and can effect
on separator operation.

(3) In production late, keeping mixing gas flow rate of RG and FWS as
minimum stable flow rate (300MMSCFD) in single 22-in tieback
pipeline, can efficiently reduce PLEM pressure and total liquid volume
during pigging is less and pig moves faster and pig travel time is
shorter and average liquid flowrate into CEP is larger and max slug
length is less, gas and liquid starvation time is shorter, and refill time
after pigging is shorter and pigging frequency is longer. Hence CEP
pressure appropriate decreasing can reduce gas supply making up from
other producers and additional MEG making up.

(4) During pigging, liquid flow rate into CEP separator is more than
365 m3/hr at all production periods and efficient measures are adopted
to receive liquid content more than 365 m3/hr such as closed drainage
system in CEP.

CONCLUSIONS
In this paper, OLGA software is adopted to simulate transient flow
characteristics before/during pigging, different CEP arrival pressure,
FWS gas rate and RG gas rate effect on CEP separator operation.
Simulation results are shown as following.

(1) OLGA software simulation before pigging shows that CEP pressure
can effect minimum stable flow rate, low CEP pressure can decrease
minimum stable flow rate. In production late, properly reducing CEP
pressure and keeping mixing gas flow rate of RG and FWS as
minimum stable flow rate (300MMSCFD) can reduce liquid content
and PLEM pressure and improve pipeline flow assurance. Liquid flow
rate into CEP separator is less than 365 m3/hr and no effect on separator
normal operation at all production periods.

(2) OLGA software simulation during pigging show that in production

late, properly reducing CEP pressure and keeping mixing gas flow rate
of RG and FWS as minimum stable flow rate (300MMSCFD) can
reduce total liquid volume and maximize slug length , reduce gas and
liquid starvation time and reduce gas supply making up from other
producers and additional MEG making up. During pigging, liquid flow
rate into CEP separator is more than 365 m3/hr at all production periods
and efficient measures are adopted to receive liquid content more than
365 m3/hr such as closed drainage system in CEP.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This study has been supported by State Key Development Program for
Basic Research of China (Grant No. 2009CB219507). The study is
supported by South China Deepwater Gas Development Project from
CNOOC and show great thanks for giving permission to publish this
paper.

738
 12000 300

10000 Liquid holdup content 250

PLEM pressure
L iq u id h o ld u p co n ten t(m 3 )
8000 200

P L E M p re s s u re (b a rg )
6000 150

4000 100

2000 50

0 0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
PLEM Pressure and liquid content with gas rate(CEP=75barg)

Fig.1 Liquid holdup content and PLEM pressure variation with gas flowrate(CEP=75barg)

Fig.2 Liquid holdup content and PLEM pressure variation with gas flowrate(CEP=25barg)

739
 Table 2 10 typical cases and simulating results before pigging
Erosion
Total
velocity
PLEM INLET CEP OUTLET liquid
ratio
Flowrate holdup
range
Temperat Total Temperat Total
Case Pressure Pressure
ure liquid rate ure liquid rate
RG, m3 -
FWS,MMS
MMSCF barg 0C m3/h barg 0C m3/h
CFD
D
Case 1 360 0 124 2.9 171 75 14.5 143 2855 0.30~0.43
Case 2 200 0 122 2.9 95 75 16.6 78 4426 0.17~0.24
Case 3 100 0 130 2.9 48 75 16.9 41 7712 0.1~0.15
Case 4 360 0 84 2.9 158 25 12.5 115 1631 0.39~0.79
Case 5 200 0 71 2.9 81 25 16.8 63 1716 0.26~0.45
Case 6 100 0 75 2.9 41 25 17.0 31 3465 0.18~0.25
0.25～
Case 7 200 100 117 2.9 70.2 75 16.2 63.0 2417
0.35
0.25～
Case 8 100 200 113 2.9 33.0 75 17.0 32.0 1770
0.34
0.35～
Case 9 200 100 65 2.9 69.9 25 15.1 52.0 1105
0.65
0.35～
Case 10 100 200 60 2.9 38.0 25 15.0 26.4 627
0.65
Note: FWS refers to full wellstream; RG refers to recycle gas

Table 3 10 typical cases for pigging operation

Total
Average Refill
liquid Starvation Pig Pig
liquid Max slug time
Flowrate Pressure volume time travel velocity
flowrate length after
during (hr) time range
Case into CEP pigging
pigging
RG, Max.
FWS,MMS CEP,
MMSCF PLEM, m3 m3/h m gas liquid hr m/s h
CFD barg
D barg
Case 1 360 0 75 124 1627 1891.9 7280 0.86 10.67 5.6 2.5~6 10.90
>35.0
Case 2 200 0 75 120 3399 1610.9 15208 2.11 9.4 1.8~4 >35.50
0
Case 3 100 0 75 130 6393 1162.4 28604 5.5 >50 18.0 0.5~3.6 >50
Case 4 360 0 25 87 955 1910.0 4273 0.50 6.50 3.25 4.5~8 6.70
Case 5 200 0 25 62 1218 2030.0 5450 0.60 16.5 4.25 4~6 17.0
Case 6 100 0 25 60 2851 1939.5 12756 1.47 >38 7.89 1~6 >38
Case 7 200 100 75 117 1838 2089 8224 0.88 20.8 6.50 2.1~4.0 21.1
Case 8 100 200 75 112 1458 1620 6523 0.90 31.0 6.45 2.5~4.0 31.7
Case 9 200 100 25 71 808 2693 3615 0.30 10.0 3.30 4.2~6.5 10.3
Case 10 100 200 25 66 447 1490 2000 0.30 11.8 3.0 4.2~8.0 12
Notes: (1) Total liquid volume during pigging= liquid volume before pigging- liquid volume after pigging ;
(2)Gas Starvation time refers to time gas outlet rates less than 10% of the gas compressor maximum capacity ,
(3)Liquid starvation time refers to time liquid outlet rates less than 10% of the liquid handling capacity of the
separator.
(4) Max slug length= Total liquid volume during pigging/area of pipeline
(5)Average liquid flowrate into CEP= Total liquid volume during pigging/ Gas Starvation time.
(6)The refill time refers to time for re-establish the original liquid holdup in the pipeline after pigging..

740
 Fig.3 Pig travel velocity and location (FWS=360MMSCFD,100MMSCFD,CEP=75barg,25barg)

Fig.4 Pig travel velocity and location (FWS=200MMSCFD,100MMSCFD,CEP=75barg,25barg)

Fig.5 PLEM pressure variation with time (FWS=360MMSCFD,100MMSCFD,CEP=75barg,25barg)

741
 Fig.6 PLEM pressure variation with time (FWS=200MMSCFD,100MMSCFD,CEP=75barg,25barg)

Fig.7 Total liquid content change during pigging RG=0(FWS=360,200,100MMSCFD,CEP=75barg,25barg)

Fig.8 Total liquid content change during pigging (FWS+RG=300MMSCFD,CEP=75barg,25barg)

742